Book Review: Mary Anne by Daphne du Maurier

This book was a bit of a disappointment. I wanted to experience the love I have for Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca, but I had to force myself through Mary Anne. It had a lot of political intrigue, which wasn’t my cup of tea, and I didn’t feel like the characters were strong enough to keep me invested. It altogether lacked chemistry; between the characters themselves, and between me and the book.

The book is based on du Maurier’s own great-great-grandmother who had an affair with a member of the royal family and was then involved in a political corruption scandal. It was supposed to be scandalous and seductive, but the result was kind of cold. The last two-thirds of the book seemed to be more of a biographical account rather than a novel. Mary Anne’s life was definitely interesting, but I don’t think Maurier could find the right balance between staying faithful to actual history and taking creative license. I think she got too much in her head about it, and while the published novel wasn’t bad, it felt constrained, more and more so as the book continued. 

The author had to remind us that all Mary Anne did was for her children and had to tell us who she felt a connection to; none of that could be inferred or felt from the narrative. I also wasn’t always sure what was so special about Mary Anne that all men seemed drawn to her. In other words, it increasingly felt like du Maurier was telling rather than showing. 

A very small annoyance in the grand scheme of things, but an annoyance nonetheless (especially for an editor), was the many punctuation errors in the novel. There were many periods and quotation marks entirely missing from my edition of the novel, which I would normally blame on just a bad edition, but I also noted that when I was reading Rebecca. Maybe Daphne du Maurier just needed a better editor in general.

From what I’ve read of Lisa Hilton’s introduction (I don’t have this edition, but I found some snippets), Daphne du Maurier felt the same way about the book. Apparently, she felt like it was “lacking in human interest and reads like a newspaper report,” and it was one of her least favorite of her novels. I agree with that assessment, I’m glad of the evidence of du Maurier’s self-awareness, and I totally understand the struggle with writing a historical account and balancing the facts with a narrative. This book was a disappointment for me, but I’m still looking forward to reading more of Daphne du Maurier.