Why does the narrorator remain nameless in the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier?

Why do you think? I'm writing a paper on it, and one of my reasons is because the story isnt exactly about the narrorator and that its more about Rebecca. Please tell me what you think.

Why does the narrorator remain nameless in the novel Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier?
I think you're on the right track with your idea. I wondered why she remained nameless as well, and I came up with the same conclusion as you; the tale is really more about Rebecca than it is about the second Mrs. de Winter. After all, Rebecca is still very much 'alive' at Manderley---her spirit is everywhere; her servants are still faithful; she still runs the mansion; her clothes are still laid out every night; her rooms were kept preserved.





I'd say go along with your idea, because it seems to be very correct. :]





*edit: I just thought of this: the namelessness of the second Mrs. de Winter could be symbolic because Mrs. de Winter feels like she could never replace Rebecca. It could be symbolic of her feeling worthless, like Rebecca would go down in history, but everyone would forget the second Mrs. de Winter's name. Maybe it's ironic, intended to make Mrs. de Winter feel like a ghost at Manderley, rather than Rebecca, who is the acutal "ghost." I believe Maxim only ever said Mrs. de Winter's first name once, when he first met her at the beginning of the book, too. Anyway, I hope this helps a little bit.
Reply:how freaking awsome is that book?!?! I just finished it today, and turned right back to the begining to start again (haha, ima nerd :P)


I have a different opinion to the others (although they are ALL excellent, valid reasons!)


I think we are able to identfy with Mrs. de Winter, because we dont know her name. Other wise, we would feel as though we were sort of "Looking in" on the doings at Manderley. However, by her not having a first name, silly as it sounds I FELT like Mrs de Winter. Maxim could have been talking to ME (Ohhh baby :P) and that makes it more personal. Also, I have an unsual name, so yeah, that made me feel IN the story. I agree with the above guys too though. Excellent book and well worth the read....Thank you Daphne du Maurier! :P
Reply:I found this that sums it up nicely:





An interesting technique that du Maurier uses is that of a nameless narrator. The nameless narrator upholds the idea of no past, no future. She is ‘now.’





By not giving the narrator a name, du Maurier prevents us from hanging a history on her. Without a name, it is difficult to see her as an individual with a past. Later in the book she is sometimes referred to as Mrs de Winter but that simply reminds us of her predecessor, Rebecca.





Rebecca is static. As a dead person, she lives only in the past. As a result, people’s memories of Rebecca hold the power of the present. The power of death is that what Rebecca did or thought is still true now. When the characters in the novel tell the narrator that ‘Mrs de Winter always used the alabaster vase, Madam.” they entrap the narrator in the past. Each point of view, each memory is a point from which the web hangs or an intersection of partially seen threads.

fabric boot