Well, it only took me the first five days of my vacation, but I've managed to finally make my way through Margaret Forster's biography of Daphne du Maurier (though I also managed to read Caro Fraser's book as well). Keeping in mind of course that I started this last May! I've done a fair amount of grouching about this book. It could at times be difficult going, but it was always compelling and very interesting. Now that I'm finished I am very glad that I kept with it. The insight into her work is really very valuable. At first I was mortified that Forster seemed to be so hard (or perhaps revealing) about Daphne and especially her work. I greatly admire Daphne du Maurier and it miffed me a little to hear the criticisms of her novels, but now I feel like I've got a better perspective on things. I don't think Forster just pulled judgments out of thin air. I can tell she did quite a lot of research and quoted Daphne's letters as well as reviews of the times.
It was interesting to read what Daphne felt about her work and then see how it was received. What was sad to read was how much Daphne wanted to be accepted as a serious writer and not just someone who wrote 'romances' and bestsellers, yet so often the press portrayed her as just such an author. A couple of things about Daphne du Maurier I didn't know--her husband Tommy worked for the Royal household (specifically for Prince Philip), and both Tommy and Daphne knew Queen Elizabeth. They were invited to royal events and the Queen was even a guest at Menabilly. Daphne was also sued by an American who said she plagiarized parts of Rebecca, which was apparently quite similar to an earlier novel. Daphne was later vindicated of these allegations. I think what grated on me about the biography was the constant discussion of Daphne's 'boy in the box' (also known as #2). She felt she had this duality about her, and it was really the boy that was the writer. She denied that she was a lesbian, though she did have 'venetian' (basically another word for lesbian) experiences. I only harp on about this as it was such a constant thread throughout the book. As you see Daphne was quite a complicated woman (as I suppose is every individual).
After I finished I promptly grabbed by copy of The Daphne Du Maurier Companion edited by Helen Taylor. Although most of the essays are just reprints of the introductions published in the newer Virago editions of her novels, there is some other essays and interviews that might prove to be enlightening. I read the introductory essay by Taylor and I thought this was interesting:
"Forster has said that writing the biography was 'wildly exciting' - so much so, she has accepted no subsequent biographical commission. Daphne du Maurier's children and editor considerably admire the book, though all share a regret that it focuses on the writers 'dark' side rather than her 'life-enhancing' lightness, wicked sense of humour and fun. Forster acknowledges this, saying that it was the brooding, secretive elements of the writer that most attracted her, and that she may well have contributed to a more serious and sombre portrait than that of the woman they all knew. However, she shares with scholars the view that further biography--probably outlining the true nature of du Maurier's relationship with her father, children and (particularly) women friends and employees--will need to be written when du Maurier's early diaries, embargoed until 2029, are released for public scrutiny, and when more letters and other materials are openly available."
I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt this was all somewhat dark and heavy. 2029! Another 21 years to wait until more of her diaries become available?! Of course perhaps it is better that some things are left private? I'll be reading more of Daphne's work in 2008 including a reread finally of Rebecca. The Scapegoat and The House on the Strand along with Rebecca are considered by critics to be her best work. Not many of her books are in print here in the US, but the University of Pennsylvania Press publishes the former titles--now I see why. Of course I think just about her whole oeuvre is available from Virago Press in the UK.
I've decided to call it quits with the list. I've managed to finish eleven out of the thirteen titles, which is reasonably admirable I think. I'll carry over Armadale by Wilkie Collins into the new year. I'm afraid The Rainbow by D.H. Lawrence is going back into the queue (and this is no reflection on the book--only it got pushed to the bottom and at this point it's better to just start afresh with it). I'm hoping to keep the pile to only six (at most seven) books on the go at once in 2008. Surely better than thirteen, right? We'll see how long that lasts, of course. I'm now working on Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey. Wonderful. It calls for its own post (especially as this is already too long). And if this is Austen's worst by the way, her worst is actually quite good! I've got Mary Elizabeth Braddon's Lady Audley's Secret lined up next, and I'm looking forward to getting Jacqueline Winspear's An Incomplete Revenge in the mail soon. By chance I also happened upon Deanna Raybourn's new mystery, Silent in the Sanctuary over the weekend (in of all places Walmart, where I never expect to actually find a book I want to read). Her first book was a thoroughly entertaining and fun mystery and I am hoping this will be much the same. It seems like a perfect candidate for vacation reading, so I've started it as well. Alas, only eight days left of vacation. Why does it go by so quickly?