This year I read three novels by Daphne Du Maurier. They’re all terrific. The Scapegoat, which I wrote briefly about, is the best of the lot—a completely satisfying book likely to feature in my year-end list. I also enjoyed her final novel, Rule Britannia (1972), a strange and compelling little book that I suspect was greeted with bemusement or even hostility at the time but that is uncannily prescient now: England has left the EEC and is on the brink of financial ruin (sound familiar?) and is taken over by the US. A once-famous actress features prominently; she turns out to have one more great role in her. Rule Britannia is a late work, with more than a touch of The Tempest in it. A bit ramshackle, no question, no one’s going to say it’s her best, but it’s absolutely worth reading.
Anyway, I recently spent a few pleasant evenings reading My Cousin Rachel, an earlier novel (1951) that is often reckoned as one of her best. The narrator is Philip Ashley, who at the beginning of the novel lives alone on the Cornish coast on the estate of his guardian Ambrose. Some twenty years earlier, Ambrose had taken the orphaned Philip in and raised him in his idiosyncratic fashion. But now he has left the young man, who is recently down from Oxford, to his own devices, in order to travel in Italy in search of relief from his rheumatism.
In Florence Ambrose meets a cousin of theirs, a young widow. Some months later he writes Philip to say they have married and have no plans to return to England. But the idyll doesn’t last: Ambrose’s increasingly scarce letters are filled with complaints of poor health and grievances with the Italy he had previously extolled. Eventually Philip is alarmed enough to travel to Italy himself, but he finds only a grave: Ambrose has died, his wife has closed up their villa and gone away, and no one seems to want to tell him anything. An otherwise unsatisfactory meeting with her lawyer reveals that Ambrose never changed his will: Philip remains heir to the estate.
Shortly after returning to England, Philip learns that Rachel has arrived in Cornwall for a visit, and here the novel really begins. An intricate dance between the two follows. Philip, who has learned that Ambrose believed he was being poisoned, is initially suspicious and hostile to Rachel. But Rachel is charming and his attitude to her changes so much that he eventually decides to sign over the estate to her, even to marry her. A lot happens in the last third of the book, as Du Maurier forces us to wonder whether Rachel is a murderer who has insinuated herself into an inheritance that should never have been hers or a victim of two generations of the Ashley family’s misogyny and paranoia.
It’s been a couple of weeks since I read the novel, and I’m trying to keep these posts shorter, so I encourage you to read Rohan’s review; she articulates many of my feelings about the novel clearly and elegantly.
Like her, I was ensnared by Du Maurier’s clever narration: not until late in the novel did I realize how adroitly she had controlled my responses, from my initial disparagement of Rachel, through rising frustration at what I took to be the novel’s misogyny, to my final realization that I had taken aligned myself much too closely with Philip’s perspective. For even as I struggled with the novel’s portrayal of Rachel—it seemed so vindictive towards her—I was still assuming that she was in fact up to no good, a real femme fatale. I was, in other words, far too beholden to Philip’s point of view. At the end we are left unsure less about who did what to whom but about our own complacency as readers. Philip is no obviously untrustworthy narrator—he’s no Humbert Humbert, no Stevens—but he ends up being more disturbing for that.
Every time we think we’re ahead of the book we’re made to learn the error of our thinking. Apparent deficiencies reveal themselves to be carefully constructed traps. For example, if we find ourselves frustrated by the lengthy scenes in which Philip falls for Rachel without realizing it—why is it taking him so long to figure out what’s happening to him?—we are only thinking what the novel wants us to think. We have to feel superior to the narrator so that our later realization that we’ve been blind to his delusion and violence is that much more painful and powerful.
So we get a passage like this one, typical of the novel’s play with tone:
I went indoors and up to my room, and dragging a chair beside the open window sat down in it, and looked towards the sea. My mind was empty, without thought. My body calm and still. No problems came swimming to the surface, no anxieties itched their way through from the hidden depths to ruffle the blessed peace. It was as though everything in life was now resolved, and the way before me plain. The years behind me counted for nothing. The years to come were no more than a continuation of all I now knew and held, possessing; it would be so, forever and ever, like the amen to a litany. In the future only this: Rachel and I. A man and his wife living within themselves, the house containing us, the world outside our doors passing unheeded. Day after day, night after night, as long as we both should live. That much I remembered from the prayer-book.
Ostensibly a moment of calm and happy anticipation, this passage in fact reveals the narrator to be deluded, and more than that, creepy in his unearned confidence. (Look at the way he equates his present state of knowing and holding with “possessing”: recall the title, My Cousin Rachel.) Instead of seeming relieved and at rest, the narrator is empty, almost vacuous. This is a passage not just about the surfaces it references but also about superficiality. I simply don’t buy the narrator’s description of “blessed peace.” His responses seem to be governed by the half-remembered phrases of the Anglican wedding service; he’s a kind of automaton, and so it’s fitting that a few pages later he finds himself putting his hands around her throat without a clear sense of how he got there. We can take him at his words, but what do those words actually mean? And how is it that we could have been so sympathetic to him for so long?
It’s quite a trick Du Maurier pulls off here in forcing us to ask questions of this sort. (And I don’t mean that disparagingly: the trick’s magic, not dirty.) But even her masterful manipulation of our response isn’t the best part of that book. That would have to be the portrayal of Louise, the daughter of Philip’s godfather, a woman everyone, even sometimes she herself, seems to think is destined for Philip. Louise is unexpectedly steely and resourceful. I loved that Du Maurier didn’t feel the need to pair her with Philip at the end. She suffers at his hands, but she’s no victim. I wouldn’t have minded a novel all about her.
In the end, though, as in all Du Maurier novels, as best I can tell, the real love affair isn’t with a person but with a property. No one loves anyone in this book as much as the book itself loves the estate. (Surprisingly, it is unnamed. No Manderley here. Or maybe that’s the point: we’re supposed to think of Du Maurier’s most famous novel and lay it over this one. Could this lack of definition be connected to the novel’s refusal to tell us when it is set? It’s presumably Regency, but it would have been so easy to make clear. Why didn’t Du Maurier do so?) Philip even acknowledges the power of houses—he tells Rachel soon after he meets her, “If it’s warmth and comfort a man wants, and something beautiful to look upon, he can get all that from his own house, if he loves it well”—but where he is mocking the novel is serious: it loves the house and its demesne well indeed. No real estate porn here, though. Rather, a completely unsentimental belief—which, based on my limited sample size, is one that Du Maurier held dear—that places are better than the people who merely pass through them.
Excellent post. I like your closing point about place. I think it is tied to their endurance: long after we’ve all been and gone, the places we live will still be there — though their meaning may change. It’s such a sly book! It amuses me that I get a lot of (well, a lot by my standards, meaning a few) visitors to my blog post who searched “Was Rachel guilty or not in My Cousin Rachel?” Clearly people are frustrated by the uncertainty she so brilliantly trades in.
I also wanted to say that I really like the paintings you’ve used to illustrate your post, especially the first one: who is it by?
Thanks, Rohan. That’s funny about the blog traffic–those folks are (understandably) missing the point! What you say about the endurance of place makes sense. Would you then tie that to the novel’s reluctance to date its events? I was puzzled by that decision. Or are there historical markers I missed? It’s not like she does this in her other books, at least the ones I’ve read.
The paintings are by Nicolas de Staël. Nice, aren’t they? Not Cornwall, but I thought they could pass.
I honestly can’t remember any details that would place the novel historically. My edition is little help: it is from the early 70s and shows Rachel with cat eye make-up in a flowing and fairly risque green gown of indeterminate era! The recent film (which I haven’t seen yet) looks Victorian.
Well, no trains, right? So 1830s or earlier, right?
That cover sounds great.
I’ve never read Du Maurier having regarded her (perhaps unfairly) as second-rate. Reading your review it’s clear she’s a skilled novelist, but how highly do you rate her?
Very highly! It’s possible some people overlook her because she’s so popular. She writes smart page-turners, which isn’t easy to do. Try The Scapegoat and see what you think.
I’ve been curious about Du Maurier for some time and you make this sound absolutely fascinating. Looks like another one to add to the long list.
I think you would like her a lot, Nat. (I’m actually surprised you’ve not read her yet.) Give her a try and let me know what you think.
Alas, one could fill a bookcase or three with authors you’d be surprised I haven’t read. But based on the 4 film adaptations of her novels that I have seen, I’d say she has just the right touch of Gothicism/uncanniness for me. I will definitely give this one a try.
True for me too, of course. Du Maurier just seems like someone you would have read. Anyway, yes, a master of the uncanny. Really great stuff; give it a whirl if you can.
Great review, and I loved your final line particularly. It’s been a few years since I read this novel, but I was so impressed by du Maurier’s ability to create real ambiguity.
Thanks. Yes, she’s brilliant at using our desire to have ambiguity resolved against us. Next year I look forward to reading some of Du Maurier’s more obscure novels. And maybe her short stories too. Have you read those?
Pingback: 2017 Year in Reading | Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau
Just read this wonderful piece after seeing your five year post and signing up to your blog. I love the way you capture the process of reading and so agree about this book. Have you seen the recent film adaptation with Rachel Weisz?
Thanks you, Rachel! I’ve not. Do you recommend?
Pingback: July & August 2019 in Review | Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau
Pingback: Nat Leach’s 2019 Year in Reading | Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau
Pingback: “The Stench of Lust”: Daphne Du Maurier’s Flight of the Falcon | Eiger, Mönch & Jungfrau