A Lukewarm Defense of Rebecca de Winter
Look I am not going to argue that Rebecca was actually a good-hearted person. She was a bad person. She traumatized poor Ben and her treatment of Frank can be called workplace sexual harassment.
But I see people depicting Maxim as a poor man trapped in an abusive marriage and I just don’t agree. He had the instinct to kill her as early as her confessing her general sexual behavior to him in their honeymoon:
“She sat there, laughing, her black hair blowing in the wind; she told me about herself, told me things I shall never repeat to a living soul. I knew then what I had done, what I had married.” (…) “I nearly killed her then,’ he said. ‘It would have been so easy. One false step, one slip. You remember the precipice.” (Chapter 20)
Now, I think it is clear that Rebecca didn’t confess to being a serial killer or something. She confessed to being sexually active. Now, what that pertains to can be debated, did she have sex with multiple men, did she have affairs with women, or is it simply her not being a virgin? Either way, Maxim’s instinct to kill her there is horrifying. And it is also horrifyingly realistic, unfortunately.
Then they make a pact. Rebecca never cheats on Maxim, because she never lies to him. And we don’t actually know how much Rebecca was driven to marry with Maxim. She might have strived to marry him but this could also be an arranged marriage where both parties weren’t crazy about it. We don’t know. They make a pact. Rebecca will be able to carry on her affairs in exchange of managing Manderley excellently and putting a good face to the public and Maxim accepts. He isn’t a poor fifteen years old girl forced into an arranged marriage with an abusive man, he had a choice, he could easily divorce her, but he ultimately valued his reputation above his happiness. When Rebecca breaks this contract and brings her lovers to Manderley, he threatens to shoot Jack and ultimately shoots Rebecca.
Yes Rebecca does terrible things like her treatment of Frank, but Maxim doesn’t kill her because of these things. He kills her because she polluted the shades of Manderley by bringing Jack Favell into the grounds and then threatened him with someone who does not have his DNA owning Manderley. He does not shoot her because of jealousy or hurt, it’s an entirely pragmatic murder to prevent this latter possibility from happening. He does bring that gun to the cottage in preparation for an encounter with Favell, this is not a spontaneous crime of passion. And Rebecca manipulated him knowing that it will cause him to kill her, which does not say anything good about his character.
He does not feel one bit remorseful about the murder, he freely admits to that. Despite everything else that can happen afterwards, it was still worth it for preventing her son from owning Manderley. He is motivated enough to conceal the murder to the point of purposefully misidentifying a Jane Doe, which is horrible if you think about it a bit.
Some defenders of Maxim say that we would be ok with the murder if the genders were reversed. When some people defend women killing their abusive husbands those women are often battered wives who fear for the physical safety of themselves and frequently the safety of their children and who can’t walk away from the marriage without fearing for their lives. It is excused when it is regarded as self-defense. If a woman killed her husband for merely being a serial adulterer and having illegitimate children I would absolutely regard that woman as a horrible murderer. Also a simple gender reversal doesn’t work. Women and men are not equal in the society Rebecca and Maxim live in, and the attitudes towards the sexual promiscuity of men and women are absolutely different.
There are some other charges laid against Rebecca. Animal abuse is one of them, it comes from an episode related admiringly by Mrs Danvers of her whipping a horse bloody. This episode is certainly harrowing and is one of the most disturbing scenes in the book, but I think the disturbance is caused as much by Danvers’s admiration in relating it as much as the actual act itself. When put into context Rebecca is actually sixteen when this scene happens. It is also important to remember that hunting is the chief hobby of most of the characters in the book. They are not a class of people super sensitive about animal abuse. The same thing also can be said regarding the “incest” charges laid against Rebecca, these people are British gentry in the interwar period, while being with your cousin was getting less common, it was certainly not considered wildly abnormal, and no one in the book regards it as incest.
Regarding the trauma of poor Ben, this is certainly the worst thing Rebecca has done. And it is the first clue in the book to her true character. Rebecca threatens Ben with sending him to asylum so that he won’t talk about Jack and her being at the cottage. Remember that Maxim threatened shooting Jack if this happens. What Rebecca does is horrible but it is not motiveless cruelty, she does it for self-preservation. It is certainly not excusable and it does not make Ben’s trauma any less real, but it is not a sure sign of psychopathy.
I am not trying to paint Rebecca as a poor little victim, the whole point of the book is that she lived and died on her own terms. But I am very much disturbed by the real-life readers of the book excusing her murder by saying that she was emotionally abusive. My visceral reaction might have been caused by me coming from a culture where femicide and honor-killings are quite common. Many people in my country would still unequivocally regard an adulterous woman being murdered by her husband as entirely just. And there were multiple discussions surrounding femicide prevention about the time I started reading Rebecca, and I’ve seen in real time many men adopting the “emotional abuse by the wife” defense to explain away the prevalency of femicides. I am not joking. So I may be bringing my own cultural context into my reading of the novel. It might strike Western readers as merely a scandalous murder mystery, in my context there is nothing scandalous about Rebecca’s murder, it is a depressingly typical societal ill.
And Rebecca’s life wasn’t as glamourous as people seem to think it is. This is what Mrs Danvers says about her childhood:
“She was lovely then,’ she said. ‘Lovely as a picture; men turning to stare at her when she passed, and she not twelve years old” (Chapter 18)
And this is said by the woman who raised Rebecca. Her beloved cousin attempts to use her murder to get money, and his first response to learning about her having cancer is hoping that cancer is not contagious. Doctor Baker was clearly impressed by her stoic response to learning her illness and it was the most impactful part of the novel for me. She dies quite a bloody death. Rebecca’s life story gets very depressing when you stop to think about it.
I was put off by the possibility that the book might be trying to manipulate us into justifying femicide. But I think the last chapter proves that this was not really the intent. The last chapter was not the melodrama that I was expecting it to be. It was a farce laden with dramatic irony. And the last sentence of the book is “And the ashes blew towards us with the salt wind from the sea”. The sea is Rebecca’s symbol in the book. They murdered her and concealed her murder and they don’t get to live in the house she created.
I am not saying you can’t love Maxim or you can’t ship him with the narrator. You absolutely can. And you can hate Rebecca the character. But I think excusing her murder on the basis of her being emotionally abusive is too much for me.
