Thank you so much for this! I just finished Rebecca earlier today, and I still feel a sense of tightness, uneasiness, and post-book emptiness inside of my chest. The novel ends in such a gripping, almost unsatisfying, way. Even though the narrator and Maxim essentially "get away with murder," they are still haunted, and oppressed, by Rebecca's legacy and memory, since Maxim's face "turns grey" at a mention of anything somewhat related to Manderley. As a result, I don't think de Maurier was taking a conservative stance on female behavioral expectations or society in general. While Rebecca was portrayed as a villainous and promiscuous woman by Maxim himself, an unreliable source to start, and not all readers certainly would feel favorably towards Rebecca's actions (since adultery is frowned upon by many cultures even today), the aftermath suggests that Rebecca still won in the end. Manderley was burnt down, perhaps as a final act of revenge from the spirit of Rebecca since her murder was not avenged, and the narrator and Maxim live life passively, without motivation or direction, and never able to forget Manderley: Rebecca's effects are still very prominent in their lives. I also did some research on de Maurier herself, and apparently, she felt like a "boy trapped in the wrong body," feeling sexual attraction towards women, interest in "boyish" activities, disinterest in raising children and other "womanly" tasks, and a large loss of self-expression and self-esteem. So I don't think de Maurier is criticizing Rebecca's actions, since many of them do reflect her own experiences, but is encouraging readers to feel ill-at-ease in spite of the first-person narration. I also found it interesting how Favell, a character portrayed as rude and obnoxious by the narrator and meant to be disliked by readers, is in fact the only character in the moral right, pushing for justice. Meanwhile, Maxim is still a murderer with stained hands, portrayed as mellow and docile, perhaps even pitiable. The first-person narration is so significant to this story, drawing readers' sympathy and attention towards the narrator and Maxim, but also twisting the narrative or who the villain actually is. In another perspective where Favell is the protagonist, he would be the hero, trying to avenge his lover's concealed murder at the hands of Maxim. Anyway, this was a long reply, but I had to get thoughts and feelings out of my head, and this was the place I thought to do that. Thank you so much for this video!
Thanks for sharing your views here - so powerful reading your impassioned interpretation of a fascinating novel from Du Maurier! Such a haunting piece of fiction!
The first time I read the book I literally stayed up all night "turning pages". I was at the scene in Rebecca's bedroom after the ball when the dawn started breaking. I got out of bed and looked out the window and it was foggy and I could just make out the outline of the stone terrace 3 stories below. YIKES!
This is a great look at a great book. There are a couple things I would like to add though. On the topic of gender roles, there is a sense of dichotomy in both Rebecca and the narrator. The narrator is depicted as gauche and awkward in public settings, but sensitive and kind in private. Rebecca is considered the opposite: a social butterfly who is secretly cruel. Expanding on Rebecca, Danvers ironically is the one who destroys the perception of her as the ultimate lady, expressly saying "she should have been a boy." Even before this statement, there are hints to Rebecca's unconventional behavior (controlling every aspect of the house, athletic, goes out alone), and as we begin to see her for who she really is, her description becomes more masculine (tall, thin, hair cut short, wearing pants) to the point where Maxim even says she looked like a boy before he killed her. The narrator, despite feeling inadequate in domestic life, is described in feminine terms throughout the novel: she is short, her hair is long, she always wears skirts or dresses, she likes to knit, and she plays a submissive role to her husband. One thing I noticed about the rivalry between Rebecca and the narrator is that the more the narrator tried to emulate Rebecca, the less similar she is to her. It isn't until after the narrator learns the truth and loses all desire to be like Rebecca that she takes control of the house, changing the menu to her liking and being strict with the servants. The relationship between Danvers and Rebecca is an intriguing one. I agree that it does come across as pseudosexual in nature. It's funny that for how much Danvers loved Rebecca, she is the one who gives the most damning evidence that Rebecca was cruel and almost perverse. It is Danvers that reveals Rebecca's activities were solely for her own amusement, telling Jack that Rebecca actually hated men and only had sex with him and others as some sort of prank. For a relationship that was only ever explicitly described as a caregiving role on the part of Danvers, she sure knows a lot of information about Rebecca's intimate life. I disagree with the ending of this video, as I personally think Rebecca was never portrayed as weak. One could also argue that Jack revealing his incestuous relationship with his cousin makes him even more of a villain to Rebecca than Maxim. After all, she provoked Maxim into killing her because she preferred the idea of having a quick and violent death to slowly wasting away of cancer. I don't even think she cared about whether or not Maxim would pay for what he did to her. She wanted to be a weapon everyone used against each other, and she certainly succeeded in that agenda.
@@sprachschulemitriya well.. the question should be more like "why not"? Why wouldn't they find her attractive? Attraction, after all, may initially come purely from the appearance, but in the end it's mostly the attitude, the behavior of a person that people are attracted to. And Rebecca seemed to be a charismatic woman. So... charisma is most likely the answer.
@@sprachschulemitriya She is not always described as boyish it is also said that she could please anyone she met, talking about their interest and looking like the perfect hostess or guest, also from her wardrobe we can see that it was very full so very feminine and she used to have long her which must have appeal to men, its only at the end when Maxim kills her and she is wearing her sailing clothes that she appears boyish
@@sprachschulemitriya Rebecca is described as charming and "easy to like" in general. Even Maxim and Bee's grandmother is obsessed with her. I guess this could be interpreted as her being kind of a psychopath and exceptionally able at manipulating people.
Wonderful analysis, though a few things that always kind of frustrate me is how people often overlook (or even forget) some other important details regarding Rebecca's character. She's more than just an "adulteress," she's a sadist and possibly a sociopath or psychopath. Maxim reveals that Rebecca jeered at all the servants behind their backs (and I think she may have done the same with the guests who stayed over at Manderly), a claim that's backed up by Mrs. Danvers, who said that Rebecca would laugh at all the men she had affairs with. Maxim further reveals that Rebecca sexually harassed (and possibly even seduced) Frank, Maxim's own best friend, all because Maxim annoyed her. Frank's uncomfortable reluctance around Rebecca's memory, as well as his own admission that he attended her "moonlight picnics" at the cottage, seems to confirm this. There was also the incident where Rebecca seduced (or tried to, it was unclear from what I recall) Giles, the husband of Beatrice, Maxim's sister. Rebecca seduced her own brother-in-law, again just because she knew it would hurt the other three people involved. Maxim himself said that it was around this time that he realized that Beatrice did not like Rebecca, and while Beatrice herself never comes out and says this, her actions speak volumes: she tells the 2nd Mrs. de Winter, "You're so different to Rebecca," and treats her new sister-in-law VERY nicely (Maxim said that Beatrice never opens a book, yet she went into a bookshop just to get her dear sister-in-law a gift) and is VERY relieved to hear that she does not sail (Rebecca seduced Giles while they were out sailing). Beatrice herself says of Rebecca that she "had a gift of being attractive to people," aka being charming, a common trait among sociopaths. Frank also makes an interesting comment: he lists the qualities of the 2nd Mrs. de Winter as "kindly, sincere and modest." Traits that he does NOT ascribe to Rebecca. There's also the often forgot about character, the mentally challenged Ben, who saw Rebecca and Jack Favell through the window in the cottage. In order to get him to keep his silence, Rebecca threatened to have him thrown into an insane asylum. I mean... talk about cruelty. She even laughed at him, and scared him so badly that even well after her death, Ben was still afraid of her threat. He even said that Rebecca "gave the feeling of a snake," while also saying the 2nd Mrs. de Winter had "angel's eyes." Finally, there's Mrs. Danvers herself, who even referred to 11-year-old Rebecca as a "little devil" who was well aware of her own beauty (and possibly aware of her own sex appeal) whenever men would take a second look at her. She also gives an account of Rebecca breaking in a horse... by mercilessly whipping it until it was covered in foam and blood. Once Rebecca was done, she went to wash up, acting as cool as can be, even saying, "That will teach him, won't it, Danny?" Cruelty to animals? Check. Granted, Rebecca was never cruel to the dogs, but then again, she HAD to be nice to them, because they were apart of her facade as the saintly mistress of Manderly. She couldn't have the dogs acting like they were afraid of her, that would give her away. Oh, and of course, there's the whole issue that Rebecca willingly slept with her FIRST COUSIN. I mean, ew. So really, in conclusion, Maxim did not hate Rebecca for committing adultery or for being a potential bisexual. He hated her for being "vicious, damnable, rotten through and through" and for being "incapable of love, of tenderness, of decency."
Really interesting to define Rebecca as a sadist and either a socio or psychopath. I've always felt that Maxim hated her for the reason he listed and you quoted. I never put her behavior on a spectrum. While you mention, correctly, that she jeered at the servants, Frank, Jiles, etc.--I think it is also important to note that she covers her bad behavior with deceit. Maxim says Rebecca told him all about herself on their honeymoon and said she would go back and make Manderley the most famous place in England and she called it "a G-D leg pull." She was doing bad, she knew it, and she intentionally covered it up. Does that settle the issue of socio or psycho?
@@csm92459 Thank you, and after looking up the difference, Rebecca seems to be a psychopath, as they're capable of success and can be well-liked, whereas sociopaths are more erratic, impulsive and struggle to maintain a job or family life.
There is one hole in the plot of _Rebecca_ which rather undermines it. De Winter says he refused to remedy the situation he was in due to an almost pathological fear of scandal and publicity. The English gentry and aristocracy have never been troubled by public opinion. As Lady Wilde once said "Respectability is for tradespeople." When du Maurier wrote _Rebecca_ the Prince of Wales was carrying on with a string of married women. The fear of scandal she describes is very much a middle class thing. Du Maurier betrays her bourgeois background.
I don’t think that most of these interpretations ring true for me. I doubt very much that Rebecca was queer or rather, that her queerness was the “unspeakable” thing. Nor do I feel that Rebecca was “punished” for being promiscuous. Rather, I have always felt that the figure of Rebecca and the reason DuMaurier said it was a study of jealousy is about unrealistic expectations and how corrosive and ultimately poisonous to self-esteem and confidence measuring oneself against a paragon held up for us in literature and movies and in social norms can be. Rebecca is who the narrator wishes she was, and because SHE wants to be that way, she assumes that Maxim must have loved her better as well. And because she is so young and inexperienced and consumed with jealousy over this “paragon,” she misses the slight hesitation, the clues that more experienced and confident persons might pick up on and explore. She is so absorbed by her misery generated by this false image, that she is too frightened to ask questions, to challenge anything or to notice that there is a weird reserve in talking about Rebecca. I don’t think that Rebecca is the least bit mannish or sexually ambiguous in the sense of being butch. She is a character more like Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo; wearing male clothing merely emphasizes her femininity. That is not to say that she might not be bi or lesbian, only that she is not (as I read the character) masculine looking. The acting like a boy or Danvers saying she should have been a boy was (I thought) more an expression of the independence of thought, the physical courage, the sexual autonomy and agency, and the sense of personal power, rather than sexuality as such. I think what Mrs. Danvers was saying was that Rebecca would not have had to be bothered by having to marry or having to dominate a man through a sort of blackmail or subterfuge if she had been a man, that social success required that she marry and social roles for women were confining and limiting in a way that if she’d been a boy and then a man she needn’t have worried about. I don’t think Max is such a dangerous character or so awful in an over-the-top way. He is a man consumed with guilt, self-loathing, shame and a pretty garden-variety misogyny that leads him to fail to consider his wife’s feelings all that much. And since he has the arrogance and assurance of knowing his place and significance and Manderley is his home, he is blind to all the little rituals and behaviors that may be difficult for his new bride. Because he feels guilty he imagines that everyone can read his guilt on him and that everyone is sort of conspiring to remind him of it. Hence, him blowing up at her when she inadvertently copies Rebecca’s costume. He is self-absorbed and insensitive. He falls in love with the narrator (or in love with how she makes him feel) because she is so different, so adoring, so innocent of any past connection with manderley or his society. Yet inevitably, because SHE is trying to live “up” to Rebecca and not putting her own stamp on anything, because she is so young and hesitant, she can’t blow all the cobwebs away, re-set his life as it were, and he is both angry with her for it, and himself and with the dead woman. His jealousy, over her infidelity, over her revealing herself to him and revealing HIMSELF to him means he also has a hard time being in the here and now. His confession to the narrator is like re-setting their relationship and we sense that the power dynamic has changed. He now is opening himself to her and the enormity of his crime and their mutual need to avoid him ever being charged with it means that he has become sort an emotional invalid in her care. And that is a relationship that feels more familiar and safe to her. Not to mention that a life abroad lived in hotels, relieves her of the stifling burden of not just domesticity, but rather of a certain type of domesticity of the mistress of a stately home in high society. They leave all that. The burden of domesticity as a theme is something I do agree with though. Finally, don’t think we are meant to feel that Rebecca was justly killed because she was unfaithful, but rather because she was a psychopathic manipulator who liked to hurt people and exercise power over them, even her faithful “Danny” who, while being her confidant in some ways, was clearly not as much in her confidence as Mrs. Danvers thought since she never told her about her cancer. Mrs Danvers is a unreliable narrator about what Rebecca believed or thought. She clearly relished the role of being the confidante and helper to this beautiful, rich, socially prominent woman who did what she want and refused to be confined in a “woman’s” role. I think Danvers lived vicariously through her and yes, there was a repressed eroticism about it. But Danny was a “fan” a fanatic. Rebecca was apparently adept, like many sociopathic manipulators at making everyone she spoke to feel “special” and assuming whatever that person wanted or needed her to be, dropping the facade only when she didn’t need it. THAT is what upsets Maxim so much. By telling him about herself (knowing that he was too concerned about appearances to betray her) she was telling him, “I don’t need you” and even maybe “I know you are weak and won’t back out so I have you where I want you.” And I don’t agree entirely with the other commenter who said the English aristocracy didn’t care what people thought. It is true that they cavorted with lovers pretty openly. Still, Edward VIII couldn’t be married to a divorcee. Even in more recent times, the Royal family resisted Charles and Diana’s divorce with more vigor than is explained by the role of the monarch as head of the Anglican church. I think aristocrats had no problem with ACTING in whatever way they saw fit, but they were keen on maintaining the outward formalities. Divorce was a big deal then. Maxim was forced to live with someone who he had married during a period in which he believed he was madly in love. That was a role she forced him to play all while revealing that she despised him and wasn’t worried about revealing to him his own shallowness. So yeah, he’s insensitive and misogynist and arrogant and hot-tempered, but Rebecca is revealed as almost diabolically enthusiastic about causing others pain, binding others to her for her own purposes, hurting people for sport, revealing them to themselves for what they are, adulterers, a man who would sleep with his employer’s and friend’s wife, a shallow puffed up functionary, a delusional old-lady, etc. and no one loved her for it. THAT is why the reader is meant to sympathize with her killer.
I recently read this book for the second time. I agree that one comes away with the feeling that Maxim is not only dangerous, but also callously unfeeling - he marries the unnamed protagonist from only selfish motives (whether to escape loneliness or to start again with an innocent partner) with no thought of the consequences for her. He spends the whole book being utterly insensitive to her. The protagonist seemed to me quite an unbalanced character herself. At almost any point in the story after her marriage the whole claustrophobic situation could be defused simply by her acting less on the secretive impulse of her imagination and more honestly or at least openly. The other thought I had was that at the chronological end of the story (the first chapter, where the protagonist is living a peripatetic life in southern Europe with a man who I assumed was Maxim) that she is in an abstract sense back in exactly the same position as she was at the chronological start of the story; then she was at the beck and call of the self-obsessed American employer; at the end of the story she is a selfless servant of the unnamed man, reading the county cricket out loud, supressing her own needs and desires once again.
I must say I have a really different view of the ending. Throughout the book, the only thing the narrator expresses as desiring is maxim. At the end of the novel she has him completely, he is dependent on her. The narrators language is confident and seems to signal a sense of power which was not present during her time with van hopper. She's also out of the environment that made her so uncomfortable and in a more humble setting where she seems to feel more at ease. The person who seems to have come full circle and remains in the same mental state as jn the novels beginning in my eyes is the tormented, fretting, chain-smoking Maxim.
Thank you very much for this analysis. I recently finished reading Rebecca and I was finding a bit difficult to evaluate the story, as I am a fan of the German musical and my opinion reflects that. The story portrayed in the musical is slightly different, Maxim didn't shoot Rebecca but simply "pushed her away" (leaving uncertainty about the event, was it a murder or manslaughter?), and the story actually continues after the end of the book with the couple reaching a burning Manderley, where an unhinged Mrs Danvers is setting the whole place on fire. Also Jan Amman's Maxim and Pia Douwes' Mrs Danvers are a lot more "human" than in the book, with Maxim being a tortured man who still is capable of love and kindness, and Mrs Danvers being so hurt by Rebecca's betrayal that you can't help feeling sympathy for her. Both in the book and in the musical, I really understood the protagonist struggle (probably because I am an introvert and suffer from anxiety :P) and appreciated the moment when she goes "enough with Rebecca, I'm not going to keep on being a barely tolerated guest in my own home". As for Rebecca and Favell being the victims, I obviously don't approve killing one's spouse! but Rebecca appears to be not merely unfaithful and sexually promiscuous, she's being manipulative and psychologically abusive towards her husband; Favell, on the other hand, is not actually fighting for justice, he simply sees his past relationship with Maxim's wife as a weapon to get his money through blackmailing.
I read the book a long time ago and finished watching the new movie a few minutes ago. It makes me feel incredibly sorry for women who lived at that time. The only way they could climb up is by tearing other women down. Like Mrs. Danvers telling Mrs. De Winter to kill herself. Or Mrs. De Wintor accepting to defend Maxim. I doubt she simply did it out of love, if she ran away after finding out he was a killer she would have no way to survive, so her choosing Maxim's side was for her self-preservation too. It's such a stifling awful time to live in. And in retrospect, all the men in that book feel like villains that the women are caught between.
The book's ending was changed in the movie. Maxim didn't kill her, she fell and hit her head. Made it more accepting to an audience. Wonder what Du Maurier thought about that but she might have died before the movie was made. The movie, "Suspicion" is the same way, I understand. The male lead was really a killer but in the end he saves his wife and all ended happily ever after. You need to do that book next. Making books into movies can be tricky.
The 1940 Hitchcock adaptation (which I think is the film you're referring to) had to change Rebecca's death because of the Hays code. For it to be allowed, Rebecca's death would have to have been an accident or they would need to change the ending because they could not show someone getting away with murder. It's a shame but from what I remember the rest of the film was pretty close to the book. I saw a BBC interview where Du Maurier said she liked the film.
@@beckyw3081 I also think in those days people would be turned off if the ending was different and a killer was supported. Even now that ending doesn't sit well. One person posted when he told her he hated Rebecca and killed her, all she said is, "Oh you do really love me after all, how wonderful" LOL
@@janelle144 I quite like that it turned out that way because even though you've read the book, you still don't know who to trust or even know the characters very well. I love an unreliable narrator. :) Yes, her reaction in the book annoyed me, but by that point she had been long tormented by the idea of not being good enough for Maxim or Manderley, by how perfect she thought Rebecca was, her own originally low self-esteem, and being thrown into a role she has absolutely no experience for with very few people (if any) to help her, that I think the only thing that gave her self-worth at that point was knowing Maxim loved her and not Rebecca. Her own happiness throughout the book is so reliant on Maxim's reaction to her, that I think she had to feel this lost and low for her to blindly accept Maxim's story. Maybe Maxim was telling the full truth and he was a victim of abuse and was provoked into killing her, Mrs. Danvers doesn't paint Rebecca in the best light.
@@beckyw3081 Too bad Diana didn't read this book before she married Charles. Seems to be the way she was treated by the Royal family. Never good enough and a husband with someone in the background to over shadow it all. Sad,
I just finished reading the book not too long back and the ending felt rather abrupt to me :( While reading, I got carried alway with the twists, rooting for Maxim to escape the accusations only for the sake of the narrator. I felt terribly sorry for her. But the sympathy quickly led me to realise what a horrible man Maxim was. I was angry with not just the murder, but also the fact that he might have been manipulative with her - confessing his love only after admitting to the murder. From details the narrator expressed earlier, there was no inkling of intimacy nor was there a spark of love after she moved. Furthermore, Maxim was very much older than her and knew very well how he could toy with a young, naive girl’s emotions who was inarguably so besotted with him. This then brings me to question if Rebecca was truly as horrible as he described her to be. She was the sort of person who travels and sails independently, and was greatly admired by Mrs Danvers who equates Rebecca to being intelligent, confident, beautiful and a woman who can’t be stopped. Such unconventional qualities might have irked Maxim, especially after I learned about the social construct of the period this book was written. Also, I don’t accept adultery; just laying out possibilities here. Rebecca might have cheated on Maxim because there were already problems in the marriage (just like the second one) and she was exploring her sexual needs . Maybe this might have been the darker side of Rebecca, but IMO it’s Maxim that I’m more skeptical of.
Thank you for this video! I am currently studying it at A Level in College and it is so interesting! Definitely one of its time, anyway. I agree about her coming from an area of traditional values as she was a very upper middle class woman herself- and the way Rebecca is presented is a reflection of this. What I found rather astonishing when I first read it was when the climax happened and the narrator finds out her husband murdered his ex wife, instead of being horrified or running, like I would have done, she hugs him instead as he “hated her” and was glad he didn’t love Rebecca more. What a terrible message, surely? A promiscuous woman with near to no conservative values is murdered but it’s morally correct because she was a cheater? I’m not so sure..
I have looked at the video twice to be sure I heard it correctly ,but upon reading the book again I don't understand you doubt who she is with in chapter 2.
If I remember correctly, the protagonist was not interested in any comparisons herself, nor was Maxim. In the book Rebecca, & no inclination to maintain acquaintance with her living associates (Favell)-- it pains him & the protagonist was not aware of Rebecca due to her husband's silence on the subject but for Mrs. Danver's calculated cruelty to continue poisoning by creating false comparisons & Danvers' own subsequently projected jealousies that she imagines she has provoked in the protagonists with her diabolical machinations. One thing to note is that in psychological thrillers or Gothic novels, one needs to always think on one's own feet, fence with one's own logic & dance from an independent objective perspective to avoid being sucked in the whirlpool of the psychopathy of the sociopath. This is not a subjective defense of the protagonist but the truth of what du Maurier has no doubt intended to create the psychological drama & maintain its threatening artistic tensions in the reader's own minds as they journey with the protagonist through her development & du Maurier's book. The difficult thing to convey-- in addition to the plot analysis -- to the readers & for them to conceive--is the overwhelming, almost oppressive & invasive cruelty of the jealous Mrs Danvers who enjoys torturing the protagonist--note she is nameless while the living mistress of the house-- contrast that with Rebecca whose name is incessantly invoked by Mrs Danvers to prick the protagonist & who also tried to implant fears & jealousies in the protagonists with psychological assaults of false, distorted comparisons to "Rebecca. This psychological torture is echoed in the hallways of Manderley by the endlessly haunting & pervasive psychological menace from the presence of the "Rebecca" who is herself a manipulative tormentor as reflected in the initially unspoken devastation of Maxim after their return from the honeymoon. That Rebecca desired to exert lasting control on Maxim after her inescapable passing -- a man of conscience, principles & tenderness, by provoking him to murder tauntswho is most definitely not in the " moral right") protagonist In this way, it is perhaps more fitting to make the argument that the protagonist is in no way jealous of Rebecca -- but rather the competitive & controlling personality of Rebecca-- as reflected through Favell & Mrs Danvers--is envious of any chance Maxim or the protagonist might have at their own happiness in a life without Rebecca--which we saw in the sunlit blissfulness prior to their return to Manderley--& thus they both set out to poison, deform & damage Maxim & the architectural manifestation of his stature, bearing & persona in Manderley (note both start with M) Maxim & with the curse broken, Danvers loses the spell and maleficent aura of her former mistresses, which reveals her to be actually an insecure, possessive and mentally unstable minion whose fears & jealous anger of letting Manderley (-- a structural & metaphorical extension of Maxim) continue with the new couple culminated in her setting the immense mansion ablaze and her own tragic end *Favell is most definitely not in the " moral right" as he has committed what was--to the Victorian sensitivities & their considerations of the victims -- serial offensives tantamount to murder-- & would have been justified with a duel in those times if he & Rebecca were truly in love. Instead Favell is an unemployed lounge-lizard who chooses to leach off of Maxim first through Rebecca and later through black mailing him-- which is considered the acts of cowards. **Also note du Maurier was careful to employ terminal uterine cancers-- then commonly associated with STDs in otherwise healthy young women--as the plot mechanism for the demise of Rebecca-- further affirming that her death--both the cancer and the suicide were of her own doing & not the responsibilities.
and decidedly absolve Maxim of all responsibilities through the voice of the Judge and R's own doctor. Again, when readers read gothic or psych thrillers such as R, they need to remember that just as they should discount the words of psychosociopaths they meet in real life-- they need to maintain the perspective of the reality. If they heartily acquiesce-- or mentally capitulate-- to a literal endorsement of all the views of the psychosociopaths & their justification of their abuses against innocent parties and their cruel enjoyment of the pains they have inflicted on victims who have never wronged them. Also of note, in du Maurier's time psychoanalyses were all the rage and it should not be missed that Rebecca & her two --what is for lack of better words-- astral projection minions-- were carefully revealed narcissistic psychosociopaths whose gaslightsuperficialobjectivenoneburning up Manderley.
She doesn't have one, to further the theme of losing her identity and being unable to compete with Rebecca. Rebecca's personality is so dominant that the protagonist doesn't even have the force to exert her own name. And her obsession with Rebecca revolves so much around constructing an idea of her through the space she left behind. It works really well so by the end of the novel the name Rebecca becomes powerful in of itself and comes to represent so much, which is helped by the lack of a name for the protagonist.
Was Rebecca “only adulteress”? I always thought it was her cruelty that made her unsympathetic. Playing with other people’s emotions, using her attractiveness and sexuality to cause distress and pain to others.
Thank you so much for this! I just finished Rebecca earlier today, and I still feel a sense of tightness, uneasiness, and post-book emptiness inside of my chest. The novel ends in such a gripping, almost unsatisfying, way. Even though the narrator and Maxim essentially "get away with murder," they are still haunted, and oppressed, by Rebecca's legacy and memory, since Maxim's face "turns grey" at a mention of anything somewhat related to Manderley. As a result, I don't think de Maurier was taking a conservative stance on female behavioral expectations or society in general. While Rebecca was portrayed as a villainous and promiscuous woman by Maxim himself, an unreliable source to start, and not all readers certainly would feel favorably towards Rebecca's actions (since adultery is frowned upon by many cultures even today), the aftermath suggests that Rebecca still won in the end. Manderley was burnt down, perhaps as a final act of revenge from the spirit of Rebecca since her murder was not avenged, and the narrator and Maxim live life passively, without motivation or direction, and never able to forget Manderley: Rebecca's effects are still very prominent in their lives. I also did some research on de Maurier herself, and apparently, she felt like a "boy trapped in the wrong body," feeling sexual attraction towards women, interest in "boyish" activities, disinterest in raising children and other "womanly" tasks, and a large loss of self-expression and self-esteem. So I don't think de Maurier is criticizing Rebecca's actions, since many of them do reflect her own experiences, but is encouraging readers to feel ill-at-ease in spite of the first-person narration.
I also found it interesting how Favell, a character portrayed as rude and obnoxious by the narrator and meant to be disliked by readers, is in fact the only character in the moral right, pushing for justice. Meanwhile, Maxim is still a murderer with stained hands, portrayed as mellow and docile, perhaps even pitiable. The first-person narration is so significant to this story, drawing readers' sympathy and attention towards the narrator and Maxim, but also twisting the narrative or who the villain actually is. In another perspective where Favell is the protagonist, he would be the hero, trying to avenge his lover's concealed murder at the hands of Maxim.
Anyway, this was a long reply, but I had to get thoughts and feelings out of my head, and this was the place I thought to do that. Thank you so much for this video!
Thanks for sharing your views here - so powerful reading your impassioned interpretation of a fascinating novel from Du Maurier! Such a haunting piece of fiction!
Nice thoughts 💝
The first time I read the book I literally stayed up all night "turning pages". I was at the scene in Rebecca's bedroom after the ball when the dawn started breaking. I got out of bed and looked out the window and it was foggy and I could just make out the outline of the stone terrace 3 stories below. YIKES!
WOAHHH bro great analysis!
But bear in mind Favel's motivation in "justice for Rebecca" was a self-indulgent stab at blackmail. He had a financial interest only.
This is a great look at a great book. There are a couple things I would like to add though.
On the topic of gender roles, there is a sense of dichotomy in both Rebecca and the narrator. The narrator is depicted as gauche and awkward in public settings, but sensitive and kind in private. Rebecca is considered the opposite: a social butterfly who is secretly cruel. Expanding on Rebecca, Danvers ironically is the one who destroys the perception of her as the ultimate lady, expressly saying "she should have been a boy." Even before this statement, there are hints to Rebecca's unconventional behavior (controlling every aspect of the house, athletic, goes out alone), and as we begin to see her for who she really is, her description becomes more masculine (tall, thin, hair cut short, wearing pants) to the point where Maxim even says she looked like a boy before he killed her. The narrator, despite feeling inadequate in domestic life, is described in feminine terms throughout the novel: she is short, her hair is long, she always wears skirts or dresses, she likes to knit, and she plays a submissive role to her husband.
One thing I noticed about the rivalry between Rebecca and the narrator is that the more the narrator tried to emulate Rebecca, the less similar she is to her. It isn't until after the narrator learns the truth and loses all desire to be like Rebecca that she takes control of the house, changing the menu to her liking and being strict with the servants.
The relationship between Danvers and Rebecca is an intriguing one. I agree that it does come across as pseudosexual in nature. It's funny that for how much Danvers loved Rebecca, she is the one who gives the most damning evidence that Rebecca was cruel and almost perverse. It is Danvers that reveals Rebecca's activities were solely for her own amusement, telling Jack that Rebecca actually hated men and only had sex with him and others as some sort of prank. For a relationship that was only ever explicitly described as a caregiving role on the part of Danvers, she sure knows a lot of information about Rebecca's intimate life.
I disagree with the ending of this video, as I personally think Rebecca was never portrayed as weak. One could also argue that Jack revealing his incestuous relationship with his cousin makes him even more of a villain to Rebecca than Maxim. After all, she provoked Maxim into killing her because she preferred the idea of having a quick and violent death to slowly wasting away of cancer. I don't even think she cared about whether or not Maxim would pay for what he did to her. She wanted to be a weapon everyone used against each other, and she certainly succeeded in that agenda.
What did men found so charming in Rebecca ? I have been looking for this answer for so long despite hee being portrayed as boyish ??
@@sprachschulemitriya well.. the question should be more like "why not"? Why wouldn't they find her attractive? Attraction, after all, may initially come purely from the appearance, but in the end it's mostly the attitude, the behavior of a person that people are attracted to. And Rebecca seemed to be
a charismatic woman. So... charisma is most likely the answer.
@@sprachschulemitriya She is not always described as boyish it is also said that she could please anyone she met, talking about their interest and looking like the perfect hostess or guest, also from her wardrobe we can see that it was very full so very feminine and she used to have long her which must have appeal to men, its only at the end when Maxim kills her and she is wearing her sailing clothes that she appears boyish
@@sprachschulemitriya Rebecca is described as charming and "easy to like" in general. Even Maxim and Bee's grandmother is obsessed with her. I guess this could be interpreted as her being kind of a psychopath and exceptionally able at manipulating people.
Wonderful analysis, though a few things that always kind of frustrate me is how people often overlook (or even forget) some other important details regarding Rebecca's character. She's more than just an "adulteress," she's a sadist and possibly a sociopath or psychopath.
Maxim reveals that Rebecca jeered at all the servants behind their backs (and I think she may have done the same with the guests who stayed over at Manderly), a claim that's backed up by Mrs. Danvers, who said that Rebecca would laugh at all the men she had affairs with.
Maxim further reveals that Rebecca sexually harassed (and possibly even seduced) Frank, Maxim's own best friend, all because Maxim annoyed her. Frank's uncomfortable reluctance around Rebecca's memory, as well as his own admission that he attended her "moonlight picnics" at the cottage, seems to confirm this.
There was also the incident where Rebecca seduced (or tried to, it was unclear from what I recall) Giles, the husband of Beatrice, Maxim's sister. Rebecca seduced her own brother-in-law, again just because she knew it would hurt the other three people involved. Maxim himself said that it was around this time that he realized that Beatrice did not like Rebecca, and while Beatrice herself never comes out and says this, her actions speak volumes: she tells the 2nd Mrs. de Winter, "You're so different to Rebecca," and treats her new sister-in-law VERY nicely (Maxim said that Beatrice never opens a book, yet she went into a bookshop just to get her dear sister-in-law a gift) and is VERY relieved to hear that she does not sail (Rebecca seduced Giles while they were out sailing).
Beatrice herself says of Rebecca that she "had a gift of being attractive to people," aka being charming, a common trait among sociopaths.
Frank also makes an interesting comment: he lists the qualities of the 2nd Mrs. de Winter as "kindly, sincere and modest." Traits that he does NOT ascribe to Rebecca.
There's also the often forgot about character, the mentally challenged Ben, who saw Rebecca and Jack Favell through the window in the cottage. In order to get him to keep his silence, Rebecca threatened to have him thrown into an insane asylum. I mean... talk about cruelty. She even laughed at him, and scared him so badly that even well after her death, Ben was still afraid of her threat. He even said that Rebecca "gave the feeling of a snake," while also saying the 2nd Mrs. de Winter had "angel's eyes."
Finally, there's Mrs. Danvers herself, who even referred to 11-year-old Rebecca as a "little devil" who was well aware of her own beauty (and possibly aware of her own sex appeal) whenever men would take a second look at her. She also gives an account of Rebecca breaking in a horse... by mercilessly whipping it until it was covered in foam and blood. Once Rebecca was done, she went to wash up, acting as cool as can be, even saying, "That will teach him, won't it, Danny?"
Cruelty to animals? Check. Granted, Rebecca was never cruel to the dogs, but then again, she HAD to be nice to them, because they were apart of her facade as the saintly mistress of Manderly. She couldn't have the dogs acting like they were afraid of her, that would give her away.
Oh, and of course, there's the whole issue that Rebecca willingly slept with her FIRST COUSIN. I mean, ew.
So really, in conclusion, Maxim did not hate Rebecca for committing adultery or for being a potential bisexual. He hated her for being "vicious, damnable, rotten through and through" and for being "incapable of love, of tenderness, of decency."
I have my exam in 3 days, and this really helped
thankyou x
Really interesting to define Rebecca as a sadist and either a socio or psychopath. I've always felt that Maxim hated her for the reason he listed and you quoted. I never put her behavior on a spectrum.
While you mention, correctly, that she jeered at the servants, Frank, Jiles, etc.--I think it is also important to note that she covers her bad behavior with deceit. Maxim says Rebecca told him all about herself on their honeymoon and said she would go back and make Manderley the most famous place in England and she called it "a G-D leg pull." She was doing bad, she knew it, and she intentionally covered it up.
Does that settle the issue of socio or psycho?
@@jannatq1206 Belated you're welcome! I hope you did well on your exam.
@@csm92459 Thank you, and after looking up the difference, Rebecca seems to be a psychopath, as they're capable of success and can be well-liked, whereas sociopaths are more erratic, impulsive and struggle to maintain a job or family life.
@@Kelaiah01 Thank you.
BTW--I failed to mention how interesting and thought provoking I found your original post.
There is one hole in the plot of _Rebecca_ which rather undermines it.
De Winter says he refused to remedy the situation he was in due to an almost pathological fear of scandal and publicity.
The English gentry and aristocracy have never been troubled by public opinion. As Lady Wilde once said "Respectability is for tradespeople."
When du Maurier wrote _Rebecca_ the Prince of Wales was carrying on with a string of married women. The fear of scandal she describes is very much a middle class thing. Du Maurier betrays her bourgeois background.
Thanks so much for sharing these reflections...they add so much richness of interpretation!
I don’t think that most of these interpretations ring true for me. I doubt very much that Rebecca was queer or rather, that her queerness was the “unspeakable” thing. Nor do I feel that Rebecca was “punished” for being promiscuous. Rather, I have always felt that the figure of Rebecca and the reason DuMaurier said it was a study of jealousy is about unrealistic expectations and how corrosive and ultimately poisonous to self-esteem and confidence measuring oneself against a paragon held up for us in literature and movies and in social norms can be. Rebecca is who the narrator wishes she was, and because SHE wants to be that way, she assumes that Maxim must have loved her better as well. And because she is so young and inexperienced and consumed with jealousy over this “paragon,” she misses the slight hesitation, the clues that more experienced and confident persons might pick up on and explore. She is so absorbed by her misery generated by this false image, that she is too frightened to ask questions, to challenge anything or to notice that there is a weird reserve in talking about Rebecca.
I don’t think that Rebecca is the least bit mannish or sexually ambiguous in the sense of being butch. She is a character more like Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo; wearing male clothing merely emphasizes her femininity. That is not to say that she might not be bi or lesbian, only that she is not (as I read the character) masculine looking. The acting like a boy or Danvers saying she should have been a boy was (I thought) more an expression of the independence of thought, the physical courage, the sexual autonomy and agency, and the sense of personal power, rather than sexuality as such. I think what Mrs. Danvers was saying was that Rebecca would not have had to be bothered by having to marry or having to dominate a man through a sort of blackmail or subterfuge if she had been a man, that social success required that she marry and social roles for women were confining and limiting in a way that if she’d been a boy and then a man she needn’t have worried about.
I don’t think Max is such a dangerous character or so awful in an over-the-top way. He is a man consumed with guilt, self-loathing, shame and a pretty garden-variety misogyny that leads him to fail to consider his wife’s feelings all that much. And since he has the arrogance and assurance of knowing his place and significance and Manderley is his home, he is blind to all the little rituals and behaviors that may be difficult for his new bride. Because he feels guilty he imagines that everyone can read his guilt on him and that everyone is sort of conspiring to remind him of it. Hence, him blowing up at her when she inadvertently copies Rebecca’s costume. He is self-absorbed and insensitive. He falls in love with the narrator (or in love with how she makes him feel) because she is so different, so adoring, so innocent of any past connection with manderley or his society. Yet inevitably, because SHE is trying to live “up” to Rebecca and not putting her own stamp on anything, because she is so young and hesitant, she can’t blow all the cobwebs away, re-set his life as it were, and he is both angry with her for it, and himself and with the dead woman. His jealousy, over her infidelity, over her revealing herself to him and revealing HIMSELF to him means he also has a hard time being in the here and now. His confession to the narrator is like re-setting their relationship and we sense that the power dynamic has changed. He now is opening himself to her and the enormity of his crime and their mutual need to avoid him ever being charged with it means that he has become sort an emotional invalid in her care. And that is a relationship that feels more familiar and safe to her. Not to mention that a life abroad lived in hotels, relieves her of the stifling burden of not just domesticity, but rather of a certain type of domesticity of the mistress of a stately home in high society. They leave all that.
The burden of domesticity as a theme is something I do agree with though.
Finally, don’t think we are meant to feel that Rebecca was justly killed because she was unfaithful, but rather because she was a psychopathic manipulator who liked to hurt people and exercise power over them, even her faithful “Danny” who, while being her confidant in some ways, was clearly not as much in her confidence as Mrs. Danvers thought since she never told her about her cancer. Mrs Danvers is a unreliable narrator about what Rebecca believed or thought. She clearly relished the role of being the confidante and helper to this beautiful, rich, socially prominent woman who did what she want and refused to be confined in a “woman’s” role. I think Danvers lived vicariously through her and yes, there was a repressed eroticism about it. But Danny was a “fan” a fanatic. Rebecca was apparently adept, like many sociopathic manipulators at making everyone she spoke to feel “special” and assuming whatever that person wanted or needed her to be, dropping the facade only when she didn’t need it. THAT is what upsets Maxim so much. By telling him about herself (knowing that he was too concerned about appearances to betray her) she was telling him, “I don’t need you” and even maybe “I know you are weak and won’t back out so I have you where I want you.” And I don’t agree entirely with the other commenter who said the English aristocracy didn’t care what people thought. It is true that they cavorted with lovers pretty openly. Still, Edward VIII couldn’t be married to a divorcee. Even in more recent times, the Royal family resisted Charles and Diana’s divorce with more vigor than is explained by the role of the monarch as head of the Anglican church. I think aristocrats had no problem with ACTING in whatever way they saw fit, but they were keen on maintaining the outward formalities. Divorce was a big deal then. Maxim was forced to live with someone who he had married during a period in which he believed he was madly in love. That was a role she forced him to play all while revealing that she despised him and wasn’t worried about revealing to him his own shallowness. So yeah, he’s insensitive and misogynist and arrogant and hot-tempered, but Rebecca is revealed as almost diabolically enthusiastic about causing others pain, binding others to her for her own purposes, hurting people for sport, revealing them to themselves for what they are, adulterers, a man who would sleep with his employer’s and friend’s wife, a shallow puffed up functionary, a delusional old-lady, etc. and no one loved her for it. THAT is why the reader is meant to sympathize with her killer.
I recently read this book for the second time. I agree that one comes away with the feeling that Maxim is not only dangerous, but also callously unfeeling - he marries the unnamed protagonist from only selfish motives (whether to escape loneliness or to start again with an innocent partner) with no thought of the consequences for her. He spends the whole book being utterly insensitive to her. The protagonist seemed to me quite an unbalanced character herself. At almost any point in the story after her marriage the whole claustrophobic situation could be defused simply by her acting less on the secretive impulse of her imagination and more honestly or at least openly. The other thought I had was that at the chronological end of the story (the first chapter, where the protagonist is living a peripatetic life in southern Europe with a man who I assumed was Maxim) that she is in an abstract sense back in exactly the same position as she was at the chronological start of the story; then she was at the beck and call of the self-obsessed American employer; at the end of the story she is a selfless servant of the unnamed man, reading the county cricket out loud, supressing her own needs and desires once again.
Wonderful critique!
@@MissHannaLovesGrammar I enjoyed the analysis of the book very much. Thank you.
I must say I have a really different view of the ending. Throughout the book, the only thing the narrator expresses as desiring is maxim. At the end of the novel she has him completely, he is dependent on her. The narrators language is confident and seems to signal a sense of power which was not present during her time with van hopper. She's also out of the environment that made her so uncomfortable and in a more humble setting where she seems to feel more at ease. The person who seems to have come full circle and remains in the same mental state as jn the novels beginning in my eyes is the tormented, fretting, chain-smoking Maxim.
Thank you very much for this analysis. I recently finished reading Rebecca and I was finding a bit difficult to evaluate the story, as I am a fan of the German musical and my opinion reflects that. The story portrayed in the musical is slightly different, Maxim didn't shoot Rebecca but simply "pushed her away" (leaving uncertainty about the event, was it a murder or manslaughter?), and the story actually continues after the end of the book with the couple reaching a burning Manderley, where an unhinged Mrs Danvers is setting the whole place on fire. Also Jan Amman's Maxim and Pia Douwes' Mrs Danvers are a lot more "human" than in the book, with Maxim being a tortured man who still is capable of love and kindness, and Mrs Danvers being so hurt by Rebecca's betrayal that you can't help feeling sympathy for her.
Both in the book and in the musical, I really understood the protagonist struggle (probably because I am an introvert and suffer from anxiety :P) and appreciated the moment when she goes "enough with Rebecca, I'm not going to keep on being a barely tolerated guest in my own home".
As for Rebecca and Favell being the victims, I obviously don't approve killing one's spouse! but Rebecca appears to be not merely unfaithful and sexually promiscuous, she's being manipulative and psychologically abusive towards her husband; Favell, on the other hand, is not actually fighting for justice, he simply sees his past relationship with Maxim's wife as a weapon to get his money through blackmailing.
I read the book a long time ago and finished watching the new movie a few minutes ago. It makes me feel incredibly sorry for women who lived at that time. The only way they could climb up is by tearing other women down. Like Mrs. Danvers telling Mrs. De Winter to kill herself. Or Mrs. De Wintor accepting to defend Maxim. I doubt she simply did it out of love, if she ran away after finding out he was a killer she would have no way to survive, so her choosing Maxim's side was for her self-preservation too. It's such a stifling awful time to live in. And in retrospect, all the men in that book feel like villains that the women are caught between.
The book's ending was changed in the movie. Maxim didn't kill her, she fell and hit her head. Made it more accepting to an audience. Wonder what Du Maurier thought about that but she might have died before the movie was made. The movie, "Suspicion" is the same way, I understand. The male lead was really a killer but in the end he saves his wife and all ended happily ever after. You need to do that book next. Making books into movies can be tricky.
The 1940 Hitchcock adaptation (which I think is the film you're referring to) had to change Rebecca's death because of the Hays code. For it to be allowed, Rebecca's death would have to have been an accident or they would need to change the ending because they could not show someone getting away with murder. It's a shame but from what I remember the rest of the film was pretty close to the book. I saw a BBC interview where Du Maurier said she liked the film.
@@beckyw3081 I also think in those days people would be turned off if the ending was different and a killer was supported. Even now that ending doesn't sit well. One person posted when he told her he hated Rebecca and killed her, all she said is, "Oh you do really love me after all, how wonderful" LOL
@@janelle144 I quite like that it turned out that way because even though you've read the book, you still don't know who to trust or even know the characters very well. I love an unreliable narrator. :)
Yes, her reaction in the book annoyed me, but by that point she had been long tormented by the idea of not being good enough for Maxim or Manderley, by how perfect she thought Rebecca was, her own originally low self-esteem, and being thrown into a role she has absolutely no experience for with very few people (if any) to help her, that I think the only thing that gave her self-worth at that point was knowing Maxim loved her and not Rebecca. Her own happiness throughout the book is so reliant on Maxim's reaction to her, that I think she had to feel this lost and low for her to blindly accept Maxim's story. Maybe Maxim was telling the full truth and he was a victim of abuse and was provoked into killing her, Mrs. Danvers doesn't paint Rebecca in the best light.
@@beckyw3081 Too bad Diana didn't read this book before she married Charles. Seems to be the way she was treated by the Royal family. Never good enough and a husband with someone in the background to over shadow it all. Sad,
Exceptionally well done. I have a test today so using this as a quick summary is undoubtedly useful
I just finished reading the book not too long back and the ending felt rather abrupt to me :(
While reading, I got carried alway with the twists, rooting for Maxim to escape the accusations only for the sake of the narrator. I felt terribly sorry for her. But the sympathy quickly led me to realise what a horrible man Maxim was.
I was angry with not just the murder, but also the fact that he might have been manipulative with her - confessing his love only after admitting to the murder. From details the narrator expressed earlier, there was no inkling of intimacy nor was there a spark of love after she moved. Furthermore, Maxim was very much older than her and knew very well how he could toy with a young, naive girl’s emotions who was inarguably so besotted with him.
This then brings me to question if Rebecca was truly as horrible as he described her to be. She was the sort of person who travels and sails independently, and was greatly admired by Mrs Danvers who equates Rebecca to being intelligent, confident, beautiful and a woman who can’t be stopped. Such unconventional qualities might have irked Maxim, especially after I learned about the social construct of the period this book was written.
Also, I don’t accept adultery; just laying out possibilities here. Rebecca might have cheated on Maxim because there were already problems in the marriage (just like the second one) and she was exploring her sexual needs . Maybe this might have been the darker side of Rebecca, but IMO it’s Maxim that I’m more skeptical of.
You've just articulated all of my own feelings about this book! 100% agree
Thank you. Great video!
Thank you for this video! I am currently studying it at A Level in College and it is so interesting! Definitely one of its time, anyway. I agree about her coming from an area of traditional values as she was a very upper middle class woman herself- and the way Rebecca is presented is a reflection of this. What I found rather astonishing when I first read it was when the climax happened and the narrator finds out her husband murdered his ex wife, instead of being horrified or running, like I would have done, she hugs him instead as he “hated her” and was glad he didn’t love Rebecca more.
What a terrible message, surely? A promiscuous woman with near to no conservative values is murdered but it’s morally correct because she was a cheater? I’m not so sure..
Really helpful, wide-ranging outline of some of the novel's key themes.
Thanks a lot! we need to analyse this for one of our exams, this really helped me out
I have looked at the video twice to be sure I heard it correctly ,but upon reading the book again I don't understand you doubt who she is with in chapter 2.
But I do want to Thank you for an interesting video and the info on du Maurier. I think I'll dive in to her more myself.
i
I love this presentation 😘
If I remember correctly, the protagonist was not interested in any comparisons herself, nor was Maxim. In the book Rebecca, & no inclination to maintain acquaintance with her living associates (Favell)-- it pains him & the protagonist was not aware of Rebecca due to her husband's silence on the subject but for Mrs. Danver's calculated cruelty to continue poisoning by creating false comparisons & Danvers' own subsequently projected jealousies that she imagines she has provoked in the protagonists with her diabolical machinations. One thing to note is that in psychological thrillers or Gothic novels, one needs to always think on one's own feet, fence with one's own logic & dance from an independent objective perspective to avoid being sucked in the whirlpool of the psychopathy of the sociopath. This is not a subjective defense of the protagonist but the truth of what du Maurier has no doubt intended to create the psychological drama & maintain its threatening artistic tensions in the reader's own minds as they journey with the protagonist through her development & du Maurier's book.
The difficult thing to convey-- in addition to the plot analysis -- to the readers & for them to conceive--is the overwhelming, almost oppressive & invasive cruelty of the jealous Mrs Danvers who enjoys torturing the protagonist--note she is nameless while the living mistress of the house-- contrast that with Rebecca whose name is incessantly invoked by Mrs Danvers to prick the protagonist & who also tried to implant fears & jealousies in the protagonists with psychological assaults of false, distorted comparisons to "Rebecca. This psychological torture is echoed in the hallways of Manderley by the endlessly haunting & pervasive psychological menace from the presence of the "Rebecca" who is herself a manipulative tormentor as reflected in the initially unspoken devastation of Maxim after their return from the honeymoon.
That Rebecca desired to exert lasting control on Maxim after her inescapable passing -- a man of conscience, principles & tenderness, by provoking him to murder tauntswho is most definitely not in the " moral right") protagonist
In this way, it is perhaps more fitting to make the argument that the protagonist is in no way jealous of Rebecca -- but rather the competitive & controlling personality of Rebecca-- as reflected through Favell & Mrs Danvers--is envious of any chance Maxim or the protagonist might have at their own happiness in a life without Rebecca--which we saw in the sunlit blissfulness prior to their return to Manderley--& thus they both set out to poison, deform & damage Maxim & the architectural manifestation of his stature, bearing & persona in Manderley (note both start with M) Maxim & with the curse broken, Danvers loses the spell and maleficent aura of her former mistresses, which reveals her to be actually an insecure, possessive and mentally unstable minion whose fears & jealous anger of letting Manderley (-- a structural & metaphorical extension of Maxim) continue with the new couple culminated in her setting the immense mansion ablaze and her own tragic end
*Favell is most definitely not in the " moral right" as he has committed what was--to the Victorian sensitivities & their considerations of the victims -- serial offensives tantamount to murder-- & would have been justified with a duel in those times if he & Rebecca were truly in love. Instead Favell is an unemployed lounge-lizard who chooses to leach off of Maxim first through Rebecca and later through black mailing him-- which is considered the acts of cowards.
**Also note du Maurier was careful to employ terminal uterine cancers-- then commonly associated with STDs in otherwise healthy young women--as the plot mechanism for the demise of Rebecca-- further affirming that her death--both the cancer and the suicide were of her own doing & not the responsibilities.
and decidedly absolve Maxim of all responsibilities through the voice of the Judge and R's own doctor.
Again, when readers read gothic or psych thrillers such as R, they need to remember that just as they should discount the words of psychosociopaths they meet in real life-- they need to maintain the perspective of the reality. If they heartily acquiesce-- or mentally capitulate-- to a literal endorsement of all the views of the psychosociopaths & their justification of their abuses against innocent parties and their cruel enjoyment of the pains they have inflicted on victims who have never wronged them.
Also of note, in du Maurier's time psychoanalyses were all the rage and it should not be missed that Rebecca & her two --what is for lack of better words-- astral projection minions-- were carefully revealed narcissistic psychosociopaths whose gaslightsuperficialobjectivenoneburning up Manderley.
What is the first name of the heroine?
We never learn this which poses questions about who she really is and why she is nameless!
She doesn't have one, to further the theme of losing her identity and being unable to compete with Rebecca.
Rebecca's personality is so dominant that the protagonist doesn't even have the force to exert her own name. And her obsession with Rebecca revolves so much around constructing an idea of her through the space she left behind.
It works really well so by the end of the novel the name Rebecca becomes powerful in of itself and comes to represent so much, which is helped by the lack of a name for the protagonist.
Very thankful, thanks
Was Rebecca “only adulteress”? I always thought it was her cruelty that made her unsympathetic. Playing with other people’s emotions, using her attractiveness and sexuality to cause distress and pain to others.
Great video and very useful! Thank you. Could you do a analysis video on Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. Thank you.
The plot of Rebecca was copied from Carolina Nabuco's novel "A Sucessora". Daphne was a literary criminal
i never even thought that she was with frank in the bed and breakfast! very interesting