I think my favorite is "My Cousin Rachel", which was also my late mother's favorite. I loved the enigmatic characters and will never look at plants with berries in quite the same way.....

I read something of DuMaurier's life and always had the impression she wished she had been born a man rather than a woman. She seemed to write very well from the male point of view, IMO.

I also thought there was a distinct pre-Christian Celtic subcultural "feel" underlying many of her works, espec. those set in Cornwall, which is one of the ancient Celtic nations.

It's impossible for me to judge Rebecca purely on its literary merits as it is so very bound up with Hitchcock's movie, but I'll nominate it as my favourite anyway. I remember enjoying My Cousin Rachel but can't recall any of the plot! Re the chick-lit accusation - Frenchman's Creek is pure Mills & Boon. Some of her short stories were excellent as far as I can recall, especially the tiny and cryptic one about the birds.

I also read her non-fiction book Disappearing Cornwall while travelling around Cornwall, enjoying both book and holiday tremendously.

I've only read Rebecca, but remember loving it tremendously. I vote for that one. :-)

I loved Frenchman's Creek, the most intensely romantic novel I've ever read. Rebecca was an excellent book, but the heroine was too wimpy for me. Of course when I read it for the first time at 15, I identified with her shyness. As an adult, I have more sympathy with Dona St. Columb.

Rosefolly

Re the film Rebecca I understand it was necessary for the ending to be changed so Maxim de Winter came out in a good light. He was wonderfully played by Laurence Olivier, also born a hundred years ago this year.
It is a much better film adaptation than the studio-bound Jamaica Inn.
The more recent BBC series had the excellent actress Anna Massey (daughter of Raymond and sister of Daniel) playing the creepy Mrs Danvers, the possessive and evil Housekeeper.
Apparently when D du M wrote My Cousin Rachel she had just returned from the US and the unhappy relationship with Doubleday. It must be one of the darkest novel dealing with the subtle growth of all-consuming jealousy.
If you have never read it go out and order a copy today. It is a book that can be taken on so many levels.

One of my very favorite DuMaurier novels is THE HOUSE ON THE STRAND......a very clever, engaging time travel story.

Another favorite is THE SCAPEGOAT.

I agree that many of DuMaurier's short stories are first ra te, as in "Don't Look Now", which was made into an intriguing but scary film.

I also think a few of her romances could fall into the category of Chick Lit. While some of her characters are engaging, I think most nowhere come near to the deep development of personnages such as are found in classics, for example, "Kristin Lavransdatter."

Ah, now I think I recall: it was Laburnum seeds in "My Cousin Rachel"....

The King's General is my current favourite - but it wasn't when I was a teenager and devoured her books. I love the characters in the book and the historical references. And I still like Jamaica Inn.

But I reread Frenchman's Creek just a few months ago and it didn't measure up to what I remembered many decades ago: incredibly romantic with swashbuckling hero. Today, I thought it was terrible. I don't know if that says a lot about me or the book....

Vee, you probably knew I'd come out of the woodwork at the mention of DduM. :-)

I'm afraid I don't really understand the appellation "chick lit." Somewhere I got the notion it meant books of the sort epitomized by Bridget Jones's Diary and The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood or, perhaps, The Devil Wears Prada. If it has the broader meaning of the type of stories that appeal mostly to female readers, I guess it could include anything in the range from Madame Bovary to Barbara Cartland. Kristin Lavransdatter would be in there because not so very many male readers care to wade through the ups and downs of the lifetime of a fourteenth-century Norwegian woman.

I wish I could recall off the top of my head the exact quote and who said it (I think it was Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch but I'm not sure) when he read Rebecca for the first time and told DduM what he thought of it. Oh, well, I'll paraphrase it and maybe someone can provide us with the exact words: "My dear, the critics will be flabbergasted: they will grudgingly admire your story and writing, but you will never hear it because they will be too busy hating you for it." He knew Rebecca was going to be a winner.
I also think a few of her romances could fall into the category of Chick Lit.It's true that there is romance in several of DduM's novels and stories, but with the possible exception of Frenchman's Creek -- none are "pure" romances of the kind where romance is the be-all and end-all of the story. Even Frenchman can be read on several levels -- it is actually quite good, I think, at capturing an attitude of a bored aristocratic woman. What makes me uncomfortable reading it now is I recognize how spoilt and irresponsible Dona was -- yeah, cuckolding a husband is one thing but the way she treated her children is another. Of course that's my own sensibility, and I'm thinking DduM was just a little too successful depicting the sensibilities of Dona and her kind. (Read Stella Tillyard's Aristocrats: Caroline, Emily, Louisa, and Sarah Lennox, 1740-1832 and see if you don't see echoes of Dona's behaviour -- particularly in Sarah -- and also how they related to their children.)

No, I've long suspected those who relegate DduM to the romance genre haven't read anything of hers beyond Rebecca. And Rebecca itself is hardly a conventional romance! In fact, there's something a bit off kilter in many of DduM's best stories, and not just in her tales of the macabre -- the enigma of My Cousin Rachel is a good example.

My top-five of DduM's fifteen novels have remained static since 1969 when I read The House on the Strand the first time. Rule Britannia is the worst -- the pits, embarrassing even -- humour was not DduM's strong suit. I've never liked The Parasites, either, but the rest -- the middle lot -- will move around. I have also enjoyed her biographies, some of which read more like novels, e.g., The Glass-Blowers and Mary Anne.

What makes me uncomfortable reading it now is I recognize how spoilt and irresponsible Dona was -- yeah, cuckolding a husband is one thing but the way she treated her children is another.
Frieda - You hit the nail on the head. I felt sorry for her husband who seemed like a decent sort and the Frenchman was just unbelievable. But when I read this as a teenager I wasn't married or a mother...my slant on romances has obviously changed. My romantic heroes are no longer handsome, charming and dashing.

Frieda, my use of the expression chick lit was badly chosen and trite but I'm not sure where to place D du M's work and what hook to hang it on.
You remember what Koko said about those unfortunates in 'I've got a little list' from the Mikardo

"... that singular anomaly, the lady novelist
I don't think she'd be missed, I'm sure she'd not be missed!"

OK so she was a 'lady novelist' but was she like anyone who had gone before? How does she compare with the 'modern' women writers . . .the ones who are nominated for such prizes as the 'Booker' with their Oxbridge educations and their big houses in North London with plot lines about Oxbridge educated women living in big houses . . . and so on. They are all so 'samey'.
Would D du M ever have been in the running for a literary prize? Was she considered too middle-brow?
I enjoy the work of these middle-of-the-road writers . . . Anne Tyler, Laurie Graham, Alice Hoffman etc. All people who you feel have been around the block a few times . . . as D du M had in her rather uppercrust (and today so unfashionable) way.
Any thoughts from anyone?

I equate chick lit with aga sagas: books about a. bored, b. neglected, c. misunderstood, d. unfulfilled (either married badly or unhappily single) woman (housewife or bad job) who meets a man who will a. interest, b. treasure, c. understand, d. fulfill them...and eventually, after the ups and downs of divorce, miscommunications, possible noble self-sacrifices and the occasional separation of war or duty or children (hers or his).... make all their troubles disappear and all their dreams come true.
Happy endings, sometimes the stories and characters are cute and engaging, and they make good girls' night out movies. For instance, Jennifer Weiner's In Her Shoes.

>I'm afraid I don't really understand the appellation "chick lit.

frieda, I so agree with your comments. Just because there is romance, does not make it chick lit. To me the lable is almost an insult - when I think of it, I think of fluff, mindless bubble gum reads (tho ccr has a much better definition!) I don't suggest that readers shouldn't read them. They can be great fun. But the idea of putting the label on work that has been around long before that label existed just feels like a put down. So when something written before, say, 1990, is labeled 'chick lit' I always assume its mislabeled, because so much wonderful lit is about romance.

>I'm not sure where to place D du M's work and what hook to hang it on.

As for what to consider Du de Muriers work? Literature. Pure and simple.

Interesting that no one makes the distinction of romance, mystery, literature in books written by men (thinking Poe, Maughm)

The Glass-Blowers and the House on the Strand both show the range of this writer. They are so different from each other, different from Rebecca, you'd almost swear they had different authors. Which is why she fascinates me

BTW veer thanks for the link to that short story. I've seen that done before - an entire relationship in letters, within a few pages. Thats one of the better efforts, I think.

Cece, I like your definition 'cause it makes sense of what I've always felt was an amorphous evaluation. But do you think there might be a bit of distinction between chick lit and the aga saga? It seems to me that the former appeals more to younger readers (and is possibly written by younger authors) while the latter might attract somewhat older readers who want a more sedate storyline and less histrionics (and probably written by an author with a little more life experience) -- I'm thinking about all those novel bookjackets with cute line-drawings of young women doing hectic things (sorry, I'm not versed well enough with them to give titles or authors) versus what I think of as aga sagas, those tales of family life and neighborhood goings-on, written by the likes of Mary Wesley, Joanna Trollope, Jan Karon and Anne Tyler, where a lot happens at a leisurely pace and without earth-shattering consequences. I admit, though, that I haven't read many of the latter either.

Cindy, it seems I often detect a disparaging undertone when someone labels a book chick lit, much like the disclaimer, "I read everything, except romance." I always imagine a sneer and a shudder accompanying that comment because speakers I've heard often use those gestures with those words, and I think it is also what the writers intend to convey...but maybe I'm wrong.

I agree with you, Cindy. DduM's books are every bit as literary as many of the books touted for the big prizes -- and a lot more so than some. Just to name a few of the outstanding attributes of DduM's writing (my opinion, of course, but I'm not alone): Story -- Imaginative. Ever varying, as you've already said, Cindy.
Plotting -- Intricate but she did it so well that it is never hard to follow.
Vocabulary -- I read in one of the biographies that she always wrote with a dictionary at hand, but she didn't choose words for their arcaneness so a reader doesn't have to have a corresponding dictionary to make sense of things. I credit DduM, though, for adding greatly to my own reading vocabulary, such words as demesne, assize and tiercel are just a taste of what she introduced to me.
Characterization -- DduM's main characters are seldom easy. Think about her most naive characters, say, Mary Yellan (Jamaica Inn) and No Name (the second Mrs. de Winter in Rebecca) -- you empathize or sympathize with them, but don't you want to scream at them sometimes! :-)
Her villains...well, there's Mrs. Danvers; there's Gartred Denys, Joss Merlyn, Oliver Carminowe, and others whom I won't reveal because their villainy could be a surprise. What do they have in common besides their nastiness? Not much as far as I know! You tell me.
Narration -- Varied. DduM did third and first person equally well, in my opinion. In first person, she also took the point of view of both female and male characters. Mary mentioned above that DduM had great facility with male protagonists, e.g., Philip in My Cousin Rachel,...

I wouldn't compare DduM to Atwood and I love them both for very different reasons. The only thing they have in common is that they are both women and gifted, intelligent writers. Each has an orginal style. Atwood challenges me to think about things in a different way. DduM is a wonderfully entertaining author and storyteller. DduM has been imitated a lot ( and not very well, either) but I think Atwood would be harder to copy.

I've not heard the term aga saga. I get a gist of it based on the authors you name (and I love Wesley, a bit of Trollop and early Tyler), but am not sure exactly what it is. Mor info pls? I definitely wouldn't put Atwood in that group of authors - she's certainly unique in many ways to other women writers. I've usually enjoyed her books (except for Orax and Crax or whatever it was called) - they had an edge to them that I don't always see.

Cindy, the link below explains the term aga saga. I've never actually read any of Trollope's books, but I've liked several of Mary Wesley's which have also been termed aga sagas by some, though I think her characters are often not middle class but rather the sort who might gather in the kitchen to hash out what's going on in life, the family, and the neighborhood. Btw, I learned the term from Kat Warren, first at Salon and later at Readerville.

Here is a link that might be useful: AGA saga

I think I'm due for a re-read of several of DduM's books -- it has been so long I don't remember the plots of very many of them. I've often thought that Sarah Waters, whose books have made the Booker Short/Long list, must have been influenced at least a little bit by DduM. She explores lesbian themes in ways, of course, that DduM couldn't, but perhaps wanted to. I would recommend her book Affinity in particular for those who like DduM.

Cindy, Frieda beat me to it with a description of Aga saga, so here is another one with the extra bonus of a picture of an Aga.
Frieda I would have said from the little I know of Wesley's work that her characters are pretty much in the middle-class mould, but I must admit, although we in the UK are still way too class ridden I'm not sure how anyone from the US/Canada defines 'middle class' so some help would be appreciated please.
I cannot claim to actually enjoy Atwood's work, although I grant you she is a clever writer. All her characters are so dark, her situations so border-line grim . . . like those long Ontario winters or too much time spent in bug-infested pine forests of Northern Canada.

Frieda, have you read Gone With the Windsors by Laurie Graham? And look out for her The Importance of Being Kennedy her new book which looks at the K family through the 'below-stairs' Irish nursery maid who follows them from the US to London.
I don't think she is 'like' D du M, but she has the ability to write in several styles using a wide range of subjects.
Deborah Moggach has the same ability. She, as with du M. can tell a good story . . . and first and foremost that is what I look for in any novel I read.
Moggach has a new book just out In the Dark set during WWI but dealing with life on the 'home front' rather than the trenches.

Here is a link that might be useful: More Saga of the Aga

Several years ago I bought a book of DduM's short stories-I need to find it! My students and I read The Birds and followed up with Hitchcock's film. It was a highly successful project.
I had never known that DduM had written The Birds until then.
Now I need to search out my book.

Vee, I think Janalyn hit on why Daphne du Maurier and the modern women writers who earn Booker nominations and prizes are different. Thank you, Janalyn, for triggering my further ruminations.

The Booker and Orange selection committees seem to be big on MESSAGE and symbolism stories that can potentially edify readers, something that DduM seems to have been ambivalent about including -- and when she did, she left it up to readers to make up their own minds. Her novels appear to be more about entertainment, less about having the reader presented with moral themes, grand or subtle. Not that she didn't include messages and symbolism at times -- "The Birds" and some of her other short stories pretty obviously do that -- but they weren't the raisons d'etre of most of her fiction.

In other words, DduM was a storyteller, not a preacher. And that's the problem I have with Margaret Atwood and some of the other Booker-type women (and men) writers that I've read: in my opinion they have pedantic, moralizing tones -- "If you don't heed what I'm depicting, you, or your children, might have to live with something like it." But that seems to be what the various prize judges are suckers for. I forgot to mention that I read Atwood's Handmaiden's Tale, another in a long line of derivative dystopian novels, the writing of which shows no signs of petering out any time soon.

Georgia, I would be interested to know if DduM was one of Waters's influences. Yes, I do see some similarities, and I particularly liked Affinity and Fingersmith.

Gah! It's The Handmaid's Tale -- I've done my best to forget it and I almost did!

Vee, I read Graham's Future Homemakers of America. The Moggach sounds interesting.

I won't even attempt to compare how Americans and Britons view what is "middle class." I've known multi-millionaire and too-poor-to-have-a-pot Americans who all insist they are middle class.

>I learned the term from Kat Warren, first at Salon and later at Readerville.

Hee, thought the term looked familiar! Thanks for the link (and thanks veer for yours as well)

>In other words, DduM was a storyteller, not a preacher

I think that is a very apt description. Usually it is a storyteller that I prefer to read over most anything.

And what frieda said. Middle class = American, so if you don't think you are one, you can't be the other, nu? I think those classes are much more specific in England. Tho I do not believe we are a classless society. Our culture is very much affected by class, but many people chose not to consider it much.

Cindy, do you think "middle class" is the preferred illusion of most Americans? I agree that the US is not classless. Two very amusing (in a sarcastic way) books, in my opinion, about the American distinction of class are Stephen Birmingham's America's Secret Aristocracy and Paul Fussell's appropriately titled Class. Birmingham made a career of studying and writing about various uppercrust families, and he developed some rather wacky notions of his own about what constitutes class.

Some regions of the US are more class conscious than others, I think. In some parts it's all money, money, money. Places such as Boston, parts of New York and the state of Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina -- among others on the east coast, predominantly -- have some very entrenched ideas. In those places it not so much money but breeding (who your family is and what schools you attended) that is most important, although old money is still highly respected. The farther west in the US you go, folks are less enamored with breeding as a class indicator, although there are pockets of it around. To many Americans class is about behavior. People can be considered upper class or "classy" if they have good manners, act benevolently, and have understated taste. Others are low class when they are rude, undignified, and displaying their atrociously bad taste. Middle class is everybody else.

Vee, since Gerald was in the still not-quite-respectable profession of the theatre, what were the du Mauriers considered, class-wise -- by themselves and others? DduM's writing seems plummy to me, as do the recordings of her voice, but was it authentic?

As Freida says, there's class, and then there's class. Old money="upper class", but if that same old money throws its weight around and makes a waitress cry, for instance, that's "no class."

>Cindy, do you think "middle class" is the preferred illusion of most Americans?

Not sure - but if you go by the media representation of it on tv shows and advertisements, it seems to be. I remember the old 'Mr and Mrs. Middle America' type of ads, and I think thats still the focus.

D du M's accent certainly sounds what you call 'plummy', or 'cutglass' to us now, but that is how people of her generation would have talked.
I think a successful actor-manager of Gerald du M's standing would have fitted neatly into the upper middle class (the family may originally have worried more about their foreign roots) especially as he could have 'acted the part' with ease and had the money to fit the life-style. Less easy for actresses of that period.

Over here class is far less about how much money one has. In fact some 'top class' aristocrats are quite hard-up and live in rotting piles of damp stone, wear thread-bare tweeds and are covered in hairy smelly dogs to provide extra warmth as they have no central heating . . . but they still dress for dinner. Many of them were/are considered to be inbred and not terribly bright.
The term 'middle class' used to be about more than money and the spending there off, and was based on attitude, education and, although dying out now, responsibility. Most of the young men who went abroad to serve the Empire were from that background.
Our Govt uses the term 'Middle England' as they don't like the 'class' word and they are at some pains to alter the balance of our society. Educational opportunities are being manipulated so the 'disadvantaged' can get into university with lower exam results and virtually everyone passes their exams so no-one is seen to be a loser.
Also it is now very difficult for a middle class couple to adopt a child.
I don't think 'lower class' UK people are those who are considered rude, bad mannered etc. and many folk are totally happy to be 'working class' and have no desire to better themselves as the old saying has it. Most people in the back-of-beyond area in which we now live (once a stronghold of the Labour party and a firmly working class area) say all too frequently "It was good enough for me old Dad, Nan, Grancher and it's good enough for me."
We also have a new breed of sub-person the chav or chavette (see below). Some/many footballers and their families (think the Beckhams) and lots of pop stars are top-end chavs with plenty of money, cars, houses, swimming pools, heavy gold jewellery (bling) etc.
Many chavs are to be found living in Spain where the police can't get at them.

I think over here, the term classy only means stylish ( in the way you dress/look). If you are considered 'classy' you are not likely to be from the top draw but a good-looker/smart dresser!

Here is a link that might be useful: Chavs

Ha! Vee, your description of 'top class' aristocrats makes me wonder why the heck they are 'top class' and owed any deference. Do they come from the oldest illustrious families, still hold valuable-though-rotting piles, or what? I understand tradition is important to Britons, but it's a head-scratcher to me and probably to most Americans. Oh, some Americans, no doubt, go ga-ga in the presence of aristocrats, but probably not as many who get silly over film and pop stars.

But there are American-to-American examples of deference, too. Someone -- maybe Paul Fussell whom I mentioned above -- recounted an illustrating anecdote about what some upperclass American families consider to be their privilege. A father sent his daughter's application to Brown University in Rhode Island with remarks about why he thought his offspring was a good candidate, stating: "She's female [this was back in the day when females were being recruited]; she's a minority [her mother being a Jamaican]; and she's a Livingston [of New York]." Apparently he considered it enuf said and, if I remember correctly, daughter was duly admitted.

I'm not sure if we in the US have a special name for our equivalent to chavs.

Working class in the US means those who have jobs and pay taxes, be they blue collar garbage collectors or white collar venture capitalists. Stay-at-home moms are also working class if they have spouses who work. The opposite would be those who don't work because they have trust funds (high end) or on welfare (low end).

Why is it difficult for middle-class British couples to adopt? Not enough children available for adoption or prohibitively expensive?

Below is a link to BBC Radio 4 and a reading of 'And His Letters . . .' by the actor Nigel Havers who btw is appearing as Maxim de Winter in Rebecca on the London stage.
Perhaps not quite Olivier but he does have that aristocratic 'something' about him.
At the BBC site click on Monday

And regarding aristocrats, Frieda, maybe some people in the UK feel that a hangman's gibbet should stand outside the House of Lords or that hereditary peers should be replaced by friends of the Government with deep pockets . . . not so different from the old system when you consider how many 'top people's' ancestors obtained their titles. Either way, arriving with William the Conqueror or slightly more recently when various Royal Mistresses demanded positions for their offspring, this group is part of the Establishment.
No amount of money, delicacy of character, nobleness of soul makes it possible for the rest of us to join this elite group (and it is amazing how many would like to be Up There). Top actors, pop singers, Party Girls etc hang round the edge but they are almost never admitted into this inner-sanctum.
Of course there are some very wealthy people in this bracket; mostly from ownership of land and lots have 'Stately Homes'. Many of you have probably been to Chatsworth, Castle Howard, Warwick Castle etc. who's owners have wisely turned their properties into money-making enterprises.

Interesting about the story of the student and her father. Surprisingly over here, for everyone below Royalty if such a thing had happened (a father writing in on behalf of his daughter) any university would have put the application straight in the bin; there is no automatic right of entry to any uni' for sons/daughters of alumni.

Re adoption: there are certainly far fewer babies available these days. Although many many more babies are being born 'out of wedlock' (for want of a better expression) this is usually by choice . . . of at least one parent . . . and in both big cities and small country towns the sight of groups of very young females pushing baby buggies, smoking, chatting to boys (the possible fathers?) is very common.
Our Govt gives out vast amounts of benefits to this group so the need to put a baby up for adoption is very low and many people only want healthy white children.
The Social Services who are usually the first port of call in these matters make the 'process' very very difficult, especially for middle-class couples. It seems that if a child comes from a poorer, perhaps racially mixed background the social workers wants it to be adopted by people from that 'class' without considering whether the child might stand a chance of a better life.
Some parents look abroad as I expect they do in the US, but this can lead to even more problems . . . and cost far more than going through the usual channels.
When the cases of the Romanian orphans was first aired on TV some people tried to adopt a child, thinking with their hearts rather than...

Vee, I finally found a computer with audio so I could listen to Nigel Havers reading Letters. Hmm, I think hearing made it more effective...the change in tone is more obvious. I wasn't much impressed reading it, but now I think I'll revise my opinion: It was quite cleverly done for a young writer, as DduM was at the time.

I looked up Havers at IMDb because I didn't recognize his name, though his voice sounded familiar. I realize now that I've seen him in several films but never knew who he was. Though I liked Olivier as Maxim, I never accepted that he was supposed to be more than twice the age of Joan Fontaine as No Name. I'm not sure if I've seen the version with Jeremy Brett; but I did see the one with Charles Dance as Maxim, and I liked the young Emilia Fox a sight better than the very annoying way Fontaine played Mrs de Winter II, though I got just as irritated with the character in the book.

I have been mostly disappointed with the film adaptations of DduM's books and stories. I didn't like the change of location in "The Birds" from England to California. "Don't Look Now," with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie, was done very well, I think, and probably the best film after Rebecca. Hitchcock's film of Jamaica Inn is ludicrous -- Charles Laughton was miscast! And in spite of Alec Guinness portraying John/Jean, The Scapegoat just didn't hang together. I know that I saw the adaptation of My Cousin Rachel but I don't recall either liking or disliking it.

I don't think I could bear to watch films of The House on the Strand and The King's General, if they are ever made, which at this late date I think it's probably doubtful. But who knows, they might be.

What do you think about the various Rebecca sequels and pastiches? Susan Hill's Mrs de Winter and Sally Beauman's Rebecca's Tale and seems like there are a couple more...hmmm.

Vee, the class thing is so damn complex and bewildering, in my opinion. Of course I'm interested in the aristocrats because I'm interested in history; but as we discussed on another thread, I think the history of the less privileged is just as fascinating. Current sociology...well, I don't have as much patience as I once did, trying to sort it out. I don't know if it's cynicism or my age!

The BBC version of Rebecca (1979) had Joanna David as the second Mrs de Winter, not an easy part to play as the character is such a drip. For anyone who saw the BBC adaptation of 'Pride and Prejudice' J David had a small part as Elizabeth's Aunt with whom she is staying when they visit Pemberley and Darcy takes a swim in the lake to cool his ardour.

Re Maxim de Winter, although he is not a total baddy I find him an unsympathetic character and really he didn't do no-name any favours by marrying her.
Btw have just read somewhere that D du M was the niece by marriage of the tragic Sylvia Llewelyn Davies the Mother of the boys befriended by James Barrie who was inspired, through the youngest, to write Peter Pan.

And finally . . . as I'm probably talking to myself by now . . . I have just picked up from the Mobile Library that visits for 15 minutes once a fortnight, I'll Never be Young Again by D du M. Written when she was only 23, I'll give it a go although it might be a load of girlish purple prose.
Has anyone read it?

Speaking of J Barrie, has anyone here read his plays? Except for Peter Pan, and occasionally The Admirable Crichton, I never hear of them any more. I rather enjoy his writing, or did the last time I found any to read. Not very fashionable anymore, I'm afraid.

Rosefolly

Vee, let us know what you think of I'll Never Be Young Again. I've read it twice, but the second time I did it only to reacquaint myself with some of DduM's lesser books. I recall there are interesting parts -- e.g., Richard wandering the continent and there is a particular feeling of that different time that I liked -- but Richard's story doesn't particularly appeal to me, though I did wonder if DduM had projected into it a bit of her own feelings about being the offspring of a famous parent.

If I ever knew that DduM was the niece of Sylvia Llewelyn Davies, I forgot it. Truthfully, I hated Peter Pan when I was a kid, and I've never wanted to revisit it as an adult. The story behind the story is more interesting to me, though it's so very sad. I understand now that there's more to Peter Pan than all the surface stuff about flying, fairies, and never growing up, but I still don't want to read it.