The House on the Strand (1969) by Daphne du Maurier

🧪 Richard Young has befriended Magnus Lane since university. He often stayed with the Lanes on holidays at Kilmarth, an ancient house near the Cornish coast. Magnus Lane is now a scientist, a chemical researcher or biophysicist at the University of London, and Richard, or Dick, has often been his guinea pig. Magnus has a laboratory in his house, and here he is perfecting a special concoction, which Dick has agreed to test, while staying at Kilmarth with his (Dick's) family during summer holiday. Dick's wife, Vita, and his two stepsons are still a week or so from joining him at Kilmarth, so he has ample time to do with the potion, or you may call it drug.

🧪 The potion brings him to the past, in fourteenth century to be precise, when the house was called Kilmerth. Yes, this is a time-travelling story. The place is the same, but the landscape has changed after six century. Dick soon becomes drawn into the people's lives and affairs, though they can't see him. There is a set back though, he'd get severe vertigo and nausea if he touch them. The man who stayed at Kilmerth (the same house, but humbler at that time) was Roger, a steward to Sir Henry Champernoune. And it is this man that Dick follows everytime he drinks the potion. His fascination is centered on the faith of Isolda, a beautiful woman and wife of Sir Oliver Carminowe, but who had had a secret affair with the brother of Sir Henry's wife, Otto Bodrugan. During these time-travels, Dick wanders around the landscape, often ends up quite a distance from where he's been taking the potion.
🧪 So drawn is Dick to the past, that his present is gradually fading. It's more and more difficult to focus on things he needs to do, and this secret also puts a barrier in his marriage life, when Vita and the boys finally join him at Kilmarth. But now that Magnus will be staying at Kilmarth for the weekend, they would have fun adventures together - or so Dick thought. Unfortunately, something terrible happens, that thwarted this excitement, and Dick is left with two choices: stop the test all together and return to his own life, or continue secretly the time-travelling to the past on his own, with its consequences.

🧪 As is usual with all of du Maurier's, this one is also a gripping story about the addiction to another life when ones' own is less eventful and stuck in a place one doesn't want to be. I think in Dick's case, he feels like a stranger when he's with Vita and the boys - the boys being only step sons. However, instead of trying to find a solution, he prefers to be out of that life and pursue another which is more engaging. We do that a lot, but with books. When one's tired of one's life, one can always be out of reality for a few hours at a time, and drawn in a good and engaging story of another life. But one must return to reality and deal with it anyway in the end. I believe that's the moral background that du Maurier wanted to highlight with her inconclusive ending. Nevertheless, this is an engaging gothic/science fiction story with a touch of historical theme. Not of du Maurier's best, perhaps, but still is fun to read.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Frenchman's Creek (1941) by Daphne du Maurier

🛶 Frenchman's Creek is set in the 17th century of Cornwall. After my first acquaintance with du Maurier through Rebecca (loved it), I have since read My Cousin Rachel (quite like it, though not as wholesome as Rebecca). I've been wondering what to read next, when I read The Cornwall Sabbatical (a memoir) by Jonathan E. Cox last year, where Frenchman's Creek and Jamaica Inn (both are set in Cornwall) were mentioned. Then I knew what I should pick for next read. I found that Frenchman's Creek is in very different league with Rebecca, though equally entertaining.

🛶 Dona, the Lady St. Columb, was thirty, and mother of two children. Bored with the frivolousness of London's high society, and, partly, with her dull and foolish husband, Dona fled with the children to their ancestors' house in Cornwall, the Navron house.

🛶 She felt peaceful at first, but began to notice mysterious things like a jar of tobacco and a poetry book inside her bedroom's drawer, whom do they belong to? William, the butler? Very unlikely... Then, there's a secret meeting between William and a man at night outside the house. Who is he, and what they're discussing? Then one day Dona took a walk along the stream towards the river, and accidentally found a beautiful and secluded little creek. And there, totally hidden from outsiders' sight, a ship was anchored - a pirate ship!

🛶 There had been concern among the gentries in the village. A group of French pirates had been robbing their belongings for sometimes, but they failed to catch them. But they had had enough, and now, helped by some soldiers, they intended to capture and hang the pirates, especially the captain, a Frenchman called Jean-Benoit Aubéry.

🛶 The same Frenchman captured Dona during her walk, but rather than afraid, she was fascinated by the ship, the captain (a cultured and pleasant man), and by the overall idea of freedom, adventure, a bit of danger, and excitement of pirating. Moreover, she began to fall in love with the Frenchman - a feeling reciprocated by the other.

🛶 Now, what will Dona do - will she let her foolish husband and his peers capture and hang her lover, keep her love affair a secret, then be back to her London life as a wife and mother? Or will she throw her former life away, fight against the hypocrite landlords, and embrace the Frenchman's offer of a new life of love and freedom she really wanted? Whichever option she'd pick, it shows how unfortunate to be born as a woman in that era!

🛶 If you think this is a pure romance story, you're wrong. There's still the trace of du Maurier's remarkable quality of gothic-thriller writing, and vivid story-telling in this book. The romance and adventures just made this book more entertaining, with a touch of deeper subject of women's constraint versus men's freedom.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

My Cousin Rachel by Daphne du Maurier

💎 Another brilliant piece of work from du Maurier! Although not as magnificent as Rebecca, it's still brilliant.

💎 The story is told by one of the most unreliable narrators in literature: Philip Ashley; an orphan who'd been brought up by his cousin: Ambrose Ashley, the owner of a large estate in Cornwall, England.

💎 Ambrose is Philip's world; he worshipped him as brother, father, and guardian. They have each other, this two brothers, and Philip will be Ambrose's heir after he turns 25. But their world is shattered the day Ambrose left to Italy, in need of warmer weather. He met a distant cousin, Rachel, a widow in Florence. He was soon infatuated by her, and eventually married her, and stayed in Florence.

💎 Ambrose soon fell ill with terrible headaches. His letters to Philip changed tone; he didn't trust Rachel, and even called her his tormentor. At this point Philip, whose hatred toward Rachel has rapidly growing, departed to Florence to save Ambrose. But it's too late, Ambrose's dead and buried in Florence.

💎 When Rachel came to Cornwall, Philip has been planning a revenge, since he's sure that Rachel has killed Ambrose. But this spoiled boy, who had nearly no experience in dealing with women before, was soon falling in love head over heels with his cousin Rachel.

💎 Now history repeats itself, Philip began to have similar illness to Ambrose, right after his 25th birthday, when he handed over the estate to Rachel and wanted her to be his wife. The question is, did Rachel really poisoned Ambrose (and now Philip) for their money/estate? Or she's merely an impulsive spendthrift woman who loves gardening, and thus keeping a packet of poisonous laburnum tree seeds in her drawer?

💎 One of my biggest pet peeves in literature is ambiguous ending. I'd prefer a rounded up story, of which I could either satisfyingly happy or mournfully broken-hearted, so that I can immediately close the book, and move on to next one. An uncertain ending, however, left me uncertained, and it's really annoying. My Cousin Rachel is one of the latter. Du Maurier leave us to guess ourselves whether Rachel is really an evil woman, or it's all just Philip's sentiment because of his jealousy. Remember, we know Rachel only from Philip's perspective, and he's emotional and unreliable, and perhaps on the border of madness (as was Ambrose).

💎 On my part, I prefer to conclude that Rachel is not innocent. She's a spendthrift - that's a fact - and her relationship with the lawyer/best friend Rainaldi could not have as innocence as she said it to be. They never talk openly, and always talk in Italian when Philip leaves the room. And the laburnum seed.. why keep it in her drawer? There could have been simple reason, but it's rather fishy, don't you think?

💎 All in all, it's rather an appropriate gothic reading, beautifully written. I admired Maurier's tension building and psychological thriller around a mysterious woman (just like in Rebecca), but.. like I said, I hated the inconclusive ending.

Rating: 4 / 5

Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier

Rebecca is often considered Daphne du Maurier's masterpiece. It's a perfect Halloween read - beautiful yet haunting. I have read it for R.I.P. XIV, and loved it. As most likely you all have read it, I’m not going to take the pain of summarizing it (and it’s difficult to do so without throwing spoilers – if you haven’t read it – anyway), so, here are my thoughts:

It begins with the end

If you hate spoilers, you might dislike this kind of writing style, in which the characters told you what have happened in the past that they ended up in their situation today. For me, it provides sort of certainty of how the story might end, which I prefer, rather than always worrying whether this will end tragically or happily. By knowing how it would end (except for mysteries, of course), I can read slowly and calmly, savoring every moment of it. In the end I found it much more satisfying. And so it was with this book. The heroine told us that she and her husband have survived from a tragedy - something which has happened to their lovely mansion: Manderley, and which they both desperately tried to forget.

It's about a woman without name, and a name without the woman

I was rather annoyed, in the early chapters, as it seemed nobody ever mentioned the name of the narrator! But in the end I think du Maurier did it purposely to highlight the contrast between her and Rebecca - whom everyone talked about, found everywhere, heard everywhere, though she was dead years ago.

Yvonne (let's give the narrator a name, at least in this post, as I hate a nameless character!) is timid, introverted and insecure young woman, working as companion to a wealthy woman. Rebecca is her opposite in everything! She married the owner of an estate, rich, bold, beautiful, sociable, powerful. Those were the outside qualities any outsider would have perceived. But as a husband, Maximilian de Winter knows better. Inside, the two women are also the David and the Goliath in their hearts and souls. Rebecca is also wicked, selfish, cruel, and without love. She reminds me of Cathy in East of Eden. 

[credit: Gardenvista]

Yvonne is sweet, loving, innocent, kind, and tender, if only you know how to love her, because she is, again, insecure. I can totally relate to her, because I understand how to manage insecure people. My dear mom is one. What they need, on top of everything, is love - they need to be sure that they are loved. When you love them, and protect their privacy (because that's what we, introverts, need most of all!), we'd see a brave woman underneath the fragile appearance. Unfortunately the world still love outside appearances better than inner qualities. And that's why introverts and insecure people tend to be disliked and misunderstood, just because they aren't sociable. They forget that these people, if you are willing to understand and respect their silence and timidity, you'll see that their capability to love is much bigger than the extroverts.

In this story, only Maxim and Frank, the agent, it seems, who could really see Yvonne's qualities, and understand her. From the very beginning I have had certainty that Maxim married Yvonne purely for love. That he, alone, could see underneath the plain appearance of this girl - while others would never, or with difficulty, understand.

[credit: Gardenvista]

Intelligence vs innocence

What struck me is, that the so called 'dim-witted' Ben could see the cruelness beneath Rebecca's superficial charm, while others who were more intelligent, failed. Apparently, being intelligent does not always prevent one from being shallow and vain. On the other hand, I think innocent people use their feeling more than their mind, in judging others' character. That's why Rebecca's charms never deceived poor Ben.

And I loved how du Maurier put Maxim's faith in Ben's hand. But, isn't murder still a murder, be it done to good people or villains? Well, sometimes, evil can only be stopped by violence. It's still wrong, of course, but I'd probably do the same if I have had a soulless person like Rebecca - or Cathy - as a spouse.

The wicked housekeeper

No, I'm not going to analyze Mrs. Danvers' character here. She's purely as wicked (and more sick, perhaps) as her mistress. It's only that every time I read about her, it was Downton Abbey's Mrs. Hughes face that popped up in my head. I know that Mrs. Hughes is kind and wise, so different from Mrs. Danvers, but do you remember her face when she looked at Mr. Green (the valet how 'attacked' Anna Bates)? It's full of cold hatred and disgust; and it's that face which I imagined was on Mrs. Danvers' every time she saw Yvonne. Yeah, a Gothic castle which is haunted by it's evil mistress, and kept by a wicked housekeeper... there's enough of Gothic element there to make it a favorite Halloween read!

It has been a delicious read for me, and I think I would love to return to it in the future!

4,5 of 5 - because I still hate any writer who doesn't name his/her narrator! :)