……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
……..……..……..……..……..……..
1/ From what I’ve seen, 99% of blog posts, essays, and articles about Rebecca mention the opening line. But Rebecca also has a very well-written and evocative closing line:
“And the ashes blew towards us with the salt wind from the sea.”In fact, the final chapter is wonderful, and Daphne du Maurier chooses a very fine way to reveal that Manderley is burning:
“The hills rose in front of us, and dipped, and rose again. It was quite dark. The stars had gone.Such striking imagery.
"What time did you say it was?" I asked.
"Twenty past two," he said.
"It's funny," I said. "It looks almost as though the dawn was breaking over there, beyond those hills. It can't be though, it's too early."
"It's the wrong direction," he said, "you're looking west."
"I know," I said. "It's funny, isn't it?"
He did not answer and I went on watching the sky. It seemed to get lighter even as I stared. Like the first red streak of sunrise. Little by little it spread across the sky.
"It's in winter you see the northern lights, isn't it?" I said. "Not in summer?"
"That's not the northern lights," he said. "That's Manderley."
I glanced at him and saw his face. I saw his eyes.
"Maxim," I said. "Maxim, what is it?"
He drove faster, much faster. We topped the hill before us and saw Lanyon lying in a hollow at our feet. There to the left of us was the silver streak of the river, widening to the estuary at Kerrith six miles away. The road to Manderley lay ahead. There was no moon. The sky above our heads was inky black. But the sky on the horizon was not dark at all. It was shot with crimson, like a splash of blood. And the ashes blew towards us with the salt wind from the sea.” (Ch.27)
2/ If anyone worries about the dogs’ safety in the destruction at the end of Rebecca (you silly pie), I think Jasper is safe. Before the London trip, the narrator asks Frank to take the sad Jasper back to office with him.
3/ People say the fire is lifted from Jane Eyre, which completes and reinforces the connection between Rebecca and Charlotte Bronte’s novel. The connection may or may not be discussed later, but the fire makes perfect sense in the context of Rebecca.
If you look at it from Mrs Danvers’s point of view, Maxim de Winter kills “her lady” in cold blood and gets away with it. It’s safe to assume that the long distance call she receives before clearing out is from Jack Favell, who tells her about the meeting with Dr Baker.
From the inquest to the investigation, it is clear that people’s bias has been helping Maxim: the investigators initially think it’s an accident, then after new evidence from the boatman, conclude it’s suicide, without suspecting Maxim; everyone seemingly wants to cover it up and move on (perhaps to avoid big scandal); Maxim’s supported by the loyalty of his new wife and Frank Crawley; Ben, the mentally disabled man, the only person who may know something, refuses to testify and denies having seen Jack Favell; Sergeant Julyan is easily content with Dr Baker’s testimony and wants to close the case, even if he seems to have some suspicion.
Even though Dr Baker’s words reveal that Rebecca’s death is of her own choice and the provocation is her deliberate way to get Maxim to give her an easy painless death, he’s still the one who chooses to kill her. He therefore has to be punished. Mrs Danvers doesn’t kill him, the same way she wouldn’t kill the narrator, so it makes perfect sense that she destroys the thing he loves the most—Manderley.
If it’s true as he says that he agrees to the deal with Rebecca in order to protect Manderley, and later kills her for Manderley, Manderley has to be destroyed. It is Rebecca’s revenge, through Mrs Danvers.
From another perspective, in destroying Manderley, Mrs Danvers also destroys the memory of Rebecca. She has chosen to preserve it, now she chooses to destroy it all.
4/ In a way, I don’t know how damaged Maxim is at the end of the story, because on a personal level, I can’t connect to it. For various reasons, I have always lived in rented apartments, I don’t have connection to a house.
However, I understand great loss, and exile. I understand what it means to be unable to return.
The Maxim at the end of the story (who, confusingly, is at the beginning of the book) is not the same as the Maxim throughout the book.
5/ The narrator wants readers to believe that her love triumphs and Rebecca is destroyed, that in the end she’s happy with Maxim.
But there is no happy ending.
From beginning to end, the narrator lets us see that she is naïve and inexperienced (Maxim is her first love), she absolutely adores him, and loves him “in a sick, hurt, desperate way, like a child or a dog”. Hearing Maxim’s confession, instead of feeling shocked or appalled, as a sane, reasonable person would, she rejoices.
“I did not say anything. I held his hands against my heart. I did not care about his shame. None of the things that he had told me mattered to me at all. I clung to one thing only, and repeated it to myself, over and over again. Maxim did not love Rebecca. He had never loved her, never, never. They had never known one moment's happiness together. Maxim was talking and I listened to him, but his words meant nothing to me. I did not really care.” (Ch.20)Later, when she’s alone:
“… the rest of me sat there on the carpet, unmoved and detached, thinking and caring for one thing only, repeating a phrase over and over again, "He did not love Rebecca, he did not love Rebecca." Now, at the ringing of the telephone, these two selves merged and became one again. I was the self that I had always been, I was not changed. But something new had come upon me that had not been before. My heart, for all its anxiety and doubt, was light and free. I knew then that I was no longer afraid of Rebecca.” (Ch.21)How sick is that? How stupid and pathetic.
Readers often note that after the confession, Maxim says “I love you” to the narrator for the 1st time, and also kisses her in a way he never kissed her before. Readers, or at least Sally Beauman, say that there is hint that afterwards their marriage is, for the 1st time, consummate.
Where’s the hint? I’m not so sure. In the scene of the morning before the London trip, our narrator still refers to the single beds.
(My perverse mind can’t help wondering if Maxim had sex with Rebecca. Their old bedroom has 1 bed).
To go back to the end of the story, which is the beginning of the book, the narrator and her husband are now in exile, staying in hotels, eating indifferent food, reading news and following the same routine, living in ennui. Stifling monotony or quiet bliss, you decide. But I find it interesting that now the narrator does the same thing as when she’s with Mrs Van Hopper—again, she’s a paid companion, just not paid by money, but by love.
6/ If it wasn’t clear in the previous post, I hate the biographical and feminist reading of Rebecca.
Why do people use elements in Daphne du Maurier’s life to interpret her novel? Why do people talk like du Maurier is in her character? I’ve seen critics do it with Jane Austen, with Charlotte Bronte, with Emily Bronte, with Virginia Woolf, with Elena Ferrante…, a lot more than with male writers (the only male writer I can think of is F. Scott Fitzgerald).
With the feminist reading, I think I’ve said enough about feminist literary criticism on this blog.
Greatly written
ReplyDeleteOh thank you.
Deletethank you so much
ReplyDeletethis really helped
DeleteNo worries :)
DeleteSuch a helpful article, I was worried about the dog and it addressed it right away. It also offered other insights that I had overlooked. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteHahaha okay, I'm glad it helped.
DeleteThanks for your post, but I have a question. Is there a reason why the couple couldn't rebuild at Manderley? And do you think it was possible that Rebecca had a romantic relationship with Danny?
ReplyDelete"Is there a reason why the couple couldn't rebuild at Manderley?"
DeleteI think there are 2 reasons.
Shock and inability to come to terms with it is a factor. After such a shocking, one may say traumatic, loss, one may choose to go away and never see the place again.
A more important reason is a self-imposed exile to avoid scandal. Maxim is accused of killing his wife, which is scandalous enough, then the burning of Manderley would be a huge event in the area. Scandal is what Maxim fears the most (which is why he chooses not to divorce Rebecca, and makes a compromise with her).
"And do you think it was possible that Rebecca had a romantic relationship with Danny?"
DeleteIn the novel it is ambiguous, and there is enough room for readers to interpret either way.
I'm not sure, but I prefer to think that Danny's adoration of Rebecca is one-sided.
Just finished the book. While I loved the whole book and it was beautifully written, I didn’t like the ending at all. I don’t mind that it burned but it was too abrupt and left too many unanswered questions in my opinion - like the dogs - there was the old one too, not just Jasper, and we got so much detail from the entire London trip, but no come-uppance for Danvers or Favell. Shoulda just fired that evil woman the day after the incident with the white dress, since it was her fault. “Maxim, it was Mrs. Danvers that suggested I wear the white dress. I’d like her to leave!”
ReplyDeleteI’ve just never been one for abrupt endings. Doesn’t have to end with all rose-colored glasses, but it just felt abrupt and incomplete.
Hahaha, if you want a book to always have a clear ending and the villains to get their comeuppance, there would be lots and lots of good and great books you wouldn't like.
DeleteMy Cousin Rachel is an example (though of course you might disagree about who the villain is).
Also this year I read lots of Japanese books and the majority of them have open endings.
But to go back to Rebecca, it isn't as abrupt as you say. The real ending is at the beginning of the book.
I expect the old dog to die in the burned house.
"Shoulda just fired that evil woman..."
I sympathise. There are lots of things the second wife should have done. But if she did that, she wouldn't be who she is, and we wouldn't have the book.
Thank you... I just finished this book this morning and whoa did I feel like very it was a an anti climactic ending. But I also had an heir of thinking "there is something hidden" here. I reread the last two pages but it wasn't obvious to me. After reading your blog, I now really liked the book. But I'm upset at myself and I'd like to pose a general question. How do I get at a reader level (and I know it's a matter of personal perspective and perception), that I could have come to this conclusion? Maybe not all the nuances and exerts you mentioned, but at the very least to say to myself. "Manderlay is on fire"!!
ReplyDeleteHaha. How do I answer this.
DeleteRegarding the fire, she describes the sky as "shot with crimson, like a splash of blood" but it isn't dawn, she mentions ashes, & it's in the direction of Manderley, so Manderley has to be on fire. We know that the lover has told Mrs Danvers & she would do something.
Now if you go back to the beginning, either chapter 1 or prologue, I don't remember, she mentions from the start that Manderley is no more.
I wrote some more posts about the book if you're interested.
As for reading, that is hard to answer, & I don't want to come across as condescending. My only advice is to pay attention to details, train yourself to notice details, & read critics or bloggers who write about details (like me, lol), not general themes or social issues or some isms.
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that.
Personally I have always disliked the phrase “modern readers”. The generalisations aren’t true for me. Nor do they apply for many people I know.
There are many kinds of readers just as there are many kinds of people, and I think there have been good and bad readers in all ages, including our modern age. While not all interpretations of Rebecca are equally good, I don’t think it’s a particularly difficult or demanding novel. I don’t think the plot requires subtle interpretations either, even if not everything is explicitly spelt out.
I do think, though, that the whole thing needs to be read, including the descriptions of the flowers intertwining.
wow
ReplyDeleteI love this book. I have read it several times throughout my life. Recently, I watched the PBS Jeremy Brett retelling of Rebecca - this version is true to the book. Jeremy Brett is an excellent actor and is also so handsome that it is easy to see why our narrator fell in love with his version of Maxim. While all signs (for me) point to the author determining a depressing end to the story (told in the first few chapters) - that Maxim and Mrs. De Winter are living a life very much like the empty life of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor - I very much want Maxim and his wife to get over their depression and find a purpose. They cannot change the past but they have lots of money and can change the future. WWII is coming soon - they can rebuild Mandalay and transform it into a hospital/rehabilitation home/orphanage. Do they continue their depressive life or do they find a purpose?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen that version. Why is it called a retelling if it's true to the book?
DeleteI've recently seen Jeremy Brett in a production of Love's Labour's Lost, and he's excellent.
As for Mr and Mrs de Winter, I cannot say, and haven't really thought much about it as I don't often ponder about characters' lives beyond the books they're in. Don't forget though, that Maxim has killed his ex-wife, whilst thinking that she was pregnant. He might have been provoked- we don't know that, all we have is his side of the story, but assuming that it's true, he still killed her.
I think of the novel by Daphne du Maurier as the original while the subsequent 1979 movie is a completely different format and hence a retelling. Hugh Whitemore shares screen writing credits with du Maurier - assisting her in editing her story so that it can be retold in film. After watching my favorite movie version of this story, I will forever think of Jeremy Brett, Joanna David, and Anna Massey as Maxim, Mrs. DeWinters, and Mrs. Danvers. From what I have read in the IMDB website, this 1979 film is "the most faithful to the original novel".
DeleteThat makes it an adaptation, not a retelling. The definition of an adaptation is "a film, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work".
DeleteA retelling is when you tell a story again differently, like keeping the general plot and ideas and setting the story in modern times or in another country, for example, but it's still a book.
I found this blog entry because I searched on Google for "why didn't they try to rebuild Manderley". It's something I think about sometimes. I know that it would have been very difficult but I think about the house being made of stone, so that perhaps its shell survived the fire and the interior could have been rebuilt. Probably the loss of everything else though was too much for Maxim. Or maybe he thought he deserved the punishment of Manderley destroyed and so didn't even attempt to rebuild.
ReplyDeleteI think too of everyone who was inside. You mentioned the dogs; I was comforted by the fact that Mrs. de Winter had asked Frank to take Jasper with him to his office. I think about the old dog though, Jasper's mother. Hopefully the servants remembered her when they escaped. And hopefully they all escaped in time. I thought too about all the precious objects inside Manderley. I remembered when Miss Maudie's house burned down in To Kill A Mockingbird, and her neighbors were handing out her furniture through the windows before the fire grew too hot. I picture Frith and Robert carrying out chairs and paintings. Clarice carrying the old dog in her basket. Silly I know, but to me that is one sign of a great book or movie, that I wonder what happens after it says "The End". I'm going off now to read your other posts on Rebecca :-)
Thanks for the comment.
DeleteIt's nice to see you so invested in the book, haha.
As for your question, I don't think the reason is that they're unable to rebuild the house. Note that after the fire, they don't just move to another house to live in, but that they live in some kind of exile, moving from hotel to hotel and avoiding people. Why? Because Maxim's greatest fear is scandal. People's gossips. Loss of reputation. Unless we distrust his account of the marriage with Rebecca, he lets Rebecca have affairs and do all sorts of things and doesn't divorce her because he doesn't want a scandal. Something like such a fire would get people talking, especially when Maxim was a suspect in Rebecca's death. The thing gets buried because the detective's a bit of an asshole, but the fire would get people talking.
They both have to run away from that.
That makes sense. I didn't think about it being a sort of exile that they lived in afterwards, moving from hotel to hotel instead of finding another home. This is why I like hearing other people's opinions on books and movies because it makes me look at old favorites in a new way. Thanks!
DeleteI don't have the book with me at the moment (the copy was from the library) so can't check it, but it's suggested at the beginning. It's definitely not a happy life.
DeleteGlad you enjoy the conversation.
Yes, I was worried about the dog, haha. But I wonder why they stayed in hotels instead of just buying another house and living there. They could buy a small house somewhere far away and live there in peace, where they could avoid meeting a lot of people. It hurt me to be honest to see that Maxim change the way he did(I know he's a murderer, don't judge me). I also feel like the second wife never got to know her actual husband (the true Maxim), but if she's happy I guess it's okay.
ReplyDeleteHi,
DeleteThis can be interpreted in multiple ways. My understanding is that Maxim is very much attached to Manderley so that he doesn't want to buy and become attached to *another house*.
You don't get attached to hotels, especially if you move from one to another.
I agree that the second wife doesn't get to know her husband properly, and I think her happiness is an illusion, or self-deception.
Any thoughts on what happened to Frank? I was frustrated that he wasn't mentioned
DeleteI really liked Frank, too. The book doesn't share what happened to Frank. I became a bit obsessed wanting happiness for the de Winters even though the book concludes (chapters 2 and 3) with a somewhat bleak ending. For this reason, I created my own endings giving "Hope for the de Winters" - https://jcape52.tumblr.com/?fbclid=IwAR3O8CAocxoa3qBk-hdhL5MZSx5TPkaW35s6u-V24kYRlds8QBo_8vmvFA0
ReplyDeletesmaller URL is https://tinyurl.com/uzdfwpfx
DeleteHi Janet,
DeleteI don't remember what happened to Frank, but I don't have the book with me to check (the copy's from the library).
I only liked Frank at the beginning. Later on, I thought he was rather weak.
>My perverse mind can’t help wondering if Maxim had sex with Rebecca. Their old bedroom has 1 bed.
ReplyDeleteRebecca is a highly sexual character, and she pretends to be pregnant and taunts Maxim saying it might not be his. I'm 100% certain Maxim and Rebecca had sex.
Katie, I think that you have a fine mind - I bet most readers puzzle over the conjugal relations between Maxim and Rebecca and then Maxim and Wife #2 (same bedroom, twin beds).
DeleteMy thinking is that Maxim loved Rebecca until she told him her dark secrets 5 days into their honeymoon. After her revelation, they lived separate lives - their marriage was over. My guess is that she had her own bedroom. There is an interesting article about how it is a tradition that upper class British couples have their own bedrooms - https://www.womanandhome.com/us/life/royal-news/the-queen-and-prince-philip-sleep-in-separate-beds-because-of-this-unusual-tradition/
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also think the ending is incomplete & ambiguous, it was
Deletealmost abrupt.
The ending is at the beginning.
DeleteThis whole book is told by an unreliable narrator.After all this a woman who is an accessory to cold blooded murder of a woman her husband believed was pregnant. Playing the victim to us readers as an excuse to get off the hook as a criminal? Constructing a story of 'poor naive young wife'? Do we even learn her name or does she keep that from us too? She is an Agatha Christie style villian-narrator telling us her version, but the comments feel like many of you fell for her scheme on the reader.
ReplyDeleteYou should read my blog post about the interpretations of the book: https://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-2-interpretations-of-rebecca.html?m=0
DeleteWas Manderlay totally destroyed by fire? At the end of the book it says people stay there.
ReplyDeleteI can't remember. But even if not totally destroyed, it's ruined enough to no longer be Manderley.
DeleteRe the second marriage being consummated, the new wife mentions getting to know him in different ways, including as a lover, on their honeymoon.
ReplyDeleteRight, I don't remember this.
DeleteThank you.