More Discusson about Rebecca

As mentioned previously, we continued our discussion about Rebecca by e-mail after our January meeting. Instead of cutting and pasting those messages into the comments, we'll just give them their own post, and then the discussion can continue in the comments if anyone would like.

Wordsmith started the discussion:

Thanks for a good dinner, interesting show, and brief discussion. I wish we'd had more time to talk about the book. If anyone's interested in continuing the talk online, I'd like to ask this: do you think the author thought Rebecca's murder was justified?

G.C. answered:

I think the author was trying to "expand our horizons" into the thought that things are more complicated and that there is moral ambiguity. At the time she wrote the novel, moral ambiguity was not a popular concept. While "murder" *(remember that the commandment, properly translated, states that thou shalt not murder.) is most often heinous. It can be justified as Grisham posited in A Time to Kill or understandable as the author posits in Rebecca. It is interesting that the director made a change in the details fo the death much as the director made the change in The Shawshank Redemption. In the movie, the Morgan Freeman character "killed a guy in a bar fight" - it could happen. In the book, the character cut the brake lines on his wife's car and she just happened to have picked up a pregnant friend (or a friend with a child - I forget) before the accident occurred.

Maybe that says something about the expectations of the mental flexibility of "readers" (a niche group) versus movie goes (a broad audience).

I was just watching Tales of the City - The main character says to someone coming home late at night - Welcome to Manderly, I'm Mrs. Danvers. It was "tongue in cheek" scary. I love those literary references. Since I read so much, I usually get them. However, my annotated edition of Lolita (which supposedly has an average reference rate of 1 every other line) remains unread. I liked it fine as just a dirty novel!

Wordsmith responded:

I really appreciate your thoughts, G. C. There was so much we could have discussed - just not enough time! One of our goals in Captive Thoughts is to broaden our understanding, and Rebecca certainly presented a lot to think about. That being said, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by moral ambiguity, but at face value I disagree. There are moral confusions or moral complexities - it's certainly difficult to sort things out - but I do believe in moral absolutes. Life is messy and some webs of wrong (whether actively performed or thrust upon innocents) are impossible to untangle; consequences - fair or unfair - come our way and we must decide what we're going to do with them. But we always have a choice. I haven't read A Time to Kill - maybe it presents a stronger case. I do agree that definitions are important, that murder can be different from killing, that sometimes killing is justifiable. I agree that Rebecca's murder is understandable, but not justifiable. Of course I don't really know what DuMaurier is positing, but it's interesting that Maxim's murder of Rebecca is unneccesary since her disease will do her in. If Maxim had pursued the truth he would have found out that Rebecca wasn't pregnant but dying, and his patience would have freed him from her. (This is why I read the paragraph I did, b/c it points out that if only the truth had been sought, - by a lot of the characters - the outcome would have been totally different.) The consequences of his actions are severe - he loses Manderley and must live as an exile. His psyche is ruined and seems to put the nameless her in more of a position of caretaker than wife. What do the rest of you think?

Page Turner commented:

Those are some great thoughts, Wordsmith. I too pondered the same question (was the murder justified) after I read the book. Du Maurier leads us to sympathize with the characters, which makes it easier to excuse their behavior. But regardless of the circumstances, murder is still murder, and like you said, it is understandable, but not justifiable. I think the many consequences that follow that single act might be the author's subtle indication that she was leading her readers to see the moral implications of murder. I had not thought through all the "what ifs" that you suggested, but that certainly sheds a different light on the matter, too. So much could have been different.

The idea of truth in this novel is another topic we could explore. If you remember, we discussed that when we read The 13th Tale last year. (Have you read that one, G. C.?) Interestingly, it was somewhat gothic, too. I suppose that the question of truth is almost inherent in that genre since things are not always as they seem. Perhaps that's why I like the complexities and perplexities of these stories - the characters' perceptions and misconceptions of truth shape their choices and their lives, and we as readers/observers get the suspense of seeking the truth along with the responsibility of judging the outcome for good or ill. In my opinion, that makes for a fascinating read, both interesting and thought provoking!