Cornflower Book Group - My Cousin Rachel

   

     A Cornish manor house sometime in the nineteenth century; an almost exclusively male, inward-looking world, one of contentment and routine; a trip abroad with terrible consequences, and a visitor, unwelcome at first but who then becomes an object of infatuation.

    Those are the bare bones of Daphne du Maurier's My Cousin Rachel, the story of Philip Ashley and his eponymous relative, a book with a subtle atmosphere of unease which creates in the reader a sense of foreboding and a desire to wrest the central character from a fate largely of his own making.

    Philip's feelings about Rachel, the widow of his cousin Ambrose who has brought him up and been his companion, corkscrew from imagined hate and despising to surprised tolerance and then love - of a sort. His head is turned, and he shows himself as variously rash, foolish, impetuous, petulant, immature and vulnerable. Rachel, as we discover, has the whip hand, the shady accomplice (Rainaldi), the greed and profligacy to lead her to adopt desperate measures, and the means by which to dispose of unwanted men. Did she do it? Did she murder Ambrose and try to poison Philip? Is Philip a reliable narrator?

   Whether or not we can satisfactorily answer these questions we can, I think, admire the story-telling here, and the way in which du Maurier seems to know her 'hero' inside out; the narrative struck me as very complete, thoroughly worked through, and the edge of menace is palpably sharp. What did you think of it? 

Comments

[Lyn]

Thank you for choosing this book. I hadn't read it for 30 years & I enjoyed revisiting it. I've just posted about it on my blog,
http://tinyurl.com/279eaux
but I found myself questioning Philip a lot more this time around & sympathising more with Rachel. I loved the atmosphere of menace & suspicion. Du Maurier always does this so well. The scenes in Italy were especially good. The contrast between very English Philip & the warm sensuality of Italy. And at the end, I'm still not sure who to believe. I love a book that leaves me wondering.

[susievereker.blogspot.com]

Cornflower, am so glad you selected this novel, a beautifully written semi-Gothic psychological thriller. Not sure why it was considered a romance. I must have read it at school but didn’t remember a thing about it luckily as I was gripped this time and could hardly bear to put it down. I admire the way the plot, with its unreliable young male narrator, unfolds layer by carefully confusing layer and we are left unsure as to who is the villain. We don’t even see Rachel very clearly as her character is distorted by Philip’s emotional viewpoint. What we do see is the house, the gardens and the servants – I loved the descriptions of the old butler’s preparations for Rachel, and wondered if it was significant that the dogs immediately followed her.
Sally Beauman in her introduction considered this to be a feminist novel depicting a (Victorian?) woman at the mercy of men with money, and in turn they are victims of her charms. A very interesting and impressive book. I’ll probably read it again fairly soon to study DDM’s masterly technique.

[susievereker.blogspot.com]

Cornflower, am so glad you selected this novel, a beautifully written semi-Gothic psychological thriller. Not sure why it was considered a romance. I must have read it at school but didn’t remember a thing about it luckily as I was gripped this time and could hardly bear to put it down. I admire the way the plot, with its unreliable young male narrator, unfolds layer by carefully confusing layer and we are left unsure as to who is the villain. We don’t even see Rachel very clearly as her character is distorted by Philip’s emotional viewpoint. What we do see is the house, the gardens and the servants – I loved the descriptions of the old butler’s preparations for Rachel, and wondered if it was significant that the dogs immediately followed her.
Sally Beauman in her introduction considered this to be a feminist novel depicting a (Victorian?) woman at the mercy of men with money, and in turn they are victims of her charms. A very interesting and impressive book. I’ll probably read it again fairly soon to study DDM’s masterly technique.

[Dark Puss]

I think that Dark Puss suggested this book might be a good CBG choice (Cornflower will corrrect me I'm sure) and thus I have read it twice in a fairly short period of time.

A classic tale of the self-destructive power of jealousy. Philip struck me, forceably, as much like myself in his obsessions. His jealously guarded love for Ambrose, which leads him to build up Rachel as an ogre and then his jealous passion for Rachel as he becomes besotted by her is very well portrayed. Menace stalks the book throughout, but I think it is all in Philip's mind which is gradually corroded by what he wants but cannot have.

I liked very much the contrast du Maurier achieves between Rachel, who is very sexily portrayed, and the good, kind but unalluring and safe Louise. I know which of the two I'd have been chasing!

I don't find Rainaldi all that shady and I'm not convinced that he and Rachel are accomplices in crime; I think the great strength of this novel is that you are left wondering right to the end. It is very much about a clash of cultures and a clash of the sexes. Rachel struck me as a rather "modern" woman stuck in the mores of an old-fashioned society.

Any negatives? Only the very last page! I can see that it would not be easy to resolve the story in any other way but it struck me as a bit of a cop-out none the less.

A great book!

[Dark Puss]

One day you, Cornflower and other expert readers will have to explain to me what a "romantic" novel is supposed to be!

[Sandy]

Thanks for this book choice and I enjoyed returning to it. For me it has been one of those books that I can't forget - in common with almost all of Du Maurier's novels. There is a wonderful tension in not knowing whether the main character is a reliable witness and she keeps this uncertainty finely balanced even to the end. It's one of my top books and has been re-read many times. Although you want to give Philip a good talking to, his faults remain believeable - somehow I felt I might very well be like that on a bad day!

In the same way that sometimes you can remember exactly where & when you heard a piece of music, this is true for me with the first novel of Du Maurier's that I read, which was 'The House on the Strand', which my girl friend gave me to read in my teens. Of course I had to marry her!

[Harriet]

I read this about a year ago and so did not re-read this year, but I absolutely loved it and it has stayed with me as a wonderful read. Here's part of what I said about it then on my blog:
The greatness of this novel, for me, was in the skill of the narrative voice. Philip is absolutely convincing -- likeable, well-meaning, human, but desperately naive and ultimately self-deceived. Or is he? Of course that is the question on which this novel finally turns. Are the suspicions of Rachel he finally, and in great mental torment, allows himself to acknowledge based on reality, or are they a product of his own confused and fevered imaginings? We will never know. And, it seems, Daphne herself did not know.

[Ros]

I think a romance novel is somewhat different from a romantic novel. The romance genre is pretty easy to identify: the book should focus mainly on the central relationship and have a happy ending for that couple. A romantic novel might have a lot more other plot going on and it might not have a happy ending in the conventional sense.

It's too long since I read My Cousin Rachel for me to comment on whether it fits either of these categories.

[Mrs.B.]

Excellent book choice. I read it as well last month and then found out you were hosting this group read so I saved my review for today.
Yes indeed, did she or didn't she? I kind of think she did.

[susievereker.blogspot.com]

(a)Sorry my post appeared twice. Perhaps Cornflower can delete one. I tried to edit post 1 and it disappeared so I resent it. Oh dear.
(b) Ending. Yes, I thought at one point Philip was writing his memoirs from jail when he was about to be hanged
(c) DDM wanted to be a boy, apparently, and much admired an older uncle, as far as I remember.
(d) No space to define romantic novels, but booksellers and publishers group some books into a major genre known as 'women's fiction'. DDM did not want her books to be classified as such, I gather.

[Anne]

A great choice. I also read this book many years and had forgotten parts of it. I'm afraid I kept getting annoyed with Philip becoming so besotted with Rachel.Like Dark Puss, I did not find Rainaldi all that shady and found it interesting the comment of Rachel being a "modern" woman but being limited to her society.
The first time I read this book,I had never been to Florence but having visited Italy I felt I could understand Rachel's background much better.
I love books which leave us guessing to the last page....even though we were still not left with a definite answer.

[Barbara MacLeod]

I particularly enjoyed this month's choice because a similar story was happening around me at the same time! Our friends' son (bachelor of 50, professional man) who works abroad on a contract basis announced he was getting married to a lady (similar age, professional lady) from the host country.
Well! What a stooshie that has created! People continue to project their views and values on to the individuals involved: "She's only marrying for his money." etc.
DDM: nothing has changed! Maybe that is why this sort of story continues to engage us!
I also found the ending ... well ... unsatisfying. Somehow it did not sit right with me. I rather thought the messiness of their life portrayed so well all along would just continue into the future with each going into a new life separately.

[Julie Fredericksen]

The first two times I read this book (in my teens and then in my 20s)I was convinced Philip was the victim of poisoning at the hands of his cousin Rachel. This time, I wasn't so sure. Is that the mark of a reader who has matured? (As well as the mark of an excellent writer.) Anyway, I did love this book, then and now. DDM certainly knew how to write a mystery/suspense novel.

Hmm, any poisoners in "Death Comes for the Archbishop?" I only ask because of the themes of "A Debt to Pleasure" and "My Cousin Rachel"! I have also recently read "A Reliable Wife", by Robert Goolrick, in which a mail-order bride sets out to poison her new, rich husband.

[Dark Puss]

Ros, thank you! That is intereating. Thus for example The Cat by Colette would be a "romantic novel" but since it ends unhappily for the couple - but happily for Saha the cat :-)) - you would not put in the "romance" category. Have I understood correctly?

[Simon T]

I was really impressed by this book, while not loving it as much as I did Rebecca. I've never come across an ending so brilliantly uncertain - some might find it annoying, but I thought the ambiguity was perfectly done.

[adele geras]

As I've been finishing a novel myself, I've been a bit of a truant from the Cornflower book group! But, like Sandy, I remember du Maurier novels well from my teens. In fact, some of them are clearer to me than books read more recently. This is one I'll have to revisit though as soon as possible because I too have been to Florence now and hadn't when I read it as a teenager. It's a cracker. I do think she's a terrific writer. Thanks for suggesting it, Cornflower. I'll get on to it very soon. I'm not even going to TRY and differentiate between Romance and Romantic!

[Ros]

Yes, that sounds right. However happy the cat may be, if the central couple don't end up happy and together, then it doesn't fit within the romance genre.

[Mrs Cabrio]

I agree that the "ambiguity was perfectly done." My favorite scene is Philip going through the desk, searching the papers, reading the letter, trying to find evidence to settle the matter -- and not finding conclusive evidence. I felt, "OH -- there HAS to be something there!" With the end of the story fast approaching, I was searching as desperately as Philip.

[Susan in TX]

Wow! I will ponder this one for a while. Was Rachel guilty? I went back and forth the whole book on that and it just depends on my mood of the moment where I land. I thought it interesting that when Philip sends Louise for help her first words were "what have you done?" bringing us full circle to their initial discussion about Rachel before her arrival. Great choice! Thanks for picking this one.

[Goddess]

I am glad I found your blog!!

[Frances]

Just like in Rebecca, Du Maurier is gifted at taking the combination of love and naivete and allowing it to devolve into its own variety of gentle madness. Just like our young bride who eagerly absolves Max of any blame in the murder of his wife in Rebecca, Phillip is ready for a moment to not look too closely at the object of his heart's affection if it interferes with his current emotional needs. I think here of him almost destroying the unread letter from the lining of his uncle's jacket. Sooo... if just for fun I had to deliver a verdict, I would say that she is guilty. Just because I would have never thought Max de Winter guilty unless he had told us.

Really enjoyed the re-read!

[Mr Cornflower]

As others have already pointed out, in a sense the issue is not so much the did she/didn't she conundrum itself, more the skill with which the author weaves a spell of ambiguity over the facts. The book is sufficiently rich in layers of meaning that it can accommodate several interpretations without being wholly explicable by any of them. Perhaps you could argue, for example, that du Maurier herself didn't have a fixed idea as to whether Rachel was guilty or innocent but that she wanted to keep the options open so as to encourage her readers to reflect on how the complex puzzle of life should dissuade us from rushing to judgment.