What do you think?
Rate this book
Rebecca's Tale
April 1951. It is twenty years since the death of Rebecca, the hauntingly beautiful first wife of Maxim de Winter. Twenty years since Manderley, the de Winter family's estate, was destroyed by fire. But Rebecca's tale is just beginning.
Colonel Julyan, an old family friend, receives an anonymous package concerning Rebecca. An inquisitive young scholar named Terence Gray appears and stirs up the quiet seaside hamlet with disturbing questions about the past -- and with the close ties he soon forges with the Colonel and his eligible daughter, Ellie. Amid bitter gossip and murky intrigue, the trio begins a search for the real Rebecca, and the truth behind her mysterious death.
Colonel Julyan, an old family friend, receives an anonymous package concerning Rebecca. An inquisitive young scholar named Terence Gray appears and stirs up the quiet seaside hamlet with disturbing questions about the past -- and with the close ties he soon forges with the Colonel and his eligible daughter, Ellie. Amid bitter gossip and murky intrigue, the trio begins a search for the real Rebecca, and the truth behind her mysterious death.
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
241 people are currently reading
3373 people want to read
About the author
Sally Beauman
42 books167 followersaka Vanessa James
Sally Kinsey-Miles graduated from Girton College, Cambridge (MA in English Literature) She married Christopher Beauman an economist. After graduating, she moved with her husband to the USA, where she lived for three years, first in Washington DC, then New York, and travelled extensively. She began her career as a journalist in America, joining the staff of the newly launched New York magazine, of which she became associate editor, and continued to write for it after her return to England. Interviewed Alan Howard for the Telegraph Magazine in 1970 in an article called 'A Fellow of Most Excellent Fancy'. (Daily Telegraph Supplement, May 29th.) Apparently a very long interview. The following year they met again, and the rest is history. After a long partnership Sally and Alan married in 2004. She has one son, James, and one grandchild.
Sally had a distinguished career as a journalist and critic, winning the Catherine Pakenham Award for her writing, and becoming the youngest-ever editor of Queen magazine (now Harper’s & Queen). She has contributed to many leading newspapers and magazines in both the UK and the USA, including the Daily Telegraph ( from 1970-73 and 1976-8 she was Arts Editor of the Sunday Telegraph Magazine), the Sunday Times, Observer, Vogue, the New York Times and the New Yorker. She also wrote nine Mills & Boon romances under the pseudonym Vanessa James, before publishing her block-buster novel Destiny in 1987 under her real name. It was her article about Daphne du Maurier, commissioned by Tina Brown, and published in The New Yorker in November 1993, which first gave her the idea for writing Rebecca de Winter’s version of events at Manderley – an idea that subsequently became the novel, Rebecca’s Tale. In 2000 she was one of the Whitbread Prize judges for the best novel category.
Sally Kinsey-Miles graduated from Girton College, Cambridge (MA in English Literature) She married Christopher Beauman an economist. After graduating, she moved with her husband to the USA, where she lived for three years, first in Washington DC, then New York, and travelled extensively. She began her career as a journalist in America, joining the staff of the newly launched New York magazine, of which she became associate editor, and continued to write for it after her return to England. Interviewed Alan Howard for the Telegraph Magazine in 1970 in an article called 'A Fellow of Most Excellent Fancy'. (Daily Telegraph Supplement, May 29th.) Apparently a very long interview. The following year they met again, and the rest is history. After a long partnership Sally and Alan married in 2004. She has one son, James, and one grandchild.
Sally had a distinguished career as a journalist and critic, winning the Catherine Pakenham Award for her writing, and becoming the youngest-ever editor of Queen magazine (now Harper’s & Queen). She has contributed to many leading newspapers and magazines in both the UK and the USA, including the Daily Telegraph ( from 1970-73 and 1976-8 she was Arts Editor of the Sunday Telegraph Magazine), the Sunday Times, Observer, Vogue, the New York Times and the New Yorker. She also wrote nine Mills & Boon romances under the pseudonym Vanessa James, before publishing her block-buster novel Destiny in 1987 under her real name. It was her article about Daphne du Maurier, commissioned by Tina Brown, and published in The New Yorker in November 1993, which first gave her the idea for writing Rebecca de Winter’s version of events at Manderley – an idea that subsequently became the novel, Rebecca’s Tale. In 2000 she was one of the Whitbread Prize judges for the best novel category.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 456 reviews
November 5, 2015
Stupid Me!!!
Fancy believing in a sequel when the author provided none and never intended one. Anyway, why would you want to know more about the De Winters?...they found true love, laid a very nasty ghost and swanned around the continent hereafter. A Very Happy Ending methinks??
Oh no!!! Not for Sally.
Daphne du Maurier was safely dead before Sally started meddling with her masterpiece.
Sally won't have it, won't believe a thing Daphne has written.
Rebecca was REALLLLLY nice!! (REALLY?????????????????????)
Max was always and forever in love with Sally's Rebecca, and tops himself in this sham sequel to prove it.(NO! NO! NO! Sally dear!!)
The big denoument of the original novel which hits you like a brick is that Max HATED Rebecca. Daphne makes it quite clear that he hated her.(Sally totally ignores this which is simply amazing!!)
And the nameless heroine?(Boy, does Sally hate HER!!!)She matures, as Daphne has shown by a device called 'character development' Sally, and becomes a true and credible heroine, worthy of herself and her man.
Then you realise what Sally's real agenda is.
She is NOT writing a sequel at all.
She is RE-writing du Maurier's classic book, no less!!!
She is letting us in on tne Truth.
Sorry Sally.
There is NO Truth.
We are dealing here with a FICTIONAL novel.
You should have just gone off and written your own classic novel. But why do that, when you are assured of far more sales when you can just hijack sonebody else's hard work by stealing their readymade, already well-loved characters. And Fans.
Lazy, Greedy, Talentless Sally!!!
Please write out one hundred times:
"I must not steal other people's excellent ideas and rip off both financially and psychologically the original fans not to speak of the time they will have wasted reading my longwinded, pseudo-sequel travesty."
Thankyou Sally.
You may now return to your desk. And pleeese...no more writing?
Try crocheting.
PS For all those Austen "fans" who eat up the pseudo-sequels to Austen's books. Jane would slay the lot of you with her wit.
Fancy believing in a sequel when the author provided none and never intended one. Anyway, why would you want to know more about the De Winters?...they found true love, laid a very nasty ghost and swanned around the continent hereafter. A Very Happy Ending methinks??
Oh no!!! Not for Sally.
Daphne du Maurier was safely dead before Sally started meddling with her masterpiece.
Sally won't have it, won't believe a thing Daphne has written.
Rebecca was REALLLLLY nice!! (REALLY?????????????????????)
Max was always and forever in love with Sally's Rebecca, and tops himself in this sham sequel to prove it.(NO! NO! NO! Sally dear!!)
The big denoument of the original novel which hits you like a brick is that Max HATED Rebecca. Daphne makes it quite clear that he hated her.(Sally totally ignores this which is simply amazing!!)
And the nameless heroine?(Boy, does Sally hate HER!!!)She matures, as Daphne has shown by a device called 'character development' Sally, and becomes a true and credible heroine, worthy of herself and her man.
Then you realise what Sally's real agenda is.
She is NOT writing a sequel at all.
She is RE-writing du Maurier's classic book, no less!!!
She is letting us in on tne Truth.
Sorry Sally.
There is NO Truth.
We are dealing here with a FICTIONAL novel.
You should have just gone off and written your own classic novel. But why do that, when you are assured of far more sales when you can just hijack sonebody else's hard work by stealing their readymade, already well-loved characters. And Fans.
Lazy, Greedy, Talentless Sally!!!
Please write out one hundred times:
"I must not steal other people's excellent ideas and rip off both financially and psychologically the original fans not to speak of the time they will have wasted reading my longwinded, pseudo-sequel travesty."
Thankyou Sally.
You may now return to your desk. And pleeese...no more writing?
Try crocheting.
PS For all those Austen "fans" who eat up the pseudo-sequels to Austen's books. Jane would slay the lot of you with her wit.
September 3, 2013
I was surprised by how hostile most of the reviews were of this book. I thought it was really good, and much better than just a "what happened after the book ended" kind of a book. I've read the novel by Du Maurier but I really love the Hitchcock film and have seen it so many times i've pretty well memorized it. I thought Sally Beauman did a very good job of capturing the nuances of how everyone thought and spoke and looked, and of taking those mannerisms and putting them into new scenes without making me feel like she'd just taken scenes from the original and moved them forward by 20 years. I found the plot interesting and compelling. I had the hardest time reading the section narrated by Rebecca Herself because she's such an unattractive clearly psychotic character (with subtle suggestions that she had a split personality). I was surprised by how many reviewers said Beauman was trying to make Rebecca a sympathetic character. I didn't see that at all. I was a little disappointed at how much she hated the second Mrs. De Winter, but I kind of got what she disliked about her; she explains it pretty well through the character of Ellie Julyan. And while the ending wasn't fully satisfying, I felt it was very honest. The original Rebecca didn't want or try to have everything make sense; it was a suspense novel and a really good one, and maybe a little less information is what helps make a story like that tick along so well. Beauman is going back and asking a million questions about how come and what if; she answers nearly all of them in a really convincing way and in the end she kind of says, "well, no one can ever really know." She does take a couple liberties with the plot of the original book and movie and changes a couple of key things, but .... I was Ok with that. This, weirdly, is one of the longest reviews I've posted on Goodreads in a while; so I guess that tells you that I felt very strongly about this book. I did really enjoy it.
August 21, 2019
Colonel Julyan is one of the few people alive who actually knew the real Rebecca. When he receives an anonymous package concerning Rebecca, the famed Mrs De Winter, he decides once and for all to investigate and set straight the mystery surrounding Rebecca and her death.
I am such a fan of the original story and I've got to say that Sally Beauman tells an excellent story here. She sets the tone of the story in her own style and it is one which compliments Du Maurier's tone. I loved this book and read it practically in two days. I found I couldn't put it down and read late into the night; that's a good sign for me. I've read this book many times since my first read and I would recommend it to all who have read and loved the first book. Having said that, this book doesn't need you to have read Du Maurier's story, it is a stand alone book on it's own.
This was my first Sally Beauman book; I've now read all her novels and found them enjoyable. It's not literary fiction but it's a really good read. 4★
I am such a fan of the original story and I've got to say that Sally Beauman tells an excellent story here. She sets the tone of the story in her own style and it is one which compliments Du Maurier's tone. I loved this book and read it practically in two days. I found I couldn't put it down and read late into the night; that's a good sign for me. I've read this book many times since my first read and I would recommend it to all who have read and loved the first book. Having said that, this book doesn't need you to have read Du Maurier's story, it is a stand alone book on it's own.
This was my first Sally Beauman book; I've now read all her novels and found them enjoyable. It's not literary fiction but it's a really good read. 4★
September 13, 2021
The writing is wonderfully atmospheric, the sea is beautifully captured and one is returned to du Maurier's world. All this, I very much like.
However, the book has a message that is terribly conventional, typical of contemporary literature and so politically correct that as a result it becomes simplistic and one-dimensional. Who says that in sharing a life with another one must relinquish one’s own will and independence? This need not be so! Sharing a life with another does not necessarily mean one must give up freedom, intellectual integrity or choice. Marriage need not deprive a woman of these fundamental rights.
To be fair, the book doesn’t say just this.
Now I’ll backtrack to explain how the story is told. We look at Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca. How did Rebecca come to die and more importantly what do we know of her personality? Four different characters speak their mind! Two are women and two are men. What is put before us is a mystery saga. Questions are to be answered, motivations analyzed and events unrolled in the correct order. Family relationships are complicated. One hears opposing points of view. Is there necessarily only one interpretation that is right?! I stopped caring. Sorting through hearsay, gossip and convoluted explanations irritated me . Admittedly, I am not a fan of mysteries.
I find the resolution too simplistic, too predictable, too in line with what one should say today. I want a spark of originality. I am not interested in reinterpreting the past in this way.
The audiobookI is narrated by Robert Powell and Juliet Stevenson. Powell’s narration is superb. He reads the two sections voiced by the men—an elderly Brit and a younger man who is a Scot. Both are excellently performed. Both fit he characters to a T. Juliet Stevenson reads the section where Rebecca speaks and another where the daughter of the elderly Brit voices her point of view. The two intonations are too similar! I give Powell’s narration five stars, Stevenson’s three.
You need not have read Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier before you read Sally Beauman’s Rebecca's Tale.
************************
*Rebecca 3 stars by Daphne du Maurier
*Rebecca's Tale 2 stars by Sally Beauman
However, the book has a message that is terribly conventional, typical of contemporary literature and so politically correct that as a result it becomes simplistic and one-dimensional. Who says that in sharing a life with another one must relinquish one’s own will and independence? This need not be so! Sharing a life with another does not necessarily mean one must give up freedom, intellectual integrity or choice. Marriage need not deprive a woman of these fundamental rights.
To be fair, the book doesn’t say just this.
Now I’ll backtrack to explain how the story is told. We look at Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca. How did Rebecca come to die and more importantly what do we know of her personality? Four different characters speak their mind! Two are women and two are men. What is put before us is a mystery saga. Questions are to be answered, motivations analyzed and events unrolled in the correct order. Family relationships are complicated. One hears opposing points of view. Is there necessarily only one interpretation that is right?! I stopped caring. Sorting through hearsay, gossip and convoluted explanations irritated me . Admittedly, I am not a fan of mysteries.
I find the resolution too simplistic, too predictable, too in line with what one should say today. I want a spark of originality. I am not interested in reinterpreting the past in this way.
The audiobookI is narrated by Robert Powell and Juliet Stevenson. Powell’s narration is superb. He reads the two sections voiced by the men—an elderly Brit and a younger man who is a Scot. Both are excellently performed. Both fit he characters to a T. Juliet Stevenson reads the section where Rebecca speaks and another where the daughter of the elderly Brit voices her point of view. The two intonations are too similar! I give Powell’s narration five stars, Stevenson’s three.
You need not have read Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier before you read Sally Beauman’s Rebecca's Tale.
************************
*Rebecca 3 stars by Daphne du Maurier
*Rebecca's Tale 2 stars by Sally Beauman
March 7, 2012
While I don't think that Rebecca's Tale is quite the great classic that its literary source is, I enjoyed it very much on a second reading, possibly more than the first time. It's certainly a page turner in the way Rebecca is, and it's also just as full of unreliable narrators interpreting stories, at second hand, that were unreliable start with!
Having read it I still don't know if Rebecca was a Jezebel or a woman multiply wronged... although it does seem to me that she might have been a combination of both, and more, and had become the former because of the latter. And I certainly come out of this book disliking Maxim de Winter even more than ever, although somehow I feel more pity for the second Mrs de Winter.
Just like the original novel, Rebecca's Tale has that power, for me, of seeming like a *true* story, and that's got to be a measure of its quality.
Rebecca's tale is elusive, frustrating and poignant. Much like the original...
Having read it I still don't know if Rebecca was a Jezebel or a woman multiply wronged... although it does seem to me that she might have been a combination of both, and more, and had become the former because of the latter. And I certainly come out of this book disliking Maxim de Winter even more than ever, although somehow I feel more pity for the second Mrs de Winter.
Just like the original novel, Rebecca's Tale has that power, for me, of seeming like a *true* story, and that's got to be a measure of its quality.
Rebecca's tale is elusive, frustrating and poignant. Much like the original...
September 17, 2007
Fake sequels (those written by someone other than the author) are pretty bad in the first place, but this one goes over the top. If you're going to write a fake sequel, you can't claim that what the original author wrote wasn't the truth. (i.e. oh, actually, Rebecca never had an affair with her cousin; that was just ugly gossip.)
Clearly Beaumont knows REBECCA very well, but has always sympathized more with Rebecca than with the narrator, and felt the need to redeem her somehow. The description and characterization of the second Mrs. de Winter is almost offensive.
Clearly Beaumont knows REBECCA very well, but has always sympathized more with Rebecca than with the narrator, and felt the need to redeem her somehow. The description and characterization of the second Mrs. de Winter is almost offensive.
October 20, 2009
I'd really like to give it 1.5 stars, but it gets 2 simply because it started out with alot of promise. However, by the end it became a politically correct, feminist scree from Beauman that made no sense in the context of the time period which the book took place.
Simply one of those books where the writer should have quit while they were ahead.
Simply one of those books where the writer should have quit while they were ahead.
December 14, 2014
Books that our take-offs from other author's works are not my favorite. Still my book cub selected this so I read this account of Rebecca, of the Daphne DuMaurier book of the same name. The premise is that a man, Terence Grey, shows up in the village around Manderley twenty years after Rebecca's death asking questions about her. The story is told in sections by Colonel Julyan, the magistrate at the time of her death, Terence Grey, a long section from Rebecca's journals and Ellie, Julyan's daughter.
The writing is slow and ponderous. It is trying to recreate DuMaurier's pacing and style but doesn't quite make it. There are long sections when I thoughtful editing could really have improved it. It just became frustrating and it was much too long at over 400 pages.
When I finally stumbles to the end, I thought so what? There was nothing new and interesting. It didn't add anything to the story. It didn't make be see the original book in any new way. It didn't offer anything of value and made me wonder why the story was even written.
The writing is slow and ponderous. It is trying to recreate DuMaurier's pacing and style but doesn't quite make it. There are long sections when I thoughtful editing could really have improved it. It just became frustrating and it was much too long at over 400 pages.
When I finally stumbles to the end, I thought so what? There was nothing new and interesting. It didn't add anything to the story. It didn't make be see the original book in any new way. It didn't offer anything of value and made me wonder why the story was even written.
November 3, 2019
La colpa è anche un po' mia: appena vedo qualcosa che ha minimamente a che fare con Rebecca o con la Du Maurier non posso resistere.
Il romanzo sarebbe anche ben scritto, ma per me nulla può competere.
Nulla si può aggiungere.
Non toccatemi Rebecca!
Il romanzo sarebbe anche ben scritto, ma per me nulla può competere.
Nulla si può aggiungere.
Non toccatemi Rebecca!
June 13, 2008
The daughter of a minor character from Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca joins forces with a journalist (with a hidden motive) to discover The Truth behind the mysterious Rebecca. Now, I’m not averse to ���continuations” of novels, but this book commits the literary sacrilege of altering the essential nature of the characters in du Maurier’s story. And as if that’s not bad enough, we’re asked to believe that a woman is going to be delighted when the man she’s in love with confesses he’s gay? And in the 1950’s?! Sure, that reaction rings true. Unfortunately, the preposterous aspects of the book overshadow what could be an okay mystery.
January 9, 2013
As a longtime fan of Hitchcock's Rebecca, I enjoyed the story that inspired it written by Daphne Dumaurier. I was overjoyed to read this book and learn more about the backstory of Rebecca's characters. I have been reading a lot of undue criticism from other readers who are intolerant of the author's tendency to take creative license in her efforts to fluff out the story. I welcomed the different points of view that the story used to tell the tale because we gained valuable perspective from each angle. Beginning with Cnl. Julyan, the magistrate who was present at Max's inquest in the original tale, followed by a visiting journalist who's obsessive interest in Rebecca's story is revealed as the book progresses. We are made privy to a diary allegedly left by Rebecca as she recounts her childhood and trajectory from her hardscrabble beginnings as the bastard daughter of a fallen lady of society. As she grows up and schemes to win the affections of Max Dewinter, we are asked to overlook that she is purported to be his first cousin by virtue of her questionable parentage. I was fascinated as the story of the journalist unfolded to reveal his origins as Rebecca's bastard half-brother adopted from an orphanage and raised under the cloak of mystery. The book is full of the effects of the old caste system of European society. Rebecca's mother had noble blood but lost privileges when she became pregnant by a philandering businessman who failed to support her financially. The last section of the book is told from the viepoint of Captain Julyan's dutiful daughter who turns down a marriage proposal from a doctor to explore life on her own. I was disappointed by that outcome thinking that girls in the 1950s were bred to become successfully married. Since she blatatnly passed up a golden chance, I didn't root for her unconventional choices.
March 28, 2008
Terrible.
Someone please remind me to stop reading fan-fiction of classics. :(
It kills me to even have to give it 1 star.
Someone please remind me to stop reading fan-fiction of classics. :(
It kills me to even have to give it 1 star.
November 25, 2011
Loved and loved this book a real page turner. Read years ago so not able to review it now.
November 19, 2011
Sally Beauman, in "Rebecca's Tale", cleverly explores many of the themes in Daphne Du Maurier’s “Rebecca”, including jealousy, powerful man/powerless woman, as well as identity, obsession, the relationship between past & present, & exploration of mothers and fathers – both good and bad – and how we might see someone as a Good Mother or Bad Father but have that view change if we look at it through a different lens. Beauman introduces gay & lesbian characters (only hinted at by Du Maurier), & digs deeper into other subtleties that Du Maurier touched on – pedophilia, incest & how effects of syphilis can be passed on.
Not only that, but here’s something I really loved – this book has not one, not two, but FOUR unreliable narrators! I’m not sure who else has picked up on that. I’m not sure that ANY of the narrators in “Rebecca’s Tale” is telling the truth – including Rebecca! Yes, once again we are not entirely sure who she is. I thought this was an interesting addition to the Rebecca canon because on reading Du Maurier’s novel, I think one can make a case that none of the characters in that novel are entirely telling the truth either. Every character has secrets. (Oh – there’s another theme!)
And yes, I love Du Maurier’s “Rebecca” – who doesn’t?! If you love “Rebecca” so much that you can’t stand the thought of looking at it through a different lens, by all means do not read Beauman’s book, because you will not like it. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, can I say that “Rebecca’s Tale” is a separate book?! It’s not a prequel. It’s not a sequel. It’s a different book based on the same characters & plot, by a different writer. The existence of “Rebecca’s Tale” doesn’t affect the original “Rebecca” one way or the other! I love “Rebecca” & it stands on its own merits. I also enjoyed “Rebecca’s Tale”. And Du Maurier is still a better writer, tho Beauman does a good job here. But if you want to keep your view of the original Rebecca character as an evil woman without any redeeming features, by all means do so, whether you read Beauman’s book or not! Again, at the risk of being drummed out of the Du Maurier Club, I can’t remember the first time I read “Rebecca” – I think my mom read it to me when I was around 11 or 12 – but the second time I read it, I did wonder…isn’t Maxim a little controlling?! Isn’t Nameless Wife a little crazy?!
My biggest quibble with “Rebecca’s Tale” is the first section, narrated by Colonel Julyan. It’s the least interesting of the four sections, which is too bad since it’s at the beginning. On the other hand, I’m not sure I understood the bit about the small coffin he kept dreaming about. Is he talking/dreaming about the body that was buried in Rebecca’s place? If it wasn’t for the small coffin, I could almost dismiss the Julyan section as not really belonging with the rest of the book—but as it is I can’t quite do that. It did leave me wondering what “secrets” Julyan was hiding even by the end of the book – though in other ways he seems like the least interesting of characters. Anyway, if you read this book, do persevere through the Julyan section, because it gets better!
Not only that, but here’s something I really loved – this book has not one, not two, but FOUR unreliable narrators! I’m not sure who else has picked up on that. I’m not sure that ANY of the narrators in “Rebecca’s Tale” is telling the truth – including Rebecca! Yes, once again we are not entirely sure who she is. I thought this was an interesting addition to the Rebecca canon because on reading Du Maurier’s novel, I think one can make a case that none of the characters in that novel are entirely telling the truth either. Every character has secrets. (Oh – there’s another theme!)
And yes, I love Du Maurier’s “Rebecca” – who doesn’t?! If you love “Rebecca” so much that you can’t stand the thought of looking at it through a different lens, by all means do not read Beauman’s book, because you will not like it. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, can I say that “Rebecca’s Tale” is a separate book?! It’s not a prequel. It’s not a sequel. It’s a different book based on the same characters & plot, by a different writer. The existence of “Rebecca’s Tale” doesn’t affect the original “Rebecca” one way or the other! I love “Rebecca” & it stands on its own merits. I also enjoyed “Rebecca’s Tale”. And Du Maurier is still a better writer, tho Beauman does a good job here. But if you want to keep your view of the original Rebecca character as an evil woman without any redeeming features, by all means do so, whether you read Beauman’s book or not! Again, at the risk of being drummed out of the Du Maurier Club, I can’t remember the first time I read “Rebecca” – I think my mom read it to me when I was around 11 or 12 – but the second time I read it, I did wonder…isn’t Maxim a little controlling?! Isn’t Nameless Wife a little crazy?!
My biggest quibble with “Rebecca’s Tale” is the first section, narrated by Colonel Julyan. It’s the least interesting of the four sections, which is too bad since it’s at the beginning. On the other hand, I’m not sure I understood the bit about the small coffin he kept dreaming about. Is he talking/dreaming about the body that was buried in Rebecca’s place? If it wasn’t for the small coffin, I could almost dismiss the Julyan section as not really belonging with the rest of the book—but as it is I can’t quite do that. It did leave me wondering what “secrets” Julyan was hiding even by the end of the book – though in other ways he seems like the least interesting of characters. Anyway, if you read this book, do persevere through the Julyan section, because it gets better!
June 13, 2014
Rebecca was a wonderfully, haunting gothic tale. Rebecca's tale is not. It's not even a decent detective story. Rebecca is a vivid character, a character that colours the lives of everyone in the original work, you are left to wonder at her. She is accomplished, beautiful and everyone desires her, yet.. It is made clear in the original story that she is manipulative, a liar and she had numerous affairs (confirmed by Flavell and Danvers).
However, Miss Beauman decides that clearly Rebecca is a modern heroine who must be praised for cuckolding her husband. After all she was being emotionally oppressed by the man apparently so everything her character does is justified. It is a very modern approach to the character and pushed so throroughly that we have to hate the timid original narrator. Indeed when Mrs De Winter appears, she does not seem to have aged, in fact, she seems as dreamy and timid as from the first book.
Rebecca's Tale does not give us a true picture of Rebecca, it gives us a rosy, sympathetic view. She is portrayed as this ultimate feminist, obviously wonderful because she doesn't settle into a 'wifely' role and perfectly entitled to cheat on her husband, because he doesn't stoke her fire enough. Rebecca in the original is ambivalent, she's a strong woman, yet deceitful; accomplished yet her likeability is a façade, she is a bright star that burns. Her truth can be seen through many of the characters in Rebecca, not just Max. Mrs Danvers confirms that she hates the men in her life and that she slept around, that Maxim was tricked into marriage. Yes Rebecca is a vivid character, yet this obsession to turn her into a modern heroine who is railing against traditional constraints is terrible and doesn't work.
Maxim is also terribly dealt with, once again, the depths of the character are ignored and Miss Beauman focuses on the 'evilness' of being a man unwilling to endure scandal. Maxim always struck me as a troubled character, one driven to the ultimate act of revenge, struck by guilt and his attention to duty. Yet Max De Winter is ignobly killed off.
I found Rebecca's tale unsatisfying as it seemed determined to push modern attitudes on the main characters and ignoring the many facets of the original cast. There was a determination to push Rebecca as a victim of terrible men and really, there was more to the character than that.
However, Miss Beauman decides that clearly Rebecca is a modern heroine who must be praised for cuckolding her husband. After all she was being emotionally oppressed by the man apparently so everything her character does is justified. It is a very modern approach to the character and pushed so throroughly that we have to hate the timid original narrator. Indeed when Mrs De Winter appears, she does not seem to have aged, in fact, she seems as dreamy and timid as from the first book.
Rebecca's Tale does not give us a true picture of Rebecca, it gives us a rosy, sympathetic view. She is portrayed as this ultimate feminist, obviously wonderful because she doesn't settle into a 'wifely' role and perfectly entitled to cheat on her husband, because he doesn't stoke her fire enough. Rebecca in the original is ambivalent, she's a strong woman, yet deceitful; accomplished yet her likeability is a façade, she is a bright star that burns. Her truth can be seen through many of the characters in Rebecca, not just Max. Mrs Danvers confirms that she hates the men in her life and that she slept around, that Maxim was tricked into marriage. Yes Rebecca is a vivid character, yet this obsession to turn her into a modern heroine who is railing against traditional constraints is terrible and doesn't work.
Maxim is also terribly dealt with, once again, the depths of the character are ignored and Miss Beauman focuses on the 'evilness' of being a man unwilling to endure scandal. Maxim always struck me as a troubled character, one driven to the ultimate act of revenge, struck by guilt and his attention to duty. Yet Max De Winter is ignobly killed off.
I found Rebecca's tale unsatisfying as it seemed determined to push modern attitudes on the main characters and ignoring the many facets of the original cast. There was a determination to push Rebecca as a victim of terrible men and really, there was more to the character than that.
September 16, 2010
Audiobook. This review is totally based upon the fact that Sally Beauman took a wonderful story, the original Rebecca and turned it all around so it's almost unrecognizable. Rebecca is a sympathetic, misunderstood character that really hadn't been maneuvering people's lives for her own enjoyment and their pain. Max is a character who just doesn't understand Rebecca and is portrayed as a villain who ultimately committed suicide by car because he couldn't live without Rebecca. The 2nd Mrs. DeWinter is a mousy, boring, petty woman who couldn't keep Max's interest and their marriage ended up being a bad one. Even Mrs. Danvers ends up alive. WHAT!!!!???!!!
I can see maybe writing a book about Rebecca that shows how she became such a manipulative, horrible person. Start her out innocent and then go from there. But to change everyone in the story around so much? It's like the author didn't enjoy the first book at all and thought she could improve upon it by changing the fundamental parts of the original book. Maybe she should have just written her own story with characters that had nothing to so with Rebecca at all. Perhaps then this book wouldn't have been so bad. The writing itself is okay, the journal entries by Rebecca are the best part. But overall Ugh!
I can see maybe writing a book about Rebecca that shows how she became such a manipulative, horrible person. Start her out innocent and then go from there. But to change everyone in the story around so much? It's like the author didn't enjoy the first book at all and thought she could improve upon it by changing the fundamental parts of the original book. Maybe she should have just written her own story with characters that had nothing to so with Rebecca at all. Perhaps then this book wouldn't have been so bad. The writing itself is okay, the journal entries by Rebecca are the best part. But overall Ugh!
August 10, 2016
More like 2.5, but rounded up; I'm feeling generous today.
I love the premise, & the writing was good -- I'm certainly willing to try Beauman's fiction again. But overall, meh. For one thing, it's way too long -- there's a high ratio of nothing happening compared to the page count. The other problem is that Gray & Ellie's sections (roughly half said page count) are boring as sin. Their narratives simply screamed "overwritten lit-fic" & brought very little to the Rebecca story. If the narrative divides had focused on, say, Julyan + Rebecca's diary + a now-senile Mrs Danvers, that would have made for a more tightly woven continuation. But Gray & Ellie don't feel connected to Rebecca's saga, despite Beauman pushing, shoving, & stretching to fit their own (rather paltry, IMO) problems into the scope of the original. It's a textbook example of Trying Too Hard(tm).
...That said, I did enjoy grumpy ol' Julyan's section, & Rebecca's diary was interesting (even if too heavy-handed in the blatant feminist revisionary mode).
I've read worse, but it could've been so much better.
I love the premise, & the writing was good -- I'm certainly willing to try Beauman's fiction again. But overall, meh. For one thing, it's way too long -- there's a high ratio of nothing happening compared to the page count. The other problem is that Gray & Ellie's sections (roughly half said page count) are boring as sin. Their narratives simply screamed "overwritten lit-fic" & brought very little to the Rebecca story. If the narrative divides had focused on, say, Julyan + Rebecca's diary + a now-senile Mrs Danvers, that would have made for a more tightly woven continuation. But Gray & Ellie don't feel connected to Rebecca's saga, despite Beauman pushing, shoving, & stretching to fit their own (rather paltry, IMO) problems into the scope of the original. It's a textbook example of Trying Too Hard(tm).
...That said, I did enjoy grumpy ol' Julyan's section, & Rebecca's diary was interesting (even if too heavy-handed in the blatant feminist revisionary mode).
I've read worse, but it could've been so much better.
November 1, 2022
My word this was a hard slog.
I found it one of those books that doesn't really pick up pace at all, it meanders on for hours and hours and hours until you find it's finished and you haven't clue what happened.
A wonderful description of country life in the post war period but still not enough to keep me enthralled at all.
I found it one of those books that doesn't really pick up pace at all, it meanders on for hours and hours and hours until you find it's finished and you haven't clue what happened.
A wonderful description of country life in the post war period but still not enough to keep me enthralled at all.
May 28, 2012
Why oh why do so many reviewers say that if you liked the original Rebecca, you'll like or be interested in this? What an absolute joke. This is nothing like the original. As far as I can see, it reads more like an author who couldn't come up with her own damn story and had to ruin someone else's than any sort of "satisfying" follow up to a beloved classic. I rarely find books that I can truly say that I actually hate, but this is one of the few. Most of the time I just don't enjoy it, put it down, and don't bother finishing. I'm really never left with this kind of intense feeling of something pretty close to anger after finishing a book.
I don't quite know why I finished this book, except that I think I kept hoping I was wrong and it would get better and someone who (according to the cover) is a NY Times bestselling author wouldn't just completely bastardize, manipulate, and ruin a quintessential classic just for her own entertainment/monetary gains.
It had a few moments I found intriguing, but even just as a book itself, even if she hadn't completely destroyed the original story, it was kind of insufferable. The opening narration, Julyan's, was horrifically written and highly boring. Shouldn't a bestselling author know better than to spend pages and pages just giving boring background information on each of her characters? Hasn't she ever heard of the writing commanded "show, don't tell"? Besides this, Julyan himself is horrible. He's bigoted and cold and unfriendly and seems to hate pretty much everybody.
The second narration, Gray's (or whatever his name is) was slightly better. I hated pretty much everything that she decided to add in terms of some sort of relationship to Rebecca (how preposterous. Honestly.), but at least the character's voice was mildly more interesting and less irritating.
Rebecca's journals... oy. There are some echoes of the selfish, heartless character glimpsed in Du Maurier's novel, but other than that, again, it just seems so far off from the character described in the original. The original Rebecca is refined, haughty, manipulative - this twaddle about her mother being an actress and her being shunted around as a teenager and whatever else was just ridiculous.
The final narration, Ellie's was horrible, and much of it was so boring that I skimmed the last twenty pages or so. The exchange with Mrs. Danvers was just weird, and while I could see the obsession in Mrs. Danvers, I don't see the story Beauman created for her really being quite plausible. She was certainly more in control and more horribly manipulative than this pathetic ghost Beauman paints. Ellie herself, trying to defend Rebecca and take Rebecca's side, even when Tom and others tell her that she's wrong and they read it differently, was just annoying, and I wasn't sure what the point was. The final appearance of the second Mrs. De Winter... I just... oh, come on. Really? And Maxim coming back and suiciding after 15 years away? What a joke.
All I can think is that Beauman doesn't seem to have actually much liked the original novel at all. If anything, she clearly hated all of the characters meant to be sympathetic and sets out to show the "villains" of the story as the real victims. It's ridiculous. This book should come with a warning: "if you actually liked Du Maurier's Rebecca, don't read this book."
I've generally stayed away from these unauthorized sequel type novels before, and now I see that I was well advised to do so. I saw this at the library and thought it might well be interesting to see what some other author thought came next, but I was wrong. The worst of it is that, not only is the story completely butchered, but the writing isn't even good. After Du Maurier's elegant command of mystery and suspense through language, it's practically offensively clunky.
To sum up (and clearly, you can see that this novel actually kind of pissed me off, which I haven't really had happen before with a book), if I didn't have to return this to the library, I'd probably have a ritual burning of it. As it is, at least I didn't waste any money buying it.
I don't quite know why I finished this book, except that I think I kept hoping I was wrong and it would get better and someone who (according to the cover) is a NY Times bestselling author wouldn't just completely bastardize, manipulate, and ruin a quintessential classic just for her own entertainment/monetary gains.
It had a few moments I found intriguing, but even just as a book itself, even if she hadn't completely destroyed the original story, it was kind of insufferable. The opening narration, Julyan's, was horrifically written and highly boring. Shouldn't a bestselling author know better than to spend pages and pages just giving boring background information on each of her characters? Hasn't she ever heard of the writing commanded "show, don't tell"? Besides this, Julyan himself is horrible. He's bigoted and cold and unfriendly and seems to hate pretty much everybody.
The second narration, Gray's (or whatever his name is) was slightly better. I hated pretty much everything that she decided to add in terms of some sort of relationship to Rebecca (how preposterous. Honestly.), but at least the character's voice was mildly more interesting and less irritating.
Rebecca's journals... oy. There are some echoes of the selfish, heartless character glimpsed in Du Maurier's novel, but other than that, again, it just seems so far off from the character described in the original. The original Rebecca is refined, haughty, manipulative - this twaddle about her mother being an actress and her being shunted around as a teenager and whatever else was just ridiculous.
The final narration, Ellie's was horrible, and much of it was so boring that I skimmed the last twenty pages or so. The exchange with Mrs. Danvers was just weird, and while I could see the obsession in Mrs. Danvers, I don't see the story Beauman created for her really being quite plausible. She was certainly more in control and more horribly manipulative than this pathetic ghost Beauman paints. Ellie herself, trying to defend Rebecca and take Rebecca's side, even when Tom and others tell her that she's wrong and they read it differently, was just annoying, and I wasn't sure what the point was. The final appearance of the second Mrs. De Winter... I just... oh, come on. Really? And Maxim coming back and suiciding after 15 years away? What a joke.
All I can think is that Beauman doesn't seem to have actually much liked the original novel at all. If anything, she clearly hated all of the characters meant to be sympathetic and sets out to show the "villains" of the story as the real victims. It's ridiculous. This book should come with a warning: "if you actually liked Du Maurier's Rebecca, don't read this book."
I've generally stayed away from these unauthorized sequel type novels before, and now I see that I was well advised to do so. I saw this at the library and thought it might well be interesting to see what some other author thought came next, but I was wrong. The worst of it is that, not only is the story completely butchered, but the writing isn't even good. After Du Maurier's elegant command of mystery and suspense through language, it's practically offensively clunky.
To sum up (and clearly, you can see that this novel actually kind of pissed me off, which I haven't really had happen before with a book), if I didn't have to return this to the library, I'd probably have a ritual burning of it. As it is, at least I didn't waste any money buying it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 31, 2021
I hate it when modern idiot writers steal the ideas in famous classics. Rebecca was wicked and now someone wants to make her out to be nice!????
July 14, 2011
Rebecca's Tale by Sally Beauman is set 20 years after Rebecca's death and the burning of Manderley. It follows the search of Terence Gray for the real Rebecca and the answer to what really happened to her. There is also the small matter of packages with reminders of Rebecca which have been mailed to the family's friend Colonel Julyan and her cousin Jack Favell. Notebooks and mementos that stir up memories.
I have mixed feelings about this book. Standing on its own merits, it is a terrific investigation of truth and point of view. Beauman uses several points of view to tell her story--Colonel Julyan, Terence Gray, Rebecca herself (through the notebooks) and finally Ellie Julyan, the colonel's daughter. With every shift of narrator, she drives home the notion that Gray thinks about early in the book:
"I'm never likely to discover the truth about Rebecca--and what is the truth, anyway? Not a fixed thing, in my experience--never a fixed thing. The truth fluctuate, it shifts; look at it from this window and it takes one shape; look at it from another, and it's altered."
This is true as we follow the different narrators. Colonel Julyan gives us one version of his initial meetings with Terence Gray; Gray gives us a slightly different version. Not that either of the men is lying-- but each conceals certain facts or views them with their different prejudices and preconceived notions. Even when Gray begins interviewing those who still remain from the days when Rebecca lived and died at Manderley, we are shown different versions of the same story. What exactly is the truth? And even Jack Favell begins to doubt what he thought he knew about the past. He says:
"Strange, isn't it? You start talking about the past, and you think you've understood it, and then you suddenly see: Maybe it wasn't the way you thought at the time, maybe there's a different explanation."
I started reading this thinking that all would be explained. I found that wasn't true at all. The reader is still left with doubts. Whose voice should we trust? Can we even trust what Rebecca wrote in her notebooks? There is reason to think that we shouldn't. And, now, having finished the book, I think that this is as it should be. I would hate for all the loose ends that were left dangling in such a tantalizing manner in Rebecca would suddenly be cleared up.
That brings me to my misgivings about the book. As a sequel to Rebecca, I'm not at all sure that I'm satisfied (I rarely am with sequels by other authors or remakes). I don't buy Colonel Julyan for one thing...his characterization doesn't quite ring true with me. The only voice that does ring the least bit true is Rebecca's...and I don't quite trust that she's told the truth. Of course, given what we're told about her in du Maurier's story...that characterization is spot on. We're not supposed to trust Rebecca. And, of course, this book does not have the same gothic feel to it. I miss the shadow and eeriness of the du Maurier classic. Three stars out five...mostly for Beauman's skill with point of view and exploring how trustworthy that is.
This review was first posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting any portion. Thanks.
I have mixed feelings about this book. Standing on its own merits, it is a terrific investigation of truth and point of view. Beauman uses several points of view to tell her story--Colonel Julyan, Terence Gray, Rebecca herself (through the notebooks) and finally Ellie Julyan, the colonel's daughter. With every shift of narrator, she drives home the notion that Gray thinks about early in the book:
"I'm never likely to discover the truth about Rebecca--and what is the truth, anyway? Not a fixed thing, in my experience--never a fixed thing. The truth fluctuate, it shifts; look at it from this window and it takes one shape; look at it from another, and it's altered."
This is true as we follow the different narrators. Colonel Julyan gives us one version of his initial meetings with Terence Gray; Gray gives us a slightly different version. Not that either of the men is lying-- but each conceals certain facts or views them with their different prejudices and preconceived notions. Even when Gray begins interviewing those who still remain from the days when Rebecca lived and died at Manderley, we are shown different versions of the same story. What exactly is the truth? And even Jack Favell begins to doubt what he thought he knew about the past. He says:
"Strange, isn't it? You start talking about the past, and you think you've understood it, and then you suddenly see: Maybe it wasn't the way you thought at the time, maybe there's a different explanation."
I started reading this thinking that all would be explained. I found that wasn't true at all. The reader is still left with doubts. Whose voice should we trust? Can we even trust what Rebecca wrote in her notebooks? There is reason to think that we shouldn't. And, now, having finished the book, I think that this is as it should be. I would hate for all the loose ends that were left dangling in such a tantalizing manner in Rebecca would suddenly be cleared up.
That brings me to my misgivings about the book. As a sequel to Rebecca, I'm not at all sure that I'm satisfied (I rarely am with sequels by other authors or remakes). I don't buy Colonel Julyan for one thing...his characterization doesn't quite ring true with me. The only voice that does ring the least bit true is Rebecca's...and I don't quite trust that she's told the truth. Of course, given what we're told about her in du Maurier's story...that characterization is spot on. We're not supposed to trust Rebecca. And, of course, this book does not have the same gothic feel to it. I miss the shadow and eeriness of the du Maurier classic. Three stars out five...mostly for Beauman's skill with point of view and exploring how trustworthy that is.
This review was first posted on my blog My Reader's Block. Please request permission before reposting any portion. Thanks.
May 29, 2009
Reading Wide Sargasso Sea reminded me that years ago I'd bought a copy of Beauman's novel — which in effect gives the other side of the story about Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca. Although chastened by the Rhys book, I plunged in anyway.
The novel has four narrators: Colonel Julyan, who was Maxim de Winter's old pal and who was keen not to raise too many questions about Rebecca's death; a young scholar who's come to snoop around Manderley for reasons of his own; Rebecca herself in a discovered diary from twenty years earlier; and Colonel Julyan's daughter Ellie.
It's something of a problem that the first narrator we encounter is Colonel Julyan. He's portrayed as a somewhat irascible, rather likable, slightly devious but in all truth pretty boring old fart — which is absolutely fine and dandy so far as Beauman's tale is concerned, but not for the poor reader who has to spend the first hundred pages or so in Colonel Julyan's company. It was here that I felt my training, as it were, with Wide Sargasso Sea came in especially useful, because I plowed on nevertheless.
And I'm extremely glad I did so. By the end of this longish book about three days later I was quite literally breathless. The unraveling of the mystery surrounding Rebecca — in her life as much as her death — makes absorbing reading, and the last quarter of the book is all the more compulsively readable because one spends it in the company of Julyan's daughter Ellie, easily the most attractive and sympathetic of the four narrators. Jolly good stuff.
The novel has four narrators: Colonel Julyan, who was Maxim de Winter's old pal and who was keen not to raise too many questions about Rebecca's death; a young scholar who's come to snoop around Manderley for reasons of his own; Rebecca herself in a discovered diary from twenty years earlier; and Colonel Julyan's daughter Ellie.
It's something of a problem that the first narrator we encounter is Colonel Julyan. He's portrayed as a somewhat irascible, rather likable, slightly devious but in all truth pretty boring old fart — which is absolutely fine and dandy so far as Beauman's tale is concerned, but not for the poor reader who has to spend the first hundred pages or so in Colonel Julyan's company. It was here that I felt my training, as it were, with Wide Sargasso Sea came in especially useful, because I plowed on nevertheless.
And I'm extremely glad I did so. By the end of this longish book about three days later I was quite literally breathless. The unraveling of the mystery surrounding Rebecca — in her life as much as her death — makes absorbing reading, and the last quarter of the book is all the more compulsively readable because one spends it in the company of Julyan's daughter Ellie, easily the most attractive and sympathetic of the four narrators. Jolly good stuff.
October 6, 2009
I beg all readers, please don't compare this to the Du Maurier's classic 'Rebecca'. While Maurier was a storyteller(and a great one at that), Beauman is a perfect prose writer. Her descriptions of Manderley cross the precincts of the Manderley mansion and flow bountifully across the beaches and the sea.
The book has been divided into different parts, each narrated by a different character. Max and the second lady of Manderley have been cast aside as the narration flows from the memories, diaries and imaginations of people that knew Rebecca. Beauman daringly attempts to unveil some of the mysteries that surrounded her and the answers to which Du Maurier had not provided in the orignal classic. I can safely say that Beauman succeeds in doing what she set out to do. Lovers of the classic masterpiece would definitely like to read this 'sequel'.
Regarding my rating of this novel, perhaps I had anticipated too much or perhaps I unknowingly kept comparing it to the classic. For me, the mysteries around Rebecca's life added a lot of romance to the original and I loved that.
Overall, a delightful book worth reading and a definite must read for 'Rebecca' fans.
The book has been divided into different parts, each narrated by a different character. Max and the second lady of Manderley have been cast aside as the narration flows from the memories, diaries and imaginations of people that knew Rebecca. Beauman daringly attempts to unveil some of the mysteries that surrounded her and the answers to which Du Maurier had not provided in the orignal classic. I can safely say that Beauman succeeds in doing what she set out to do. Lovers of the classic masterpiece would definitely like to read this 'sequel'.
Regarding my rating of this novel, perhaps I had anticipated too much or perhaps I unknowingly kept comparing it to the classic. For me, the mysteries around Rebecca's life added a lot of romance to the original and I loved that.
Overall, a delightful book worth reading and a definite must read for 'Rebecca' fans.
November 10, 2009
The book was like many other sequels or prequels that want to change the nature of the main character to fit the storyline of the author. So it is with Sally Beauman, who like others that have written about Rebecca try to change her into a good person that we should admire instead of the cruel, manpipulative woman of DuMaurier's novel. And of course because this is a modern novel, although set in the 1950's, it is a feminist apology peice with its obligatory insinuations of incest, rape, homosexuallity; and of course, the time tested belief that marriage is a prison sentence, and a woman can only have independence through education and the single life.
September 27, 2020
It’s been three years since I read Rebecca and if nothing else, this book has made me want to read it again. Told from four different perspectives, each probably as unreliable as the others, it certainly drew me in. I’m not sure it really answered any questions about the type of character Rebecca’s was but it was an entertaining read nonetheless. Of all the sections I enjoyed Rebecca’s the least which was a bit surprising as I thought this would be the one I most enjoyed. And my only other criticism was that it was a bit repetitive at times. Now to dig out Rebecca to refresh my memory.
May 27, 2011
I seldom like a sequel to a story that is written by someone other than the original author, but this is an exception. For anyone who loved Rebecca, this is the book that will put her in a context different from any you might have imagined.
July 2, 2012
This is the book that introduced me to Rebecca du Maurier. Dark and haunted in a manner not unlike Wuthering Heights, it is immensely readable. Wonderful for a dark winter's night when a storm is raging and the sea is rising up....
February 27, 2019
This book in four parts, each narrated by a different character, is a sequel of sorts to Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. Decades after the end of the novel, characters introduced in the original novel and characters invented by Sally Beauman are still fascinated by the title character, her past, who she was, and what events truly lead to her tragic death. Sally Beauman explores these questions very creatively in a way that is cohesive with the original story.
For the first two parts of the novel, I was easily drawn in to the narrator's personal quests to solve these mysteries and found myself fascinated with the answers and further questions they found. However, the novel started to unravel a bit for me after that. I don't know why, but the male narrators' voices were much more compelling than the women's, even though the third part is narrated by Rebecca herself and should have been the most interesting. Perhaps it is because their desire to find out more about Rebecca was drenched in emotions like guilt and loneliness that made them so much more relatable.
By the final part, I had gotten enough answers and material for speculation that it felt like the story was dragging on. I appreciate that the author tried to end on a more hopeful note, with Ellie's character taking strength in the lessons learned from Rebecca., however, her connexion to the character and the mystery surrounding her was weaker than the other characters which limited the impact of such an ending.
I do appreciate that, while we get to explore character perspectives that were not included in the source material, no definitive answers are provided regarding Rebecca, her relationship with Maxim, and the matter of her death.
While I couldn't quite give the book four stars, the novel has a strong beginning and it does a good job at developing the canon in a way that feels respectful of the source material while also being its own piece of fiction. It's a good read if you've enjoyed Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, even if you decide not to view it as a formal sequel.
For the first two parts of the novel, I was easily drawn in to the narrator's personal quests to solve these mysteries and found myself fascinated with the answers and further questions they found. However, the novel started to unravel a bit for me after that. I don't know why, but the male narrators' voices were much more compelling than the women's, even though the third part is narrated by Rebecca herself and should have been the most interesting. Perhaps it is because their desire to find out more about Rebecca was drenched in emotions like guilt and loneliness that made them so much more relatable.
By the final part, I had gotten enough answers and material for speculation that it felt like the story was dragging on. I appreciate that the author tried to end on a more hopeful note, with Ellie's character taking strength in the lessons learned from Rebecca., however, her connexion to the character and the mystery surrounding her was weaker than the other characters which limited the impact of such an ending.
I do appreciate that, while we get to explore character perspectives that were not included in the source material, no definitive answers are provided regarding Rebecca, her relationship with Maxim, and the matter of her death.
While I couldn't quite give the book four stars, the novel has a strong beginning and it does a good job at developing the canon in a way that feels respectful of the source material while also being its own piece of fiction. It's a good read if you've enjoyed Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca, even if you decide not to view it as a formal sequel.
October 17, 2014
I’ve recently read the three novels that are continuations or, or inspired by, Daphne Du Maurier’s ‘Rebecca’. Of the three – ‘The Other Rebecca’ by Maureen Freely, ‘Mrs De Winter’ by Susan Hill and ‘Rebecca’s Tale’ by Sally Beaumann, the first prize must go to Beaumann. She keeps the voice of the original well, in terms of time and place, but the first narrator, in a novel of four parts, is the aged Colonel Julyan, who presided over Rebecca’s inquest. He’s always had his suspicions about what truly happened, but the mistake that Favell made, and perhaps readers too, is that he didn’t keep his suspicions quiet in order to protect Maxim and his family name, as was implied. He kept his silence in order to protect Rebecca, as he’d been very fond of her. The novel starts with him reminiscing over the past, because an upstart author wants to write yet another book about the Manderley mystery, which has become folklore in its part of the world. Julyan recollects his long relationship with the De Winter family, and I loved his description of being a boy, playing at the great old house. His portraits of the terrifying De Winter matriarch, (Maxim’s grandmother), the kind but wilting Virginia (his mother) and her glorious sisters, and of Bea and Maxim as children, are wonderful. The story draws you right in from the start because what happened to Rebecca was wholly tied up with the way the De Winters were, an ancient family going back eight hundred years. There’s more than a whiff of authors like P G Wodehouse and Evelyn Waugh, in the light, acerbic wit of the writing. This is nowhere near a ‘women’s romantic novel’ as I'd mistakenly believed.
I was surprised – and pleased – to find ‘Rebecca’s Tale’ keeps to the ‘canon’ found in Hill’s ‘Mrs De Winter’ – i.e. what happened to the De Winters when they returned to England, or at least as much of that as Julyan and other major characters can possibly know – which is only the bare facts. Still, this novel carries on neatly from Hill’s, (and was written afterwards), and it seems to me that Beaumann must have known of that book and kept to the same story. Or the similarities are just uncanny coincidences…
Part Two of the story is told by Terence Grey, the writer who’s in Kerrith investigating the story of Rebecca. Grey is a complex character, with secrets and tragedies of his own. His interest in the old story lurches towards obsession, dangerously so. Through Grey we meet some of the other characters from ‘Rebecca’ and hear their version of events – such as the cousin Jack Favell, Frith the erstwhile butler of Manderley, and other colourful Kerrith characters. The truth about Rebecca, it seems, is more convoluted than everyone thought. Her own history is revealed in tantalizing glimpses – the girl she’d once been and the woman she became who was mistress of Manderley. The reader begins to learn about her heritage. While Grey investigates, an anonymous individual is sending notebooks of Rebecca’s to Colonel Julyan, and is also perhaps the same person who leaves a wreath at Rebecca’s old boathouse cottage, and sends a piece of her jewellery to Favell. Mysteries mount, and I couldn’t turn the pages fast enough!
Part three is Rebecca’s own tale, as found in the second notebook sent to Julyan. But we know already that Rebecca is often a minx. Is her testimony reliable? Whether this is true or not, it’s riveting to read. A free spirit, Rebecca was born ahead of her time, totally unsuited to a woman’s life in the early part of the 20th century. She suffered for her difference, as she was rarely understood. And the tragic way she narrates her story to an unborn child she believes she is carrying is moving while being unsentimental. Naturally, Rebecca’s tale is cut short by her own death. Many threads are left dangling.
Part four is related by Ellie, Colonel Julyan’s daughter. Hers is a strong, true voice, but even she has her obsession with Rebecca, seeing in the dead woman a promising template for female emancipation at a time in history when women were fighting for their rights, and most men still regarded them as mistresses, mothers or domestics. Ellie’s is undoubtedly the most political account, but she is also a vibrant, convincing character with her own desires and dreams. Ellie uncovers more mysteries, and in one case solves one, while simultaneously growing as a person. During her account, the narrative never falters. All four narrators, each with their distinctive voice, carry the story along at a good pace, but it is still deep and ponderous – and I don’t mean that in a bad way. This is not a short or shallow book by any means.
Most, but not all, of the threads finally weave together and the reader is left to make up their own mind. You don’t feel in any way short-changed by that, though. What Beaumann has done is create a convincing account, including the difficulty of discovering historical truths, when the main protagonists are dead. Some truth died with them. Rebecca affected everyone she met, often dramatically. She is perhaps all the things everyone ever thought her to be, and more, a girl who fought to survive throughout a difficult childhood and adolescence, who set her will at making an adult life for herself, to her liking. But she is always human, believable. Her gift to Ellie is revealed at the end of book, perhaps far different from what you expect all the way through. I loved that. My favourite book of those I’ve read over the past few years is ‘The Little Stranger’ by Sarah Waters, but Sally Beaumann’s ‘Rebecca’s Tale’ will now be stored on the same shelf.
I was surprised – and pleased – to find ‘Rebecca’s Tale’ keeps to the ‘canon’ found in Hill’s ‘Mrs De Winter’ – i.e. what happened to the De Winters when they returned to England, or at least as much of that as Julyan and other major characters can possibly know – which is only the bare facts. Still, this novel carries on neatly from Hill’s, (and was written afterwards), and it seems to me that Beaumann must have known of that book and kept to the same story. Or the similarities are just uncanny coincidences…
Part Two of the story is told by Terence Grey, the writer who’s in Kerrith investigating the story of Rebecca. Grey is a complex character, with secrets and tragedies of his own. His interest in the old story lurches towards obsession, dangerously so. Through Grey we meet some of the other characters from ‘Rebecca’ and hear their version of events – such as the cousin Jack Favell, Frith the erstwhile butler of Manderley, and other colourful Kerrith characters. The truth about Rebecca, it seems, is more convoluted than everyone thought. Her own history is revealed in tantalizing glimpses – the girl she’d once been and the woman she became who was mistress of Manderley. The reader begins to learn about her heritage. While Grey investigates, an anonymous individual is sending notebooks of Rebecca’s to Colonel Julyan, and is also perhaps the same person who leaves a wreath at Rebecca’s old boathouse cottage, and sends a piece of her jewellery to Favell. Mysteries mount, and I couldn’t turn the pages fast enough!
Part three is Rebecca’s own tale, as found in the second notebook sent to Julyan. But we know already that Rebecca is often a minx. Is her testimony reliable? Whether this is true or not, it’s riveting to read. A free spirit, Rebecca was born ahead of her time, totally unsuited to a woman’s life in the early part of the 20th century. She suffered for her difference, as she was rarely understood. And the tragic way she narrates her story to an unborn child she believes she is carrying is moving while being unsentimental. Naturally, Rebecca’s tale is cut short by her own death. Many threads are left dangling.
Part four is related by Ellie, Colonel Julyan’s daughter. Hers is a strong, true voice, but even she has her obsession with Rebecca, seeing in the dead woman a promising template for female emancipation at a time in history when women were fighting for their rights, and most men still regarded them as mistresses, mothers or domestics. Ellie’s is undoubtedly the most political account, but she is also a vibrant, convincing character with her own desires and dreams. Ellie uncovers more mysteries, and in one case solves one, while simultaneously growing as a person. During her account, the narrative never falters. All four narrators, each with their distinctive voice, carry the story along at a good pace, but it is still deep and ponderous – and I don’t mean that in a bad way. This is not a short or shallow book by any means.
Most, but not all, of the threads finally weave together and the reader is left to make up their own mind. You don’t feel in any way short-changed by that, though. What Beaumann has done is create a convincing account, including the difficulty of discovering historical truths, when the main protagonists are dead. Some truth died with them. Rebecca affected everyone she met, often dramatically. She is perhaps all the things everyone ever thought her to be, and more, a girl who fought to survive throughout a difficult childhood and adolescence, who set her will at making an adult life for herself, to her liking. But she is always human, believable. Her gift to Ellie is revealed at the end of book, perhaps far different from what you expect all the way through. I loved that. My favourite book of those I’ve read over the past few years is ‘The Little Stranger’ by Sarah Waters, but Sally Beaumann’s ‘Rebecca’s Tale’ will now be stored on the same shelf.
February 8, 2021
4.5*
I never thought I would need a novel so pro-Rebecca, but I really did. After rereading Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, I was surprised by how my perspective had changed and I no longer sympathised with our nameless main character and instead was much more intrigued by the character of Rebecca. I knew it was my time to face this novel and delve into more of her story.
I'm aware that this is technically fan-fiction, but I see nothing wrong with that! Yes, Beauman's interpretation and character development is not canon. I see it as more of an exploration and an explanation. Du Maurier leaves us on such a cliff hanger in 'Rebecca' and leaves us with the biased perspective of our unnamed protagonist. The character of Rebecca is constantly villainised, and Beauman gives the reader a chance to see a number of different perspectives so we can form our own opinions.
First of all, the story is so well written, I could have believed I was reading a sequel by Du Maurier herself. My only criticism is there was quite a lot of waffling on and the story didn't really need to be as long as it was, nevertheless, I enjoyed the ride. Each perspective got stronger as the novel progressed. I thought we hit the peak when we were able to read from Rebecca's perspective but I found Ellie's far more enjoyable and I loved her character so much. The story had a great atmosphere, and I thoroughly enjoyed the more tense and spooky parts. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.
I never thought I would need a novel so pro-Rebecca, but I really did. After rereading Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier, I was surprised by how my perspective had changed and I no longer sympathised with our nameless main character and instead was much more intrigued by the character of Rebecca. I knew it was my time to face this novel and delve into more of her story.
I'm aware that this is technically fan-fiction, but I see nothing wrong with that! Yes, Beauman's interpretation and character development is not canon. I see it as more of an exploration and an explanation. Du Maurier leaves us on such a cliff hanger in 'Rebecca' and leaves us with the biased perspective of our unnamed protagonist. The character of Rebecca is constantly villainised, and Beauman gives the reader a chance to see a number of different perspectives so we can form our own opinions.
First of all, the story is so well written, I could have believed I was reading a sequel by Du Maurier herself. My only criticism is there was quite a lot of waffling on and the story didn't really need to be as long as it was, nevertheless, I enjoyed the ride. Each perspective got stronger as the novel progressed. I thought we hit the peak when we were able to read from Rebecca's perspective but I found Ellie's far more enjoyable and I loved her character so much. The story had a great atmosphere, and I thoroughly enjoyed the more tense and spooky parts. Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 456 reviews