Reading author biographies is sort of a double edged sword. On the one hand you get the behind the scenes story of the books they've written, which can be highly illuminating. On the other hand you may also find out that said author was not always the nicest of people (am also thinking a little of Katherine Mansfield as well). It's a little unfair, though. No doubt biographers use letters and journals that were meant to be private--not for public consumption. Despite discovering that Daphne du Maurier was rather quirky and more than just a little snarky at times, I am finding her biography by Margaret Forster to be immensely engaging and fascinating reading. I feel a little bit like a voyeur, but that doesn't stop me from turning the pages.
Daphne came from a fairly privileged and famous background (her grandfather was also an author and her father a renowned actor). In the book there are intimations that she had lesbian inclinations, though she did marry and had three children. She was not terribly tolerant, she couldn't manage a household well (nor did she want to), she had certain prejudices against the natives when she lived abroad with her military husband, and she was not very happy to have children and shuffled them off with a nanny (though I think the separations took a toll on her nonetheless). Oh I could go on really. All said and done, though, I certainly don't think she was in any way a bad person, and she seemed quite aware of her limitations. I'm not entirely sure how well I would do under such intense scrutiny, and I can't even claim any sort of literary fame to get away with any snarkiness on my part (though no doubt I have my moments).
Aside from all the gossipy little facts that Forster treats us to, what I am finding particularly interesting is the parts about her novels. Maybe it's just me, but Forster seems pretty critical of many of her books. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that aspect of the biography. How do you enjoy a novel, yet distance yourself enough that you can read criticism but still appreciate the work? Daphne wrote over thirty novels and short story collections. I am only a third of the way through her biography, and Forster is less than a third of the way through her oeuvre. At the moment I am reading about the famous Rebecca. It was an instant bestseller and sold more than all her previous novels put together. Although Daphne was happy about the monetary recognition she was not happy with the critical reception. Critics praised it, but they seemed to have missed the point of the novel.
"No one, either side of the Atlantic, paid any real attention to the battle between the sexes in Rebecca, or saw it as a psychological study of jealousy, as Daphne had hoped."
It's been so long since I've read it, that I'm not sure what my initial impression of the story was. No doubt I probably missed the point as well. This makes me want to reread it sometime soon. I get the feeling from what I've read that Daphne's work was not accepted in the manner which she wrote it. She wanted to be considered a serious author, not someone who wrote fluffy romances. After I've finished the biography I have a feeling I'll be reading her work in an entirely new light.