Rebecca question

The narrator sees herself as insignificant. The lack of forename emphasizes this. It also serves to emphasize the overwhelming 'presence' of Rebecca.

She becomes significant through others, not on her own terms. In other words, her roles echo her view of herself as insignificant in her own right. She becomes a sort of co-conspirator/confidante and comforter for her husband once he tells her he didn't love Rebecca and confides in her. She feels immense relief about this. She becomes relatively significant as her husband's second wife but not as a woman in her own right.

I think the all-pervasive and ominous presence of Rebecca is mostly a reflection of the narrator's poor self image or esteem. The inner psychological processes of someone with such a poor self image would naturally dwell on and exaggerate the importance of the previous wife. A terrible and powerful form of reasoning takes place. 'I'm so inferior and insignificant, she must have been confident and powerful in every way'.

Two other aspects spring to mind. A modern reading might consider the second wife's co-dependency. Also, people tend to get idealized when they die and there's a taboo on speaking ill of the dead. The second wife seems to be helped by others in her idealization of Rebecca. It seems to be a source of relief for her when her husband shatters the myth of his having loved her. I wonder can we trust Mr de Winter's version of Rebecca?

I think the author really wanted to make the reader feel like the weight of Rebecca's memory overshadowed Maxim's new bride. So by not giving her a name or not identifying her, she is literally stripped of her identity the minute she meets Maxim and starts to unravel the mystery that is Rebecca. Rebecca is never given a last name, we only know her as Rebecca or the first Mrs. DeWinter.

When I first read this book I didn't even realize she never had a name until I had finished the book. I think it's because this isn't her story, like the reader she is unraveling Rebecca and Maxim's story. By never giving her a name she is further removing her from the story, she will always be the outsider. I've also wondered what her name would be. After reading this book many times over the years I've settled on Mary.

I feel like "Daphne" is a lovely and unusual name. Perhaps du Maurier fancies herself as the protagonist?

The marital gothic subgenre presents an opportunity for authors to explore how women in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries felt terrorised by the restrictive roles of wife and mother. This very opportunity is seized by Daphne du Maurier as she withholds the true name of her protagonist. In fact, the only clue the reader receives as to her true identity is that, "[She has] a very lovely and unusual name". In doing so, Mrs de Winter is stripped of her independent identity and is symbolically marked, by name, as an extension of her husband. Throughout their relationship, Maxim even bestows upon her infantilizing pet names, such as "poor lamb" and "my darling" . Even as Maurier's protagonist grows into her role as mistress of Manderley, stating "I'm afraid it does not concern me very much what Mrs de Winter used to do… I am Mrs de Winter now" , this declaration of authority is limited in its ability to convey a message of empowerment. Rather than take ownership over her own name, Mrs de Winter assumes the title that was given to her under patriarchal law, and one which seeks to replace another woman as a signifier for 'victory'.

I agree, her name was so unimportant that the author didn´t think it necessary to mention. Like Gabrielle said, Du Murier wanted to underline the ominpresent Rebecca, they way she died, but managed to stay alive.

I believe du Maurier has stated that she simply couldn't think of a name she liked well enough for the character, so she chose to leave it out. I normally don't mind never finding out a protagonist's name, but in this case, it became a tad frustrating. There was Maxim's comment about it being a "lovely and unusual" name, as well as her surprise at Maxim spelling it correctly in the apologetic note he sent for her after their encounter at the restaurant, etc. The hinting at but not revealing the name sort of made me think that there'd be some sort of significance, eventually, to what it was, but I suppose it was just du Maurier's way of toying with us a little. Regardless, I was curious to know!

I felt that it heightened the empathy with the main character - emphasising that feeling she conveyed of always walking in Rebecca's shadow.

Whether it was a conscious or subconscious choice on DuMaurier's behalf, i think that in leaving her narrator nameless, it underscored the fact that she exists within the framework of her own life only in terms of her relationship to another, more socially "significant" person. She's a companion to Mrs. Van Hopper, then she's the second Mrs. DeWinter. DuMaurier may have said that she just couldn't think of a name, but that's a flip answer to an interview question. If she hadn't meant to do it on some level, she'd have thrown a dart at a phone book or something.

There is also the fact that, in its way, the story is a confession. Mrs de Winter was an accessory after the fact, and they are still in semi-hiding from society scandalmongering. We don't realize this until much later on of course, so it seems as just an unintentional act of modesty which emphasizes how confident everyone else is; Rebecca, Mrs Danvers. The second theme of dishonesty only slowly becomes clearer.

...Which leaves me to suspect that as **real** aristocrats aren't called Rebecca very often, Rebecca wasn't necessarily called Rebecca originally... its a pseudonym given her by the narrator for security reasons...

Only kidding! But anonymity establishes an idea of secrecy and discretion, especially of the upper classes, which is only progressively revealed as so clearly corrupt, self-serving and entitled.

My theory is her name is Willow. W and M are the same letter inverted. Then, Rebecca means “to tie”, while Willow means “freedom”.

I liked the idea though I even didn't realise this fact! well done to author 👏

That's exactly why this book still remains a bit mysterious. As for me, the main character isn't actaully "the narrator" but it's Rebbeca. Rebbeca is literally everywhere, I would have been glad to know how many times her name has been repeated in the book. But apart from that, the fact that we never know the "main" character's name through the book and we don't even realize it till we finish is absolutely unique.