What do you think?
Rate this book
The Parasites
Many thought the Delaney family was blessed, but others knew it was cursed.
Celia was a wonderful artist who refused to acknowledge her gift. Maria was a successful actress who couldn't share her most important role with the people who should have mattered most. Niall was a brilliant composer who mocked his talent.
Together and apart, they moved through life wrapped in the haze of their fantasies and the past, until an unexpected revelation forces them to confront truths not all of them may be able to live with.
Celia was a wonderful artist who refused to acknowledge her gift. Maria was a successful actress who couldn't share her most important role with the people who should have mattered most. Niall was a brilliant composer who mocked his talent.
Together and apart, they moved through life wrapped in the haze of their fantasies and the past, until an unexpected revelation forces them to confront truths not all of them may be able to live with.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
About the author
Daphne du Maurier
335 books9,048 followersDaphne du Maurier was born on 13 May 1907 at 24 Cumberland Terrace, Regent's Park, London, the middle of three daughters of prominent actor-manager Sir Gerald du Maurier and actress Muriel, née Beaumont. In many ways her life resembles a fairy tale. Born into a family with a rich artistic and historical background, her paternal grandfather was author and Punch cartoonist George du Maurier, who created the character of Svengali in the 1894 novel Trilby, and her mother was a maternal niece of journalist, author, and lecturer Comyns Beaumont. She and her sisters were indulged as a children and grew up enjoying enormous freedom from financial and parental restraint. Her elder sister, Angela du Maurier, also became a writer, and her younger sister Jeanne was a painter.
She spent her youth sailing boats, travelling on the Continent with friends, and writing stories. Her family connections helped her establish her literary career, and she published some of her early work in Beaumont's Bystander magazine. A prestigious publishing house accepted her first novel when she was in her early twenties, and its publication brought her not only fame but the attentions of a handsome soldier, Major (later Lieutenant-General Sir) Frederick Browning, whom she married.
She continued writing under her maiden name, and her subsequent novels became bestsellers, earning her enormous wealth and fame. Many have been successfully adapted into films, including the novels Rebecca, Frenchman's Creek, My Cousin Rachel, and Jamaica Inn, and the short stories The Birds and Don't Look Now/Not After Midnight. While Alfred Hitchcock's films based upon her novels proceeded to make her one of the best-known authors in the world, she enjoyed the life of a fairy princess in a mansion in Cornwall called Menabilly, which served as the model for Manderley in Rebecca.
Daphne du Maurier was obsessed with the past. She intensively researched the lives of Francis and Anthony Bacon, the history of Cornwall, the Regency period, and nineteenth-century France and England. Above all, however, she was obsessed with her own family history, which she chronicled in Gerald: A Portrait, a biography of her father; The du Mauriers, a study of her family which focused on her grandfather, George du Maurier, the novelist and illustrator for Punch; The Glassblowers, a novel based upon the lives of her du Maurier ancestors; and Growing Pains, an autobiography that ignores nearly 50 years of her life in favour of the joyful and more romantic period of her youth. Daphne du Maurier can best be understood in terms of her remarkable and paradoxical family, the ghosts which haunted her life and fiction.
While contemporary writers were dealing critically with such subjects as the war, alienation, religion, poverty, Marxism, psychology and art, and experimenting with new techniques such as the stream of consciousness, du Maurier produced 'old-fashioned' novels with straightforward narratives that appealed to a popular audience's love of fantasy, adventure, sexuality and mystery. At an early age, she recognised that her readership was comprised principally of women, and she cultivated their loyal following through several decades by embodying their desires and dreams in her novels and short stories.
In some of her novels, however, she went beyond the technique of the formulaic romance to achieve a powerful psychological realism reflecting her intense feelings about her father, and to a lesser degree, her mother. This vision, which underlies Julius, Rebecca and The Parasites, is that of an author overwhelmed by the memory of her father's commanding presence. In Julius and The Parasites, for example, she introduces the image of a domineering but deadly father and the daring subject of incest.
In Rebecca, on the other hand, du Maurier fuses psychological realism with a sophisticated version of the Cinderella story. The nameless heroine has
She spent her youth sailing boats, travelling on the Continent with friends, and writing stories. Her family connections helped her establish her literary career, and she published some of her early work in Beaumont's Bystander magazine. A prestigious publishing house accepted her first novel when she was in her early twenties, and its publication brought her not only fame but the attentions of a handsome soldier, Major (later Lieutenant-General Sir) Frederick Browning, whom she married.
She continued writing under her maiden name, and her subsequent novels became bestsellers, earning her enormous wealth and fame. Many have been successfully adapted into films, including the novels Rebecca, Frenchman's Creek, My Cousin Rachel, and Jamaica Inn, and the short stories The Birds and Don't Look Now/Not After Midnight. While Alfred Hitchcock's films based upon her novels proceeded to make her one of the best-known authors in the world, she enjoyed the life of a fairy princess in a mansion in Cornwall called Menabilly, which served as the model for Manderley in Rebecca.
Daphne du Maurier was obsessed with the past. She intensively researched the lives of Francis and Anthony Bacon, the history of Cornwall, the Regency period, and nineteenth-century France and England. Above all, however, she was obsessed with her own family history, which she chronicled in Gerald: A Portrait, a biography of her father; The du Mauriers, a study of her family which focused on her grandfather, George du Maurier, the novelist and illustrator for Punch; The Glassblowers, a novel based upon the lives of her du Maurier ancestors; and Growing Pains, an autobiography that ignores nearly 50 years of her life in favour of the joyful and more romantic period of her youth. Daphne du Maurier can best be understood in terms of her remarkable and paradoxical family, the ghosts which haunted her life and fiction.
While contemporary writers were dealing critically with such subjects as the war, alienation, religion, poverty, Marxism, psychology and art, and experimenting with new techniques such as the stream of consciousness, du Maurier produced 'old-fashioned' novels with straightforward narratives that appealed to a popular audience's love of fantasy, adventure, sexuality and mystery. At an early age, she recognised that her readership was comprised principally of women, and she cultivated their loyal following through several decades by embodying their desires and dreams in her novels and short stories.
In some of her novels, however, she went beyond the technique of the formulaic romance to achieve a powerful psychological realism reflecting her intense feelings about her father, and to a lesser degree, her mother. This vision, which underlies Julius, Rebecca and The Parasites, is that of an author overwhelmed by the memory of her father's commanding presence. In Julius and The Parasites, for example, she introduces the image of a domineering but deadly father and the daring subject of incest.
In Rebecca, on the other hand, du Maurier fuses psychological realism with a sophisticated version of the Cinderella story. The nameless heroine has
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews
June 29, 2021
The Delaney siblings are unconventional to say the least. They are two non-blood related siblings by way of the marriage of a famous musician father and a celebrity woman dancer mother, who gain a half-sister, Celia. Years later we join all three of them, grown up, sitting in the family home of the married older half-sister Maria, and looking back on their highly unconventional past that saw the two older non-blood related siblings attain creative heights. Maria's husband decries all three of them as parasites before exiting, leaving them to share their pasts with one another, themselves and... us readers.
Even when reading this in 2021, this could be deemed a contemporary piece of work, but really The Parasites defies an exact classification, with its multi-layered breakdown of this celebrity hybrid family, a family of mostly unlikable, but tremendously gifted individuals who seemingly born with their gifts, have never really worked that hard to get something, or indeed at any personal relationship! Looked through a 1940s lens it's a damning character study of some of the creative elite, especially when Daphne du Maurier biography reading indicates that this work has auto biographical insights with the father of the family somewhat based on Daphne's own father!
Cuttingly psychological at times, and darkly comedic in other moments, this is not part of the high-drama Cornish historical sagas of Daphne du Maurier's main body of work, but in a way, that is what it all the more compelling and interesting! Looked through a 2021 lens it could also be seen as character study of privilege. 7.5 out of 12, although I can already tell a reread will see me giving this book more love!
Even when reading this in 2021, this could be deemed a contemporary piece of work, but really The Parasites defies an exact classification, with its multi-layered breakdown of this celebrity hybrid family, a family of mostly unlikable, but tremendously gifted individuals who seemingly born with their gifts, have never really worked that hard to get something, or indeed at any personal relationship! Looked through a 1940s lens it's a damning character study of some of the creative elite, especially when Daphne du Maurier biography reading indicates that this work has auto biographical insights with the father of the family somewhat based on Daphne's own father!
Cuttingly psychological at times, and darkly comedic in other moments, this is not part of the high-drama Cornish historical sagas of Daphne du Maurier's main body of work, but in a way, that is what it all the more compelling and interesting! Looked through a 2021 lens it could also be seen as character study of privilege. 7.5 out of 12, although I can already tell a reread will see me giving this book more love!
December 3, 2018
This has some brilliant ideas and contains scads of wisdom about the pitfalls and the rewards of a creative life. Three siblings whose parents were Pappy, a famous singer, and Mama, a brilliant dancer, spend an afternoon remembering their childhood and decisions they have made.
They are brought to this circumspection because Maria's husband has just called them 3 parasites. Maria and Niall and Celia (in that birth order) have always been inseparable since they were children and traveled around with their parents in a bohemian style from theater to hotel all around the world.
At first I was in disagreement with Charles, but I can see how he did suffer with a wife who was a brilliant stage actor. Of the 3 siblings, Maria was the most self-centered, but she had her art and it was her whole life. Probably, she should never have married and had children, because she ignored both. Niall was a world famous popular song writer and Celia did gorgeous drawings, but loved helping people more than her art, so she truly wasn't parasitic, unless the author is saying that some people are cloying in their need to take care of others?
This is very sad, but there is also humor in the book, in this section duMaurier is describing Niall's driving:
Always an indifferent driver . . .Niall became worse through the years, because he became progressively more vague. . . He shot traffic lights, not with intention, but because momentarily he would confuse green with red; or alternatively he would stay waiting, overtime, when the colours changed, so that only the infuriated hooting of drivers in the rear,. . .would startle him from a temporary dream into instant, and often fatal, action.
I love that section, because I am just the same!
They are brought to this circumspection because Maria's husband has just called them 3 parasites. Maria and Niall and Celia (in that birth order) have always been inseparable since they were children and traveled around with their parents in a bohemian style from theater to hotel all around the world.
At first I was in disagreement with Charles, but I can see how he did suffer with a wife who was a brilliant stage actor. Of the 3 siblings, Maria was the most self-centered, but she had her art and it was her whole life. Probably, she should never have married and had children, because she ignored both. Niall was a world famous popular song writer and Celia did gorgeous drawings, but loved helping people more than her art, so she truly wasn't parasitic, unless the author is saying that some people are cloying in their need to take care of others?
This is very sad, but there is also humor in the book, in this section duMaurier is describing Niall's driving:
Always an indifferent driver . . .Niall became worse through the years, because he became progressively more vague. . . He shot traffic lights, not with intention, but because momentarily he would confuse green with red; or alternatively he would stay waiting, overtime, when the colours changed, so that only the infuriated hooting of drivers in the rear,. . .would startle him from a temporary dream into instant, and often fatal, action.
I love that section, because I am just the same!
July 3, 2020
The problem with the book is that these three siblings aren't parasites, they're trash. Well, that's not exact. Two of them are garbage people, the third is a self-denying loser. Parasites only take and these three actually do a lot of giving. Two are symbiotes: a brother who is a writer of catchy tunes and a sister who is a famous stage actress, creepily dependent on each other, both literally giving the world pleasure with their talents. A third sacrifices her entire life to serve others, especially her father. I suppose du Maurier was trying to say that superficial rich artists full of angsty white fragility who don't have healthy relationships with other people are... parasites? Um, no. So many other words can be used. To be kind, I will just say that these three are Sad with a capital S, but certainly not parasitical. Anyway, for such an exact and exacting author, the misuse of that word is strange and disappointing.
Fortunately the book itself is a mainly absorbing experience. du Maurier is a superb writer: her characters dense with inchoate ambitions and inarticulated emotions, her prose all the shades of gray but somehow still entirely vivid, scenes carefully set and dripping with atmosphere and detail, small tragedies and big moments all delivered with subtlety and finesse, and she serves up the whole bitter feast with such marvelously dry detachment. In general, du Maurier does leave me cold - possibly because she has ice running through her veins - but her skills are entirely admirable.
For much of the novel, the narrative switches back and forth in time, portraying the present when the siblings are shattered and ruminative after being called parasites by the husband of one (c'mon, get a grip everyone) and also portraying the past, mainly their lives as the children of two fey artists with rampant egos, growing up all around the world in various luxurious hotels and rentals. These narratives are in alternating chapters. Honestly, I found myself rushing through the chapters set in the present because they were so full of navel-gazing, while the chapters set in the past are dazzlingly vital. What lives these kids had!
Although du Maurier is far from generous with her characters, she paints a picture of a lifestyle that is both completely alien to me and completely real. Their hopes and dreams, the whirlwind of locations, the eccentric characters coming in and out of their world, their relationships with each other and their parents - I wish the whole book was set in this enchanting past. Unfortunately, the more we stayed in the present, the more moralistic the book became, and so it also became rather stultifying. I'm not interested in the grown-up lives of an unloving mother, her brother the self-absorbed twit, and her sister the tedious doormat. That said, the most lively chapter occurs late, when these so-called parasites and their plus ones are invited to a weekend at a country manor, and turn the whole thing into a humiliating debacle for everyone. Old Money should never invite self-centered artistes over for the weekend, hopefully lesson learned. Stay in your lane, Old Money; those types will only mortify everyone's delicate sensibilities, including the staff.
synopsis: three rich kids live their lives and are sad about it.
Fortunately the book itself is a mainly absorbing experience. du Maurier is a superb writer: her characters dense with inchoate ambitions and inarticulated emotions, her prose all the shades of gray but somehow still entirely vivid, scenes carefully set and dripping with atmosphere and detail, small tragedies and big moments all delivered with subtlety and finesse, and she serves up the whole bitter feast with such marvelously dry detachment. In general, du Maurier does leave me cold - possibly because she has ice running through her veins - but her skills are entirely admirable.
For much of the novel, the narrative switches back and forth in time, portraying the present when the siblings are shattered and ruminative after being called parasites by the husband of one (c'mon, get a grip everyone) and also portraying the past, mainly their lives as the children of two fey artists with rampant egos, growing up all around the world in various luxurious hotels and rentals. These narratives are in alternating chapters. Honestly, I found myself rushing through the chapters set in the present because they were so full of navel-gazing, while the chapters set in the past are dazzlingly vital. What lives these kids had!
Although du Maurier is far from generous with her characters, she paints a picture of a lifestyle that is both completely alien to me and completely real. Their hopes and dreams, the whirlwind of locations, the eccentric characters coming in and out of their world, their relationships with each other and their parents - I wish the whole book was set in this enchanting past. Unfortunately, the more we stayed in the present, the more moralistic the book became, and so it also became rather stultifying. I'm not interested in the grown-up lives of an unloving mother, her brother the self-absorbed twit, and her sister the tedious doormat. That said, the most lively chapter occurs late, when these so-called parasites and their plus ones are invited to a weekend at a country manor, and turn the whole thing into a humiliating debacle for everyone. Old Money should never invite self-centered artistes over for the weekend, hopefully lesson learned. Stay in your lane, Old Money; those types will only mortify everyone's delicate sensibilities, including the staff.
synopsis: three rich kids live their lives and are sad about it.
March 15, 2021
It's Daphne du Maurier, how could I go wrong? Not even her first novel, but her ninth. The title was promising, even though it was one of her lesser known novels. I could tell from the first chapter that this was not like her typical story; no mystery or sense of building dread, no suspense. Okay, that's fine, I can deal with an author going in a different direction, even applaud the courage it takes. I was enjoying the tale of the three Delaney children growing up with parents in the theater, traveling all over the world.
Then the kids grew up.
Into the most obnoxious, self centered adults in literature. Parasites in every sense of the word. The two oldest had successful careers on the stage, the youngest became the caretaker and enabler. They were always a unit of 3, so close and weird that the reader was never sure who was narrating the story. I lost interest at the midway point and sped read the final 30%. Even the two chapters that were supposed to be humorous horrified me by the characters total self-absorption.
Had this been the first du Maurier novel I ever picked up, I would never have known the thrill of reading Rebecca, My Cousin Rachel, or Jamaica Inn.
Then the kids grew up.
Into the most obnoxious, self centered adults in literature. Parasites in every sense of the word. The two oldest had successful careers on the stage, the youngest became the caretaker and enabler. They were always a unit of 3, so close and weird that the reader was never sure who was narrating the story. I lost interest at the midway point and sped read the final 30%. Even the two chapters that were supposed to be humorous horrified me by the characters total self-absorption.
Had this been the first du Maurier novel I ever picked up, I would never have known the thrill of reading Rebecca, My Cousin Rachel, or Jamaica Inn.
January 11, 2013
i'm still thinking about this book three days later. it differs from other du maurier works in that there isn't anything gothic or spooky about it. the parasites is a novel of three siblings, two of whom are not related to each other by blood: maria, the daughter of a famous singer who marries an even more famous dancer who has a son named niall born in the same year as maria, and celia, the daughter the two artists come to have together. it is told mostly in flashback: the three siblings are called parasites by maria's husband, and they are left to wonder why. in so doing, they trace back their lives.
that little precis doesn't really sound all that intriguing, i know, and this book isn't really heavy on plot, but it is a great exploration of character, and what people feel they need, and what they feel they can let go. there was a lot of really wonderful observation about how the world works, and what one can live with if one has to. it read a lot like the black prince by iris murdoch, but it felt wiser, somehow. i think it's likely i'll read it again soon because it doesn't want to leave me alone, and when i do i'll revisit this review.
***
re-read prompted by the completist's club and jessica treat's thread there: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
yeah, this book is seriously kick ass. these are some complex characterizations.
that little precis doesn't really sound all that intriguing, i know, and this book isn't really heavy on plot, but it is a great exploration of character, and what people feel they need, and what they feel they can let go. there was a lot of really wonderful observation about how the world works, and what one can live with if one has to. it read a lot like the black prince by iris murdoch, but it felt wiser, somehow. i think it's likely i'll read it again soon because it doesn't want to leave me alone, and when i do i'll revisit this review.
***
re-read prompted by the completist's club and jessica treat's thread there: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
yeah, this book is seriously kick ass. these are some complex characterizations.
December 3, 2018
So this is not a a typical dark, gothic, gloomy-- the-Daphne-we-know-and-love type of book. This was a story about three very different siblings-- Maria, Niall, and Celia-- and how one word from Maria's husband made them rehash their pasts.
Parasite-- affect their hosts by feeding upon their living tissues or cells, and the intensity of the effect upon the hosts ranges from the slightest local injury to complete destruction
-- The Encyclopedia Britannica & part of intro to book
The story takes the reader to the earliest memories of their childhood together and what shaped them into these adults. Pappy and Mama had a huge significance in shaping them. They were famous, Pappy for singing and Mama for her dancing. They traveled all over the world and behaved like horrid children with no structure or school in their lives.
Maria-- Actress-- selfish, cares for no one, lies, cheats, and tolerates no one except Niall.
Niall-- Famous for his catchy tunes-- lazy, unambitious, bored, very unemotional about the present yet very emotional about the past, esp for Maria.
Celia-- very kindhearted. Could have taken her drawings to fame but decided to take care of Pappy for the rest of his life...Very needy and dependent of others but noble at heart.
I liked it bc it held my attention and I wanted to ignore everyone to get on with it.... the story was fun
and a bit weird at times. Niall and Maria have a strange, yet trusting genuine relationship... The narrator at times threw me off bc I didn't know who was telling the story but I understood it by the end... It was a good read and I'd definitely read again in the future.
Parasite-- affect their hosts by feeding upon their living tissues or cells, and the intensity of the effect upon the hosts ranges from the slightest local injury to complete destruction
-- The Encyclopedia Britannica & part of intro to book
The story takes the reader to the earliest memories of their childhood together and what shaped them into these adults. Pappy and Mama had a huge significance in shaping them. They were famous, Pappy for singing and Mama for her dancing. They traveled all over the world and behaved like horrid children with no structure or school in their lives.
Maria-- Actress-- selfish, cares for no one, lies, cheats, and tolerates no one except Niall.
Niall-- Famous for his catchy tunes-- lazy, unambitious, bored, very unemotional about the present yet very emotional about the past, esp for Maria.
Celia-- very kindhearted. Could have taken her drawings to fame but decided to take care of Pappy for the rest of his life...Very needy and dependent of others but noble at heart.
I liked it bc it held my attention and I wanted to ignore everyone to get on with it.... the story was fun
and a bit weird at times. Niall and Maria have a strange, yet trusting genuine relationship... The narrator at times threw me off bc I didn't know who was telling the story but I understood it by the end... It was a good read and I'd definitely read again in the future.
March 1, 2017
Was it all illusion?
The Delaney siblings, nearing 40, are startled to
hear the husband of one call them "parasites." His
nasty liner isn't true. Maria (wife of a stuffed
shirt landowner) is a top actress in the West End.
The popular songs of her bro Niall have made him
rich & famous. The youngest Delaney, Celia, has spent
her life doing for family. All three are composites
of DdM.
She comes w a brand name : grandfather George wrote
"Trilby." Papa Gerald, a celebrated actor-producer, gave Tallulah her first London role, 1923. DdM published her first novel in her twenties, in the 30s, and soon became world
famous. Husband Frederick Browning presided over an allied slaughter WW2. He took to drink. She took to musical star Gertrude Lawrence.
In 49, afer writing best-sell historicals, DdM produced this contemporary social comedy, which reveals her marriage and life. Fans were vexed : no gothic trappings, suspense, romantic hokum. Some GR sausageheads find it "salacious." GraGreene teased that her yarns reflect a woman of "considerable refinement."
The Delaney/duMaurier parents were grand performers. "How happy we were..." sighs a changing POV-Delaney. Only Maria marries. Her humorless husby decides to revise the marital script. "It's rather terrible," mulls Niall, "like a priest for whom one has great respect suddenly taking off his trousers in church."
Maria's husby resents the easily gifted Delaneys. The easily gifted DdM skillfully creates mood & atmosphere. She entertains on a high level -- even when the make-believe is supreme tosh.
The Delaney siblings, nearing 40, are startled to
hear the husband of one call them "parasites." His
nasty liner isn't true. Maria (wife of a stuffed
shirt landowner) is a top actress in the West End.
The popular songs of her bro Niall have made him
rich & famous. The youngest Delaney, Celia, has spent
her life doing for family. All three are composites
of DdM.
She comes w a brand name : grandfather George wrote
"Trilby." Papa Gerald, a celebrated actor-producer, gave Tallulah her first London role, 1923. DdM published her first novel in her twenties, in the 30s, and soon became world
famous. Husband Frederick Browning presided over an allied slaughter WW2. He took to drink. She took to musical star Gertrude Lawrence.
In 49, afer writing best-sell historicals, DdM produced this contemporary social comedy, which reveals her marriage and life. Fans were vexed : no gothic trappings, suspense, romantic hokum. Some GR sausageheads find it "salacious." GraGreene teased that her yarns reflect a woman of "considerable refinement."
The Delaney/duMaurier parents were grand performers. "How happy we were..." sighs a changing POV-Delaney. Only Maria marries. Her humorless husby decides to revise the marital script. "It's rather terrible," mulls Niall, "like a priest for whom one has great respect suddenly taking off his trousers in church."
Maria's husby resents the easily gifted Delaneys. The easily gifted DdM skillfully creates mood & atmosphere. She entertains on a high level -- even when the make-believe is supreme tosh.
September 1, 2014
I was not prepared for how fascinating and beautiful this novel is. Yes, Sketchbook and Maureen of Goodreads had recommended it, but I suppose I had Du Maurier's biographer (Margaret Forster) in my ear: there are three Du Maurier novels that remain masterpieces; this was not of them. In fact, checking now, I do not even find it in her index though I know it was mentioned, at least a couple of times, in her text.
Richly imagined, original in its execution, this is a novel as much about art, the life of artists, commercial success versus following one's voice/vision, as it is about family, its demands, deep bonds, and pleasures.
The novel opens as the three grown children of two successful artists--a dancer and singer--who are themselves artists: Niall, a composer, Maria, an actress and Celia, talented at drawing (though she does not devote herself as the other two do)--are called parasites by Charles, Maria's husband. The term sets the three, and the novel, along journeys into their pasts and present, and with a sudden decision on Charles's part, their very different futures.
Du Maurier does a masterful job of following each of these three very different characters, providing in doing so, her own version of point-of-view: there is a we, a community voice for the three siblings (half-siblings) as well as the p.o.v. of each. While Maria is self-absorbed, beautiful and charismatic, Celia is dutiful, devoted to her father and caretaking. Immensely talented yet unable to meet the selfish requirements of being an artist, she chooses instead to care for loved ones. Niall finds success as a composer but cares little for it and for a long time is ambivalent about writing the music, songs he hears in his head, that may not meet with such success. And between Maria and Niall, siblings by upbringing but not by blood, there is a deep--erotic, sympathetic--bond.
I'll be reading more of Du Maurier's lesser known novels soon, hers is a singular talent. Like Niall, she too found much commercial success as her earnings supported her family (husband and three children), all the while striving for--and deserving but not always receiving--literary acclaim.
Richly imagined, original in its execution, this is a novel as much about art, the life of artists, commercial success versus following one's voice/vision, as it is about family, its demands, deep bonds, and pleasures.
The novel opens as the three grown children of two successful artists--a dancer and singer--who are themselves artists: Niall, a composer, Maria, an actress and Celia, talented at drawing (though she does not devote herself as the other two do)--are called parasites by Charles, Maria's husband. The term sets the three, and the novel, along journeys into their pasts and present, and with a sudden decision on Charles's part, their very different futures.
Du Maurier does a masterful job of following each of these three very different characters, providing in doing so, her own version of point-of-view: there is a we, a community voice for the three siblings (half-siblings) as well as the p.o.v. of each. While Maria is self-absorbed, beautiful and charismatic, Celia is dutiful, devoted to her father and caretaking. Immensely talented yet unable to meet the selfish requirements of being an artist, she chooses instead to care for loved ones. Niall finds success as a composer but cares little for it and for a long time is ambivalent about writing the music, songs he hears in his head, that may not meet with such success. And between Maria and Niall, siblings by upbringing but not by blood, there is a deep--erotic, sympathetic--bond.
I'll be reading more of Du Maurier's lesser known novels soon, hers is a singular talent. Like Niall, she too found much commercial success as her earnings supported her family (husband and three children), all the while striving for--and deserving but not always receiving--literary acclaim.
November 16, 2014
1. Dahphne du Maurier lesen?
Ich muss mit einem Geständnis beginnen: ich habe diese Autorin unterschätzt. Sie hat die Vorlagen für Hitchcocks DIE VÖGEL, JAMAICA INN und REBECCA geschrieben, und auch die Erzählung WENN DIE GONDELN TRAUER TRAGEN, die 1973 Vorlage zu einem erfolgreichen Film wurde. Es scheint, als sollte man sich ihrer, wenn überhaupt, vorzugsweise erinnern als Autorin von Romanen und Erzählungen, die durch großartige Verfilmungen bekannt wurden. Und eben das hieße, Daphne du Maurier zu unterschätzen, denn neben romantischen und schauerromantischen Elementen, die in den Filmen ausgeschlachtet wurden, hat sie als Erzählerin sehr viel zeitbezogenere und modernere Anliegen. Die Schrecken des zweiten Weltkriegs und die Rolle der Frau in der Nachkriegsgesellschaft, die nicht mehr dieselbe sein kann, sind zwei Themen, die dem Leser häufiger bei ihr begegnen. Dabei erzählt du Maurier herrlich unpathetisch und, im Gegensatz zu manchen Damen und Herren Autoren deutscher Nachkriegsliteratur, ohne Larmoyanz und (Pseudo)Betroffenheit. Und auch formell ist sie immer wieder für eine Überraschung gut. Wieviele Romane gibt es, deren Hauptfigur keinen Namen haben? Wieviele Romane, in denen nicht klar ist, wer der Erzähler ist? Sicherlich sind dieses keine Eigenschaften, die der Leser von Trivialliteratur erwarten würde.
Dahphne du Maurier lesen? - - - Allerdings!
2. THE PARASITES
...ist kein ganz einfach zu lesender Roman, inhaltlich nicht, und auch formell durchaus gewagt.
Die Geschwister Maria, Niall und Celia Delany werden eines Nachmittags von Marias Ehemann als Parasiten beschimpft. "I wonder what Charles really meant when he called us parasites" lautet die Frage, die dazu führt, dass sie sich gemeinsam ihrer Kindheit und Jugend erinnern und Gewissenserforschung betreiben. Doch wer der drei erzählt eigentlich welche Passagen, und wie ist ein kollektives "Wir" als Erzählerstimme vorstellbar? Der Leser bekommt es zwar nicht mit waschechten "inneren Monologen" zu tun, aber gelegentlich habe ich schon an Virginia Woolf denken müssen.
Erzählt wird in Schnappschüssen, zum Beispiel von Premierenfeiern oder dem Antrittsbesuch der Delanys bei den Schwiegereltern. Vieles an dieser Künstlerfamilie wirkt komisch und skurril, eine sehr exzentrische Familie, mit der man nachsichtig ist, denn schließlich waren schon die Eltern große Künstler, und ihre drei Kinder sind ebenfalls begabt. Woran aber liegt es, dass sie nichts aus ihrem Leben zu machen vermögen?
Das Leben ist zu gewinnen oder zu verlieren, hat Paul Nizon festgestellt. Wie schwer der Lebensgewinn fällt, zeigen die Lebensläufe dieser Künstlerfamilie. Antriebslosigkeit, Egoismus und Vermeidung sind schlechte Erfolgsrezepte, und der Künstler scheitert an ihnen wie jeder andere Mensch auch.
Die Erzählstimmung im Buch ist starken Wandlungen unterworfen, und wenn zu Beginn Humor und Heiterkeit breiten Raum haben, wird der Text zum Ende hin düsterer und fatalistischer und verliert seine anfängliche Unbeschwertheit.
Interessant ist an den PARASITES nicht nur, was erzählt wird, sondern vor allem auch, was nicht erzählt wird. Zuverlässige Chronisten finden sich in der Familie nicht, und der Alkoholismus des Vaters, den Niall vermutlich zusammen mit einer schon skandalösen Lebensuntüchtigkeit geerbt hat, sind verdrängte Themen, genau wie die unergründlich intensive Beziehung zwischen Niall und seiner Schwester Maria, die unfähig ist, anderen Menschen gegenüber auch nur das kleinste Bißchen an Empathie aufzubringen und die selbst den eigenen Kindern eine Fremde bleibt.
THE PARASITES bietet keine Gebrauchsanweisung fürs Leben, ist weder Drama noch Farce, sondern zeigt wechselnde Momente des Lebens, mal voller Kindheitsglück, mal solche des Scheiterns.
Der Roman entzieht sich durch Vielschichtigkeit einfachen Deutungsmustern und ich vermute, dass Daphne du Maurier sich hier Fragen ihres eigenen Lebens gestellt hat.
Ist THE PARASITES ein großer, ein moderner Roman?
Ich weiß es nicht. Modern ist die erzählerische Zerrissenheit, die hoffentlich beabsichtigt war. Ist der Roman gelungen? Ich weiche aus und sage, ich habe ihn gerne gelesen.
Erst nach einem Wiederlesen würde ich mir ein fundierteres Urteil zutrauen. Die Delany-Geschwister sind keine Sympathieträger, und wer liebenswerte Protagonisten erwartet, wird mit dem Buch nicht glücklich.
"The magic was elusive. You could never touch it. It escaped you always" befindet Niall, und ähnlich schwer tue ich mich damit, den Reiz des Buches in Worte zu fassen.
Drei verlorene Leben: Flucht in die Kunst (Maria), Flucht vor der Kunst (Celia) und Flucht vor dėm Leben (Niall) und im verborgenen Zentrum eine unmögliche Liebe - gewiß keine einfache Lektüre. Aber gelohnt hat sie sich für mich allemal.
Ich muss mit einem Geständnis beginnen: ich habe diese Autorin unterschätzt. Sie hat die Vorlagen für Hitchcocks DIE VÖGEL, JAMAICA INN und REBECCA geschrieben, und auch die Erzählung WENN DIE GONDELN TRAUER TRAGEN, die 1973 Vorlage zu einem erfolgreichen Film wurde. Es scheint, als sollte man sich ihrer, wenn überhaupt, vorzugsweise erinnern als Autorin von Romanen und Erzählungen, die durch großartige Verfilmungen bekannt wurden. Und eben das hieße, Daphne du Maurier zu unterschätzen, denn neben romantischen und schauerromantischen Elementen, die in den Filmen ausgeschlachtet wurden, hat sie als Erzählerin sehr viel zeitbezogenere und modernere Anliegen. Die Schrecken des zweiten Weltkriegs und die Rolle der Frau in der Nachkriegsgesellschaft, die nicht mehr dieselbe sein kann, sind zwei Themen, die dem Leser häufiger bei ihr begegnen. Dabei erzählt du Maurier herrlich unpathetisch und, im Gegensatz zu manchen Damen und Herren Autoren deutscher Nachkriegsliteratur, ohne Larmoyanz und (Pseudo)Betroffenheit. Und auch formell ist sie immer wieder für eine Überraschung gut. Wieviele Romane gibt es, deren Hauptfigur keinen Namen haben? Wieviele Romane, in denen nicht klar ist, wer der Erzähler ist? Sicherlich sind dieses keine Eigenschaften, die der Leser von Trivialliteratur erwarten würde.
Dahphne du Maurier lesen? - - - Allerdings!
2. THE PARASITES
...ist kein ganz einfach zu lesender Roman, inhaltlich nicht, und auch formell durchaus gewagt.
Die Geschwister Maria, Niall und Celia Delany werden eines Nachmittags von Marias Ehemann als Parasiten beschimpft. "I wonder what Charles really meant when he called us parasites" lautet die Frage, die dazu führt, dass sie sich gemeinsam ihrer Kindheit und Jugend erinnern und Gewissenserforschung betreiben. Doch wer der drei erzählt eigentlich welche Passagen, und wie ist ein kollektives "Wir" als Erzählerstimme vorstellbar? Der Leser bekommt es zwar nicht mit waschechten "inneren Monologen" zu tun, aber gelegentlich habe ich schon an Virginia Woolf denken müssen.
Erzählt wird in Schnappschüssen, zum Beispiel von Premierenfeiern oder dem Antrittsbesuch der Delanys bei den Schwiegereltern. Vieles an dieser Künstlerfamilie wirkt komisch und skurril, eine sehr exzentrische Familie, mit der man nachsichtig ist, denn schließlich waren schon die Eltern große Künstler, und ihre drei Kinder sind ebenfalls begabt. Woran aber liegt es, dass sie nichts aus ihrem Leben zu machen vermögen?
Das Leben ist zu gewinnen oder zu verlieren, hat Paul Nizon festgestellt. Wie schwer der Lebensgewinn fällt, zeigen die Lebensläufe dieser Künstlerfamilie. Antriebslosigkeit, Egoismus und Vermeidung sind schlechte Erfolgsrezepte, und der Künstler scheitert an ihnen wie jeder andere Mensch auch.
Die Erzählstimmung im Buch ist starken Wandlungen unterworfen, und wenn zu Beginn Humor und Heiterkeit breiten Raum haben, wird der Text zum Ende hin düsterer und fatalistischer und verliert seine anfängliche Unbeschwertheit.
Interessant ist an den PARASITES nicht nur, was erzählt wird, sondern vor allem auch, was nicht erzählt wird. Zuverlässige Chronisten finden sich in der Familie nicht, und der Alkoholismus des Vaters, den Niall vermutlich zusammen mit einer schon skandalösen Lebensuntüchtigkeit geerbt hat, sind verdrängte Themen, genau wie die unergründlich intensive Beziehung zwischen Niall und seiner Schwester Maria, die unfähig ist, anderen Menschen gegenüber auch nur das kleinste Bißchen an Empathie aufzubringen und die selbst den eigenen Kindern eine Fremde bleibt.
THE PARASITES bietet keine Gebrauchsanweisung fürs Leben, ist weder Drama noch Farce, sondern zeigt wechselnde Momente des Lebens, mal voller Kindheitsglück, mal solche des Scheiterns.
Der Roman entzieht sich durch Vielschichtigkeit einfachen Deutungsmustern und ich vermute, dass Daphne du Maurier sich hier Fragen ihres eigenen Lebens gestellt hat.
Ist THE PARASITES ein großer, ein moderner Roman?
Ich weiß es nicht. Modern ist die erzählerische Zerrissenheit, die hoffentlich beabsichtigt war. Ist der Roman gelungen? Ich weiche aus und sage, ich habe ihn gerne gelesen.
Erst nach einem Wiederlesen würde ich mir ein fundierteres Urteil zutrauen. Die Delany-Geschwister sind keine Sympathieträger, und wer liebenswerte Protagonisten erwartet, wird mit dem Buch nicht glücklich.
"The magic was elusive. You could never touch it. It escaped you always" befindet Niall, und ähnlich schwer tue ich mich damit, den Reiz des Buches in Worte zu fassen.
Drei verlorene Leben: Flucht in die Kunst (Maria), Flucht vor der Kunst (Celia) und Flucht vor dėm Leben (Niall) und im verborgenen Zentrum eine unmögliche Liebe - gewiß keine einfache Lektüre. Aber gelohnt hat sie sich für mich allemal.
January 24, 2021
Deliciously crafted, a very fine obscure novel by an author I’ve not taken seriously enough. In 1949 du Maurier wrote this, so it has all the accoutrements of British middle class in this interesting post-war period. Her characters, on the surface, are highly successful artists of the stage and music, yet deeply flawed. Du Maurier’s expose reveals, surely, her own personal life experience somehow, though I know almost nothing of her biography. The rendering is perfect, and these mostly reprehensible people become oddly lovable, as their foibles and character deficiencies are developed. It usually requires some introspection to understand a book title for me, yet the author explains on page one. In fact, the first sentence.
The plot line is carefully constructed, a skill that many of the modern fiction writers I read seem to not employ. Three siblings, two un-related by blood, have a most peculiar relationship. The book begins with a wasted afternoon, where the “adults” trade inside jokes and sarcasm and wile asway a rainy afternoon in the parlor of Marie’s “home”. She is the only married one, and her stodgy husband Charles, is acutely aware that he is the outsider. He is also the aggressor who, at the outset, accuses the three siblings of their parasitic behavior in human relationships. After all, it is his house and they indulge themselves at his expense, pay him no respect, and refuse to allow him into their confidence. Maids take care of the children, cleaning and food preparation, and Charles sees the siblings' entire family (both parents deceased) as laggards and unprincipled. The point of view alternates amongst the three siblings, as they spend an afternoon reminiscing about their childhood. Charles, bored and frustrated, takes a long walk, and at the end they regather for the typical Sunday evening dinner, a family custom put on in their home. Charles makes a pronouncement of his big decision during a very awkward dinner, which forces all into independence and life-changing decisions.
Niall, the musician, has had great success as a popular songwriter, and is a free spirit. He is an odd duck, indeed, and has no love interests beyond his sister Marie (no blood relation, thankfully). There are no overt sexual acts shared, but the author skillfully lets the hints drop that both Marie and Niall share a physical and psychological tryst. They are intimate in thought and deed, and the jealous husband, understandably, is at his wits end after many years and having children together. Celia, the youngest, is the peacemaker, a committed future spinster to be, who is the most reliable of the three. She took care of their aging father, yet cannot get out of his shadow (gregarious, famous as a singer, world renowned). All children were raised by nannies, as their parents traipsed the world performing in the theatre to great fanfare. The mother dies young from an accident, and the overbearing father puts demands on Celia who happily sacrifices her own talents in obeisance.
Du Maurier, whom I know from The House on the Strand (over 40 years ago, I wrote a book report in high school) and the famous Rebecca, is an exceptional writer. (I re-read Rebecca not long ago to help my son with a college book report). Perusing her works, I was surprised at her many novels. I read this only because of GoodReads, having recently joined a group that seeks out novels that have fallen out of favor. I note that everything from du Maurier seems perfect for the screen – her plots and dialogue are pitch perfect for film and action. Although the plot may sound dull, the discovery of what motivates these three is riveting. The other thing I loved about this book is its attention to detail, the quirky slang, the uniquely British customs of living and the mindset of 1940s middle class life at this time. There is a great deal of smoking, drinking, eating of kippers and even the full dinner protocol is wonderfully detailed. My British colleague at work told me of the “soup to nuts” order of dining, which this book validated. Children are the greatest inconvenience to Marie and Niall (the loner) who are selfish in the extreme. A hilarious account of Marie and Niall taking care of her baby when the maid had to leave, was borderline child abuse by today’s standards. We see how people like Niall exist, and his sloppy lifestyle, as he exists. I know such types, and would share Charles’ immense frustration of these “unprincipled” and needy types.
These characters are tragic yet find release in their art and how to manage the inconveniences and joys of fame. The parents factor large, and they endow their children with a narcissistic confidence and freedom yet precious few life-skills and a most unordinary upbringing. The father advises the daughter upon her debut in the theatre (p. 108) to “Be nervous, Be ill. Be sick down the lavatory pan. It’s part of your life from now on. You’ve got to go through with it. Nothing’s worth while if you don’t fight for it first, if you haven’t a pain in your belly beforehand.”
The self-absorbed slacker Niall, droll and sarcastic and socially awkward, had an easy time during the war as a fire-watcher during the bombing raids. He recounts (p. 188) that it was “…very dangerous. Things dropped all round me as a stood alone on that curious-shaped roof. Nobody will ever realize how terribly brave I was. Far braver than Charles, who was doing something with S.HA.E.F. or whatever it was…. People got so used to uniforms and strings of letters that they swallowed anything. I remember telling a woman I was working very hard in S.H.I.T. and she believed me.”
Marie never adjusted to normal, boring life and she mostly lived in the fantasy of the theatre. She quickly adjusted to roles in life, as on the stage, rather than openly confront her true self and deal with the difficulties of real life. She found her husband’s family oppressive (p. 263): “No, the real bore was her father-in-law, old Lord Wyndham, who simply would not die. He had no business to go on living, and eighty-one. Poor old man, he got no enjoyment out of it. It would be so much simpler for him, and for everybody else, if he just faded away. He was so deaf now that he could not even hear the clocks ticking, and as he spent most of his time in a wheeled chair it could not matter whether it was half-past two or half-past twelve.” Like child-rearing, Marie could hardly bear the responsibilities of being a grown-up, a source of friction between her and her traditional, principled, older husband.
Marie is the most detestable of the three, always able to avoid work and responsibility due to her special talent of manipulation. She is like a child who wants to play alone and self-indulge yet needs others around her for companionship (always on her terms) and to take care of basic needs. She does mature, late, when forced – illustrative of her failed upbringing. Here she has mixed emotions as she is finally relieved of her own children visiting her in her London flat upon their return to her husband’s home (p. 269). “…the blessed relief of seeing everyone off at the station on the three-fifteen. A pang, for one brief moment, because of the little faces at the window and the waving hands; a queer inexplicable clutch at the heart. Why was Maria not with them? Why did she not look after them? Why did she not behave like other mothers? There were not hers. They did not belong to her. They were Charles’ children.”
Marie, the good daughter, knows in her heart her deeds are largely cowardly (p. 276): “…..to do this was no sacrifice. It was not unselfishness. She had made her choice of her own free-will because she wished to do it. However demanding Pappy may have been, however tiring, however petulant, he was, in the true and deeper sense, her refuge. He shielded her from action. His was the cloak that covered her. She need not go out into the world, she need not struggle, need not face the things that other people face – because she looked after Pappy.”
Charles expounds on his condemnation of the parasites on p. 295 at the fateful dinner: “If you take, there comes a time when you suck the giver dry, just as you, Maria, at the minute have sucked the last of that orange. And the outlook for the taker, becomes grim. The outlook for the giber is equally grim, because he has practically no feeling left. But he has enough determination to decide one thing. And that is not to waste the little feeling that remains.” This just ahead of his public announcement that he wants a divorce.
Here we seem some of the odd (and inexplicable to me) thinking in Marie’s head as she contemplates the other woman that her husband has left her for (p. 310-311): “Shen he marries this other woman, he does so not because he has fallen in love with her, but because her ways are suited to the country, she is good with horses, dogs…. I remember thinking at the time that she had sly eyes. Auburn hair too, which means that later on she will run to fat, and the skin that goes with auburn hair smells! Charles can’t have discovered that yet. He will in time.”
Niall was the hardest character for me to like, with his aloofness and strange behavior which we would like put on the Asperger spectrum today. He is bored with anything but himself – and what fuels his art, as here as he recklessly drives away after the evening dinner fiasco (p. 326/327) toward his hermit-life and wantonness: “He was safe by night. No one could oppose him. Driving by night had glamour, like Dick Turpin on Black Bess. Doing anything by night was always better than doing anything by day. A song composed at three in the morning was often better than one composed at three in the afternoon. A walk by moonlight made a walk by day seem drab. Howe good a kipper tasted in the small hours, how potent a hunk of cheese. What energy flowed from the body to the brain, what power, what quicksilver.” Here he reminisces about his beloved Maria: “Maria’s mind was like her body in that it would not scar. A sudden flare-up in her side, some years before, had been diagnosed as a grumbling appendix, and the appendix was removed. The wound healed in about three weeks. In three months nothing showed upon her body but a thin, white line. Whereas with other women… purple weals, and blotches. How often, too, the performance of bearing children tore the gust out of a woman. Not Maria.”
The plot line is carefully constructed, a skill that many of the modern fiction writers I read seem to not employ. Three siblings, two un-related by blood, have a most peculiar relationship. The book begins with a wasted afternoon, where the “adults” trade inside jokes and sarcasm and wile asway a rainy afternoon in the parlor of Marie’s “home”. She is the only married one, and her stodgy husband Charles, is acutely aware that he is the outsider. He is also the aggressor who, at the outset, accuses the three siblings of their parasitic behavior in human relationships. After all, it is his house and they indulge themselves at his expense, pay him no respect, and refuse to allow him into their confidence. Maids take care of the children, cleaning and food preparation, and Charles sees the siblings' entire family (both parents deceased) as laggards and unprincipled. The point of view alternates amongst the three siblings, as they spend an afternoon reminiscing about their childhood. Charles, bored and frustrated, takes a long walk, and at the end they regather for the typical Sunday evening dinner, a family custom put on in their home. Charles makes a pronouncement of his big decision during a very awkward dinner, which forces all into independence and life-changing decisions.
Niall, the musician, has had great success as a popular songwriter, and is a free spirit. He is an odd duck, indeed, and has no love interests beyond his sister Marie (no blood relation, thankfully). There are no overt sexual acts shared, but the author skillfully lets the hints drop that both Marie and Niall share a physical and psychological tryst. They are intimate in thought and deed, and the jealous husband, understandably, is at his wits end after many years and having children together. Celia, the youngest, is the peacemaker, a committed future spinster to be, who is the most reliable of the three. She took care of their aging father, yet cannot get out of his shadow (gregarious, famous as a singer, world renowned). All children were raised by nannies, as their parents traipsed the world performing in the theatre to great fanfare. The mother dies young from an accident, and the overbearing father puts demands on Celia who happily sacrifices her own talents in obeisance.
Du Maurier, whom I know from The House on the Strand (over 40 years ago, I wrote a book report in high school) and the famous Rebecca, is an exceptional writer. (I re-read Rebecca not long ago to help my son with a college book report). Perusing her works, I was surprised at her many novels. I read this only because of GoodReads, having recently joined a group that seeks out novels that have fallen out of favor. I note that everything from du Maurier seems perfect for the screen – her plots and dialogue are pitch perfect for film and action. Although the plot may sound dull, the discovery of what motivates these three is riveting. The other thing I loved about this book is its attention to detail, the quirky slang, the uniquely British customs of living and the mindset of 1940s middle class life at this time. There is a great deal of smoking, drinking, eating of kippers and even the full dinner protocol is wonderfully detailed. My British colleague at work told me of the “soup to nuts” order of dining, which this book validated. Children are the greatest inconvenience to Marie and Niall (the loner) who are selfish in the extreme. A hilarious account of Marie and Niall taking care of her baby when the maid had to leave, was borderline child abuse by today’s standards. We see how people like Niall exist, and his sloppy lifestyle, as he exists. I know such types, and would share Charles’ immense frustration of these “unprincipled” and needy types.
These characters are tragic yet find release in their art and how to manage the inconveniences and joys of fame. The parents factor large, and they endow their children with a narcissistic confidence and freedom yet precious few life-skills and a most unordinary upbringing. The father advises the daughter upon her debut in the theatre (p. 108) to “Be nervous, Be ill. Be sick down the lavatory pan. It’s part of your life from now on. You’ve got to go through with it. Nothing’s worth while if you don’t fight for it first, if you haven’t a pain in your belly beforehand.”
The self-absorbed slacker Niall, droll and sarcastic and socially awkward, had an easy time during the war as a fire-watcher during the bombing raids. He recounts (p. 188) that it was “…very dangerous. Things dropped all round me as a stood alone on that curious-shaped roof. Nobody will ever realize how terribly brave I was. Far braver than Charles, who was doing something with S.HA.E.F. or whatever it was…. People got so used to uniforms and strings of letters that they swallowed anything. I remember telling a woman I was working very hard in S.H.I.T. and she believed me.”
Marie never adjusted to normal, boring life and she mostly lived in the fantasy of the theatre. She quickly adjusted to roles in life, as on the stage, rather than openly confront her true self and deal with the difficulties of real life. She found her husband’s family oppressive (p. 263): “No, the real bore was her father-in-law, old Lord Wyndham, who simply would not die. He had no business to go on living, and eighty-one. Poor old man, he got no enjoyment out of it. It would be so much simpler for him, and for everybody else, if he just faded away. He was so deaf now that he could not even hear the clocks ticking, and as he spent most of his time in a wheeled chair it could not matter whether it was half-past two or half-past twelve.” Like child-rearing, Marie could hardly bear the responsibilities of being a grown-up, a source of friction between her and her traditional, principled, older husband.
Marie is the most detestable of the three, always able to avoid work and responsibility due to her special talent of manipulation. She is like a child who wants to play alone and self-indulge yet needs others around her for companionship (always on her terms) and to take care of basic needs. She does mature, late, when forced – illustrative of her failed upbringing. Here she has mixed emotions as she is finally relieved of her own children visiting her in her London flat upon their return to her husband’s home (p. 269). “…the blessed relief of seeing everyone off at the station on the three-fifteen. A pang, for one brief moment, because of the little faces at the window and the waving hands; a queer inexplicable clutch at the heart. Why was Maria not with them? Why did she not look after them? Why did she not behave like other mothers? There were not hers. They did not belong to her. They were Charles’ children.”
Marie, the good daughter, knows in her heart her deeds are largely cowardly (p. 276): “…..to do this was no sacrifice. It was not unselfishness. She had made her choice of her own free-will because she wished to do it. However demanding Pappy may have been, however tiring, however petulant, he was, in the true and deeper sense, her refuge. He shielded her from action. His was the cloak that covered her. She need not go out into the world, she need not struggle, need not face the things that other people face – because she looked after Pappy.”
Charles expounds on his condemnation of the parasites on p. 295 at the fateful dinner: “If you take, there comes a time when you suck the giver dry, just as you, Maria, at the minute have sucked the last of that orange. And the outlook for the taker, becomes grim. The outlook for the giber is equally grim, because he has practically no feeling left. But he has enough determination to decide one thing. And that is not to waste the little feeling that remains.” This just ahead of his public announcement that he wants a divorce.
Here we seem some of the odd (and inexplicable to me) thinking in Marie’s head as she contemplates the other woman that her husband has left her for (p. 310-311): “Shen he marries this other woman, he does so not because he has fallen in love with her, but because her ways are suited to the country, she is good with horses, dogs…. I remember thinking at the time that she had sly eyes. Auburn hair too, which means that later on she will run to fat, and the skin that goes with auburn hair smells! Charles can’t have discovered that yet. He will in time.”
Niall was the hardest character for me to like, with his aloofness and strange behavior which we would like put on the Asperger spectrum today. He is bored with anything but himself – and what fuels his art, as here as he recklessly drives away after the evening dinner fiasco (p. 326/327) toward his hermit-life and wantonness: “He was safe by night. No one could oppose him. Driving by night had glamour, like Dick Turpin on Black Bess. Doing anything by night was always better than doing anything by day. A song composed at three in the morning was often better than one composed at three in the afternoon. A walk by moonlight made a walk by day seem drab. Howe good a kipper tasted in the small hours, how potent a hunk of cheese. What energy flowed from the body to the brain, what power, what quicksilver.” Here he reminisces about his beloved Maria: “Maria’s mind was like her body in that it would not scar. A sudden flare-up in her side, some years before, had been diagnosed as a grumbling appendix, and the appendix was removed. The wound healed in about three weeks. In three months nothing showed upon her body but a thin, white line. Whereas with other women… purple weals, and blotches. How often, too, the performance of bearing children tore the gust out of a woman. Not Maria.”
May 8, 2018
Auch ich habe diese Autorin zu Beginn unterschätzt, je mehr ich von ihr lese, desto besser gefällt sie mir. Du Mauriers Sprachfabulierkunst und die kurze, knackige, aber dennoch tiefgründige prägnante Skizizierung von Figuren ist außerordentlich - bereits auf den ersten 15 Seiten bekommt man fast eine tiefe psychologische Einsicht in Ihre Protagonisten, die sich von Seite zu Seite immer tiefer - fast in die Abgründe der Seele bohrt.
Die Charaktäre und vor allem die Beziehungskonstellationen sind sehr spannend. Der Eklat mit den Parasiten steht zu Beginn des Plots: Charles der Ehemann von Maria schimpft Maria und ihre zwei Geschwister in einem Zornesanfall ziemlich unvermittelt als Parasiten. Anlässlich dieses sehr ernsten und emotionalen Ausbruchs reflektieren die drei Geschwister ihr bisheriges Leben, ihre Beziehung zu ihren Eltern, ihre eigenen Entwicklungen und die etwas krankhaften klammernden Beziehungen untereinander. Die Stimmung im Buch beginnt ein bisschen humorvoll und steigert sich nach und nach ins dramatische. Dabei werden die dramatischen Abgründe nicht sprachlich und plotmäßig bedeutungsschwanger von der Autorin konzipiert, sondern sind derart lapidar realistisch, dass sie umso gravierender wirken.
Die ganze Familie stammt aus dem Künstlermilieu (manchmal kam es mir so vor, als hätte ich den Haushalt der Albach-Rettys vor mir bzw. so wie ich mir diesen früher vorgestellt habe) und ist derart rücksichtslos egoistisch und selbstzentriert gegen die gesamte Umwelt, dass einem manchmal wirklich die Spucke wegbleibt. Dieser sagenhafte Egoismus ist aber nicht aus einer absichtlichen Bösartigkeit geboren, sondern ist von massiv gedankenlosem Charakter, weil sowohl Eltern und Kinder von Anfang an ob ihres Talents den Applaus und die Ovationen des Publikums gewohnt sind, auch wenn sie nur privat agieren und deshalb meinen, sie könnten sich alles herausnehmen. Aus diesem Grund ist auch die Beschimpfung Parasit derart punktgenau gewählt, denn es liegt im Wesen, im Lebenszweck, in der DNA des Parasiten auzunutzen und das ist nicht mal absichtlich bösartig.
Weiters thematisiert Du Marier einige topmoderne Themen wie die Selbstverwirklichung der Frau im Beruf, versus Aufopferung und Pflege der Familie bzw der Kinder. 68 Jahre hat dieser Roman schon auf dem Buckel und er liest sich momentan so modern und aktuell, dass es eine Freude ist, man merkt es nicht, denn diese Qualität ist zeitlos.
Die Erzählweise ist recht kurios und hat mir in diesem Fall aber ausnehmend gut gefallen. Normalerweise mag ich ja keine sprachlichen Manierismen um der stilistischen Eitelkeit wegen, aber wenn der Stil die Handlungen und die erzählte Geschichte unterstützt, dann bin ich begeistert. Du Maurier geht von der Identifikation des Erzählers ab (wenn die drei Geschwister reflektieren, weiß man nie, aus welcher Sicht genau erzählt wird - sie agieren und erzählen als parasitäre Einheit). Dieser Stil beschreibt und manifestiert ja auch die psychologischen übergriffigen Beziehungen der Familie untereinander, in denen oft nicht klar ist, wo die eine Person aufhört und die andere beginnt.
Ein wundervolles detailliertes Psychogramm von fünf Personen: Charles, dem die rücksichtslose lieblose Distanziertheit seiner Ehe mit der gleichzeitig viel zu engen Beziehung seiner Frau zu ihren Geschwistern einfach irgendwann zu viel wird. Pappi, der seinen Kindern nie Grenzen aufzeigt und letztendlich wie ein Blutsauger seine Tochter Celia als Ehefrauersatz ausnutzt. Celia, die eigentlich auch ein riesengroßes künsterlisches Talent hat, aber nie etwas anderes gelernt hat, als sich von Pappi und ihrer Schwester Maria ausnutzen zu lassen und zu dienen. Die, als sie die Chance ergreifen müsste, es einfach nicht wagt, ihr Leben und ihr Talent zu nutzen. Maria als Bienenkönigin des Egoismus in diesem Familienverband, die als sie endlich die Rechung präsentiert bekommt, aufsteht, ihre Krone richtet und lächelnd weitermacht. Und Niall der Zyniker, der eine viel zu enge fast schon krankhafte Beziehung zu seiner Stiefschwester hat und dem Talent und Geld immer in den Schoß fällt, das er aber nie zu nutzen weiß.
Das Ende von Niall war jetzt das einzige, das mir nicht so schlüssig vorkam, es passte auch nicht ganz so für seinen zynischen Charakter, dass er sich so duldsam in sein Schicksal ergibt. Wobei der Witz auf seinen Lippen in dieser Situation war eigentlich schon wieder grandios.
Fazit: Eine absolute Leseempfehlung von mir: Modern, tiefenpschologisch ansprechend, sprachlich hervorragend aber unaufgeregt, ein bisschen humorvoll, ein bisschen Tragödie. Ein wundervolles Werk, das beschreibt, wie das Leben so spielt in einer parasitären Künstlerfamilie.
Die Charaktäre und vor allem die Beziehungskonstellationen sind sehr spannend. Der Eklat mit den Parasiten steht zu Beginn des Plots: Charles der Ehemann von Maria schimpft Maria und ihre zwei Geschwister in einem Zornesanfall ziemlich unvermittelt als Parasiten. Anlässlich dieses sehr ernsten und emotionalen Ausbruchs reflektieren die drei Geschwister ihr bisheriges Leben, ihre Beziehung zu ihren Eltern, ihre eigenen Entwicklungen und die etwas krankhaften klammernden Beziehungen untereinander. Die Stimmung im Buch beginnt ein bisschen humorvoll und steigert sich nach und nach ins dramatische. Dabei werden die dramatischen Abgründe nicht sprachlich und plotmäßig bedeutungsschwanger von der Autorin konzipiert, sondern sind derart lapidar realistisch, dass sie umso gravierender wirken.
Die ganze Familie stammt aus dem Künstlermilieu (manchmal kam es mir so vor, als hätte ich den Haushalt der Albach-Rettys vor mir bzw. so wie ich mir diesen früher vorgestellt habe) und ist derart rücksichtslos egoistisch und selbstzentriert gegen die gesamte Umwelt, dass einem manchmal wirklich die Spucke wegbleibt. Dieser sagenhafte Egoismus ist aber nicht aus einer absichtlichen Bösartigkeit geboren, sondern ist von massiv gedankenlosem Charakter, weil sowohl Eltern und Kinder von Anfang an ob ihres Talents den Applaus und die Ovationen des Publikums gewohnt sind, auch wenn sie nur privat agieren und deshalb meinen, sie könnten sich alles herausnehmen. Aus diesem Grund ist auch die Beschimpfung Parasit derart punktgenau gewählt, denn es liegt im Wesen, im Lebenszweck, in der DNA des Parasiten auzunutzen und das ist nicht mal absichtlich bösartig.
Weiters thematisiert Du Marier einige topmoderne Themen wie die Selbstverwirklichung der Frau im Beruf, versus Aufopferung und Pflege der Familie bzw der Kinder. 68 Jahre hat dieser Roman schon auf dem Buckel und er liest sich momentan so modern und aktuell, dass es eine Freude ist, man merkt es nicht, denn diese Qualität ist zeitlos.
Die Erzählweise ist recht kurios und hat mir in diesem Fall aber ausnehmend gut gefallen. Normalerweise mag ich ja keine sprachlichen Manierismen um der stilistischen Eitelkeit wegen, aber wenn der Stil die Handlungen und die erzählte Geschichte unterstützt, dann bin ich begeistert. Du Maurier geht von der Identifikation des Erzählers ab (wenn die drei Geschwister reflektieren, weiß man nie, aus welcher Sicht genau erzählt wird - sie agieren und erzählen als parasitäre Einheit). Dieser Stil beschreibt und manifestiert ja auch die psychologischen übergriffigen Beziehungen der Familie untereinander, in denen oft nicht klar ist, wo die eine Person aufhört und die andere beginnt.
Ein wundervolles detailliertes Psychogramm von fünf Personen: Charles, dem die rücksichtslose lieblose Distanziertheit seiner Ehe mit der gleichzeitig viel zu engen Beziehung seiner Frau zu ihren Geschwistern einfach irgendwann zu viel wird. Pappi, der seinen Kindern nie Grenzen aufzeigt und letztendlich wie ein Blutsauger seine Tochter Celia als Ehefrauersatz ausnutzt. Celia, die eigentlich auch ein riesengroßes künsterlisches Talent hat, aber nie etwas anderes gelernt hat, als sich von Pappi und ihrer Schwester Maria ausnutzen zu lassen und zu dienen. Die, als sie die Chance ergreifen müsste, es einfach nicht wagt, ihr Leben und ihr Talent zu nutzen. Maria als Bienenkönigin des Egoismus in diesem Familienverband, die als sie endlich die Rechung präsentiert bekommt, aufsteht, ihre Krone richtet und lächelnd weitermacht. Und Niall der Zyniker, der eine viel zu enge fast schon krankhafte Beziehung zu seiner Stiefschwester hat und dem Talent und Geld immer in den Schoß fällt, das er aber nie zu nutzen weiß.
Das Ende von Niall war jetzt das einzige, das mir nicht so schlüssig vorkam, es passte auch nicht ganz so für seinen zynischen Charakter, dass er sich so duldsam in sein Schicksal ergibt. Wobei der Witz auf seinen Lippen in dieser Situation war eigentlich schon wieder grandios.
Fazit: Eine absolute Leseempfehlung von mir: Modern, tiefenpschologisch ansprechend, sprachlich hervorragend aber unaufgeregt, ein bisschen humorvoll, ein bisschen Tragödie. Ein wundervolles Werk, das beschreibt, wie das Leben so spielt in einer parasitären Künstlerfamilie.
January 11, 2019
This has now become one of my favourite du Maurier books. Three children born to famous parents, this is the story of how their lives evolved into adulthood. Very engrossing and riveting; du Maurier at her best.
September 28, 2024
Early on while I was reading Daphne du Maurier's The Parasites, I knew that this fictional novel had something of Daphne, herself in it, how much we have no idea but there are many things that point to her family and her life. I have not read all her books yet but I know that more of her books have something about her family. Having read both "Maryanne" and "The Glass Blowers", I know she can write a semi fictional story of her ancestors. "Maryanne" was well known and so the non fiction aspect is known but even in that we are given a story that makes you wonder how much was fiction; "The Glass Blowers" more so because that line of ancestry is not as well known, yet the du Maurier name comes from that line.
Both of those books are wonderful but I feel they are less personal than to this story because it seems that though fictionalized, Daphne is there in this story. How much I wonder? How was it growing up with a famous grandfather, well known parents of the theater? As I read this I wonder how much of Daphne was in each sibling and that is one thing that makes this book a gem to me. Where Daphne begins and ends is on my mind.
****If you want to go into this book totally blind, do not read further. I will not give the story away but will address somethings.****
What kept twisting in my mind and wanting to reject is the parasite idea. The encyclopedia definition is included before the story starts. As I read this and the more I did, it did not ring true to me at all. Let us start with Charles' comment in calling the siblings this in the beginning of the story.
" 'Nothing can change you. You are doubly, triply parasitic; first, because you’ve traded ever since childhood on that seed of talent you had the luck to inherit from your fantastic forebears; secondly, because you’ve none of you done a stroke of ordinary honest work in your lives, but batten upon us, the fool public who allow you to exist; and thirdly, because you prey upon each other, the three of you, living in a world of fantasy which you have created for yourselves and which bears no relation to anything in heaven or on earth' "
A parasite takes it host and grows and destroys. Are not all of us a part of our parents' talents, no matter what it is, do not we inherit this? And how is this wrong? I saw all siblings working maybe it was not as hard as it should be but it was work. Does Charles not receive some luck to inherit parents that are born to an estate and title? Did he earn it and is he not being a bit of a parasite, if he wants to use that word, if he gains more by his father's death? Did the Delaneys gain this kind of wealth or was it more wealth of talent? Sure the siblings like to be together but does that mean they are parasites? Did they kill anyone, no, if anything they sometimes hurt themselves. Are they an unselfish group? No, each had a degree of that but yet so did Charles. Did he not see that his wife wanted to act? Yes, Maria was thinking of making herself better and she was not a wonderful wife in the least but could things have been better? Maria had more faults than Charles but he was not faultless. Having a governess who is condescending which is evident in her talking about Maria and her children, is not helping foster a relationship with her. Both Charles and Maria did not see reality from the start. When the siblings grew up in an environment of parents concerned more for themselves, unless one tries to change, do not the children imitate their parents in their young and adult life. This book brings up so many emotional, vulnerable, questioning each sibling expresses which even if you are not fond of them, you understand and like them more at the end. Daphne brings characters that seem so real and out there for us readers to see. Did Daphne really think these characters parasites or was she kind of playing with the reader? Telling us outright and seeing if we would continue to see this.
The commentator at the beginning of the book which I read after I finished, mentioned the similarities of "Wuthering Heights" which I saw to a point but yet so quite different. It was interesting reading her remarks.
"Of course there are many differences between Maria and Niall and Cathy and Heathcliff, but still I find the similarities curiously impossible to ignore. These are harsh and possessive loves, devastating at times. There is a darkness here that seems to blot out the possibility of any kind of future. Both Maria and Niall are perplexed to find that now and then they want to hit the other “very very hard.”
Another thing the commentator mentions is who was telling the story.
"Because this is a tale told by three people and therefore, in a sense, never really told by anyone." "
'And, though we spend time in the heads of all three Delaneys in turn, there is never a single moment when that bold, all-encompassing “We” turns into “I.”
When I was reading it I felt not just the first persons of the siblings but a collective "we" that seemed to be there at times. To me this story was told by each and by all- they were part of each other that though they lived their lives were also a combined entity. If each gives their story and the "we" is used how can it be the all knowing third person but how can it be one person saying "we" when we know details and inner emotions of the siblings?
I thought the ending sadly perfect and I was reminded of George Elliot's The Mill on the Floss.
When I think of this story the more I love it, it is up there with my other ultimate favorites but I am quirky and one who loved "Rebecca" but it is not her best IMO! 💖💖🌼💕 There is a sense of humor that was fun and I don't remember from her in past books I have read.
Both of those books are wonderful but I feel they are less personal than to this story because it seems that though fictionalized, Daphne is there in this story. How much I wonder? How was it growing up with a famous grandfather, well known parents of the theater? As I read this I wonder how much of Daphne was in each sibling and that is one thing that makes this book a gem to me. Where Daphne begins and ends is on my mind.
****If you want to go into this book totally blind, do not read further. I will not give the story away but will address somethings.****
What kept twisting in my mind and wanting to reject is the parasite idea. The encyclopedia definition is included before the story starts. As I read this and the more I did, it did not ring true to me at all. Let us start with Charles' comment in calling the siblings this in the beginning of the story.
" 'Nothing can change you. You are doubly, triply parasitic; first, because you’ve traded ever since childhood on that seed of talent you had the luck to inherit from your fantastic forebears; secondly, because you’ve none of you done a stroke of ordinary honest work in your lives, but batten upon us, the fool public who allow you to exist; and thirdly, because you prey upon each other, the three of you, living in a world of fantasy which you have created for yourselves and which bears no relation to anything in heaven or on earth' "
A parasite takes it host and grows and destroys. Are not all of us a part of our parents' talents, no matter what it is, do not we inherit this? And how is this wrong? I saw all siblings working maybe it was not as hard as it should be but it was work. Does Charles not receive some luck to inherit parents that are born to an estate and title? Did he earn it and is he not being a bit of a parasite, if he wants to use that word, if he gains more by his father's death? Did the Delaneys gain this kind of wealth or was it more wealth of talent? Sure the siblings like to be together but does that mean they are parasites? Did they kill anyone, no, if anything they sometimes hurt themselves. Are they an unselfish group? No, each had a degree of that but yet so did Charles. Did he not see that his wife wanted to act? Yes, Maria was thinking of making herself better and she was not a wonderful wife in the least but could things have been better? Maria had more faults than Charles but he was not faultless. Having a governess who is condescending which is evident in her talking about Maria and her children, is not helping foster a relationship with her. Both Charles and Maria did not see reality from the start. When the siblings grew up in an environment of parents concerned more for themselves, unless one tries to change, do not the children imitate their parents in their young and adult life. This book brings up so many emotional, vulnerable, questioning each sibling expresses which even if you are not fond of them, you understand and like them more at the end. Daphne brings characters that seem so real and out there for us readers to see. Did Daphne really think these characters parasites or was she kind of playing with the reader? Telling us outright and seeing if we would continue to see this.
The commentator at the beginning of the book which I read after I finished, mentioned the similarities of "Wuthering Heights" which I saw to a point but yet so quite different. It was interesting reading her remarks.
"Of course there are many differences between Maria and Niall and Cathy and Heathcliff, but still I find the similarities curiously impossible to ignore. These are harsh and possessive loves, devastating at times. There is a darkness here that seems to blot out the possibility of any kind of future. Both Maria and Niall are perplexed to find that now and then they want to hit the other “very very hard.”
Another thing the commentator mentions is who was telling the story.
"Because this is a tale told by three people and therefore, in a sense, never really told by anyone." "
'And, though we spend time in the heads of all three Delaneys in turn, there is never a single moment when that bold, all-encompassing “We” turns into “I.”
When I was reading it I felt not just the first persons of the siblings but a collective "we" that seemed to be there at times. To me this story was told by each and by all- they were part of each other that though they lived their lives were also a combined entity. If each gives their story and the "we" is used how can it be the all knowing third person but how can it be one person saying "we" when we know details and inner emotions of the siblings?
I thought the ending sadly perfect and I was reminded of George Elliot's The Mill on the Floss.
When I think of this story the more I love it, it is up there with my other ultimate favorites but I am quirky and one who loved "Rebecca" but it is not her best IMO! 💖💖🌼💕 There is a sense of humor that was fun and I don't remember from her in past books I have read.
February 11, 2019
A very strange novel in where the voices of three siblings tell the story in the first person as "we", but as individuals, their tales are told in the third person. I don't remember anything of the story (read it long back), other than its tragic nature and haunting prose.
September 28, 2017
اصلا انتظار نداشتم اینجوری تموم بشه! اصلا!
و خب تو شوکم الان...
از خط اول تا آخر با سه شخصیت ماریا، نیال و سیلیا خو گرفته بودم و واقعا انتظار چنین پایانی رو نداشتم. احساس کردم همه چیز درونم خالی شد :|
خود داستان جالب بود. از حال شروع میشه و از یه جایی به بعد میره تو گذشته و دوران بچگی این سه شخصیت و بعد دوباره به حال میومد و ...
واقعا جالب بود و دوست داشتم
تنها چیزی که اذیتم کرد ترجمه بود
کتابی و گفتاری با هم قاتی بود -_- اگه شما هم این نسخه قدیمی رو بخونید متوجه میشید :دی
و خب تو شوکم الان...
از خط اول تا آخر با سه شخصیت ماریا، نیال و سیلیا خو گرفته بودم و واقعا انتظار چنین پایانی رو نداشتم. احساس کردم همه چیز درونم خالی شد :|
خود داستان جالب بود. از حال شروع میشه و از یه جایی به بعد میره تو گذشته و دوران بچگی این سه شخصیت و بعد دوباره به حال میومد و ...
واقعا جالب بود و دوست داشتم
تنها چیزی که اذیتم کرد ترجمه بود
کتابی و گفتاری با هم قاتی بود -_- اگه شما هم این نسخه قدیمی رو بخونید متوجه میشید :دی
August 18, 2011
Holy underrated book, Batman! I actually liked this one quite a bit more than Rebecca and the only thing keeping it from being five stars was that I kept getting distracted by the weird choice for the book's narrator. This story followed the lives of three semi-related siblings, Niall, Maria, and Celia. All of them having at least one parent different from the other. The narrator appears to be either a conglomeration of all three siblings or an omnicient unnamed, unvoiced fourth sibling. A little wierd.
Otherwise, this was brilliant. I love that the senses play a huge roll in this. du Maurier's descriptions of smells, sights, and sounds, especially of music, are really lovely. The majority of the book is set in the 20's/30's via flashbacks from the three siblings to their youthful days. The three siblings themselves made for a really interesting story, their characters were very different from each other. And the thing that really bumped this book up in my opinion was how well tied together the plot was. The ending was phenominal and fit each character's personality to a tee.
For a book written in 1949, I thought there was an admirable amount of sex in the book too. Lots of affairs, divorces, illigitimate children, and a little pedophilia and cradle robbing to round it all out. All of it implied, but well implied with no room for doubts.
One of my favourite things about reading older books is picking up on dated science, or any other dated tidbits. My favourite from this one was a reference to Jupiter's two moons. Aren't they up to 60 or something now? Makes you look back and think about all the things we didn't know only 60 years ago. Like a mini lesson in the history of science!
On the other hand, the other reason I love classics is that some things never change. du Maurier makes a great comment about how children these days don't have any imagination, "An armchair is always an armchair, to the modern child, never a ship, never a desert island." That's been the opinion of every old person since the dawn of time. All it means is that you're too old for kids to let you into their imaginary worlds anymore.
Otherwise, this was brilliant. I love that the senses play a huge roll in this. du Maurier's descriptions of smells, sights, and sounds, especially of music, are really lovely. The majority of the book is set in the 20's/30's via flashbacks from the three siblings to their youthful days. The three siblings themselves made for a really interesting story, their characters were very different from each other. And the thing that really bumped this book up in my opinion was how well tied together the plot was. The ending was phenominal and fit each character's personality to a tee.
For a book written in 1949, I thought there was an admirable amount of sex in the book too. Lots of affairs, divorces, illigitimate children, and a little pedophilia and cradle robbing to round it all out. All of it implied, but well implied with no room for doubts.
One of my favourite things about reading older books is picking up on dated science, or any other dated tidbits. My favourite from this one was a reference to Jupiter's two moons. Aren't they up to 60 or something now? Makes you look back and think about all the things we didn't know only 60 years ago. Like a mini lesson in the history of science!
On the other hand, the other reason I love classics is that some things never change. du Maurier makes a great comment about how children these days don't have any imagination, "An armchair is always an armchair, to the modern child, never a ship, never a desert island." That's been the opinion of every old person since the dawn of time. All it means is that you're too old for kids to let you into their imaginary worlds anymore.
May 12, 2018
Loved. This. Book. Some of the best character development I’ve ever read. This book should be a study in writing complex characters. I’m adding it to my favorites list. You should read it!
January 25, 2012
Despite loving du Maurier, I had never heard of 'The Parasites' until I discovered it in a local second-hand book store. Despite not really having a clue what this novel was about, it really cemented my belief that sometimes reading a novel by a favourite author can be a really wonderful experience, and that is certainly true of my reading of this novel.
'The Parasites' begins with the Delaney siblings; Maria, Niall and Celia, being in Maria's marital home with her husband Charles. When he suddenly pronounces the three of them to be 'parasites', it triggers an afternoon of remembrance for the three siblings, each putting forward their own individual perspective on the events of their past as being the children of two incredibly famous performers.
All three of the central characters are fascinating; Maria, the daughter of 'Pappy' and another woman, who spends her life acting various parts, Niall, the son of 'Mama' and another man, who is arguably the most spoilt of the three, but also one of suffers most with inner demons and Celia, the true daughter of both famous parents, who devotes her life to caring for others, despite her own pains. I will admit to feeling for Celia the most, not least because Maria and Niall's close-knit, verging on incestuous but never quite reaching any kind of action, relationship excludes all others, including their half-sister and even Maria's husband.
Du Maurier's prose throughout the novel is seriously beautiful, bursting with descriptions that range from sweeping descriptions of foreign countrysides to the claustrophobic house at Farthings where Maria lives or the home that Celia shared with her father. The story of the Delaneys combined with her prose kept me really, truly gripped to the book.
This novel should really be more well known, in my opinion, and I'm really looking forward to reading 'Hungry Hill' the next unread du Maurier novel I have on my shelf.
'The Parasites' begins with the Delaney siblings; Maria, Niall and Celia, being in Maria's marital home with her husband Charles. When he suddenly pronounces the three of them to be 'parasites', it triggers an afternoon of remembrance for the three siblings, each putting forward their own individual perspective on the events of their past as being the children of two incredibly famous performers.
All three of the central characters are fascinating; Maria, the daughter of 'Pappy' and another woman, who spends her life acting various parts, Niall, the son of 'Mama' and another man, who is arguably the most spoilt of the three, but also one of suffers most with inner demons and Celia, the true daughter of both famous parents, who devotes her life to caring for others, despite her own pains. I will admit to feeling for Celia the most, not least because Maria and Niall's close-knit, verging on incestuous but never quite reaching any kind of action, relationship excludes all others, including their half-sister and even Maria's husband.
Du Maurier's prose throughout the novel is seriously beautiful, bursting with descriptions that range from sweeping descriptions of foreign countrysides to the claustrophobic house at Farthings where Maria lives or the home that Celia shared with her father. The story of the Delaneys combined with her prose kept me really, truly gripped to the book.
This novel should really be more well known, in my opinion, and I'm really looking forward to reading 'Hungry Hill' the next unread du Maurier novel I have on my shelf.
March 24, 2021
For the first three chapters I loved this book for its swoony goodness, and then I got very bored and wanted to quit. So I did.
November 28, 2009
"Parasites affect their hosts by feeding upon their living tissues or cells, and the intensity of the effect upon the hosts ranges from the slightest local injury to complete destruction." The Encyclopedia Britannica (quoted from the book).
My, my, another highly ambiguous ending from Dame Du Maurier and I'm still scratching my head wondering what to make of it. The three Delaney siblings are Maria the actress, Niall the song-writer and Celia the only child parented by Maria's father and Niall's mother (Niall and Maria thus being step-siblings). One day Maria's husband accuses the three of being parasites who have spent their lives feeding off of others and thus begins a series of flashback on the lives of the children and their famous parents as they try to ascertain which one of them is the parasite Charles refers to - or is it all of them?
Maria can be anyone she wants to be and is she truly the woman her husband thought he married? Niall loves to make up popular tunes in his head, but he relies (uses) others around him to put pen to ink. Niall adores Maria but at the same time he has what might have more than *brotherly* feelings for her. And Celia, she is dedicated to protecting and caring for her "pappy" who is IMHO the worst parasite of the lot of them. Oh that family visit to the country estate of Charles' parents - truly guests from Hell.
The flashbacks were a tad confusing, and you never do know who is actually narrating the story (is there just one narrator or different ones?), and I really didn't get *into the groove* until the last 100 pages or so. And that ending - she sure can leave you hanging in ambiguity wondering what really happened. While Du Maurier's writing is top notch as always, this was a very different novel with very unlikable characters and might be best for die-hard Du Maurier fans only. Four stars, but if it had been written by anyone else it would’ve only got three.
My, my, another highly ambiguous ending from Dame Du Maurier and I'm still scratching my head wondering what to make of it. The three Delaney siblings are Maria the actress, Niall the song-writer and Celia the only child parented by Maria's father and Niall's mother (Niall and Maria thus being step-siblings). One day Maria's husband accuses the three of being parasites who have spent their lives feeding off of others and thus begins a series of flashback on the lives of the children and their famous parents as they try to ascertain which one of them is the parasite Charles refers to - or is it all of them?
Maria can be anyone she wants to be and is she truly the woman her husband thought he married? Niall loves to make up popular tunes in his head, but he relies (uses) others around him to put pen to ink. Niall adores Maria but at the same time he has what might have more than *brotherly* feelings for her. And Celia, she is dedicated to protecting and caring for her "pappy" who is IMHO the worst parasite of the lot of them. Oh that family visit to the country estate of Charles' parents - truly guests from Hell.
The flashbacks were a tad confusing, and you never do know who is actually narrating the story (is there just one narrator or different ones?), and I really didn't get *into the groove* until the last 100 pages or so. And that ending - she sure can leave you hanging in ambiguity wondering what really happened. While Du Maurier's writing is top notch as always, this was a very different novel with very unlikable characters and might be best for die-hard Du Maurier fans only. Four stars, but if it had been written by anyone else it would’ve only got three.
February 16, 2016
I have a hard time rating this book. It's not so much of a novel as a character study. In fact, I think most of these chapters could stand on their own as little character study short stories. This is not any kind of mystery or gothic book like Rebecca but rather just a kind of "day in the life" with lots of flashbacks. The slow pace, relationships focus, and tiny movements that represented or eventually developed into something large reminded me a bit of Edith Wharton.
The thing is, The Parasites is about people who are just so awful and self-absorbed that I couldn't stand spending time with them, so it makes me want to give the book a low rating. (I think the title says it all: The three main characters, siblings, are bloodsuckers on those unlucky enough to get involved with them.) And yet, doesn't that mean that Daphne du Maurier was successful as a writer by evoking such strong emotions from me as a reader? You see the dilemma.
I picked this up idly when I found it among some of my mom's old books and thought I'd give it a try. In the end, I'm glad I read it. Even if the characters were obnoxious, the writing really was excellent.
The thing is, The Parasites is about people who are just so awful and self-absorbed that I couldn't stand spending time with them, so it makes me want to give the book a low rating. (I think the title says it all: The three main characters, siblings, are bloodsuckers on those unlucky enough to get involved with them.) And yet, doesn't that mean that Daphne du Maurier was successful as a writer by evoking such strong emotions from me as a reader? You see the dilemma.
I picked this up idly when I found it among some of my mom's old books and thought I'd give it a try. In the end, I'm glad I read it. Even if the characters were obnoxious, the writing really was excellent.
Read
July 19, 2018Now that I've finished The Parasites, I'm interested in finding out how it was received back in 1949. Content-wise, at least, stepsibling incest and statutory rape are well-trodden literary grounds by now; however, du Maurier's subtlety--the way she creates the explanations in the gaps, the way she portrays the unspokenness of the "shocking" elements through vivid, suggestive details--was pretty neat.
This is the third book by du Maurier I've read this year, and I'm finding her work immensely skillful. Her prose is so sleek, yet her descriptions are so multisensorily thick. Her words are satisfying to either gulp down or savor, and more than almost any other author I've read this year, her masterful word choices and sentence structures attach invisible emotional tethers to tug at my attention.
The Parasites is a character study, of the three Delaney siblings and their family, and they're not examples of Exceptional Human Beings or even Reflections of Humanity's Better Selves, On Average. They're emotionally immature, childishly irresponsible, selfishly careless in all the hurtful ways. Often when it comes to "unlikable characters," what annoys me the most is the heavy authorial hand wanting me to feel disgust, wanting to repel me and attract me despite myself. I'm not into that kind of manipulation; it's usually more irritating than being expected to like anodyne, inoffensive characters. I didn't sense any of that overt authorial empowerment over the reader, though. She wasn't trying to enchant me with the lives of the Delaney siblings; instead, she was depicting them with a thorough scrutiny that I found so trustworthy and appealing.
And the POV. Oh boy. That was fun and sometimes frustrating. I'm a bit of a nerd for POV, and I was amazed at how du Maurier combined POV in a way I've never seen used before: first-person plural and third-person singular in the same scenes. The use of first-person plural was so intensely confrontational in the opening chapter, because a) du Maurier was also using third-person singular at the same time, which I found grating and confusing, and b) there wasn't a strong sense of cohesion to the three characters who created that first-person plural. Like, from the start, you could see that Celia was a kind of third wheel, that Maria and Niall were a pair within that trio, that their personalities were all so distinct that the first-person plural just felt WRONG. (Also, at times, the characters used the second-person in describing themselves in their third-person singular sections, if that makes any sense. It's not half as confusing to read as it is to try to describe, however.)
I immediately had a million questions about this usage, and keeping them (and du Maurier's POV technique) in mind really enhanced my reading experience, because du Maurier was definitely interested in examining and playing with the construction of the self (in this book and, I think, in the other books of hers I've read, but this especially). Maria, who was always playing roles and always standing outside of herself, was particularly important in this thematic work.
So I let those questions direct my reading. Like, who/what is that first-person plural protecting? What was being elided? How constructed or natural was that trio? Was it in opposition to something? Why no first-person when the POVs are separated?
And when that first-person plural is broken, irrevocably, near the book's end, I could feel the loss and the new separation of the three characters quite distinctly, quite viscerally. I loved the ending, the three individual chapters charting how the Delaney siblings each ultimately shifted their lives after being accused of being parasites. Each of the three were perfectly in character, and so wryly, uncomfortably, gorgeously depicted.
This is the third book by du Maurier I've read this year, and I'm finding her work immensely skillful. Her prose is so sleek, yet her descriptions are so multisensorily thick. Her words are satisfying to either gulp down or savor, and more than almost any other author I've read this year, her masterful word choices and sentence structures attach invisible emotional tethers to tug at my attention.
The Parasites is a character study, of the three Delaney siblings and their family, and they're not examples of Exceptional Human Beings or even Reflections of Humanity's Better Selves, On Average. They're emotionally immature, childishly irresponsible, selfishly careless in all the hurtful ways. Often when it comes to "unlikable characters," what annoys me the most is the heavy authorial hand wanting me to feel disgust, wanting to repel me and attract me despite myself. I'm not into that kind of manipulation; it's usually more irritating than being expected to like anodyne, inoffensive characters. I didn't sense any of that overt authorial empowerment over the reader, though. She wasn't trying to enchant me with the lives of the Delaney siblings; instead, she was depicting them with a thorough scrutiny that I found so trustworthy and appealing.
And the POV. Oh boy. That was fun and sometimes frustrating. I'm a bit of a nerd for POV, and I was amazed at how du Maurier combined POV in a way I've never seen used before: first-person plural and third-person singular in the same scenes. The use of first-person plural was so intensely confrontational in the opening chapter, because a) du Maurier was also using third-person singular at the same time, which I found grating and confusing, and b) there wasn't a strong sense of cohesion to the three characters who created that first-person plural. Like, from the start, you could see that Celia was a kind of third wheel, that Maria and Niall were a pair within that trio, that their personalities were all so distinct that the first-person plural just felt WRONG. (Also, at times, the characters used the second-person in describing themselves in their third-person singular sections, if that makes any sense. It's not half as confusing to read as it is to try to describe, however.)
I immediately had a million questions about this usage, and keeping them (and du Maurier's POV technique) in mind really enhanced my reading experience, because du Maurier was definitely interested in examining and playing with the construction of the self (in this book and, I think, in the other books of hers I've read, but this especially). Maria, who was always playing roles and always standing outside of herself, was particularly important in this thematic work.
So I let those questions direct my reading. Like, who/what is that first-person plural protecting? What was being elided? How constructed or natural was that trio? Was it in opposition to something? Why no first-person when the POVs are separated?
And when that first-person plural is broken, irrevocably, near the book's end, I could feel the loss and the new separation of the three characters quite distinctly, quite viscerally. I loved the ending, the three individual chapters charting how the Delaney siblings each ultimately shifted their lives after being accused of being parasites. Each of the three were perfectly in character, and so wryly, uncomfortably, gorgeously depicted.
April 25, 2016
The Parasites has a funny status among du Maurier books. Lacking the popular appeal of her thrillers, it bemused readers on first release and has remained virtually unknown ever since. This attitude seems all the odder when you consider it's probably the most autobiographical of her works. The superficially charming, high maintenance Pappy, given to ringing declarations such as "I pack for all eternity," is her father Gerald to the life.
Simply put, it's the story of three 'siblings' (family is a movable margin here) Maria, Niall and Celia. Maria is a gamine actress who doesn't know how to be real, Niall a popular composer who despises his easy success and wishes he could chuck it all in and be a hermit, and Celia the downtrodden youngest daughter, eclipsed by the brilliance of the other two and letting her talents go unused. Although undoubtedly gifted, it's clear the three have been trading on the family name (Pappy was a singer, their distant and quickly dispatched Maman a dancer). Simmering throughout is the unnervingly deep, childish love between Maria and Niall - a love of snatched hours in hotel rooms, the sort you have when two people are too alike and too divorced from reality for comfort.
The book renders the artistic life perfectly, plus - perhaps why contemporary readers didn't know how to receive it - it satirises the shallow world of bohemian celebrity mercilessly. While Maria's long suffering husband is priggish and dull to modern tastes, you can understand why he's near the end of his rope. A weekend visit to his parent's estate is the stuff of black comedy; this and other set pieces show that while Du Maurier is best known as a suspense author, she also had an untapped vein for comedy.
Simply put, it's the story of three 'siblings' (family is a movable margin here) Maria, Niall and Celia. Maria is a gamine actress who doesn't know how to be real, Niall a popular composer who despises his easy success and wishes he could chuck it all in and be a hermit, and Celia the downtrodden youngest daughter, eclipsed by the brilliance of the other two and letting her talents go unused. Although undoubtedly gifted, it's clear the three have been trading on the family name (Pappy was a singer, their distant and quickly dispatched Maman a dancer). Simmering throughout is the unnervingly deep, childish love between Maria and Niall - a love of snatched hours in hotel rooms, the sort you have when two people are too alike and too divorced from reality for comfort.
The book renders the artistic life perfectly, plus - perhaps why contemporary readers didn't know how to receive it - it satirises the shallow world of bohemian celebrity mercilessly. While Maria's long suffering husband is priggish and dull to modern tastes, you can understand why he's near the end of his rope. A weekend visit to his parent's estate is the stuff of black comedy; this and other set pieces show that while Du Maurier is best known as a suspense author, she also had an untapped vein for comedy.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 21, 2021
This is a very different book from REBECCA, that's for sure. Du Maurier writes a great first line in each book, but that's about where the similarities end.
Despite the differences I admired what she was trying to do with this novel. She took a lot of writerly risks here. It had a very personal feel, a somewhat auto-fictional quality that was baked in. There was also a deliberate trade-off of suspense and narrative momentum for a quiet character study.
I will definitely be reading more du Maurier; her talent is undeniable even if this isn't her most enjoyable work. 3.5 stars rounded up.
Despite the differences I admired what she was trying to do with this novel. She took a lot of writerly risks here. It had a very personal feel, a somewhat auto-fictional quality that was baked in. There was also a deliberate trade-off of suspense and narrative momentum for a quiet character study.
I will definitely be reading more du Maurier; her talent is undeniable even if this isn't her most enjoyable work. 3.5 stars rounded up.
July 8, 2013
I am really beginning to become a du Maurier fan. I find that her books are very easy to read, while still well written. There was nothing "spooky" about this story, as most of her other novels seem to have that common theme. The story revolves around three siblings who "feed off of each other" in a negative way throughout their lives. The story and the interaction between the characters really had me engrossed from the beginning. It might have been a five-star read for me, had the ending been better. I felt like for such a good read, the ending was very weak.
May 13, 2009
I wasn't sure at first. This is very much a character study rather than straight forward narrative but crickey, once you get absorbed into their world and lifestyle it's compelling stuff. And like all du Maurier, has a great ending that left me contemplative and satisfied.
September 12, 2013
I really enjoyed reading the Parasites. Du Maurier writes beautifully, the characters were lively, unusual, even fascinating and the plot had everything a plot should have. In one scene I just laughed out loud - rare treat in many modern novels. I was so sorry to finish it.
February 12, 2023
Indeed, not a classical Daphne; still, the wits, the psychological, the depth are present, and many themes of importance are addressed here.
Unfortunately for me, as I am an ardent Daphne admirer, and to my greatest amazement, I could not sympathize with any of the protagonists. Actually, for the most part I loathed them. Thus, I was on the verge to dismiss them as shallow and unpleasant and to disregard all the causalities in the novel. The story seems unfinished to me, I never really found any true justification of the characters' actions/rigidity, especially when grown-up.
Yes, it is a funny, satirical, and a serious novel, but, in the big picture, it was also quite boring. No actual plot plus characters absolutely devoid of substance as I understand it. Even if I disregard my personal preferences and consider them as they are, I still cannot find any thoroughness in them.
BUT something else should be mentioned here: the wonderful work of Daphne with the narration. I experienced a true pleasure with her modernist attempt, which is completely successful.
Unfortunately for me, as I am an ardent Daphne admirer, and to my greatest amazement, I could not sympathize with any of the protagonists. Actually, for the most part I loathed them. Thus, I was on the verge to dismiss them as shallow and unpleasant and to disregard all the causalities in the novel. The story seems unfinished to me, I never really found any true justification of the characters' actions/rigidity, especially when grown-up.
Yes, it is a funny, satirical, and a serious novel, but, in the big picture, it was also quite boring. No actual plot plus characters absolutely devoid of substance as I understand it. Even if I disregard my personal preferences and consider them as they are, I still cannot find any thoroughness in them.
BUT something else should be mentioned here: the wonderful work of Daphne with the narration. I experienced a true pleasure with her modernist attempt, which is completely successful.
November 14, 2022
And that’s what you are, the three of you. Parasites. The whole bunch. You always have been and you always will be. Nothing can change you. You are doubly, triply parasitic; first, because you've traded ever since childhood on that seed of talent you had the luck to inherit from your fantastic forebears; secondly, because you’ve none of you done a stroke of ordinary honest work in your lives, but batten upon us, the fool public who allow you to exist; and thirdly, because you prey upon each other, the three of you, living in a world of fantasy which you have created for yourselves and which bears no relation to anything in heaven or earth.
This book lacks the dramatic tension of du Maurier’s best-known (and loved) works, but I would definitely recommend it to anyone who’s fascinated by du Maurier’s own life story. In Julia Myerson’s Introduction to my Virago edition, she says that du Maurier “apparently admitted that all three Delaneys were probably facets of her own personality” - and as a reader who has read a handful of du Maurier biographies, the parallels are obvious. Daphne seems to be most obviously the character of Maria Delaney, but perhaps other more internal dimensions of her character or her family dynamics reminded her of the other two siblings, Niall and Celia. Then there are the plot points: the famous father, who has a strong streak of emotional tyranny and neediness; the early exposure to the dubious glamour of the theatrical world; the three siblings, who are exceptionally close; the insecurity of imposter syndrome and nepotism, and the selfishness of the artistic life. Perhaps most obviously, the marriage of Maria Delaney and Charles has obvious parallels to Daphne’s own to Frederick ‘Boy’ Browning.
Daphne du Maurier devotees will also know of her fascination with the Bronte family, and perhaps will have read her biography The Infernal World of Branwell Bronte. The emotional connection between Maria and Niall - who are raised as siblings, but have no genetic ties - reminds one of Heathcliff and Cathy. Both characters are selfish to the core, and somehow only vulnerable and truly known to each other. Like Cathy, Maria marries an Edgar Linton character - but then doesn’t let that get in the way of her attachment to Niall. And the “world of fantasy” shared by the three Delaneys: one cannot help but think of the Bronte siblings.
But here’s the thing: it’s really a character study more than anything else. And if you aren’t interested in those characters - who aren’t particularly likeable - you may find the plot hard-going. Like Rebecca, it starts in the present and then reverts to the past, but there is never that same sense of mystery and drama. Yes, the reader will becomes more intimately acquainted with the three Delaney siblings, but I’m not sure they will ever become knowable. Perhaps du Maurier wrote this book as an attempt to work out something about her own character, but ultimately it struck me as a book about the disappointments of middle age.
August 12, 2011
Filled with character stories and sordid affairs, this book had me riveted. I couldn't put it down. The only reason that I didn't give it five stars was I was highly disappointed in the end. It's not like one of those endings where it's not what you want, so you're disappointed - no, it just kind of trails off. I suppose du Maurier wants the reader to draw her own conclusions, and I always hate endings like that.
I loved how suggestive du Maurier could be without crossing the boundary into smut. I absolutely loved how Maria did not really want to be a mother, found no satisfaction from it, and was shocked when her husband was surprised that she wanted to go back to work after having her first baby. I thought that Maria was a very modern woman and I admired her for what everyone else considered "selfish". She refused to fit into the stereotypical female role.
I also related to Celia, and how she kept doing the same old thing - taking care of people - because she was afraid.
I related to Niall in that he was successful, but only for music that he considered to be lame and taking the very least creative effort.
In addition, there was something very disturbing, but not "Flowers in the Attic" disturbing about Niall and Maria's relationship, and yet it seemed to make complete sense - more sense, in fact, than Maria's relationship with Charles.
Overall a fantastic story, and another du Maurier novel that I will be coming back to again and again.
I loved how suggestive du Maurier could be without crossing the boundary into smut. I absolutely loved how Maria did not really want to be a mother, found no satisfaction from it, and was shocked when her husband was surprised that she wanted to go back to work after having her first baby. I thought that Maria was a very modern woman and I admired her for what everyone else considered "selfish". She refused to fit into the stereotypical female role.
I also related to Celia, and how she kept doing the same old thing - taking care of people - because she was afraid.
I related to Niall in that he was successful, but only for music that he considered to be lame and taking the very least creative effort.
In addition, there was something very disturbing, but not "Flowers in the Attic" disturbing about Niall and Maria's relationship, and yet it seemed to make complete sense - more sense, in fact, than Maria's relationship with Charles.
Overall a fantastic story, and another du Maurier novel that I will be coming back to again and again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 262 reviews