The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group discussion
Group Read Discussions
>
Oct/ Nov 2015 Group Read Selection - Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
message 1:
by
Bill
(new)
Oct 14, 2015 08:17AM
This will be the thread for discussing Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. The_Paperback_Peruser will be the moderator. Enjoy a timeless classic!
reply
|
flag
I have just recently read this so um will not say anything apart from pretty good.
It's called a classic for a reason. I hope everyone enjoys this book!:)
How Lovely; one of my favorites of all times.
"Last night I dreamt of Manderly..."( DuMaurier).
Starting this now. My library had two copies (I only took one even though I was tempted to grab both...) From the Wikipedia intro:
Rebecca is a novel by English author Daphne du Maurier. A best-seller, there were 2,829,313 copies of Rebecca sold between its publication in 1938 and 1965, and the book has never gone out of print. The novel is remembered for the character Mrs. Danvers, the fictional estate Manderley, and its opening lines: Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.
And from strandmag.com:
"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” The opening line to Daphne du Maurier’s most famous novel, Rebecca is one of the great opening lines in English fiction. In one stroke, du Maurier establishes the voice, the locale, and the dream-like atmosphere of the story. It’s not surprising that Alfred Hitchcock used the same opening line for his celebrated cinematic adaptation of the novel—one which many critics feel is among his most accomplished. Although Daphne du Maurier was one of the most popular authors of her day and wrote or edited dozens of books—biographies, plays, and collections of letters as well as works of fiction— she is best remembered today for only a handful of novels including, of course, Rebecca.
I've not read this or seen the Hitchcock movie so I'm really coming at it only knowing of its status but not much else. I quit reading both of these articles after the intros :)
Hi Chris, i think, after the book you must watch the Hitchcock movie!:) The picturization is in sync with the novel. At least the beginning part. I've seen the movie but not read the book yet. Hope it's just as good!The first chapter describes the dream. The picture she paints is just wonderful. Such details.
I had a friend in JR high who carried this book around a lot because she reread it often. On her recommendations, I read it too and loved it. I still have my original paperback copy. I won't tell you the price which was printed on the book back then. This same book turned up as an option on my niece's summer reading list. My sister recommended she try it but with reservations because, no cell phones or computers so, of course, it's about a woman living in the stone age.....But my niece loved it. A timeless classic.
All these comments are delicious. Time for the nose into the book, with joy leading,!
The thing about 'Rebecca' is that it's not just about 'Rebecca'. What reading it does is spur you on to explore all the rest of the author's fascinating works. DuMaurier's style is so poised, and confident, and polished..she possessed a very singular talent. A standout author in the genre; shrewd, adroit. A credit to her famous father; in fact outshining him (how often does that happen?) Anyway, she is memorable for always choosing her projects with care, having something important to say with them; and carrying them out with insight and intelligence. The reader new to Daphne is well-rewarded in any area of her bibliography in which they might choose to delve. That's the main benefit of this novel, or so it seems to me. It winds up being more about Daphne DuMaurier than this particular story. How does she do what she does so well? Extraordinary woman. 'Rebecca' is an introduction to her entire way of seeing the world.
The_Paperback_Peruser wrote: "Hi Chris, i think, after the book you must watch the Hitchcock movie!:) The picturization is in sync with the novel. At least the beginning part. I've seen the movie but not read the book yet. Hope..."That first chapter really is fantastic. It evokes a mood with such ease it's hard to put into words. I think my other current reads will be taking more of a back seat for the next week or two...
Feliks wrote: "The thing about 'Rebecca' is that it's not just about 'Rebecca'. What reading it does is spur you on to explore all the rest of the author's fascinating works. DuMaurier's style is so poised, and c..."Feliks, I'm one of those new to Du Maurier's work. I think I may get hooked.
This is my first du Maurier as well! I can certainly say that i will get hooked!:)
This was my second du Maurier after reading
, which I've read 3 or 4 times. Even with that, I have avoided any others, although for the past year, I've begun to branch out and start buying more of her works. I finished this just this past weekend and loved it. I will definitely read more du Maurier now...
This is the only du Maurier that I have read and it really didn't spur me on to looking for any of her other books.
I liked the flow of the book and descriptions of both monte casino and surrounding countryside and sea coast of Cornwall but some of the characters missed that bite that brings a 1d character to life the main issue is the heroine as in the second wife (you see she is easily forgotten yet is the main focal point after Rebecca) yes ok I understand she is haunted by the first wife but I am sorry she is just a wimp weak and ineffectual character tbh I wanted Rebecca to be magically brought back to life and kill off this girl that would then make for a fitting end. So Rebecca for me is good but lacks spark but it has given me a taste for her other books and I hope to read Frenchmsns Creek soon hopefully that will be better to my taste
Zoe, you know, I was having the same feeling. Especially, the first time she meets Mr. de Winter. She comes out as shy and shaky with no strong characteristics. But, I don't know, I guess that's the point of the story. How the dead dominates the alive.Let's see how it goes!
Zoe wrote: "... but some of the characters missed that bite that brings a 1d character to li...but I am sorry she is just a wimp weak and ineffectual character tbh"Errm. If I were you, I wouldn't mistake taste, manners, gentility, or femininity for the modern concepts of 'wimp' or 'ineffectual'.
Remember this girl (the heroine, unnamed in the story) is what, barely 19? 20? 21? Inexperienced, awkward, unsure of herself. What could be more natural? Try to put yourself into the period in which the book was conceived. This is the way people felt. No one was tough or cool in the modern way. This was an era of manners and formality.
Next: I hesitate to suggest this but perhaps its lost on you so far, that she is from a lower 'class' in English society and suddenly she has been made the wife of a Lord. She's now in upper class society, the peerage. Aristocracy. Wealth. These principles often go unperceived by us Americans; but in England they are frequently paramount.
Everything else you say you gained from your read, the various complaints and quibbles [it seems to me] are exactly the effects that DuMaurier wanted to create in readers. They just didn't work for you. For generations of other readers, though--they certainly did. DDM wasn't writing at a superficial level; its an intelligent work of suspense she offers here, one which deliberately runs counter to suspense trends current at the time DuMaurier was writing. She wasn't willing to fall into line with the expected format, when she began this project. Why? Because she's better than that and she knew it. We are the benefactors of her confidence in herself and the confidence she placed in the audience of the time.
I understand and appreciate what you are saying as I said MY personal opinion I do not rate this book as superior to her other works I feel that Jamaica inn and Frenchmsns creek are more my thing. I am afraid that yes I have read books that do set their characters in that timeframe and I have read characters who do come from similar back ground and can assure you that I felt more for them than I did for this particular character I am sorry but Rebecca did not grab me but I do per curve it is written well and I did enjoy it so as I said it is good but I feel that Jamaica inn will be better. I am not saying daphne du maurier writing is poor personally I find it very rich in deed and the fact that you say that woman at that time were in that sort of manner I would contradict you I am not s hundred percent sure when she set it but I would say it was during the early 20th century when woman's rights were being heavily reported and yes you can say that Cornwall was backward or didn't receive anything but to me SHE the character had no depth I for one felt no sympathy for her or her plight for me the best person that wrote female characters in that way would be Wilkie Collins in the woman in white.
Everyone is liable to their own opinions. If you find that their way of thinking doesn't agree with yours, let's try to convince them. Politely.The trouble starts when you try to enforce your opinion:)
Anyway, back to Rebecca. I'm at the fourth chapter(yeah yeah I've been going too slow). I realise that the narrator's name is nowhere mentioned yet. I'm beginning to enjoy the fact that her name is nowhere mentioned. I'm going to draw some theories from it!=)
Zoe wrote: "I am sorry but Rebecca did not grab me but I do per curve it is written well and I did enjoy it so as I said it is good but I feel that Jamaica inn will be better. I am not saying daphne du maurier writing is poor personally I find it very rich in deed ..."Great. Okay but so you feel that 'Jamaica Inn' *will be* better because it seems ...written more in line with other bodice-rippers? The lead character seems to have more gumption? Longer hair? Fuller bosom? JI and FC are more 'traditionally-structured' works, even with DDM as the author--you can rely on that. 'FC' is positively syrupy; what with pirates and all.
Here's what DuMaurier is doing in Rebecca. The narrator is a girl who deems herself drab and uninteresting. She is mousy and has a mousy role in life (her first career job, is an aide to some frowzy old dowager who browbeats her all day long). So she is not exactly a "belle" or a "deb". Her probable lot in life is to be a wallflower or spinster. So she can't figure out why the dashing and sophisticated Maxim is drawn to her in the first place. Her sense of inferiority is all the more sharp, in comparison with Maxim's first wife; (as everyone constantly does compare her). She feels she can never measure up. So DuMaurier writes her that way. Its simply conveying to us, the exact way the girl sees herself. It bears a stamp of better authenticity (crucial for this saga told in 1st-person narrator voice). There's no "phonying up" of the character. It's much more credible than the "Hollywoodizing" of lead heroines the way so many lesser artists might choose to do.
Zoe wrote: "and the fact that you say that woman at that time were in that sort of manner I would contradict you I am not s hundred percent sure when she set it but I would say it was during the early 20th century when woman's rights were being heavily reported ...
Interesting remark. Okay well coincidentally enough--I myself am pretty familiar with the history of the women's suffrance movement in Britain 1890-1914 and I can assure you my earlier statement stands. The deferential position of women did not change 'overnight'.
Anyway...as Peruser says, no 'enforcing' of opinions here but I am known to hold my positions rather tenaciously. That's all I'm offering. When I'm convinced of a certain side to a debate and I've done my homework, I'll insist on hashing it out. No grudge match here. I'm simply listening to your points and providing the natural counterpoint. Thank you.
Thanks for your opinion, I would just like to say this can we agree to disagree and would you recommend any other books to help me. Thanks
I enjoyed the book and won't try to convince anyone of anything! :-)
I'm incorrigible! Born lawyer. Sorry everyone..lol
Zoe wrote: "would you recommend any other books to help me. Thanks"Certainly. I'd be glad to. I'm sure we can all toss you some juicy titles. Are you looking for women characters who go 'against type' (as the second Mrs DeWinter does) or well-written ones which go 'with' type?
Said another way: do you want more books of the kind you *already know* you would enjoy ...or new, unorthodox ones you aren't sure that you would enjoy?
New unorthodox ones lol life needs a bit of variety to spice it up and I love challenges.
I love love this book. I can remember my Mother reading this book!!!There is so much to learn about DuMaurier and what her genius was.
The short stories in "The Doll" are very indicative of her genius.
Wondering who would have a motive for such a thing...hmmm..oh well
Well, arguably, the genius does come with a set of madness!
That's partly why I avoid the 'media vortex'. What is some feeble chump at a paparazzi desk somewhere going to tell me about something? Why would I let some opportunist like that try to push my buttons and sway my opinion? Is he an academic of any kind? Not at all. Just a hack playing the game for his own ends. Why give any credit to such leeches? Like, the Guardian UK. What a soggy rag that outfit is.
oh aye. Well there should be plenty of info available on her pop; if we needed to do any comparing of perspectives. But like you say above, what does it matter...
Feliks wrote: "Zoe wrote: "I am sorry but Rebecca did not grab me but I do per curve it is written well and I did enjoy it so as I said it is good but I feel that Jamaica inn will be better. I am not saying daphn..."Feliks, you are spot on. du Maurier never hit a false note with her narrator. The character is young, inexperienced, naive and from a lower social class than de Winter. The narrator's character develops as a result of the events in the novel. And just as the tension and suspense is a slow, steady and relentless. So are the changes in the narrator.
I think all young women (and probably young men as well but I think this book was written for a female audience) feel like the narrator at some point in their lives. When out on a date with an older or more sophisticated date, attending your first business social event (when the bosses are present) or going out with friends from better schools or more lavish lifestyles. Hence this book, written in 1938, rings true and timely even in 2015.
Even if no one has a cell phone! ;)
I thought the book was well written but, to be honest, have to admit that I really preferred the film. Not only was Hitchcock a master in creating suspense, but the entire cast was incredibly good. Olivier was definitely one of the greatest actors of the 20th century.
I agree with you, Frank! Rebecca was one of the best Hitchcock movies!
I'm on chapter 12 and am finding it hard to put down. There is a tension being built and at this point I really feel for the unnamed heroine. It's funny, I had been avoiding this thread because I didn't want anything to influence my reading but then I was thinking to myself I must've missed the narrator's name. At any rate being a 3rd of the way through I figure at this point I am well into the book fresh on my own and as scrolling through the thread I see there is no name for the heroine. Good to know I didn't just miss it.I have to agree with Moonlight and Feliks in that the situation really isn't light by any stretch. I honestly can't imagine anyone being thrust into her situation at such a young age not having the emotional turmoil she's having. Heck, I know people who are remarried that have similar issues with needing to know or needing to avoid the fact that their new spouse has a past life prior to them. It's human nature.
My reading will likely slow down for the week but I'm hoping to have this completed by next weekend.
I for one, am glad to know --glad to hear--that you all think that this girl's feelings of 'mortification' and 'abnegation' are timeless. Modesty, diffidence, humility...what kind of humans would we be if we didn't continue to experience such feelings? I mean, as circumstances dictate. What kind of people would we be if we had some 'button' or 'switch' ready-to-hand to turn off our vulnerabilities? It's part-and-parcel of being human; feelings are our membership-card in our species. The empathy each of us (as readers) experiences as we follow her plight makes us all one, in a way. That's what it's all about isn't it? That's what novels are for. Most other art forms are experienced subjectively: music, painting, architecture, cinema. Novels 'pool' our emotional kinship with each other. (I'm against all this constant strident screaming about individuality. Individuality is vanity and isolation. It's what we share in common that's important).
I can't wait to read this book now because of following this thread. I am currently waiting for it to arrive at the library. Such passionate opinions.
As for the movie, I like just about everyone involved with the project but (for me) it just doesn't hold a candle to the book. Big fan of George Sanders and Larry Olivier here, but I just don't think it was one of Hitch's more 'powerful' efforts. The altered ending, etc..Btw did any actor ever move his upper body the way Olivier did? Those quirky little gestures with his hands--shaking his head--throwing out a line of gab--and swaying his torso from side-to-side? His signature. Athletic carriage like Cary Grant. You can still see him doing it twenty years later in 'Sleuth' or 'The Entertainer'. (his character in that one is also on-the-prowl for young babes).
Feliks wrote: "The thing about 'Rebecca' is that it's not just about 'Rebecca'. What reading it does is spur you on to explore all the rest of the author's fascinating works. DuMaurier's style is so poised, and c..."You are exactly right about 'Rebecca' being a "gateway" book for her others. Mi first read R in high school and kept reading duMaurier right through her final, futuristic book in which the US and Britain are united as Atlantica. I may have this not quite right. corrections appreciated.
Recently, the restored Charles Laughton/Maureen O'Hara/Alfred Hitchcock adaptation of 'Jamaica Inn' came to my theater and though I very much wanted to, I just couldn't get to it.I actually prefer DdM's "My Cousin Rachel" (book) as her best novel. I like it even more than 'Rebecca'. The way that particular novel opens, has a device I often use in my own writing: 'the premonition'.
But the corresponding Richard Burton/ Olivia deHavilland movie (David O Selznick production I think?) from the 40s fails with me. (Perhaps because I just don't like deHavilland in nearly anything, really).
The BBC version in color '82 is a much better treat; worth seeking out. The story is given the leisurely pace and length it deserves and the actress (whoever it was) brings out all the menacing Italian-ness that the kittenish deHavilland could not.
Anyway both those Brit b&w movies from 30s/40s are the last word in windswept moors and storms off the rocky coast of Cornwall. Maureen O'Hara is nearly surreal as she battles the wind, darting about around the outside of the inn. And Laughton, well no one tops his corpulent villainry. No-BODY.
Nevertheless, for my money the all-time best adaptation of a duMaurier story is without question, Nic Roeg's 1970s shocker, 'Don't Look Now'. From one of her short stories. My god that flick grabs you and shakes you. Burr! Super scary. Not recommended for the sensitive.
Thanks to Roeg's phenomenal touch with color and lighting, the pic looks fresher than anything you'd see even today. You just can't improve on the fundamentals when they're done well. A computer couldn't enhance what Roeg was capable of; he knew his lenses down pat.
Mod
I believe you mean "suffrage" rather than "suffrance."
The suspense really builds around chapter 12. From there to at least chapter 15 it doesn't let go.Of course it's not an edge-of-your-seat type of suspense... it's different. It's an overall mood along with these situations that are eerie enough to begin with. And Mrs. Danvers, good grief! Her character sure has come to the forefront all of a sudden. It's so dreadful it's fantastic.
Of course the really treacly debate which usually emerges from any 'Rebecca' chat usually centers on Mrs. Danvers; that's all I will say except that I hope we're all mature enough to avoid it in this thread. Not gonna go into any further detail so as to avoid spoilers for new readers...
Mod
Au contraire -- Mrs. Danvers is anything but treacly.
I'm loving this discussion thread as much as the story! No spoilers people. Thank you=)
The_Paperback_Peruser wrote: "I'm loving this discussion thread as much as the story! No spoilers people. Thank you=)"Wish we were all done with it already so we could discuss freely. It's hard not to. Something about this book genuinely lends itself to further discussion and perusal.
Well, there's a 'forking path' to take when it comes to Danvers, is all I'm saying. We'll see which way things go when we get to it...
p.s. I can't recall if this was the book/movie which started off that long tradition of governesses who creep downstairs in their nightgowns, (for a glass of milk/brownie) at around midnight and find their employer dressed in smoking jacket, seated with candelabra at organ/piano, moodily pressing out chords of Albinoni, and gazing up at the framed oil portrait of their dead wife with wet eyes? Like, the whole Vincent Price schtick?..but it probably had to be Mr. Rochester I guess? The moody, tormented older man and the demure young governess? Not exactly, I know... but I mean the whole 'distraught widower with a secret' type of literary figure? Must go back a lot farther than duMaurier.
Yes it does there's Charlotte bronte with Jane eyre (not a hundred percent sure if it was Charlotte but I know it's one of the brontes) so yes I am pretty certain she gained Inspiration from there
The Mystery, Crime, and Thriller Group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Key to Rebecca (other topics)The House On The Strand (other topics)
Rebecca (other topics)
