The Untold Story Behind Rebecca

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Yes, I think they both need serious psychological help.

They are perhaps one of the most dysfunctional couples.

No matter which way you look at it, even if one is inclined to full believe that Rebecca was truly this unquestionably, horrible, vile, evil person, when it comes down to it, Maxim murders his first wife, because it is easier than getting a divorce, and he did not want the scandal of a divorce.

Not the mention that fact that it is not just that Rebecca was such an awful person, she had been since the start of their marriage, the thing that really pushes him over the edge was her implication that he was pregnant, so untimely when Maxim shoots Rebecca it is really because he wants to kill the unborn child.

And the narrator, is completely unphased by the fact that her husband offed his first wife because he no longer wished to be married to her, she is just thrilled to learn that he never truly loved her.

You would think she would be at least a little concerned about what would happen to her, if she displeases Maxim.

---

I think there's a typo here, otherwise there may be grounds for divorce...

LOL oops! Though that would make for an interesting marraige. Haha or maybe the real reason he shot Rebecca was becaue she discovered a secret about him.

that Max De Winter wanted to kill his wife for any reason. Rebecca had been flaunting her affairs to Max for some time, especially her affair with her cousin. When Rebecca found from her doctor she had an incurable cancer, she goaded Max into killing her. This would be her ultimate revenge: Max being tried for her murder. In the movie, Hitchcock had to change this a bit. Rebecca commits suicide, but angles it so it looks like murder. The Hollywood censors would not permit Max to go free if he did kill Rebecca, even though she goaded him into it.

The second Mrs De Winter and her husband Max do not seems dysfuntional to me. Just entirely human. A man can only take so much from a person as self-centered as the evil Rebecca. Rebecca knew this and essentially perpetrated her own death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

The second Mrs De Winter and her husband Max do not seems dysfuntional to me. Just entirely human. A man can only take so much from a person as self-centered as the evil Rebecca. Rebecca knew this and essentially perpetrated her own death.

---

Even if we completely swallow the pill that Rebecca was truly so evil and self-centered (and to me the evidence to suggest this is questionable, none whom testify to Rebecca's allegedly true nature are reliable sources on the subject) that does not make for a justifiable case for murder. Particularly considering the fact that whatever the truth may be, it was Rebecca insinuating to Maxim that she was with child that pushed him over the final edge into killing her. So ultimately Maxim really sought to kill Rebecca's child, under his belief that she was in fact pregnant.

And I cannot say I find the narrators reaction to the truth to be all that sane or "human." I do not know of many women whom in discovering that their husbands murdered their first wives (for whatever reason), would give the response of "Oh goody, now we can really be happy together. I don't care that you killed your first wife, I am just happy that you hated her"

but your opinion differs greatly from how Daphne Du Maurier's story influenced this reader. Maxim didn't kill Rebecca simply because she told him she might be with child. He killed her because she goaded him into it, teeling him she could provide a heir to his beloved Manderlay and there was nothing he could do about it. It was more a matter of manslaughter, not a premeditated murder. And she really wasn't pregnant. Rebecca wanted him to kill her.

The second Mrs. De Winter was in love with Maxim. She knew the evil of Rebecca. She says, in fact, Rebecca can't hurt me any more. The fact that Maxim shot Rebecca was tragic to her, but she realized how far Rebecca had pushed Maxim. She knew it was now all over, and Rebecca couldn't hurt her or Maxim again.

I wont further try to change your mind, but having seen both movie of Rebecca, the 1940 one and the BBC one, the directors of both understood Du Maurier's book to be the tragic story of how an evil woman can ruin lives. You should see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

but your opinion differs greatly from how Daphne Du Maurier's story influenced this reader. Maxim didn't kill Rebecca simply because she told him she might be with child. He killed her because she goaded him into it, teeling him she could provide a heir to his beloved Manderlay and there was nothing he could do about it. It was more a matter of manslaughter, not a premeditated murder. And she really wasn't pregnant. Rebecca wanted him to kill her.

The second Mrs. De Winter was in love with Maxim. She knew the evil of Rebecca. She says, in fact, Rebecca can't hurt me any more. The fact that Maxim shot Rebecca was tragic to her, but she realized how far Rebecca had pushed Maxim. She knew it was now all over, and Rebecca couldn't hurt her or Maxim again.

I wont further try to change your mind, but having seen both movie of Rebecca, the 1940 one and the BBC one, the directors of both understood Du Maurier's book to be the tragic story of how an evil woman can ruin lives. You should see them.

---

You are right, you will not change my mind. I cannot take the whole "evil Rebecca" scenario at face value because of the problem of the unreliable narrator.

I believe that if Du Maurier truly wanted to convey a story of tragic love she would not have had the story told via the 2nd Mrs. De Winter, and she would not have made her into such a blatantly obviously unreliable narrator who cannot in fact be trusted.

Considering none of the people in the story can truly be completely trusted when their testimonies of the truth and Maxim's story is all too convenient for him, and the 2nd Mrs De Winter too deluded in her love and it is not all that rational to be in love with a murderer no matter the reason for the act.

I am just not willing to buy into the narrators version of the story and take everything she and the other characters say as absolute truth.

And I think if it was Du Maurier's intent to truly present the story as being about the way evil Rebecca ruined the lives of Maxim and the 2nd Mrs. De Winter, I do not think there would be so many obvious chinks in the armor.

but in actuality the narrator is Daphne Du Maurier speaking through one of her characters. The naivity of the second Mrs De Winter makes her story ring true. Consider the following:

1. For months, even years, since their marriage, Rebecca had had illicit affairs and trysts at her beach house. Her affair with her cousin was especially loathsome to Maxim since as her near relation he had the run of Maxim's house. Socially, Rebecca was the beautiful wife of the handsome Maxim de Winter. Privately, she was an adultress who flaunted her affairs to Maxim.

2. When Rebecca returned from her London doctor, she knew she had terminal cancer. In 1938, there was no chemo-therapy or other treatments other than intrusive surgery. Rebecca hated Maxim. She probably hated most men with the possible exception of her cousin who was about as corrupt as Rebecca.

3. She decided to goad Maxim into killing her. She knew that flaunting her affairs wouldn't do it. Maxim ignored her infidelities primarily because of his social status. And he no longer slept with Rebecca.

4. So she announced she was pregnant. Maxim knew it wasn't him, but he didn't know by whom. Then she reiminded Maxim that his estate was entailed. This means that by law, the estate would be inherited by Rebecca's child. This meant that his beloved Manderlay would someday belong to Rebecca's child, even if he remarried and had other children. This entailment would have been a part of the marriage contract. Before Maxim knew what Rebecca was like.

5. This was the last straw for Maxim. He did what Rebecca wanted him to do: he killed her. Rebecca committed suicide as sure as she held the gun herself. She didn't know that Maxim would find such a unique way of disposing of the corpse. She thought Maxim would be tried and convicted of her murder and subsequently hanged, which was a pretty sure thing in those days.

6. You have to understand 1938 British law and what entailment meant. Manderlay was not just a house. It was an estate, and judging from the French name De Winter, it had probably been in his family since shortly after the Norman invasion.

7. When Mrs. Danvers burnt down Manderlay, it released the De Winters from the any hold that Manderlay had on Maxim. They were now free of the past. Maxim was not a Bluebeard. The new Mrs de Winter knew he wasn't a killer. She was in love with him and knew he would never kill again.

This is a very psychological novel. I think your misunderstanding of it stems from not being cognizant of entailment and British law. And by the way, Rebecca was never pregnant. This was said to make Maxim pull the trigger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dfloyd

but in actuality the narrator is Daphne Du Maurier speaking through one of her characters. The naivity of the second Mrs De Winter makes her story ring true. Consider the following:

1. For months, even years, since their marriage, Rebecca had had illicit affairs and trysts at her beach house. Her affair with her cousin was especially loathsome to Maxim since as her near relation he had the run of Maxim's house. Socially, Rebecca was the beautiful wife of the handsome Maxim de Winter. Privately, she was an adultress who flaunted her affairs to Maxim.

2. When Rebecca returned from her London doctor, she knew she had terminal cancer. In 1938, there was no chemo-therapy or other treatments other than intrusive surgery. Rebecca hated Maxim. She probably hated most men with the possible exception of her cousin who was about as corrupt as Rebecca.

3. She decided to goad Maxim into killing her. She knew that flaunting her affairs wouldn't do it. Maxim ignored her infidelities primarily because of his social status. And he no longer slept with Rebecca.

4. So she announced she was pregnant. Maxim knew it wasn't him, but he didn't know by whom. Then she reiminded Maxim that his estate was entailed. This means that by law, the estate would be inherited by Rebecca's child. This meant that his beloved Manderlay would someday belong to Rebecca's child, even if he remarried and had other children. This entailment would have been a part of the marriage contract. Before Maxim knew what Rebecca was like.

5. This was the last straw for Maxim. He did what Rebecca wanted him to do: he killed her. Rebecca committed suicide as sure as she held the gun herself. She didn't know that Maxim would find such a unique way of disposing of the corpse. She thought Maxim would be tried and convicted of her murder and subsequently hanged, which was a pretty sure thing in those days.

6. You have to understand 1938 British law and what entailment meant. Manderlay was not just a house. It was an estate, and judging from the French name De Winter, it had probably been in his family since shortly after the Norman invasion.

7. When Mrs. Danvers burnt down Manderlay, it released the De Winters from the any hold that Manderlay had on Maxim. They were now free of the past. Maxim was not a Bluebeard. The new Mrs de Winter knew he wasn't a killer. She was in love with him and knew he would never kill again.

This is a very psychological novel. I think your misunderstanding of it stems from not being cognizant of entailment and British law. And by the way, Rebecca was never pregnant. This was said to make Maxim pull the trigger.

---

First of all we have no actual proof about anything in relation to Rebecca, that is the problem between our disagreement. You automatically take the story about Rebecca at face value and as absolutely truth and fact, and I do not when I consider the sources from which the information about Rebecca comes to the reader.

None of the people in the story who speak of Rebecca can be completely trusted. They have all proven themselves to be untrustworthy at various different points in the story, and they all have their own motives to be dishonest in their portrayal of Rebecca. There is not a single non-biased source which gives any opinion about Rebecca.

It is a bit too covenant for Maxim and his story to create this idea, that everyone else who ever met Rebecca was completely fooled by her, and no one but him actually knew the truth about Rebecca. This makes it impossible for someone to try to counter Maxim's story, because if anyone were to come forward in defense of Rebecca, a shade of doubt is automatically cast over them by Maxim. And considering that Maxim is trying to justify the killing of Rebecca to his new wife, he has every reason to make the story look in as much of his own favor as possible. The very fact that he concealed a murder to start with marks him as a dishonest person.

And then the narrator of the story the 2nd Mrs. De Winter cannot be trusted, because throughout the entire story she is always making up these little fantasies in her head about Rebecca and everyone else, and she has a tendency to start believing the fabrications of her own mind are in fact the reality, and so she proves throughout the book to make several incorrect assumptions about other people, she also proves to have a loose grip upon reality in the fact that she lives so much in her own illusions and does not seem fully capable of distinguishing the truth from the things she herself imagines. Then of course she is completely biased to Maxim, and she is the one that is interpreting all of the information about Rebecca from others, to the reader, and we know how she feels about Rebecca with all of her own insecurities and we know her loyalty to Maxim in her blind love for him.

So how can we truly fully believe her presentation of the events?

In regards to Maxim shooting Rebecca, the fact that there was no actual child is irrelevant because Maxim believed there was when he killed her, and it was the idea of the child which drove him into shooting her. The fact that he did not want Rebecca's bastard child to inherit Manderley does not make the murder justifiable. It was clearly used as bait to push Maxim over the edge, but that does not by default clear Maxim of any reasonability for his own actions. The fact that he shot Rebecca to prevent what believed was her bastard child from inheriting Manderley, doesn't make me say, "Oh well then he is a great guy"

And how can we say for sure that he will not be pushed over the edge into killing his new wife? He got away with murder once already, and he exhibited his ability and willingness to kill another person once pushed to a certain point, and displays that he does have a short temper, and can be driven to act irrationally out of anger.

I know I'm two years late in replying and probably no-one will see this - but I have a copy of 'A Sucessora' in the original Portuguese.

I believe that Carolina Nabuco was bilingual and translated the novel into English herself. It was doing the rounds of publishers in London and New York as early as 1932 but was not accepted and was eventually published in Brazil in 1934 in the original language. Miss Nabuco's agent did not believe the similarities with Rebecca were any more than coincidence when approached by the author after the release of the film in 1940 - but the story has passed into folklore, mostly because it was taken up enthusiastically by the New York Times in 1941. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that Daphne du Maurier ever saw a copy of the English version of A Sucessora, which to my knowledge was never published anywhere.

The Macdonald case regarding 'Blind Windows' was settled in court in 1947 and was dismissed. I have not seen this book but I understand it has very little in common with the Rebecca except the basic plot around the difficulties of a second wife in escaping the shadow of the first. This, of course, is not original to any of these books and can be found in Jane Eyre, for example. Again, there is no evidence that Daphne du Maurier ever saw this book although, given that it was published in 1927, it seems more credible than in the case of A Sucessora. However, she testified under oath that she had not seen it and the court accepted her evidence.

Of course it was the Oscar winning Hitchcock film (and its box office receipts) that prompted all the accusations, not the publication of Rebecca in 1938, which drew no comment from either Nabuco or Macdonald, despite its considerable success. Indeed, it was not du Maurier that Macdonald's estate sued (she died in 1946 before the case came to court) - but David Selznick, the producer of the film.

I note that Edwina Macdonald's own copy of Blind Windows, complete with her notes on the similarities with Rebecca, is currently on sale in New York for just under £5,000. I'd love to see it - but not that much!

I read Rebecca last year. I was smitten by the vivid depiction of the Cornish landscape. What followed was a week in St Martin, in the Du Maurier country by Halford river and a pilgrimage to Frenchman's Creek and, in order to keep the memories fresh, a purchase of this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/..._ya_os_product

In short, a quite expensive reading!

I've written a 'sequel' short story with a different twist which puts 'Rebecca's side' of the story, although it is told through a dream that the narrator has. Daphne DuMaurier liked strong women and Rebecca certainly ticked that box!

I was trying to find a copy of Blind Windows, naively assuming that I might be able to get it on amazon or eBaY, no such luck! Now I'm just curious to read it. By the way, have you tried Googling Blind Windows, and got thousands of adverts for window blinds?

I am a big fan of Daphne DuMaurier, and have read most of her works (fiction) and a biography by her daughter, I love Rebecca, and have also written my own little short story 'sequel' with an alternative take on Rebecca and Maxim. One day I would love to go to the Daphne DuMaurier Festival in Cornwall!