Scan barcode
annaforthebooks's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Graphic: Animal death, Death, Misogyny, and Toxic relationship
Minor: Miscarriage
cat_demon's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Graphic: Misogyny
Moderate: Domestic abuse
Minor: Miscarriage
196books's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
Graphic: Death
Moderate: Animal death, Domestic abuse, Misogyny, and Toxic relationship
Minor: Racial slurs
the_clueless_tourist's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
Graphic: Death and Misogyny
Moderate: Animal death and Grief
Minor: Domestic abuse, Miscarriage, and Violence
eve81's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
Graphic: Death and Terminal illness
Moderate: Misogyny, Racial slurs, Racism, and Sexual violence
sophiemartin's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
Graphic: Animal death, Death, Misogyny, and Grief
Moderate: Medical content
Minor: Murder
seanamcphie's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
5.0
Moderate: Animal death, Death, Domestic abuse, Misogyny, and Death of parent
Minor: Racism
ccwray's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.5
Graphic: Misogyny
Moderate: Domestic abuse
Minor: Miscarriage, Racial slurs, and Racism
lydiavsbooks's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Rather than this being the tale of a manipulative woman ruining the lives of two innocent men, this is a story of the paranoia of two misogynists (Philip and Ambrose) villainising a woman due to her independent character and rejection of their affection. Bare with me, let me explain.
As to the misogyny, straight away we are introduced to Ambrose as being 'shy of women, and mistrustful too, saying they made mischief in the household. Therefore he would employ only manservents'. As for Philip, he idolises his gardian Ambrose, and every word that comes out of his mouth, Throughout the book Philip is constantly slagging off the various women in his life, including his friend Louise, who is constantly by his side and puts up with far too much of his shit quite frankly. Both are already suspicious of, and biased against women, and with the story being told entirely from Philip's account, it's important to acknowledge the influence this has on everything we're told. Every event in the story is told through this lense.
Okay secondly, (very minor spoilers but if you want to go in knowing nothing maybe don't read this bit), there is literally zero evidence of Rachel even being slightly suss. Let's look at what actually happens when we discard the feelings and interpretations of our narrator, sheltered butthurt Phillip. Rachel is, for lack of a better word, a double widow. She has been left nothing by her late husband(s), and having no family of her own, goes to stay with her dead husband's only remaining family while she grieves. She gets on well with her new family, her cousin Philip, and feels kinda at home there, happy days. When she discusses the idea of going back to her home in Italy, Philip pressures her into staying longer, and will not take no for an answer. So she stays longer, Philip falls for her (okay sorta spoilers from here on) and assumes that of course she must feel the same because lets be honest, he's a lil bit of an incel. He somehow misinterprets a conversation they have as Rachel agreeing to marry him, and when he drunkenly announces the 'engagement' at dinner in front of friends, Rachel corrects him and attempts to preserve his dignity. Philip therefore concludes that she's a master manipulator, that it was her plan all along and that she's been leading him on and decieving him for months. He also tries to strangle her. Could Rachel have been more upfront about her affection being purely platonic/familial? Yeah sure, but I also don't think she owed it to him to explain that she didn't fancy her 10 year younger cousin who is also the adopted child of her recently dead husband. I do think it's possible that Rachel was confused about how she felt, it is constantly emphasised that Philip looks exactly like Ambrose (dead husband number two), and living with this bloke just after your husband popped his cloggs must be a weird and confusing situation. I don't think Rachel owed him clarity, and it is absolutely on Philip for making such a wild assumption, and then announcing it publicly. Also don't strangle people.
Okay now on is fairly big plot spoilers but tbh it's not a very plot heavy book so I don't think reading spoilers will ruin the reading experience for you.
Philip later finds some poisonous seeds in a locked draw in Rachel's room, which he finds when he's searching through her letters in her room while she sleeps. Admittedly a lil suss, but less suss than breaking into a woman's room while she sleeps to search through her draws sooo. Also, Rachel is big on botany, she's into her herbs, her plants, her gardening, so maybe her having some plant seeds that just happen to be poisonous isn't that suss after all? And maybe Rachel does have them because they're poisonous, which given the fact that she's experienced domestic abuse at the hands of at least more than one man (' "I have had all this before." and lifting her fingers to her throat she added, "even the hands around my neck" ') I'd say is fair enough to have as a precaution if she needs to defend herself. Even Ambrose in one of his letters admits that Rachel seems scared of him, and at one point Rachel employs a companion because she's too scared to be alone with Philip. Having poison locked away in case she needs to escape from yet another abusive man in her life, sounds like a believable enough excuse to me.
Okay big spoiler here
Lastly, I think there's a pattern here that reflects the whole witchcraft thing. Historically women have been villainised as something mysterious and sinister, witches, for their knowledge of herbs and natural medicine. And I think this is reflected so well in the perseption of Rachel as being darkly mysterious in her interest in herbs and medicine. She has a knowledge the men in this book don't understand, and it's treated as something dark and suspicious, her skills described as potions and poisons rather than what they actually are, just an interest in apothecary and botany.
The book is told as if it is a mystery of a manipulative woman and the effect she has on men, but what it's really telling is how one woman is villainised and turned against, essentially cause Philip can't deal with rejection. It shows the disasterous consequences the jealousy and possessiveness of men has on women, and how easy it is for perspectives to be scewed and women to be misjudged when we listen to misogynistic men.
Was this the meaning Du Maurier really meant? Who knows, possibly not, but it's the one I stand by and it's the one that makes sense to me.
Moderate: Animal death, Domestic abuse, Misogyny, Violence, and Death of parent
petitemass15's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
Graphic: Animal death, Death, and Death of parent
Moderate: Misogyny, Grief, and Murder
Minor: Child death and Infertility