Themed book group discussion 1: Good vs. Evil

[MysteryMind]

Let's finish our discussion on the theme of good and evil.  We must note that in discussing these books, there are bound to be plot-spoilers. We've mentioned some salient points regarding good and evil in "Castle of Otranto".  Namely, that we have the evil Manfred the usurper, plotting for self-preservation and lusting after a girl.  Frederick, the supposed heir of Otranto, exacting revenge but is lured by the promise of another young girl.  Had he been the true heir, his heart might have been more noble and he wouldn't have been so tempted.  On the other hand, we have our hero Theodore, pure and good.  We must list Mathilda and Isabelle as good as well - the symbols of virginity and purity.  Hippolita (what a name) was a very weak character, influenced by her husband.  She is supposed to be very religious but she sets her husband above her God.  

These early Gothics were believed to be very critical of the Catholic church, probably because of all the corruption prevalent during the medieval ages.  I know the book was written in the 18th century but these early Gothics were set in medieval times - during the Crusades.  This was a time of religious conflict and I think that's why religion was so predominant a theme.

You move into the 19th century and Gothic romances have evolved into a different Good vs. Evil theme.  In Jane Eyre, we can pick out many different villains and only a few truly good people.  There was conflict at every stage of Jane's life.  She was the good and innocent force.  She had to contend with the horrible Reeds, then the extremely hypocritical, self-indulgent and self-righteous Mr. Brocklehurst.  At Thornfield, she was compared to Blanche Ingram and of course, her secret enemy was Bertha Mason Rochester. (I'd like to know what kind of madness possessed her such that she was still aware of her surroundings and could feel jealousy towards another woman.) Except for Helen Burns, who remained so fervent in her beliefs of an afterlife, the other "good" characters were not as pure as what you would have found in the earlier Gothics. There is no longer the idea of righting a wrong. Even though the Reeds got their just desserts and Jane inherits her uncle's wealth, the two were not directly connected.

Moving on into the 20th century, as in the case of "Rebecca", the lines between good and evil become even more blurred. Whereas Rochester suffers his wife's existence, Maxim de Winter finally explodes and commits murder. What I find interesting is that in my opinion, good did not triumph in "Rebecca". As Maxim kept repeating in the story, "Rebecca has won". Rebecca may not have been evil in the sense that she committed horrific crimes, but she was evil in her manipulative, selfish, deceitful ways. What do others think? Did Rebecca win?

[Desdemona]

Moving on into the 20th century, as in the case of "Rebecca", the lines between good and evil become even more blurred. Whereas Rochester suffers his wife's existence, Maxim de Winter finally explodes and commits murder. What I find interesting is that in my opinion, good did not triumph in "Rebecca". As Maxim kept repeating in the story, "Rebecca has won". Rebecca may not have been evil in the sense that she committed horrific crimes, but she was evil in her manipulative, selfish, deceitful ways. What do others think? Did Rebecca win?

Interesting question. I wondered about it too. During the final drive home, the narrator has a dream in which Maxim is strangling himself with Rebecca's hair, implying that he is still in her power. And, of course, Mrs. Danvers (who else?) torches Manderley so he loses that too.

Rebecca certainly got what she wanted because Maxim killed her and saved her from a lingering death from cancer. But, in my opinion, Rebecca didn't win over Maxim himself in the end. She would have won if Maxim and the narrator had been separated. But we see in the beginning of the book and several other instances where they are in exile abroad. Although they have lost Manderley, they have each other and their love. Rebecca would have won if Maxim had lost the narrator and any chance of happiness.

[paigenumber]

Moving on into the 20th century, as in the case of "Rebecca", the lines between good and evil become even more blurred.  Whereas Rochester suffers his wife's existence, Maxim de Winter finally explodes and commits murder.  What I find interesting is that in my opinion, good did not triumph in "Rebecca".  As Maxim kept repeating in the story, "Rebecca has won".  Rebecca may not have been evil in the sense that she committed horrific crimes, but she was evil in her manipulative, selfish, deceitful ways.  What do others think?  Did Rebecca win?

Interesting question.  I wondered about it too.  During the final drive home, the narrator has a dream in which Maxim is strangling himself with Rebecca's hair, implying that he is still in her power.  And, of course, Mrs. Danvers (who else?) torches Manderley so he loses that too.

Rebecca certainly got what she wanted because Maxim killed her and saved her from a lingering death from cancer.  But, in my opinion, Rebecca didn't win over Maxim himself in the end.  She would have won if Maxim and the narrator had been separated.  But we see in the beginning of the book and several other instances where they are in exile abroad.  Although they have lost Manderley, they have each other and their love.  Rebecca would have won if Maxim had lost the narrator and any chance of happiness.

Yes, they are together, but why are they in exile? Why did they not try to rebuild in England. It's obvious they are missing England. And does Maxim really love his wife? On rereading the novel, I found him to be very cold as well. From what the narrator says, it sounds like Maxim is a broken man, prone to fits of anxiety and depression and she, the narrator, is now the strong one. Rebecca still has a hold somehow and is still laughing at them.

[Desdemona]

I thought they left because of the scandal and because they had no home. Also, who knows what Jack and Mrs. Danvers are up to. It wasn't clear to me that their exile was permanent, but perhaps so.

I've already posted in another thread that I am unimpressed with Maxim. I'm glad someone actually came out and questioned whether he loved the narrator. I had that uncertainty, but thought there was something wrong with my interpretation.

As for Rebecca, I'm still not sure she's won. Thinking deeply, I'm not sure what she really wanted to win. She got herself killed to avoid cancer. Was she thinking far enough ahead to want Maxim unhappy forever? Did she care enough? The thing is that she really is dead. She isn't a ghost. The only reason she's "alive" is because of the guilt in Maxim's mind, the insecurity in the narrator's mind, the obsession of Mrs. Danvers and the routine of the servants. If the narrator had been a stronger character, would Rebecca's presence have ever been felt in the first place? She could have taken over management, fired Mrs. Danvers and reorganized the house.

And what about Mrs. Danvers? The only person Rebecca ever killed was herself (through Maxim). I really think Mrs. Danvers wanted the narrator dead in that one scene.....

[MysteryMind]

Rebecca, it appears, had a long time to wait for Maxim's return. She had planned to meet with Jack and it's unclear what she would have told him and how her plans would have differed had he met with her. But in the interval, she must have been thinking hard. She might not have thought too far into the future, but if she knew she could goad Maxim into killing her, she would have been freed from a painful death. She must also have known that he would stand accused for murder. She would not have expected him to kill her and make it look like suicide. (I'm surprised she didn't commit suicide and make it look like murder.) She was very selfish and she tortured Maxim in little ways with her indecent behaviour.

Mrs. Danvers was extremely devoted to Rebecca and Jack and instead of seeing them as spoiled, selfish children who never really matured into responsible adults, she excused them for their high spirits. I, too, felt the narrator was such a weakling (and that irritated me). But I don't think she could have fired Mrs. Danvers because Maxim's guilt would not have allowed him to let her go.

But how did you feel about the fact that Maxim committed murder? Never mind that in the end, he did Rebecca a service. I have not run across another Gothic in which the "hero" (he may not have been heroic but he is the only hero of the story) is actually guilty of the crime of murder. The narrator shows her love by standing solidly beside him when she knew the truth. But what does that say about her character?

[tamtam]

But how did you feel about the fact that Maxim committed murder?  Never mind that in the end, he did Rebecca a service.  I have not run across another Gothic in which the "hero" (he may not have been heroic but he is the only hero of the story) is actually guilty of the crime of murder.  The narrator shows her love by standing solidly beside him when she knew the truth.  But what does that say about her character?

I've read a couple other Du Maurier novels and her characterizations are quite consistent. I think in this instance, the narrator is depicted as very weak, immature, undeveloped socially. Her actions, thoughts and behavior all bear witness to this. I think she only developed a little because she found Maxim's weak spot. Before that, she was rather useless to him. In the end she was protective of him. (Remember how at the beginning, she remarked that if anything were to remind him of the times at Manderley, he would get into his dark mood and she would have to quickly divert his attention elsewhere.) She had nothing in her life, and it would have been uncharacteristic of her to have just dropped him, go her own way, rather than clinging to him with all her might. She wasn't strong enough for that. It's like the woman who says, "As long as you love me, I will protect you." I'm reminded of many women today who develop relationships with inmates and can't seem to let go.