Scan barcode
A review by broro117
Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier
3.0
I'm not exactly sure why, but this just didn't slap the way I expected it to.
Maybe I would've liked it more if I weren't already very familiar with the story, having seen the stage play and one of the film adaptations. I love the premise of being haunted by a lover's universally-beloved ex and tortured by the constant comparisons, but the plot feels a bit threadbare and I was fairly bored throughout. There were definitely moments where I connected with the protagonist's musings on behavior and societal expectations, and those were probably my favorite parts of the book.
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is meant to be. Are we supposed to be rooting for the main character and her relationship with Maxim? Is it meant to be a critique of the blind eye we often turn to the faults of those we love? Is it a commentary on how much more harshly misbehaving women are punished than misbehaving men? Are we meant to condemn or admire Rebecca? Are we meant to condemn or admire the main character? Is Maxim meant to be viewed as a sympathetic character or as amanipulative murderer ? Is the relationship between Maxim and the protagonist actually meant to read as a romance (because she's absolutely right; Maxim does treat her more like a dog or a child than a wife)? I'm not someone who requires concrete answers in my books; I appreciate ambiguity when it's done well. But in this case, I have no idea what the novel is trying to say and I'm not sure the novel knows either.
I also don't think I'm a big fan of detective novels that are single-mindedly focused on solving a solitary crime, and that's essentially what the last part of the book turns into. I found the ending to be jarringly abrupt and anticlimactic.As someone who knew the ending beforehand, I watched suspiciously as the page count kept dwindling with no mention of the fire. The fire is IMO the most exciting part of the story, and I was shocked to find out that it's confined to the very last paragraph of the book. I'd been imagining all the beautiful prose Du Maurier would use to describe Manderley in flames, but we don't get any of that.
I don't know, I just didn't super jibe with Du Maurier's writing. It's missing something I can't quite put my finger on. Not one of my favorite classics.
Maybe I would've liked it more if I weren't already very familiar with the story, having seen the stage play and one of the film adaptations. I love the premise of being haunted by a lover's universally-beloved ex and tortured by the constant comparisons, but the plot feels a bit threadbare and I was fairly bored throughout. There were definitely moments where I connected with the protagonist's musings on behavior and societal expectations, and those were probably my favorite parts of the book.
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is meant to be. Are we supposed to be rooting for the main character and her relationship with Maxim? Is it meant to be a critique of the blind eye we often turn to the faults of those we love? Is it a commentary on how much more harshly misbehaving women are punished than misbehaving men? Are we meant to condemn or admire Rebecca? Are we meant to condemn or admire the main character? Is Maxim meant to be viewed as a sympathetic character or as a
I also don't think I'm a big fan of detective novels that are single-mindedly focused on solving a solitary crime, and that's essentially what the last part of the book turns into. I found the ending to be jarringly abrupt and anticlimactic.
I don't know, I just didn't super jibe with Du Maurier's writing. It's missing something I can't quite put my finger on. Not one of my favorite classics.