This book goes between a modern-day grad student attempting to write a paper on Daphne du Maurier, du Marier herself, and Mr. Symington, a curator of Bronte relics who du Maurier roped into helping her write a book on Branwell Bronte. The Daphne parts were really interesting to me (I didn't know she was related to the Llewelyn Davies boys, and her relationships with her family and husband were all weirdly fascinating to me), but I hated reading the Symington chapters and while I sort of liked the main, modern-day character, she seemed a bit too pathetic to really enjoy (I know the author was trying to parallel her to the Narrator in Rebecca, but that chick was kinda lame, too). Basically this book just made me want to read a biography of Daphne du Maurier. Not for me. I agree with Sarah A' review. The book switches between Daphne DuMaurier in 1957 and a modern day protagonist. The modern day woman is a poor allusion to the heroine of Rebecca. I thought the allusion was so clumsily handled it was borderline bad. She was also a weak, sniveling and hand-wringing kind of heroine, which I do not like. The 1957 portions of the book were a better book and I wish the author had just told THAT story and not gone back to the present day narrator. The 1957 "book in a book" was better written, and for that reason alone I'd be willing to give the author another chance. But I couldn't put this book on the give away pile fast enough.
What do You think about Daphne (2006)?
Excellent! I reccomend to historians all over the world interested in the Bronte family.
—chynesofocused
Locked this book, very well-written and well read again
—Laetitia
Verbose, and not a single character was compelling.
—Sujata
