Rebecca Rebecca discussion


1002 views
Manderley?

Comments Showing 1-40 of 40 (40 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Aubrey Who burned the house down? Was it Mrs. Danvers co conspiring with Rebecca's cousin? What do you think?


message 2: by Pandora (new)

Pandora I didn't think there was any doubt. Mrs. Danvers did it. But, I don't think she was conspiring with the cousin or that he wanted her to burn the house down. As I remember from the movie he just tossed that line about the de Winters living happy ever after in the house. I think Mrs. Danvers burned the house down for Rebecca and the cousin had no idea what his line would suggest to Mrs. Davers. This is based on the movie. It has been awhile since I read the book but, I think the movie was pretty accurate of the book.


message 3: by [deleted user] (new)

Pandora Kat wrote: "I didn't think there was any doubt. Mrs. Danvers did it. But, I don't think she was conspiring with the cousin or that he wanted her to burn the house down. As I remember from the movie he just ..."

I didn't think there was any doubt either. Mrs. Danvers was mentally ill and she adored Rebecca so that was part of the reason she did it.


Lena What I wanted to know was what happened to all the other servants and staff. Did they die, or why didn't they put out the fire?


message 5: by [deleted user] (new)

I think that they all got out. Manderley is a huge house, full of tapestries and antique furniture (isn't it?). Once a wild flame was introduced, I don't think there's much that could have been done.


message 6: by Rj (new) - rated it 5 stars

Rj The more recent TV version, the one in which Diana Rigg plays Danny goes beyond the end of the book to suppose how it happened. It happened thus.

Everyone is in bed. Danny goes on her rounds with the gas lamp in hand. She sets fire to things as she goes, curtains, tapestries etc. She eventually makes it to the West Wing and, whilst the flames spread around Manderley, she lies down on Rebecca's bed stroking her nightdress. The de Winters arrive on the scene, every window is aflame. The servants are in their pjamas leading the dogs or carrying antiques out of the front door. Everyone is accounted for except Danny. Maxim rushes in through the flames and rescues her.


Lexa The most accurate film/tv representation of Rebecca was by Masterpece Theater from many years back starring Jeremy Brett and Joanna David. The rest either extrapolated or significantly changed the story line.


message 8: by Rj (new) - rated it 5 stars

Rj There is suggestion of collusion with Favell. Danvers took a long distance phone call before starting the fire.


message 9: by [deleted user] (new)

Mrs. Danvers did it. She packed up all her stuff, then set fire to the house as she left.


Caroline Mrs. Danvers had realised thet everyone was getting on finally with their lives without Rebecca and that she would never be able to so she killed herself by burning the house down.


Lesley Arrowsmith I agree with Lexa - the Jeremy Brett/Joanna David TV version was excellent.


message 12: by M.R. (new) - rated it 5 stars

M.R. Graham Anything with Jeremy Brett is fantastic. ;D


Caroline Got to be better than the version with Charles Dance, I always imagined Maxim would be handsome in an older man sort of way.


message 14: by Niki (new) - rated it 5 stars

Niki Baier Brooke you are the only other person I have come across who also believes Mrs Danvers left & didn't die in the fire. I am sure she started the fire to ensure that Rebecca's house couldn't have a new mistress, but have never believed she died but fled the scene


message 15: by Rj (new) - rated it 5 stars

Rj In both sequels she is alive and kicking.


message 16: by Yun (last edited Feb 08, 2013 09:38AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Yun Yi Rebecca is a book of mystery. I think author intended to leave some unknown details at the end. However, it is Mrs. Danvers who sets fire for sure.


Cindi My favorite book of all time. It has everything: mystery, romance, England, a touch of the gothic.


Karen Keshena wrote: "Cindi wrote: "My favorite book of all time. It has everything: mystery, romance, England, a touch of the gothic."

I concur. So much of my work is inspired by Rebecca. I began a novel last year tha..."


Sounds pretty neat.


Feliks Please. Stop using the steampunk phrase for god's sake.


Cindi I am curious what "steampunk" is--I see it mentioned everywhere and have no real idea what it is--and, in this case, how it relates to Rebecca.


message 21: by Karen (last edited Feb 09, 2013 10:42AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Karen Cindi wrote: "I am curious what "steampunk" is--I see it mentioned everywhere and have no real idea what it is--and, in this case, how it relates to Rebecca."

Steampunk is a sub-genre of science fiction that typically features steam-powered machinery,[1] especially in a setting inspired by industrialized Western civilization during the 19th century. Therefore, steampunk works are often set in an alternative history of the 19th century's British Victorian era or American "Wild West", in a post-apocalyptic future during which steam power has regained mainstream use, or in a fantasy world that similarly employs steam power.

steam punk books are not my favorite, but I do love the clothes, jewelry, decorations, etc. in fact I have made some out of junk stuff I picked up. Steam punk can be plunked down in a gothic story such as this one in a great manner I would think.


message 22: by Feliks (last edited Feb 09, 2013 09:25PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Feliks Keshena wrote: Elaborate."

Its just a terrible mental habit. A hideous camp-following practice to emulate. Compartmentalizing history, people, creativity, life--in easy-to-swallow, lozenge-like, hip, easy-to-remember labels. Making an actual timeperiod in history feel like an episode of 'Doctor Who'.

'Snowcrash' and 'Neuromancer'--okay--that kind of thing--novels deliberately written with exaggerated style as a gimmick--calling them steampunk was funny for about five minutes. But to then take that term and keep applying it to actual history is juvenile, misleading, and disingenuous of us.

What next? Let's start calling the Italian Renaissance..err, "fresco-esh"? Let's start calling the Enlightenment..err, "quill pen dudes"?

o_0


message 23: by M.R. (new) - rated it 5 stars

M.R. Graham Considering that "steampunk" describes a genre and an aesthetic, not an historical period, that's a bit like saying that "goth" or "fantasy" is an easy-to-swallow, lozenge-like, hip, easy-to-remember label. Yes. It is. Because that's what words are for.
"Steampunk" has never described actual history, and thus there is nothing juvenile, misleading, or disingenuous about it. Dressing fairies in bustle skirts or sending Sherlock Holmes to stop a steam-powered WMD does not compartmentalize anything.
Also, considering the fact that many have made it into a modern lifestyle choice (and that it's been a strong subculture for more than forty years, and that its membership includes some of the world's leading Victoriana scholars), dismissing it as a hideous camp-following practice seems just a tad ill-informed. The word itself may have come about as a joke, and the movement as a whole certainly knows better than to take itself seriously, but it's never been a five-minute gimmick.


Coralyn M.R. wrote: "Considering that "steampunk" describes a genre and an aesthetic, not an historical period, that's a bit like saying that "goth" or "fantasy" is an easy-to-swallow, lozenge-like, hip, easy-to-rememb..."

Hear, hear! Something that extensive and imaginative shouldn't be reduced with such facility. Thanks M.R.


message 25: by M.R. (new) - rated it 5 stars

M.R. Graham Thanks, Coralyn.
That said, I'm not real keen on the genre-fiction reimaginings trend that's been cropping up in popular literature. I understand that no basic plot is truly original, but if the back cover actually indicates that "this is (Classic Title) with a (genre fiction) twist" I frown a little. Let the readers decide to draw that kind of parallel.


message 26: by Feliks (last edited Feb 10, 2013 12:49PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Feliks Coralyn wrote: "M.R. wrote: "Considering that "steampunk" describes a genre and an aesthetic, not an historical period..."

Precisely my point. The history is more important than the silly SF trend which cribs from it. People too easily forget that it is a sprawling and diverse historical period and instead they are assuming the genre and the aesthetic, in its place. Letting one stand in for the other, conceptually.

My complaint remains.


message 27: by M.R. (new) - rated it 5 stars

M.R. Graham I've never spoken to anyone who believed the Victorian era to be identical to steampunk. The word is necessary because there is no other word to describe the concept.
I highly recommend checking out the Brassgoggles blog here: http://brassgoggles.co.uk/forum/index... It's almost always playing host to a heated debate on terminology.

Also, in reference to your earlier comment about "punking" different time periods... Check out Rococopunk. You might want sunglasses, though. http://io9.com/5974340/rococopunk-is-...


Coralyn To me this doesn't need to be complex. The history and the semantics have their own veracity and importance and they are quite apart from this discussion. Steampunk is an invention. It is happening in our present. It is about the imagination. Imagination is King!


message 29: by Naty (new) - added it

Naty What are the narrator’s expectations of Manderely-both the grounds(nature) and the house itself? Does it change throughout chapters 7-12? Does she become more comfortable with her home, staff, guests, and even Maxim?


Caroline There would still have been a story because Rebecca's body would still have been discovered and Maxim would still have had to deal with the court case. Mrs. Danvers would also still have had to deal with the loss of Rebecca and discovery of her body.


message 31: by Marren (last edited Jun 05, 2013 06:23PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Marren I wondered the same. In the end Rebecca's cousin Jack Favell made some remarks about it not being over. He placed a call to Mrs. Danvers. I think she burn the place but she did not stay in it. One of the servants said she left via a back gate. On the other hand I was thinking whether the writer want me to believe that Rebecca burn the place but she is dead, so...


Megan Feliks wrote: "Keshena wrote: Elaborate."

Its just a terrible mental habit. A hideous camp-following practice to emulate. Compartmentalizing history, people, creativity, life--in easy-to-swallow, lozenge-like,..."


BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Loved this!


message 33: by Sue (new) - rated it 5 stars

Sue Mahovsky Love this book! Love it! Love it! It's very gothic, romantic, tragic and compelling. Would love to dissect it bit by bit to get more and more out of it! I totally missed that the second Mrs. De Winter had no first name, the first time I read it. That just blew my mind right there. Haven't read any other of her books. Are they worth it?


message 34: by M.R. (new) - rated it 5 stars

M.R. Graham Sue wrote: "Love this book! Love it! Love it! It's very gothic, romantic, tragic and compelling. Would love to dissect it bit by bit to get more and more out of it! I totally missed that the second Mrs. De Win..."

ALL of Du Maurier's books are worth it. I especially recommend reading "The Birds." It's quite different from Hitchcock's adaptation.


Holly Whoever did it; the burning of Manderley was the great tragedy of this book.

While it was a well written book with a compelling plot, the characters left me cold. They all annoyed me; and I really didn't care about what happened to any of them (except I didn't want Maxim to have to go to prison for killing Rebecca; to me it didn't seem like a crime worth punishing.....after all, he was no danger to anyone else and it would have been a shame to burden the tax payers with punishing him, Rebecca was no great loss).

Poor Manderley; a beautiful gracious home deserves better than this.


message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

Sue wrote: "Love this book! Love it! Love it! It's very gothic, romantic, tragic and compelling. Would love to dissect it bit by bit to get more and more out of it! I totally missed that the second Mrs. De Win..."
Yes! Totally.


Sheila Yunyi wrote: "Rebecca is a book of mystery. I think author intended to leave some unknown details at the end. However, it is Mrs. Danvers who sets fire for sure."

I agree. I think what you don't know draws the person into the story. At times it has the reader over thinking of who did what. And misses the obvious.Oh yeah Mrs Danvers is the one.


Linda Kelly Has anybody read the sequel or prequels to Rebecca and what did thet think of them? I didn't enjoy Mrs. De Winter by Susan Hill, although I enjoy her other books. Think it was because she portrayed the second wife as more of a drip than in the original. I really liked Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beauman though as she gives us more insight into Rebecca and what made her tick.


Sheila Yes I have read Mrs DeWinter. I didn't enjoy it as much. My sister and I left a review. You can find it here http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/2...
My sister gives more precise thought


Linda Kelly Totally agree Gertt but unfortunately she is not around anymore to write them, sad.


back to top