2023 - 21

Hacía tiempo que no leía libros decimonónicos y me apetecía volver a un tema que me ha acompañado durante toda mi infancia, cuando devoraba estas novelas con una linterna debajo de las sábanas o encaramada a un árbol.

El estilo de Du Maurier es inconfundible, no se parece a ningún otro. Me ha recordado muchísimo a Rebeca, por diferentes razones que no voy a mencionar para no destripar nada, y me ha encantado. La estructura es impecable, te va llevando de la mano a donde quiere, que es una de las mayores virtudes de esta autora.

Como siempre, la protagonista femenina es prodigiosa por su ambigüedad y por la forma en que están construidos todos los detalles. No sé si es una novela de misterio, porque hay misterios que nunca se resuelven. Muy recomendable.

Seeds of misgiving, planted sparingly but purposefully, grow into vines of doubt and dread. They slip out of the pages and twine around the reader's hands, binding the book into place so that one absolutely cannot put it down. ( )

4.5

A near flawless tragedy that closely rivals Rebecca. It's masterful how freely du Maurier grants the reader information, while still keeping them in the grip of endless, painstaking uncertainty.

It bears many narrative similarities to Rebecca, while still being wholly different and captivating. The style of opening; the unreliable, first person narrative; the plot point of someone coming to stay at a house, while a lingering shadow of a recently deceased, intimate relation still lingers; the true feelings and motives of the other are veiled from the protagonist, as is the authenticity of the romance; there's the unwanted guest whose true relationship with the woman is unclear; the pearls on the neck at Christmas is a beat closely matched to the dress worn at the ball in Rebecca; and the closing lines bring us right back to the opening.

The main difference is that My Cousin Rachel is a lot more ambiguous and would arguably maintain effectiveness better on a reread. It's also considerably more devastating. ( )

My Cousin Rachel is a great suspense novel - I think it is even better than du Maurier's Rebecca. Unlike Rebecca, this is a historical fiction set in mid-nineteenth century Cornwall. Although du Maurier never specifies the exact date, she leaves clues which set the timeframe (such as the opening scene of the book, in which Philip Ashley describes seeing the body of a criminal hanging at a crossroads when he was 7). I believe that this absence of dates was deliberately done to add to the timeless feeling of the psychological drama which plays out.

One aspect that raised this book from 4 to 5 stars is the way du Maurier leaves the question of Rachel's guilt or innocence open. I know that I believe as Philip did at the end, that Rachel had been poisoning him and had poisoned Ambrose, but as Louise points out, there is no evidence. du Maurier also leaves us to judge whether Philip is justified in the actions that he takes - is he guilty of murder (or more accurately manslaughter)? If Rachel really had poisoned Ambrose and gotten away with it, is it poetic justice for Philip to cause her "accidental" death? What if she was innocent of poisoning but guilty of manipulation of Philip's emotions for mercenary gains?…

Ironically, although Rachel is described many times as being impulsive, Philip is the one who actually acts impulsively throughout the story.

This novel has a lot of similarities to Alfred Hitchcock's classic 1941 film, Suspicion. If you liked that, you should definitely try this book! ( )

Philip Ashley is raised by his older cousin after his parents die when he is three years old. It's a nearly idyllic life for the two bachelors, except that Ambrose's ill health forces him to go abroad to escape the damp, cold Cornish winters. But everything changes when Ambrose, while spending a winter in Italy, writes to Philip that he has met and married a distant cousin, Rachel, and plans to stay in Italy. Soon the tone of Ambrose's letters changes into incoherent ravings that seem to indicate Rachel may not be the ideal wife. Philip travels to Italy to see what's happening, but when he gets there Ambrose is dead and Rachel is gone. He goes back home and when Rachel shows up in England a few weeks later he grudgingly invites her to stay on the estate. His ulterior motive is to somehow humiliate her in retaliation for what happened to Ambrose, but he finds himself drawn to her beauty and charm despite himself. But is she simply weaving the same sly web that she ensnared Ambrose in, with the estate's riches as her ultimate goal?

This novel is Exhibit A for me that I don't need to like the characters to enjoy the story. Both Philip, an impossibly young and naïve man, and Rachel, a woman who never says what she means, are infuriating in their own ways. More than once I contemplated how satisfying it would be to just knock their heads together with a solid thunk. Philip acts like a jealous brat and Rachel acts by turns like a patronizing older sister and a coy lover. The only character I had any sympathy for was Louise, the daughter of Philip's godfather. She's clearly in love with the stupid oaf Philip, and has to first suffer his oblivious dismissal and then his growing infatuation with Rachel without recourse to a big rock to throw at both of them.

The ending is ambiguous in terms of deciding once and for all whether it's Philip or Rachel who commit the greatest sin, which I thought worked perfectly. And the descriptions of the Cornwall seaside are lovely and make me want to visit someday. I think I'll pass on any offers of tea, though. Just in case. ( )