The Scapegoat (Virago Modern Classics)

Product Information

John goes completely unprepared into Jean’s life. Jean has a chateau, a glassworks, a wife, a mistress, a lover, a brother, a mother, a daughter and a sister who hasn’t spoken to him for fifteen years. The whole context is strange to John, who has to find ways of dealing with all of these things—and Jean’s life really does feel as complex as real life, and the tightrope John walks through it keeps you holding your breath as you read. filled with an intense desire to get away from that dingy, shabby hotel and never set eyes on it again, and as my anger rose and self-disgust took possession of me..."

Two men—one English, the other French—meet by chance in a provincial railway station and are astounded that they are so much alike that they could easily pass for each other. Over the course of a long evening, they talk and drink. It is not until he awakes the next day that John, the Englishman, realizes that he may have spoken too much. His French companion is gone, having stolen his identity. For his part, John has no choice but to take the Frenchman's place—as master of a chateau, director of a failing business, head of a large and embittered family, and keeper of too many secrets. I just looked at an Excel database I have kept for some 15 years or so and have discovered I read this in 2001. How could I forget reading this book??? It’s like I read it for the first time today! In fact you can see from my review above I was assuming this was the first tine I had laid eyes on this book. I know some books are certainly worth reading two times��but yeesh. Maybe I should be taking a buttload of Prevogen. After all, it contains an ingredient found in jellyfish. Or so the ad says…I wonder if jellyfish have good memories? Apparently they have better memories than I.🤨 stay at the chateau for the money and comfort, but John says 'I happen to love your family, that's all' (p.349). Jean laughs in disbelief that he could love them, listing their faults: 'Paul, The resemblance in this case is being truly identical. When the two men meet, Jean de Gue asks John “You’re not the devil, by any chance?” There’s no question of actual relationship—they are just coincidentally exactly the same. Nobody suspects from looking or talking to John that he is not Jean, though his dog won’t have anything to do with him. The resemblance and meeting may be supernatural, in which case I’d claim the book as fantasy, but it’s not explicitly more than hinted at. We just have to accept that the two men are identical, their voices, their scents, everything down to the smallest detail. The least plausible thing to me is the language—though John is a lecturer in French history, how could someone so solitary really be so fluent? We’re told that though John has never used the “tu” form before, he uses it naturally when he needs to. He’s never been in this part of the country before, either. Suspend your disbelief and take it as a given. My realisation that all I had ever done in life, not only in France but in England also, was to watch people, never to partake in their happiness or pain, brought such a sense of overwhelming depression, deepened by the rain stinging the windows of the car, that when I came to Le Mans, although I had not intended to stop there and lunch, I changed my mind, hoping to change my mood.”Two men....one English, "John"...( the narrator), the other French, "Jean de Gue", meet by chance one evening. It's like looking into a mirror: they look almost identical- other than the color of their eyes. The language is rich and hugely descriptive – all in a good way – and as the tale gallops along more and more problems seem to crawl out of the woodwork. Can John possibly add value here, can he right the wrongs and solve some of the problems? He is certainly going to have his hands full as there is much to do if he is to right this particular ship. But the question that really bugs me is why doesn’t anyone seem to notice that he’s not Jean – not his brother, his mother or even his wife and child?] I have read several of Daphne Du Maurier's books and loved every single one. Rebecca is my favorite but this book came very close to it. He thinks the only motive force in human nature is "GREED". People in Jean de Gue's life were never satisfied--[from his point of view].

The Scapegoat was made into a film in 1959 starring Alec Guinness and Bette Davis. Additionally there is a 2012 film with Matthew Rhys which is based on the novel. However this is not set in France but in the UK in 1952 just before the coronation. Teacher John Standing, who has just lost his job, meets his doppelgänger Johnny Spence, a failed businessman. Thus none of the French associations are there, and in fact the story is entirely different, with different characters, different major and critical episodes - and even a different ending!One had no right to play about with people’s lives. One should not interfere with their emotions. A word, a look, a smile, a frown, did something to another human being, waking response or aversion, and a web was woven which had no beginning and no end, spreading outward and inward too, merging, entangling, so that the struggle of one depended upon the struggle of the other.”

Having enjoyed many Daphne du Maurier books, The Scapegoat comes as a big disappointment. The premise of a stolen identity and the deception that followed sounded fantastic and was too inviting to pass. But now, I wish I had. fever and when asked about Paris he declares carelessly: 'I have no idea what happened in Paris. I'm suffering from memory loss' (p.41). The pregnant woman expresses her hope that he has reached an agreement in Paris but John continues to taunt the women: 'Actually, The ending she refers to comes across to the reader as quite weak. It provides neither the delicious twist we have learnt to expect from this author, nor the massive ambiguity she can do so well. Clearly from this letter though, it is what she intended, and perhaps had to wrestle with internally herself. Perhaps after all it is a fitting ending to a novel, in which she delved into John/Jean's - and possibly her own - psyche and explored other, imaginary selves. Did she explore mere fantasies, or their secret lives? Increasingly after this novel, she became intrigued by what she called the "dark side" of our natures, and some of her best short stories and novellas, explore this theme. "Don't Look Now", "The Blue Lenses", and "The Breakthrough", are examples. They too are macabre and strange, tense and chillingly unexpected tales, relying on the same speculative atmosphere of suspense and mystery, both disturbing and uncanny. A bewildered Barratt allows himself to be taken to De Gué's chateau, where he meets "his" family: daughter Marie-Noel, wife Françoise, sister Blanche and formidable mother the Countess. None of them believe his story - it appears that De Gué is a malicious liar - so Barratt resigns himself to playing along. As time goes on, he feels needed, something missing in his sterile prior life. Do you know so little about children, Monsieur Jean,’ she asked, ‘that you imagine, because they don’t cry, therefore they feel nothing? If so, you’re much mistaken.”

Latest Posts

And another biographer, Margaret Forster, reprints a letter, which Daphne du Maurier wrote in the same year of The Scapegoat's publication, 1957, just after her (Daphne's) husband Tommy had had a nervous breakdown. She herself was also on the verge of nervous collapse. In it, she talks about her novel, One of the triggers was that while out for a walk in a square in a French town, Daphne du Maurier saw a man who looked identical to someone she happened to know. According to one of her biographers, Judith Cook, she then watched a family scene through a window, and began to put the two incidents together in her feverish imagination. Typically, she began to wonder about the people; who they were, and what their secrets might be, The family's glassworks is losing money and faces closure. so John renegotiates a contract to keep it afloat for six months. The next day he learns Françoise's dowry is in trust for a male heir, but if she dies or reaches the age of 50 without having had a son, Jean will inherit the money instead. In the nearest town, John meets Béla, another of Jean's mistresses, who becomes suspicious of his sudden concern for the family and its business.

I think that’s as much as I can say without spoilers. This is another book that grabs me so much it’s hard for me to put down. Off to join my group and read what others are saying! A book so much richer than many of the newer fiction books I often read. Just sayin!I walked on through darkness, undergrowth and moss, and now I had no present and no past, the self who stumbled had no heart and mind..." Anyone that has ever hungered to be a part of a group, but yet always felt as a stranger, will relate to John here. What should happen, however, if you had the opportunity to take someone’s place? Would you do it? When John bumps into an exact likeness of himself in a tavern, he is given precisely this chance. While John is a lonely man with a feeling of emptiness inside, Comte Jean de Gué claims to have only the problem of having too many ‘human’ possessions. Jean wants to play a clever game – that of switching identities with John and assuming each other’s lives. When John wakes the next morning, stripped of his own clothes and everything he had on his person, what choice does he have but to put on another man’s clothes, take his suitcase and assume this new life? The story follows John, who tries his best to live his doppelgänger's life without making too many missteps or being discovered as a fraud. Turns out, the life he is to assume is a complicated one. Suddenly, he's a man with a depressed wife, a crumbling chateau, a failing glass foundry, a mistress in town, a mistress in the house, a sister who hasn't spoken to him in fifteen years, a troubled daughter and mysteriously ill mother. Plus a dark history that no one dares to speak of.