Rebbeca from Daphné Du Maurier. Personal Interpretation

 

Yesterday, I published on my great group “Women reading great books” the text below sharing my thoughts on the afterword of the excellent book, Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. The conclusions of the author seemed totally at odds with my take on the book.

I had some excellent comments and points of views and received links to other articles which also seemed to more or less agree with the author’s afterword. 

 

Posted text:

I have just finished reading “Rebecca” by Daphne Maurier. It is an amazing book, well written, keeping one at the tip of one’s toes up to the end. I did not think it would end well for the main characters, who went through a lot, but I kept hoping…

However, the conclusions of the afterword on the 2002 edition, are at the antipodes of what I felt throughout the reading and my interpretation as a whole, of the book. Without revealing the plot of the book, so as not to spoil it for those who have not read it, I must say that I was most surprised. What the commentator saw as traits of someone independent of spirit and mind and somewhat an “avant-gardist” of her time, I saw pure and unequivocal evil. Not of a woman but of a human being who despises others and plays on their fears with undisguised pleasure.

On the other hand, where she saw misogynistic manipulation, I saw weakness, sorrow and despair. I also could see the weight that a class-based system may have on those who feel that they are less worthy of anything, even of happiness, because of their origins.

She then proceeds to say that the character that will not be forgotten is the one that I saw as pure evil. I personally do not think I will forget the victims. Having that been said, the comments come out as a precursor, of the woke culture, where all values seem to be not only reversed but totally entangled. 

Reflections:

After giving it some thought, these were my personal conclusions regarding the articles. They stem essentially from two points that grabbed my attention in particular:

1- The use of the word gaslighting and;
2- The fact that the author of one of the articles said that reading the book for the second time, after a number of years, she had the impression of reading another book altogether.

1.    
For me, the use of gaslighting[1] in the context of the book and the timing of its publication, 85 years ago, is abusive and opportunistic. The word was used to describe Maxime's character, when he said: "I want to marry you, you fool." How can such a thing, again within the context, be equated to "gaslighting"? Anyone who has been in a relationship, be it a man or a woman, has said similar things as a banter or a way of reassuring one's partner. In the context of the book, knowing all the insecurities of the narrator, it was only natural for him to try to reassure her. Also, assuming that the definition of gaslighting involves the notion of repetition, with the aim of weakening one's victim, I pain to see, how this can be applicable to the relation between Maxime and his wife.

As far as gaslighting goes,  I did not see in the of the article, one single word regarding the way he defended her from the “gaslighting” from her boss, Mrs. Van Hopper, or  against Mrs. Danvers’s constant bullying and terrorising attempts, or even the bullying of Ben by R, which seemed implied in his fear of being sent to an asylum, if he ever breathed a word of what he seemed to have witnessed. Those were acts of gaslighting carried out repeatedly against the different victims.

In fact,  one could actually read the  opposite; the position of the author’s article which, at first glance, could appear as part of the “feminist fundamentalism”,  could also be construed as pure “snobbery”. The narrator being of humble origins and for whatever reason, aspiring probably to a simple and quiet life, is not someone worthy of being remembered, even though, she seemed to hold moral values and love the man she married.  All her fears and insecurities stemmed from her sense of inferiority, in a society where money and breed were of paramount importance. And  for that, if nothing else, she deserved the reader’s sympathy.

Maxime, regardless of all his money and breed is also insecure. At the end of the book he is terrified of losing his wife. He says that he thinks that she does not love him because she never goes looking for him. Since he would have no reason to be insecure, as besides money and breed, he is described as a good looking man, one can only infer that his experience, with his first wife, must, somehow, have traumatised him.

Not condoning the murder he committed, I can conceive how a human being, pushed to its limits, may commit the unthinkable. Again, in the context of the time and the stigma associated with divorce, as well as the thought of being forced to accept a child that was not his, by pure evil, I can understand the extreme, albeit, reprehensible action.  I do not know of anyone who enjoys the idea of being cheated and ridiculed and pushed into a corner. It does not necessary lead to murder, but the possibility of violence and even murder remain. In fact, R.anticipated that possibility and it was exactly what she wanted.

On the other hand, promiscuity, deceitfulness,  duplicity and bullying are, in no way, synonyms of independence and character. And R. is so evil to the point of tricking him into killing her when she knows she is dying. And yet, unless I missed something, Maxim has never done anything to her. He can certainly not be faulted for deciding to lead a separate life after she told him that she was promiscuous and intended to live her life that way? Would anyone, man or woman accept it?  

The only thing one could hold against Mr. De Winter is the fact that he married her having doubts and that he decided not to divorce her for the sake of Manderley. He may have been convinced by his grandmother who thought that R. had the three necessary qualities of a desirable wife, i.e. beauty breed and money. Other than that, he seemed to be a good person, considerate and kind to his employees and family. As much cannot be said for R.

The adoration shown for R. who seems to be totally bereft of morals, with no second thought for the feelings of others, illustrated,  by Mrs Danvers testimony of “how she laughed at all the “people” she had been with, at her guests, or Frith and the other employees who seemed to love her and admire her”. In laymen terms, she was an abominable sadistic, hypocritical creature who caused pain to others for no reason no other reason than being some kind of psychopath. It is beyond my understanding,  how anyone can find any saving-grace in such a character. 

The way some commentators try to portray R as some kind of hero, and conveniently diabolise or underestimate her victims,  reminded me of how quickly societies can be manipulated and fall into collective acts of evil, justifying the unjustifiable.

As for the second point, of course if you read a book at different points in your life, the take will always be different; maturity, education level and experience, obliging. However, if intrinsic and human values remain - the ones that makes us human and not simply hominids - like the fundamental concepts of wrong and right, then, I find it difficult to understand how the roles may be totally reversed in time.

I could go on, extending on the author of the afterword concerning Du Maurier’s bi-sexuality and inference that R. and the narrator were the two sides of the same person. Again, if this were true, it could be the reflection of her personal internal struggles with a nature which, at the time, was highly frown upon by society and church. Also the fact that R had the upper hand at the end, may also reflect that the side she was struggling most with, given the pressures from society, was taking her over.  

Who knows?

---

[1] The goal for the gaslighter is to make their victim undermine their own judgement and reduce their self-esteem, making the victim dependent on the abuser for longer.