A lot of readers discover Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca as teenagers, but I was fully grown and reading books inspired by browsing the local feminist bookshop, writers like Audre Lorde and Marilyn Frye, bell hooks and Gloria Alzandúa.
In my stacks that year, 87% of the books were by women writers, many of them vocal about their pursuit of equality and openly political—like Margaret Atwood, Rebecca West, Nadine Gordimer, and Ursula K. LeGuin.
Two of my woman-friends, who outwardly identified as feminists, recommended Rebecca to me, so I went into it expecting…expecting what? Something else. There were things I liked about it, but I didn’t love it, not like my friends loved it.
They’d both been younger when they first read Rebecca, but each of them had reread it as an adult, too. This rereading is the kind of detail that makes me rush for a recommended read, even now, but especially in that reading year (when I was feverishly filling gaps in my reading experience, with George Eliot, Marguerite Duras, Jean Rhys, and Miles Franklin).
Based on my other reading back then, I was probably expecting self-assurance, daring and determination. And the narrator of Rebecca is anxious and insecure, dedicated to a single pursuit: being a “good wife” to Mr. de Winter (whose first wife, Rebecca, died).
When I first read it, more than ten years ago, I was preoccupied by all the qualities that were missing in its heroine; rereading it this year, I wanted to pay attention to what was there rather than what I’d been looking for (and found lacking) in my first reading.
This time, I thought of those recommendations in the way that I sometimes recommend books like L.M. Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables, stories that I loved when I was a girl, when both my real world and my reading world were much smaller.
Nostalgia kicks in, because I remember the warmth of Anne and Diana’s friendship, Anne’s sense of belonging somewhere even without a pair of parents, the talk of writing stories, and how often mistakes and misjudgements were made and remedied.
I am not nostalgic for my own past in those years. In my most fervent Anne-reading years, I was living in a village which was as friendly to outsiders as the Pringle family was to Anne in Windy Poplars. Nothing about me fit in that village; I liked to read when I moved there, books were everything to me by the time I left.
I am not nostalgic for Anne’s past either. She was content with marriage and family, abandoning her writing for those pursuits. She was content to maintain the status quo in some ways (e.g. social hierarchies, race and class structures) even if not all (e.g. women’s access to post-secondary education, ambition and pacifism).
I am nostalgic for the way I understood Anne in the past, for the sense that I could fit into her world even when I didn’t feel like I could fit into my real world. I am nostalgic for the space into which I could escape. I am nostalgic for a way of reading that was about dissolving into a story, in a way that I couldn’t seem to manage in my real world where I was all edges and halfways.
So when I reread Rebecca, I thought about how I probably would have loved this story if I’d first read it when I was just a few years younger than the narrator (she’s eighteen when du Maurier’s novel begins). How I would have forgiven her for building her world around Maxim and for fading into the shadows when Mrs. Danvers wagged her finger. How I would have admired her loyalty to Maxim and the beauty and wonder of Manderley. (Much like Anne and Gilbert and P.E.I. – although Anne never shrank from speaking her mind.)
We feminist readers, we justice seekers, we readers who seek equality in the world–we once inhabited much smaller worlds, on and off the page. Inside the readers we have become, however, our earlier reading selves exist, even yet. Our various reading selves, they are with us, always.
And the reader we are today—if we are fortunate—that reading-self is still growing and changing. A book you are loving today might not fit with your future reading self, and, still, we must hold all of our reading selves close, encourage them to turn the pages, to turn back and turn forward, and to rest when we are disoriented, allowing our previous and emerging reading selves to get reacquainted.
I love this post. It requires some thought, but my brain is quickly falling to sleep right now. I’ll do my best…
I think I might be the only one here who hasn’t read Rebecca. So I can’t speak to it specifically. But I have read Anne of Green Gables (and all the rest) several times. I do think I love them in a very different way than I did as a young reader. Then, I was swept up in the romance of the writing and of the story of Anne and Gilbert. I still am a bit – I probably always will be – because, as you say, my younger reading-self is still with me. And I’m glad. Because my older reading-self is too capable of finding fault with LMM’s books because of the times in which they were written. But is that any excuse? I don’t know. But my older self also really enjoys certain parts of her novels that my younger self just sort of glossed over, like some of the older or secondary characters. And all the funny bits. Did I find them as funny then? I doubt it.
I love that idea of holding all our reading selves close – such a nice way to think of it.
That’s such a good point — I know that I didn’t see the humour in Anne’s “plight” when I was reading those stories as a girl. In her “depths of despair”. LOL I don’t think I even noticed Marilla’s acknowledgements of Anne’s comedic moments. I was grateful that Marilla was THERE–because Anne needed that security so badly–but I wasn’t paying much attention to what Marilla did there. (And Matthew. Matthew! Oh! I just put something together there. Hahaha. Why didn’t that strike me before?! Anyway enough about Matthew.) But when I reread Anne during the years when I was most preoccupied by young children, I was so struck by Marilla’s patience and understanding and humour. Even though LMM wrote her long before she had her boys. It’s not an excuse, but I think it is an explanation. It’s hard to explain how homogeneous LMM’s communities were, and how limited was her access to information about other communities, unless you’ve lived in that kind of (or something akin to) situation yourself.
I agree. I tend to explain it away by imagining what it would have been like – it’s hard to think very differently from everyone around you when you have no other experience to go on. I think feminism was a whole different thing, because (obviously) LMM was a woman!
Haha! I kind of always forget the Matthew thing now, although 20 years ago I’m sure I was secretly thrilled by it. 🙂
She was considered so outspoken for her views on the war, that I wonder if she might not have also had the temerity to think independently on other issues, too, if only her experience base had been broadened. But maybe the family’s prominent position on the island made her less inclined to question things that didn’t directly impact her, even after she’d moved away.
Well, then, I don’t feel so badly, if YOU forget it now too! 🙂
You’ve set me thinking whether there are books that I loved early on but now would have a different response to. I suspect my youthful infatuation with Jean Plaidy will not have survived…
Funny you would mention that…I just had my hands on my old copy of Désirée (the 1951 AnneMarie Selinko novel about Napoleon’s first fiancée, pre-Josephine) and was wondering how I would find that on a reread. I never fell into Plaidy’s books; I tried them in my early 20s but there was too much description for me (which I realize, now, was kinda the point, right?).
I really appreciate your post because there are times that someone will mention a book I read when I was much younger and loved but now my memories of it may be quite murky. I don’t often do re-reads and I think I am a bit hesitant for fear that those loved books may not live up to what I have made them out to be in my mind.
I’m rereading Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn now, very closely and slowly, for an essay about women writers and poverty. And I cannot tell you how much I am resisting reading it because, even though I think this is the third time I’ve reread it (and I’ve always found something new to marvel at in it), I’m still concerned that I’ll reread and find it’s “not all that”. I guess the lesson for me, is that finding different things in the story is as wondrous as it would have been to have found exactly what I expected to find?
I first read Rebecca in my late teens and adored it, even though I sympathise with you because I wanted to give the heroine a jolly good shake and tell her stand up for herself. On re-reading it, earlier this year, I still adored it but I also found I had more sympathy for the young heroine. I am not sure at 17 I would have handled her difficult situation much better.
So you wanted to shake her even while reading it as a teenager? I was thinking that I’d’ve been more tacitly accepting of her inaction, if only I’d discovered her younger, when I was more about simply doing what I was told, without considering whether an action was a wise one to take. I mean, she was awfully alone — and lonely — in the world. And living in a time when women were taught to obey obey obey. As an older reader, I only wanted her to resist, resist, resist! laughs
Yep, even as a teenager, but then I have always been quite strong-willed
Fascinating. I am always interested in people’s experience of re-reading, as it’s something I do and like to think about. I first read Rebecca in May this year, aged 48, so I had mellowed and could see why the heroine acted as she did – but I wonder how I’d have been with it if I read it as a teenager, too!
Maybe I’m wrong in this, but I think it’s more likely that, after decades have passed, that one is more likely to recognize the significance of publication dates. When I was a very young reader, I did not even think of books as emerging, or being created by people, they were always just THERE and had ALWAYS been there. So I met them in my present moment, not theirs. I think that still happens for young readers, who expect writers of and characters in older books to behave in a way which readers considering historical context would recognize as anachronistic. Did you get around to watching the film of Rebecca yet?
Beautifully written. I have had such mixed experiences of rereading this year: some books have been better than remembered, newly perfect for my age and outlook; others have been enjoyable but not quite as profound as I once found them; others haven’t worked at all, but will remain on the mental museum shelf of favourites from another time of life.
Thank you — I love your idea of the “mental museum shelf of favourites”. Oh, look, you have a U in there. Have you simply decided that you will add the U while you’re living abroad, or has it come to feel right to you?
I’ll add the ‘u’ when speaking to Brits, Canadians and Australians 😉
🙂
This is a fascinating post; it is interesting how books change. I’ve only read Rebecca once & that time, not very long ago, as an adult. I can imagine times in my life where her passivity would have put me off (but not that many, alas…)
Probably the book that has most changed in that way for me is Middlemarch. Certainly the first time I read it (in my 20s) I most identified with Dorothea. Later I decided Lydgate was my person. Maybe some day I’ll identify with Mary Garth, with her contentment & certainty what she wants, but I’m afraid that’s still aspirational.
In this instance, I think if I’d met her as a character in a 1938 novel, I’d’ve been more accepting, but I overwrote my expectations with the kinds of contemporary stories that my two friends were enjoying. So I’m also learning, several decades into bookish life, that just as my own reading selves are varied and contradictory, my reading friends’ selves are also varied and contradictory. Hahaha — funny! I was in my 20s when I first read Middlemarch and have been considering a reread for a few years now…but I figured that I’d identify with Casaubon this time around, with my endlessly unfinished manuscripts. smirks
A very interesting post. Funnily enough, I recently finished re-reading an Anita Brookner which I had first read back in the 1980s when I was far too young and inexperienced to fully appreciate it. Now that I’m in my fifties, I’m probably better placed to relate to the novel’s protagonist and themes than I was back then. I certainly enjoyed it more this time around. It can work both ways, I think – as you say, Rebecca works very well for readers in their teens, but possibly less so for older readers.
It can work both ways: I agree. But maybe we are less likely to return to an earlier disappointment-on-the-page for evidence of that. Which Brookner was it, Hotel? Your mention of Brookner brings to mind, too, the idea that it took me many years to recognize the crafting in her kind of straightforward, spare prose. As a younger reader, I was swept away by wordier, flashier prose (Tom Robbins, Michael Ondaatje, Louise Erdrich etc.) and I still enjoy and appreciate that kind of artistry, but I’ve also come to see how difficult it is to be exact (William Trevor, David Chariandy, Helen Humphreys, etc.).
Wonderful post. Re-reading can be so complex – some books I can just slip back into and still love, but with some the changes which have taken place in me over the years change the way I respond to what I thought of as old favourites. I find myself angry with Jane Eyre and intolerant of Cathy & Heathcliff in a way I wouldn’t have been when I was young and swept up in the romance. And I know that had I read Anna Karenina when I was young I would have empathised with Anna and Vronsky, whereas reading as a very grown woman I found myself identifying with Karenin! And I loved Little Woman as a child, also Cider with Rosie as a teenager; but have failed to successfully re-read either. I guess our reading selves evolve and some books evolve alongside but some don’t.
Oh, yes, Wuthering Heights is a terrific example of the feeling I was aiming to describe too. I was older than you when I read it for the first time but, even so, I felt it was still somewhat romantic, but on a second reading, the tragic elements seemed overwhelming. You’ve made me wonder about Anna K too as I read it around 30 and I did feel for them but felt torn on the matter, so now I’m curious, if I were to reread, would I simply be impatient with them? I finished the Alcott series recently and was so disappointed by how readily Jo seemed to set aside her dreams of writing, but as a younger readers (and just with LW) I was convinced all was well. (BTW, have you seen the Greta Gerwig LW film? If not, I recommend it. But I can’t say why without spoiling.)
I haven’t seen it and tbh am not sure entirely if I want to. I tend to prefer book to film always, and if the film messes with the original then it isn’t really Little Women despite what it calls itself and what I think about the book nowadays. Maybe one day! 😀
I felt the same way and only got around to it recently. I did love GG’s Ladybird, so that was in its favour. But I was also feeling done with LW (are there NO other girls with stories to retell?!) so a mark against. If there is a LW fan in your life who desires your company, I don’t think you need to resist vociferously grins but you’ve plenty more suitable diversions.
That’s a very thoughtful and thought provoking review. I moved from Fabianism to revolutionary socialism over the years 16 to 21 but my reading barely reflected that. The big highlight of my 20th year was Brideshead Revisited. I came to love Le Guin for her anarchism but still read and collected PC Wren (Beau Geste). For many years I have been a Jane Austen fan but as I read more widely around her I see that she was reactionary even by the standards of the literature of her time. Anne of GG and Little Women I have only read in the last few years and I have enjoyed them immensely.
Being able to navigate the terrain between Waugh and Le Guin…you’d think that would come in handy for coping with the challenges surrounding the increasing polarization in the American political situation (discussed on your site in more detail)…and maybe it does? Maybe it’s being understanding of two contrary perspectives that makes it even harder to accept the kind of narcissistic, blinkered perspective that wants to deny any other view than theirs even exists, let alone has validity. Austen’s an interesting point–so beloved by so many feminists–what authors have you read who’ve exposed her reactionary side?
I’m not very good at seeing both sides, but Waugh wrote interesting male characters and I’m afraid that I find the upper classes fascinating. As for JA we often excuse old writers by saying that they were of their times, but that is usually just bad history – there were certainly anti-slavery and pro-worker movements in JA’s time and she was, for all her genius as a writer, firmly conservative, landed gentry. What made me think about this were the strong feminist sentiments in Tom Jones and Moll Flanders, as well as the much more relaxed mixing of the various classes. Even JA’s immediate predecessor Fanny Burney is much stronger on inter-class movement, in Evelina, than JA (though I appreciate that Mrs Bennet comes from Trade).
So interesting! I’ve never read Tom Jones or Moll Flanders (though I’ve read other books by both authors), so I’ll have to take a look. Agree wholeheartedly on the point of history being told by those who would rather pretend that people didn’t know how to resist the practice of enslavement. Just as we can choose to source our coffee and chocolate and sugar without filling the coffers of today’s slave traders: will the next generations really believe that we didn’t know any better? Post-home-internet? Evelina (and what’s her other really long one, even longer than Evelina?) has been on my TBR for ages. There’s also a lovely little volume by one of your countrywomen, Dale Spender, about JA’s precursors, Mothers of the Novel, I think it’s called? I should see if I can find my copy.
I’m a Dale Spender fan. I have reviewed parts of Mothers of the Novel. She also wrote about and was single handedly responsible for the republishing of Australia’s early women writers, out of print for up to 100 years.
I’m so excited to hear that! Women of Ideas is a huge favourite of mine. And I’ve read everything that I could find, even a book on how to use the internet to build communities for women, which actually listed URLs in it (and, yes, I actually visited them, diligently). LOL I also absolutely love the collection of letters between her and her sister Lynne.