Short question: How old do you think is the narrator?

[Gerd]

As the heading says, I'm wondering about her age when the story between her and Maxim starts.

In an early chapter she talks about being twenty-one and first love, but further on she refers to herself then as still "childlike," which made me assume that she's maybe seventeen?
Not quite an adult yet?

Which frankly made me feel mightly uncomfortable when Maxim admits to be interested in her (no less after telling her she could be his daughter).

[[deleted user]]

I think she refers herself as "childlike" because of Maxim's opinion concerning her. So I would say he influences (maybe "manipulates" would be more appropriate) her behaviour and even the perception she has of herself. All pages along (until we get the "truth") the heavy atmosphere that would compare to period just before a thunderstorm is because of him and Rebecca ( not Rebecca alone). I would say it is mainly because of him.

Which frankly made me feel mightly uncomfortable when Maxim admits to be interested in her (no less after telling her she could be his daughter).

Yes, I had the same feeling. On the other hand I am not surprised by such behaviour from Maxim. I mean he was looking for someone docile.

[Bailey]

I placed her around 18 to 19. The "childlike" description could be a metaphor, for her innocence or naive behavior.

[Megan]

I'd say early 20s.

[AliNicole Reads]

I leaning towards 21ish and Max does say he's old enough to be her father so he's in his 40s - right?

[Gerd]

Alison wrote: "I leaning towards 21ish and Max does say he's old enough to be her father so he's in his 40s - right?"

Yeah, Max would at least be twenty years her senior by what he says.

[Pam]

Historical note: By the 1920's
- the English age of consent was 16
- The French age of consent was 13

The full table can be found here:
https://discover-the-truth.com/2013/0...

[Pam]

Bailey wrote: "I placed her around 18 to 19. The "childlike" description could be a metaphor, for her innocence or naive behavior."

Or it could be very well that she JUST turned 18 /19. Legally she is an adult, but she may not have matured or thought of herself as an adult - able to make decisions, live on her own, make a living doing something other than act as someone's child etc.

[Pam]

Unpopular opinion coming:

Florian wrote: "So I would say he influences (maybe "manipulates" would be more appropriate) her behaviour and even the perception she has of herself."

Ok: Not for not: marrying someone half your age is not the wisest nor smartest decision.

But our society had no problems with Hugh Hefner dating/cohabitating with Bunnies because, hey, at least they were adults and not teenagers. I.e. they were able to leave at any time and make their way in the world. (Or so we justify)

Our narrator is fond of him, so we have to take her rose colored glasses off to really look at the issues at hand. But he doesn't seem to manipulate her as so much as just let's her be.

After living with Rebecca who ran everything; what job did he really have in telling Rebecca what to do? After living in that environment, it's possible that he was also just hands off with Mrs. De Winter and had no idea how to teach her to be wife.

The most we saw of their interactions was that if anything he was puzzled by her reluctance to do anything:
- talking to the servants (some he knew and ordered about since childhood)
- engaging with people which was something he hated and avoided himself, Hardly the best role model. This was again something Rebecca did. So he never had to do
- Hosting a party. Again, something he loathed and left to Rebecca to do. Even doing it all over again they just used the same formulas and lists that Rebecca did.
- Going back to his status, as he was taught how to run Manderly, it can also be assumed that a woman of his station (Breeding) would have also taught the wife what she was supposed to do. Heck, I don't even think he would be hands on with any daughters as that wouldn't be his role at the house. That's what nannies are for.

We can put the error of marrying someone so young on him. But is he a manipulator or just a product of the times and his wealth? I'm inclined to think the later.

[Charlene]

Pam wrote: "Unpopular opinion coming:

Florian wrote: "So I would say he influences (maybe "manipulates" would be more appropriate) her behaviour and even the perception she has of herself."

Ok: Not for not: ..."
Some of it is probably product of the times and wealth, but he specifically chose the second Mrs de Winter because she was the exact opposite of Rebecca. So I would more lean toward manipulator then since it was a conscious decision on his part.

Now saying that does he know what all went into teaching a wife what she needed to know. I am not sure on that but we do know that he could have always asked Beatrice for help. Beatrice seemed genuinely fond of the second Mrs. de Winter. Maxim definitely had more resources then our narrator. What was she to do, write a letter to Mrs. Van Hopper asking for household running advice?

[[deleted user]]

Unpopular opinion coming:

Florian wrote: "So I would say he influences (maybe "manipulates" would be more appropriate) her behaviour and even the perception she has of herself."

Ok: Not for not: marrying someone half your age is not the wisest nor smartest decision.

I'm curious, why do you think it is not wise nor smart? To some extent it may be smart if the person is marrying someone to get benefits. For example if the man or the woman is super old and rich you know... ok it's seedy but some people do that...

a product of the times and his wealth

Oh... yes! He is! I did not think about some of the points you listed, and actually they make sense. Yes... the verb "manipulate" was not the best verb to use. I do not really know how to explain it, he had a control on the narrator to prevent her to be like Rebecca. That how I perceived a part of his behaviour. So maybe not manipulator but someone who tried to keep control on people.

[Pam]

Charlene wrote: Some of it is probably product of the times and wealth, but he specifically chose the second Mrs de Winter because she was the exact opposite of Rebecca. So I would more lean toward manipulator then since it was a conscious decision on his part."

Once burned twice warned. That's not manipulation, that's common sense.

Outside of marrying a young woman, he doesn't do anything to control her or to bind her to do anything against her own nature. He in fact leaves her alone outside of dining with her.

His biggest failing is that he doesn't tell her anything. He could have told her months and weeks ago that he was not inclined towards Rebecca and saved us all a story.

Florian wrote "I'm curious, why do you think it is not wise nor smart? To some extent it may be smart if the person is marrying someone to get benefits. For example if the man or the woman is super old and rich you know... ok it's seedy but some people do that.

This is more of how I feel about an older man marrying a younger woman based on my realities today. A 40 yr old marrying a 20 year old would make me question what's wrong with the 40 year old to why he couldn't find a woman closer to his age to go out with him OR I would question how wealthy he is to be such a sugar daddy.

[Gerd]

Florian wrote: "For example if the man or the woman is super old and rich you know... ok it's seedy but some people do that..."

Dunno, if he/she's in love and their young lover keeps up the illusion for them to be loved or at least desirable in return then it's a fair deal I'd say, one where both get what they want or need out of the relationship.

[[deleted user]]

@Pam: that is fair.

@Gerd: a deal, that's what it sounds like in my ears ;)

Sugar Daddy, I discovered that expressions a few years ago (I mean the english version). In France we have a famous brand called Daddy, try to guess what they sell :s (I think it was important to mention that essential point).

[Charlene]

Pam wrote: "Charlene wrote: Some of it is probably product of the times and wealth, but he specifically chose the second Mrs de Winter because she was the exact opposite of Rebecca. So I would more lean toward..."

But when Mrs. Danvers accuses Robert of stealing the china figure, Maxim told our narrator that servant quarrels are her territory not his. So Maxim is expecting our narrator to be able to run a household like Rebecca did without any experience that Rebecca had. In a way, not helping her to adjust to her new surrounding could be a bit manipulative as it keeps her unprepared.

[Pam]

Charlene wrote: "But when Mrs. Danvers accuses Robert of stealing the china figure, Maxim told our narrator that servant quarrels are her territory not his. So Maxim is expecting our narrator to be able to run a household like Rebecca did without any experience that Rebecca had. In a way, not helping her to adjust to her new surrounding could be a bit manipulative as it keeps her unprepared. ."

To me that's a man washing his hands of "women's work."

I could even see this as encouragement. He is letting her run her house, to implement her rules. She doesn't have to seek his approval or fear his retribution if she steps out of place. Because this is her place. He is letting her know that this is her territory.

[Emilyrose]

She's 21, childlike because of lack of life experience and insecurity. In one of her early conversations with Maxim she talks about wanting to be 36, a more powerful age. Maxim is 42, he tells her that after he's proposed and is therefore old enough to be her father but not because he is an old man. I think that in 2018 21 maybe doesn't sound that young, but I think du Maurier is exploring the individual process of coming-of-age, which does not have to be done at any specific age. She matures significantly through the story, the main narrative of which only takes a few months.

[Ma]

Emilyrose wrote: "She's 21, childlike because of lack of life experience and insecurity. In one of her early conversations with Maxim she talks about wanting to be 36, a more powerful age. Maxim is 42, he tells her ..."

When I first read the book (around 50 years ago), I thought her an adolescent bride -- most likely because I was an adolescent and my world history class often made reference to the young age of marriage around the world and (still) in some parts of the U.S.

But recently, I've been reading about marriage in the 18th and 19th centuries and those historians have consistently put unforced first marriages (marriages NOT for debt resolution or because of an unplanned pregnancy while unwed) closer to 23-24 years old (on average). So I'd make her out to be a bit older but certainly, as EmilyRose says, new to the world and its machinations.