Reviews with content warning for Violence - Mi prima Rachel

With Rebecca being among my favourite novels I can't believe it's taken me so long to get to another Du Maurier and while this didn't quite live up to the former, it was still a masterpiece in Gothic suspense.

Like Rebecca, although there is no tangible threat through most of the book, there is a constant anxiety that something is about to get terribly wrong. However, the reader is kept at that level of suspense throughout, constantly re-evaluating the motives of the characters and even by the end of the novel the answers are not definitive. This is coupled with fantastic writing and imagery of the Cornish countryside and characters within.

I can't wait to discuss this with my online book club next week as I feel like this is a book that everyone will take something different from. Bravo Du Maurier!

Content Warnings

trisha_clay's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark funny mysterious medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.75

Content Warnings

lydiavsbooks's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark mysterious reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.0

Ahhh I have so many thoughts I could scream. I went in expecting a mystery, expecting to see how this sinister, master manipulator, Rachel, snuck her way into the life of our main character. But I kept waiting, and this dark twisted side of Rachel never showed. So here's my alternative interpretation:

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.

So Philip gets ill, which is explained, by Rachel, to be meningitis. I have zero reason to doubt Rachel, so Imma just take that at face value. Philip recovers, with Rachel looking after him and getting him a doctor. If Rachel poisoned him or wanted him dead, surely she'd have finished the job, not nursed him back to health. For context, when Ambrose was dying he was paranoid and delirious, he had a brain tumour and was suspicious of everyone, especially Rachel, who he suspected of poisoning him. But, Rachel knew she was not in the will, she gained nothing from Ambroses death, and brain tumours and delusions ran in the family, so again I have zero doubts to believe Rachel on that one. Philip recovers, but gets a lil sus of Rachel again because she has been leaving the house without him (the scandal). Philip decides the only reasonable course of action, is to pry and get info from the servants on where she's being going. Turns out she's been meeting a friend, a friend who both Ambrose and Philip had/have been insanely jealous of the whole time. So Philip literally hides in a boat for two hours to stalk Rachel's friend. He confronts Rachel, who explains that she's been meeting the friend in town because she knows Philip hates him, so didn't want to bring him round to the house, especially when Philip was ill. But Phillip's paranoid jealousy is not stopped by this.

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

Philip basically kills Rachel in the end. She says she's going for a walk along an area Philip knows is deadly, and deliberately chooses not to pass the warning on to her, lets her go alone, and she falls to her death

again, Rachel is not the sinister one here, it's Philip.

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.

Content Warnings