What do you think?
Rate this book
Julius
A chilling story of ambition, Daphne du Maurier's third novel has lost none of its ability to unsettle and disturb. Julius Lévy has grown up in a peasant family in a village on the banks of the Seine. A quick-witted urchin caught up in the Franco-Prussian War, he is soon forced by tragedy to escape France for Algeria. Once there, he learns the ease of swindling, the rewards of love affairs, and the value of secrecy. Cruel and insensitive, Julius claws his way to the top, caring nothing for others -- until his daughter, Gabriel, is born. Julius' attachment to her will become his strongest bond -- and his greatest weakness. "A literary artist in her own right."-New York Times
328 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1933
72 people are currently reading
2,103 people want to read
About the author
Daphne du Maurier
360books9,500followersDaphne 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 151 reviews
September 23, 2021
Julius Lévy, growing up in 19th century France with a Jewish father, a non-Jewish mother and an overbearing, coarse and almost monstrous anti-Semitic grandfather during the Franco-Prussian War, makes some stark choices, choices that appear more centred on his own wants and needs, than on survival. The book chronicles the life of Lévy (supposedly Jewish, even though technically not, as his mother wasn't) and his consuming obsession with financial, and in turn greater power. It's like an 1800's version of , except you'd have to call it Jewish Sociopath! The book was original called (thinking the single name title of , and it success, influenced the name change)
The book is really interesting as it recounts the development of commerce from the early 1940s to the end of the First World War; and is overall a well told story. However is essentially the story of a supreme sadist, obsessed with financial power... who's Jewish! Ouch, what was du Maurier's thinking? I've got to ask myself, bearing in mind the anti-Jewish sentiments across Europe in the 1930s, is this du Maurier pandering to Antisemitism? I should mention that at no point in the story is Julius' behaviour linked to his Jewish-ness. In her defence there's a lot of Antisemitism in the story, as well as intolerance and prejudice to Arabs, Black People, the English, the aristocracy and more! The book, for me, is just a dark tale of ambition, obsession, sadism and how those around them have to pay for the fragility of the male ego, but what do I know? One of her weaker books for overall message, but a very interesting, albeit, almost pointless horror read! 8 out of 12.
The book is really interesting as it recounts the development of commerce from the early 1940s to the end of the First World War; and is overall a well told story. However is essentially the story of a supreme sadist, obsessed with financial power... who's Jewish! Ouch, what was du Maurier's thinking? I've got to ask myself, bearing in mind the anti-Jewish sentiments across Europe in the 1930s, is this du Maurier pandering to Antisemitism? I should mention that at no point in the story is Julius' behaviour linked to his Jewish-ness. In her defence there's a lot of Antisemitism in the story, as well as intolerance and prejudice to Arabs, Black People, the English, the aristocracy and more! The book, for me, is just a dark tale of ambition, obsession, sadism and how those around them have to pay for the fragility of the male ego, but what do I know? One of her weaker books for overall message, but a very interesting, albeit, almost pointless horror read! 8 out of 12.
January 16, 2023
Who is this guy, Julius?! A sociopath? A narcissist? An unfortunate product of his childhood? A lost soul that never found its way? He’s unfeeling, extremely driven, obsessive, and wholly possessive. Born into poverty outside of Paris to a Christian mother and a Jewish father, Julius learned early that the struggle is real. His maternal grandfather, a rotten sort of a guy who sold in the Paris marketplace, played a large role in influencing not only the young Julius, but the man he would later become. Julius struggles with his identity from a young age, never quite feeling like he fits in anywhere. He’s torn between the reflective nature of his father, Paul Lévy, and the powerful, overbearing personality of his grandfather Blançard. He questions his spirituality and his Jewish heritage on and off throughout his life.
“� he knew that the Blançards were only people, and he was someone apart, taller than before, someone who stood alone with Père, scornful of the pitiful world, someone who lived with dreams, and beauty and enchantment, who conquered by silence, who dwelt in a secret city � a Lévy, a Jew.�
There is a tone of anti-Semitism running throughout the novel, and I tried to discern what du Maurier was trying to do here. She certainly depicted the characters of the time and how they would have likely treated a Jewish father and his young child living in a country like France prior to World War I. With all of the turmoil in Julius’s life, the times he seemed most at peace were when he found himself within the walls of the synagogue. And yet, the part of him that belonged to his mother and grandfather would grab hold of him again and his troubled mind would falter once more. I think there is a lot that could be examined more deeply here, but I’m going to leave it alone because du Maurier is no longer here for me to question as to her motives! There’s a bit of information in the Introduction for anyone that reads the book and wants to understand a bit more.
“There were many things to puzzle the mind of a child, and the relationship of these people who belonged to him and cared for him was never clearly defined.�
Daphne du Maurier is one of my very favorite classic authors. I decided to start the year with a sure thing and knew that I would be guaranteed some real escapist reading with her. The settings are always wonderfully and vividly described. The same was true here � from the outskirts of Paris in the 1800s to the city of Paris under siege to the exotic landscape of Algeria and on to the streets of London. It’s all made so very clear to the reader; it’s so easy to imagine all of these as places one has personally seen. This story is a portrait of a man who makes his way up in the world � not due to greed necessarily, but due to some deep need to achieve and reach the very greatest heights of success. For him, it’s the process of attaining these things, not the actual gain itself. In fact, he’s often bored as one goal after another is reached. He always needs more, more, more. And he’s ruthless. He’ll step on anyone along the way. Even those closest to him.
“He wondered if he would always be like this, making use of men and women for his own purpose, but sufficient unto himself and definitely alone.�
For me, the plot becomes mildly tiresome when we are told over and over again how Julius must do more, he must have this, he will do anything it takes to get to the next thing! But this is a minor criticism, and when he meets his match in his own daughter, I was all in again. I don’t know about anyone else (I’m guessing not many are familiar with this particular du Maurier work), but this section of the novel had a bit of a Frankenstein and his creator kind of a vibe to it!
“It seemed to Julius Lévy that the discovery of Gabriel was the most exciting thing that had ever come to him in life. It was stimulating, it was crude; because she was unknown to him though part of him the realization of her was like a sudden secret adventure, tremendously personal to them both, intimate in the same absorbing fashion as a disease is intimate, belonging to no one else in heaven and earth, egotistical and supremely self-obsessing.�
Kind of disturbing or downright creepy right?! Anyway, it’s a fully absorbing book. I would definitely recommend it to anyone that relishes an excellent character study, whether or not you’ve read all of du Maurier’s major works already. It’s certainly just as worthy as the rest of her novels. Incredibly, this was written when she was still in her mid-twenties. She certainly had a brilliant, perceptive mind, even at a young age.
“Who am I? Where from? Where to?�
“� he knew that the Blançards were only people, and he was someone apart, taller than before, someone who stood alone with Père, scornful of the pitiful world, someone who lived with dreams, and beauty and enchantment, who conquered by silence, who dwelt in a secret city � a Lévy, a Jew.�
There is a tone of anti-Semitism running throughout the novel, and I tried to discern what du Maurier was trying to do here. She certainly depicted the characters of the time and how they would have likely treated a Jewish father and his young child living in a country like France prior to World War I. With all of the turmoil in Julius’s life, the times he seemed most at peace were when he found himself within the walls of the synagogue. And yet, the part of him that belonged to his mother and grandfather would grab hold of him again and his troubled mind would falter once more. I think there is a lot that could be examined more deeply here, but I’m going to leave it alone because du Maurier is no longer here for me to question as to her motives! There’s a bit of information in the Introduction for anyone that reads the book and wants to understand a bit more.
“There were many things to puzzle the mind of a child, and the relationship of these people who belonged to him and cared for him was never clearly defined.�
Daphne du Maurier is one of my very favorite classic authors. I decided to start the year with a sure thing and knew that I would be guaranteed some real escapist reading with her. The settings are always wonderfully and vividly described. The same was true here � from the outskirts of Paris in the 1800s to the city of Paris under siege to the exotic landscape of Algeria and on to the streets of London. It’s all made so very clear to the reader; it’s so easy to imagine all of these as places one has personally seen. This story is a portrait of a man who makes his way up in the world � not due to greed necessarily, but due to some deep need to achieve and reach the very greatest heights of success. For him, it’s the process of attaining these things, not the actual gain itself. In fact, he’s often bored as one goal after another is reached. He always needs more, more, more. And he’s ruthless. He’ll step on anyone along the way. Even those closest to him.
“He wondered if he would always be like this, making use of men and women for his own purpose, but sufficient unto himself and definitely alone.�
For me, the plot becomes mildly tiresome when we are told over and over again how Julius must do more, he must have this, he will do anything it takes to get to the next thing! But this is a minor criticism, and when he meets his match in his own daughter, I was all in again. I don’t know about anyone else (I’m guessing not many are familiar with this particular du Maurier work), but this section of the novel had a bit of a Frankenstein and his creator kind of a vibe to it!
“It seemed to Julius Lévy that the discovery of Gabriel was the most exciting thing that had ever come to him in life. It was stimulating, it was crude; because she was unknown to him though part of him the realization of her was like a sudden secret adventure, tremendously personal to them both, intimate in the same absorbing fashion as a disease is intimate, belonging to no one else in heaven and earth, egotistical and supremely self-obsessing.�
Kind of disturbing or downright creepy right?! Anyway, it’s a fully absorbing book. I would definitely recommend it to anyone that relishes an excellent character study, whether or not you’ve read all of du Maurier’s major works already. It’s certainly just as worthy as the rest of her novels. Incredibly, this was written when she was still in her mid-twenties. She certainly had a brilliant, perceptive mind, even at a young age.
“Who am I? Where from? Where to?�
December 18, 2018
Loved this. A dark and disturbing read with a very unlikeable and narcissistic character Julius.
October 10, 2022
Only du Maurier could make me adore an entire book centring around a truly unlikable main character. The life of the titular character was explored, from his impoverished childhood spent in a village on the banks of the Seine to his later years as a wealthy and renowned, yet ruthless and jealous, individual residing in Britain, with his wife and daughter. Seeing his growth remained endlessly interesting, even if I never warmed to his characters despite the many plights that befell him. The alterations in the wider world were also explored and I found these just as exciting and illuminating.
July 26, 2018
I was torn over giving the book a 3 or 4 star rating.
I loved The way how Du Maurier told the story. It was very vivid and I felt like I was there. Especially at the market stalls in France and in the market place in Algeria.
It got a three because I did not like the characters in the story at all. So possible spoilers.....
The main character Julius, was very vapid and narcissistic. And he just rubbed me wrong. What particularly got under my skin was the way how he courted Rachel, the woman who became his wife. He treated her like an object that needed to be possessed and not as a person.
Julius’s daughter wasn’t very likeable either. She thought she was entitled to everything. She treated her mother like dirt and thought her father very stupid, but played along. Which caused her to meet a very bad ending.
So this was a good story, I just didn’t enjoy some of the elements of it.
I loved The way how Du Maurier told the story. It was very vivid and I felt like I was there. Especially at the market stalls in France and in the market place in Algeria.
It got a three because I did not like the characters in the story at all. So possible spoilers.....
The main character Julius, was very vapid and narcissistic. And he just rubbed me wrong. What particularly got under my skin was the way how he courted Rachel, the woman who became his wife. He treated her like an object that needed to be possessed and not as a person.
Julius’s daughter wasn’t very likeable either. She thought she was entitled to everything. She treated her mother like dirt and thought her father very stupid, but played along. Which caused her to meet a very bad ending.
So this was a good story, I just didn’t enjoy some of the elements of it.
June 14, 2008
I've read all of du Maurier's books and I adore her twisted, sick, and unpredictable polt-twists and lack of sympathy and trust for any of her characters. That said, this book scared the living hell out of me, much more than The Birds, Rebecca, etc.
This story offers a glimpse into the mind and soul of a true sociopath on his journey from poverty in Paris to becoming one of the richest men in London. Uhhhh, child hookers in Algeria? One swindle after the other? Choosing a wife because she'd be a nice backdrop to his life? Incest? Suicide? Murder? Yet all of it written with a unique touch of class?
FUCK ME, IT DOESN'T GET BETTER THAN THAT!
I love you, Daphne du Maurier. :-D
This story offers a glimpse into the mind and soul of a true sociopath on his journey from poverty in Paris to becoming one of the richest men in London. Uhhhh, child hookers in Algeria? One swindle after the other? Choosing a wife because she'd be a nice backdrop to his life? Incest? Suicide? Murder? Yet all of it written with a unique touch of class?
FUCK ME, IT DOESN'T GET BETTER THAN THAT!
I love you, Daphne du Maurier. :-D
May 25, 2009
"Something for nothing - something for nothing" ...is the mantra that governs the life of Julius Lévy. The story begins in 1860 in France as a young half-Jewish Julius learns the ways of selling in the local market place - always getting more than you give away - "something for nothing." As the Prussians invade France the Lévys head for the relative safety of Paris, although unforeseen events send Julius and his father heading for the relative safety of Algiers. Now orphaned Julius learns to steal, manipulate and swindle his way until he saves enough to strike out for England and the empire he feels destined to build - no matter what the cost to others around him - including his morbid obsession with his daughter.
That's about all I'm going to tell, anymore and I'd be spoiling the story. Suffice it to say that Julius is a wholly despicable, unlikable character void of any knowledge of right or wrong . If he can't have it then no one else can � whether it be the pet cat he drowned as a child rather than let someone else care for it.
While this third book of Du Maurier's is still far from the excellence of her later books, it is a fascinating and disturbing read and quite amazing when you realize that she wrote this when she was all of twenty-six years old. Just be warned, Julius has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, so if you're a reader who wants it all tied up with a pink ribbon and an HEA at the end, this probably isn't the book for you. However, if you want a look at something besides the "romantic suspense" of Du Maurier's later works I'd look this one up. 4/5 stars and highly recommended.
That's about all I'm going to tell, anymore and I'd be spoiling the story. Suffice it to say that Julius is a wholly despicable, unlikable character void of any knowledge of right or wrong . If he can't have it then no one else can � whether it be the pet cat he drowned as a child rather than let someone else care for it.
While this third book of Du Maurier's is still far from the excellence of her later books, it is a fascinating and disturbing read and quite amazing when you realize that she wrote this when she was all of twenty-six years old. Just be warned, Julius has no redeeming qualities whatsoever, so if you're a reader who wants it all tied up with a pink ribbon and an HEA at the end, this probably isn't the book for you. However, if you want a look at something besides the "romantic suspense" of Du Maurier's later works I'd look this one up. 4/5 stars and highly recommended.
May 13, 2022
Wow. An absorbing novel that documents, in loving detail, a sociopath's life from birth to death. If there's anything as a writer that Daphne du Maurier can't do, please let me know. Happy to wait.
Read
November 26, 2020Nurrrgh. So I recently decided to try and read some of the lesser known du Maurier’s. I mean, I love her, what could possibly go wrong?
So this book � billed an unsettling portrait of sociopathy and unchecked ambition is � Um. Well.
Racist as fuck? I mean, blah blah, product of time etc. And while I am not about dismissing any text from any time period that does not perfectly reflect the wokeist of modern values I am also VERY AWARE that choosing to value-seek in things that are, y’know, racist as fuck is an act of purest privilege.
I gave up on this at about the time we got to pungently smelling dark-skinned people.
And I really, really do not what else to say. While it no way crossed my own axes of marginalisation and it’s not my place to appropriate the discomfort of people who are marginalised along different axes to me � I was just fucking miserable. Not in a personal way, but it felt like I was wasting my time on an of-its-time book about a sociopathic Jewish man who is really into money when I could be literally reading ANYTHING else.
I guess, if we scrape the bottom of a barrel for something positive to say � there weren’t many books with Jewish protagonists around at the time? So, like � that’s a thing? I guess?
So this book � billed an unsettling portrait of sociopathy and unchecked ambition is � Um. Well.
Racist as fuck? I mean, blah blah, product of time etc. And while I am not about dismissing any text from any time period that does not perfectly reflect the wokeist of modern values I am also VERY AWARE that choosing to value-seek in things that are, y’know, racist as fuck is an act of purest privilege.
I gave up on this at about the time we got to pungently smelling dark-skinned people.
And I really, really do not what else to say. While it no way crossed my own axes of marginalisation and it’s not my place to appropriate the discomfort of people who are marginalised along different axes to me � I was just fucking miserable. Not in a personal way, but it felt like I was wasting my time on an of-its-time book about a sociopathic Jewish man who is really into money when I could be literally reading ANYTHING else.
I guess, if we scrape the bottom of a barrel for something positive to say � there weren’t many books with Jewish protagonists around at the time? So, like � that’s a thing? I guess?
January 21, 2010
"The Progress of Julius" is unsettling, engrossing and epic. Classic Du Maurier. Julius rises from a shivering war refugee, selling rats on the grey streets of late nineteenth century Paris, to one of the world's wealthiest men; only the readers get to see what it took for him to get there. His "progress" if you will. It's not pretty. There's murder. Scandal. Quiet desperation. Embarrassment. Ultimately, a life. I loved it.
November 26, 2016
The word "sweeping" is not inappropriate here, since the novel covers Julius' entire life from birth to death, somewhere around age 80. Julius is not a sympathetic character -- in fact he's very nearly sociopathic -- but du Maurier's skill in painting his ambition, his intelligence, his almost uncanny business skill, and his obsession with ownership are remarkable.
Julius is also half Jewish, and his attitudes toward his father are complicated by the fact that he both loves and hates his father's different-ness -- his mother and grandfather are flat-out brutal to his father, which makes Julius view him with contempt, but Julius loves his father's musical ability and his other-ness. I don't know whether the author meant to convey any particular message by this; certainly the novel also plays into the stereotype of Jews being good at business, but I don't think it was meant in a negative way.
As in , du Maurier also shows herself a master of atmosphere, the sounds and smells and tastes that make up a time and place. From the little French market of Julius' childhood to the whorehouse in Algiers to the chain of restaurants of his middle age to the mausoleum-like mansion where he dies, it's all as vivid as the blood-red rhododendrons and the smell of the sea at Manderley.
The culmination of the arc that begins with one brief act as little Julius flees his village is by no means unpredictable, but the journey there is a suspenseful and fascinating one, watching his relentless rise in the world, how he uses people and discards them, the broken lives he carelessly leaves in his wake, never knowing exactly where or when that particular piece of his character will show itself and blow it all to bits.
Julius is also half Jewish, and his attitudes toward his father are complicated by the fact that he both loves and hates his father's different-ness -- his mother and grandfather are flat-out brutal to his father, which makes Julius view him with contempt, but Julius loves his father's musical ability and his other-ness. I don't know whether the author meant to convey any particular message by this; certainly the novel also plays into the stereotype of Jews being good at business, but I don't think it was meant in a negative way.
As in , du Maurier also shows herself a master of atmosphere, the sounds and smells and tastes that make up a time and place. From the little French market of Julius' childhood to the whorehouse in Algiers to the chain of restaurants of his middle age to the mausoleum-like mansion where he dies, it's all as vivid as the blood-red rhododendrons and the smell of the sea at Manderley.
The culmination of the arc that begins with one brief act as little Julius flees his village is by no means unpredictable, but the journey there is a suspenseful and fascinating one, watching his relentless rise in the world, how he uses people and discards them, the broken lives he carelessly leaves in his wake, never knowing exactly where or when that particular piece of his character will show itself and blow it all to bits.
February 20, 2016
Absolutely loved this book - it traces the life of Julius Levy, born into poverty on the outskirts of Paris in 1860 to a Catholic mother and a Jewish father, from childhood to old age. Julius is part of a family of market stallholders - he, his mother, father and maternal grandfather - barely making a living, their lives made even worse by the invasion of the Prussian Army during the Franco-Prussian War. After tragedies strike the family, Julius and his father make their way to Algiers (where his father was born) and here Julius learns to live by his wits - his maxim 'something for nothing' is repeated throughout the book. However, it is never 'nothing' as Julius always applies himself to making money and sustaining a living for him and his father. The only problem Julius has is his total lack of empathy with others and he merely uses people and takes advantage of them. After the death of his father, Julius leaves for England where he starts in a poor job but shows great alacrity in making money and a success of his life. However, it is all at a cost - Julius only forms relationships with difficulty and, even then, those he loves he has to control. Julius is not a nice person by any stretch of the imagination and does some awful things but I was strangely drawn to this story of his life, one of never-ending success from a material point of view but never making true friends or maintaining 'proper' relationships, particularly with his wife and teenage daughter Gabriel. This was an astounding piece of work with some really deep and meaningful observations, particularly bearing in mind that the author was only 26 when she wrote it. 10/10 for me for this one.
December 31, 2020
This is a disturbing novel which details the so-called "progress" of Julius Lévy, du Maurier's ruthless, merciless and egotistical protagonist. Nevertheless, true to du Maurier style, it was well-written, kept pace, and made me feel intense emotions.
I might be tempted to psychoanalyse Julius and discuss the role of nature vs. nurture in his development. However, his sadomasochism and lack of remorse drives me from that impulse. Julius controls and takes advantage in every human relationship, and those he cannot control he destroys.
Julius' childhood mantra "something for nothing" ultimately becomes a thing of irony. He squeezes the world for all it has to offer, and he is the one with nothing in the end: "Who am I? Where from? Where to? - the first cry and the last. He cried to them and they did not come".
I might be tempted to psychoanalyse Julius and discuss the role of nature vs. nurture in his development. However, his sadomasochism and lack of remorse drives me from that impulse. Julius controls and takes advantage in every human relationship, and those he cannot control he destroys.
Julius' childhood mantra "something for nothing" ultimately becomes a thing of irony. He squeezes the world for all it has to offer, and he is the one with nothing in the end: "Who am I? Where from? Where to? - the first cry and the last. He cried to them and they did not come".
October 25, 2021
2.5 stars? The third novel by Daphne Du Maurier. Still a few books before Rebecca. While the writing on a technical level has definitely improved from her first two, the main character was really unenjoyable to read. He is manipulative, gaslighting, abusive, lying, murderous, lacking compassion and any true human connection. He treats everything and everyone like a project to be completed, and when he can no longer control them, he destroys them. By the end of his life nothing has any meaning for him. It makes you wonder why Daphne wrote this book. A moral story about greed? An exercise in unlikeable and unreliable protagonists? I wouldn’t recommend this one to anyone other than Du Maurier completists.
February 22, 2016
I have been reading Du Maurier's novels in more-or-less chronological order. Julius is the third of her novels, and it shows a marked change -- in tone, plotting, writing, and characterization -- from her first two. I think that it is with this novel that Du Maurier really hints at the measure of her talent.
*** SPOILER ALERT -- PLEASE DON'T READ ANY MORE OF THIS REVEIW BEFORE YOU READ THE BOOK! -- THANK YOU! ***
The book tells the life story of Julius Lévy, a Parisian whose father is Jewish. Some have suggested that there are hints of anti-semitism in Du Maurier's work (apparently, there was far less subtle anti-semitism in her Grandfather Du Maurier's book, "Trilby"). Julius's father is represented as a loving father, and a not terribly resourceful provider. While he murders his wife (Julius's mother) in a fit of rage (that Julius does much to help along), he seems otherwise a gentle and blameless flute-player.
In contrast, Julius is a sociopathic monster who has no compunction about using, abusing, and casting aside anyone. Early in the book, as a child, he drowns a cat that he cannot take with him, lest anyone else every enjoy the feline's affection, and this utterly possessive, exploitative love follows him through all of the relationships in his live.
When, finally, inevitably, he murders his beloved daughter whose spirit he cannot break, he is so out of touch with his own feelings that he seems unable to realize what a tragic end to his own life that he has engineered for himself.
This is a book, a character, who will long stay with me, and for that alone, I have to give it high marks.
*** SPOILER ALERT -- PLEASE DON'T READ ANY MORE OF THIS REVEIW BEFORE YOU READ THE BOOK! -- THANK YOU! ***
The book tells the life story of Julius Lévy, a Parisian whose father is Jewish. Some have suggested that there are hints of anti-semitism in Du Maurier's work (apparently, there was far less subtle anti-semitism in her Grandfather Du Maurier's book, "Trilby"). Julius's father is represented as a loving father, and a not terribly resourceful provider. While he murders his wife (Julius's mother) in a fit of rage (that Julius does much to help along), he seems otherwise a gentle and blameless flute-player.
In contrast, Julius is a sociopathic monster who has no compunction about using, abusing, and casting aside anyone. Early in the book, as a child, he drowns a cat that he cannot take with him, lest anyone else every enjoy the feline's affection, and this utterly possessive, exploitative love follows him through all of the relationships in his live.
When, finally, inevitably, he murders his beloved daughter whose spirit he cannot break, he is so out of touch with his own feelings that he seems unable to realize what a tragic end to his own life that he has engineered for himself.
This is a book, a character, who will long stay with me, and for that alone, I have to give it high marks.
July 16, 2021
Läser för andra gången, rekommenderas!
March 22, 2020
OK, so, wow. In terms of writing, description, development, characterisation? This would easily be a five-star book. However, I have a couple of issues with the book that are preventing me from giving it the full five.
The first... I'm just gonna come out and say it. At least in my version, the book's introduction really hammers it home that this book isn't anti-Semitic, and shouldn't be read in such a way. OK, fair enough. I know enough about the book to know it's about a very nasty guy, and said nasty guy happens to be Jewish. I can see how it might be read. Admittedly if that was all, calling it anti-Semitic would be a bit of a reach. However, the introduction really hammered it home. I mean it was less an introduction and more a defence, constantly reminding me that the book totally isn't anti-Semitic. Raising an eyebrow slightly, I joked to myself that anything defending itself that hard to a reader who hasn't even got to the novel itself yet must be insecure about something. Boy, was I right.
Listen. I hate to say things like this. I really don't like it when people read too deeply into such things. You can have nasty characters who are Jewish. It's fine. Jewish people, like everyone, comprise many very different people and some of them are going to be nasty. It's life. However, this book... isn't quite that simple. It's not so much the fact that the main character is a sociopath who also happens to be Jewish. It's the fact that his Jewishness is mentioned every other page. It is mentioned constantly. The most common epitaph for him is "the Jew". Most of the insults levelled at him are in reference to his Jewishness. He is set apart even in his own mind for being Jewish. It's like the narrative sees him as this strange, exotic creature, not quite human, because he's Jewish�, and he knows everything because he's Jewish�, and he makes so much money because being Jewish, he has the right mind for it, because obviously all Jewish people are incredible business people right from birth. His being Jewish is mentioned so often that it was really, really uncomfortable. If it's not supposed to be read as anti-Semitic, it can quite easily be read as fetishising, which is... also very dehumanising and not good. Like, we get it. He's Jewish. It was mentioned it at the beginning and there are scenes where he's at synagogue. There's no need to mention it literally every other page. I don't know. It was just weird.
The second point is strange, because in a way it's testimony to how good the writing and the character development of this book is. I simply can't give five stars to a book that made me feel so wretched. I understand that this seems a strange choice, because this book set out to show us what a terrible person Julius is, and it certainly managed it! But there were some parts of this that struck me in just the right areas to really hurt, and reading parts of it was distressing enough that I almost put it down -- something I've rarely done before. I mean, it just sucked. I felt terrible. It was awful, and the feeling of helplessness -- that there was nothing I could do for these people, and one person in particular -- was unbearable. It's a strictly personal thing for me, and I'm sure most other people, while feeling bad for the obvious reasons, wouldn't feel as terrible as I did. But it sucked, and while I like to feel things while reading, I like to be able to leave most of that behind when I move away from the book. This kind of dumped on my mood for a couple of days.
Still, I'd recommend it. It's very disturbing, it's very cruel, it's absolutely deliciously detailed and my favourite part about it is it's neutral. That is such a difficult thing to achieve with a character as nasty as Julius. du Maurier doesn't preach, she doesn't hold him up and say look how terrible he is, isn't he awful?, she doesn't write him as though he's something for the reader to gawk at and marvel over. She passes no judgement on him, she doesn't try to explain things or justify things, she isn't making any deeper moral point. She just presents this man as he is, tells us his life story, and lets it speak for itself. It is an incredibly troubling portrait of a man who's probably not half as rare as we would like to think he is. It's an incredible piece of writing, and it's very engaging, and definitely worth a read. Just don't expect to have a good time.
The first... I'm just gonna come out and say it. At least in my version, the book's introduction really hammers it home that this book isn't anti-Semitic, and shouldn't be read in such a way. OK, fair enough. I know enough about the book to know it's about a very nasty guy, and said nasty guy happens to be Jewish. I can see how it might be read. Admittedly if that was all, calling it anti-Semitic would be a bit of a reach. However, the introduction really hammered it home. I mean it was less an introduction and more a defence, constantly reminding me that the book totally isn't anti-Semitic. Raising an eyebrow slightly, I joked to myself that anything defending itself that hard to a reader who hasn't even got to the novel itself yet must be insecure about something. Boy, was I right.
Listen. I hate to say things like this. I really don't like it when people read too deeply into such things. You can have nasty characters who are Jewish. It's fine. Jewish people, like everyone, comprise many very different people and some of them are going to be nasty. It's life. However, this book... isn't quite that simple. It's not so much the fact that the main character is a sociopath who also happens to be Jewish. It's the fact that his Jewishness is mentioned every other page. It is mentioned constantly. The most common epitaph for him is "the Jew". Most of the insults levelled at him are in reference to his Jewishness. He is set apart even in his own mind for being Jewish. It's like the narrative sees him as this strange, exotic creature, not quite human, because he's Jewish�, and he knows everything because he's Jewish�, and he makes so much money because being Jewish, he has the right mind for it, because obviously all Jewish people are incredible business people right from birth. His being Jewish is mentioned so often that it was really, really uncomfortable. If it's not supposed to be read as anti-Semitic, it can quite easily be read as fetishising, which is... also very dehumanising and not good. Like, we get it. He's Jewish. It was mentioned it at the beginning and there are scenes where he's at synagogue. There's no need to mention it literally every other page. I don't know. It was just weird.
The second point is strange, because in a way it's testimony to how good the writing and the character development of this book is. I simply can't give five stars to a book that made me feel so wretched. I understand that this seems a strange choice, because this book set out to show us what a terrible person Julius is, and it certainly managed it! But there were some parts of this that struck me in just the right areas to really hurt, and reading parts of it was distressing enough that I almost put it down -- something I've rarely done before. I mean, it just sucked. I felt terrible. It was awful, and the feeling of helplessness -- that there was nothing I could do for these people, and one person in particular -- was unbearable. It's a strictly personal thing for me, and I'm sure most other people, while feeling bad for the obvious reasons, wouldn't feel as terrible as I did. But it sucked, and while I like to feel things while reading, I like to be able to leave most of that behind when I move away from the book. This kind of dumped on my mood for a couple of days.
Still, I'd recommend it. It's very disturbing, it's very cruel, it's absolutely deliciously detailed and my favourite part about it is it's neutral. That is such a difficult thing to achieve with a character as nasty as Julius. du Maurier doesn't preach, she doesn't hold him up and say look how terrible he is, isn't he awful?, she doesn't write him as though he's something for the reader to gawk at and marvel over. She passes no judgement on him, she doesn't try to explain things or justify things, she isn't making any deeper moral point. She just presents this man as he is, tells us his life story, and lets it speak for itself. It is an incredibly troubling portrait of a man who's probably not half as rare as we would like to think he is. It's an incredible piece of writing, and it's very engaging, and definitely worth a read. Just don't expect to have a good time.
November 8, 2018
3.5 stars. A dark, twisted tale of the meteoric rise-and-fall of a peasant boy who becomes an enormously wealthy miser through obsessive work and greed, with a sociopathic drive to use everyone around him as an object in pursuit of his personal mantra: “something for nothing.� One might call him a sadist, but his actions -- which include the killing of innocents -- doesn’t seem to bring him pleasure any more than his obsessions to work and gain wealth. There is a touch of Zola here with Du Maurier setting the early events in France and suggesting that Julius is inevitably sent down this road from the moment of his birth by his upbringing and his genes.
And my reference to Zola is also a bit ironic, considering the biggest problem with this book -- and one that makes it very uncomfortable to read throughout -- is the casual anti-Semitism as a primary plot device. Julius� Jewish background is constantly alluded to in the most repellent terms and becomes the driving force of his young life. The question is this: is Du Maurier suggesting that his Jewishness is the cause of his vile actions, or is she suggesting that the inherent prejudices in the late-19th century unfairly trap young people into debilitating ethnic categories, conditioning them to act out the vicious stereotypes that are forced onto their shoulders? I fear the answer is a little of both.
As with every Du Maurier novel I’ve read, this one is also about 40 pages too long, which is unfortunate because the ending is quite obviously telegraphed, and the last chapter is both anti-climactic and predictable. There is much strong writing here, pointing to the beginning of a great career, but also quite a few faults which prevent this from being a top-tier Du Maurier novel.
And my reference to Zola is also a bit ironic, considering the biggest problem with this book -- and one that makes it very uncomfortable to read throughout -- is the casual anti-Semitism as a primary plot device. Julius� Jewish background is constantly alluded to in the most repellent terms and becomes the driving force of his young life. The question is this: is Du Maurier suggesting that his Jewishness is the cause of his vile actions, or is she suggesting that the inherent prejudices in the late-19th century unfairly trap young people into debilitating ethnic categories, conditioning them to act out the vicious stereotypes that are forced onto their shoulders? I fear the answer is a little of both.
As with every Du Maurier novel I’ve read, this one is also about 40 pages too long, which is unfortunate because the ending is quite obviously telegraphed, and the last chapter is both anti-climactic and predictable. There is much strong writing here, pointing to the beginning of a great career, but also quite a few faults which prevent this from being a top-tier Du Maurier novel.
October 2, 2024
This year I discovered Daphne Du Maurier for the first time. I’d obviously heard of her and her work but never actually read anything by her. So, I took the plunge and read her most famous work ‘Rebecca�. I was blown away. I had never read anything quite like it in my life. That encouraged me to seek out more books and this year I have also read Jamaica Inn, The Scapegoat and the short story The Breakthrough. Each book has been completely different to the last and yet they have all blown me away. There is a sheer brilliance to Daphne Du Maurier’s work, her ability to set the scene and weave a compelling story is just sublime. Therefore, I felt it was time for another one of her novels.
This one is called ‘Julius� it was first published in 1933 when Du Maurier was just 26 years old. It was originally called ‘The Progress of Julius� and it was her third novel. It isn’t as well known or as widely talked about as some of her later works and when you read it, it is easy to see why, as there are some rather troubling aspects to this story. The subject matter some of which is blatantly and obviously wrong and other aspects which whilst equally wrong are far more insidious and only hinted at, therefore I am certain it must have created a bit of a stir when it was first written back in the 1930s.
It really is a deeply disturbing and uncomfortable story to read. It is the life story of a man called Julius Levy. A man who today would be classified as a narcissistic sadist and a sociopath. The story starts in 1860 in France and the scene is set with Julius as a young child and he is looking up at the sky at the clouds and reaching for them wondering why he cannot reach them. He lives with his bombastic bullying grandfather, his mother who it seems is a female version of her father and his quiet unassuming Jewish father. It is at this point I should point out there is a significant amount of anti Semitism in the story. His father is bullied relentlessly by his grandfather and is almost invisible in the early part of the story, just a presence to be ridiculed. I have read that Du Maurier later considered removing the antisemitic aspects of the story, but I am glad she didn’t because Julius was half Jewish, and it is that aspect of his life which gives him added depth and prevents him becoming a complete one-dimensional evil monster and had she removed that, the entire story would’ve lacked the depth it has as a result. You just have to keep in mind that when this story was written and also the time in which the story is set the tone and views expressed were common and widespread.
The story follows Julius from his quiet childhood village to Paris and beyond as he grows up. As usual Du Maurier effortlessly creates a complete sense of place so rich in detail that you can actually visualise yourself right there seeing life through the eyes of the young Julius. Then there is her characterisation which is so chillingly magnificent in this case. Julius, at first a seemingly sweet normal child, although as he grows his astuteness and cunning is evident from an early age and as he grows he becomes a completely dislikeable character who shows a complete disregard for everyone he comes into contact with. His cruel controlling and heartless nature first appears as a young child when the family flees their village at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. Where it becomes clear that love, possession and control are the same thing in his mind with a short but totally brutally shocking scene which sets the tone and tells you exactly what sort of person Julius is. Yet it is the genius of Du Maurier’s writing and storytelling which makes you want to carry on reading and find out what happens next as the story progresses, and actually eager to find out more about this heinous man and while he gets increasingly worse in his behaviour, you actually want him to succeed and want to see if there are any redeeming characteristics in him. It is all done with such subtlety you don’t actually realise it and that is the genius of Daphne Du Maurier’s writing, where a less talented writer would leave you feeling overwhelmed by such a twisted character and his appalling actions and behaviour.
Julius is certainly a tremendously complex character, the list of his repulsive faults and flaws is seemingly endless. He does not live in the here and now he is always searching for something more and he is basically completely ruthless with how he goes about achieving his goals. He is a man who wants to control, possess and dominate and will literally stop at nothing, and people are just a commodity to him to realise his dreams. The darkest part of the story is his unhealthy and obsessive relationship with his daughter and how that all comes about. Questions have been raised over the years as to whether aspects of the relationship Du Maurier had with her own father Gerald who it has been written was a very controlling and domineering character have been used in the relationship between Julius and his daughter Gabriel, and this part of the story is quite uncomfortable to read as it does hint at an almost incestuous controlling and ultimately destructive relationship.
Although Julius achieves tremendous success, he also ultimately destroys everyone in his life with his actions and behaviour in one way or another. In the end he is written as a very sad pathetic character as he ultimately destroys himself, and in the final chapter the story ends as it began with him looking up at the sky and reaching for the clouds. It was an oddly moving ending considering everything that had occurred and how in some respects Julius had got what he deserved at the end, and once again that shows the genius of the story telling ability of Du Maurier which manages to provoke such a wide-ranging plethora of emotions from the reader.
This book is certainly uncomfortable and shocking in parts and on the other hand it could also be argued that by today’s standards this story is considered tame in some respects and yet completely in your face shocking in others. Then there is also the underlying subtlety as some things are just hinted at that it has an edgy feel to it and wrings out every possible emotion from the reader and just takes you on the ride of your life. This is without a doubt a powerful masterpiece of psychology delving into the more unsavoury aspects of human nature whilst creating a completely compelling, captivating and convincing story with an almost fable like conclusion.
This one is called ‘Julius� it was first published in 1933 when Du Maurier was just 26 years old. It was originally called ‘The Progress of Julius� and it was her third novel. It isn’t as well known or as widely talked about as some of her later works and when you read it, it is easy to see why, as there are some rather troubling aspects to this story. The subject matter some of which is blatantly and obviously wrong and other aspects which whilst equally wrong are far more insidious and only hinted at, therefore I am certain it must have created a bit of a stir when it was first written back in the 1930s.
It really is a deeply disturbing and uncomfortable story to read. It is the life story of a man called Julius Levy. A man who today would be classified as a narcissistic sadist and a sociopath. The story starts in 1860 in France and the scene is set with Julius as a young child and he is looking up at the sky at the clouds and reaching for them wondering why he cannot reach them. He lives with his bombastic bullying grandfather, his mother who it seems is a female version of her father and his quiet unassuming Jewish father. It is at this point I should point out there is a significant amount of anti Semitism in the story. His father is bullied relentlessly by his grandfather and is almost invisible in the early part of the story, just a presence to be ridiculed. I have read that Du Maurier later considered removing the antisemitic aspects of the story, but I am glad she didn’t because Julius was half Jewish, and it is that aspect of his life which gives him added depth and prevents him becoming a complete one-dimensional evil monster and had she removed that, the entire story would’ve lacked the depth it has as a result. You just have to keep in mind that when this story was written and also the time in which the story is set the tone and views expressed were common and widespread.
The story follows Julius from his quiet childhood village to Paris and beyond as he grows up. As usual Du Maurier effortlessly creates a complete sense of place so rich in detail that you can actually visualise yourself right there seeing life through the eyes of the young Julius. Then there is her characterisation which is so chillingly magnificent in this case. Julius, at first a seemingly sweet normal child, although as he grows his astuteness and cunning is evident from an early age and as he grows he becomes a completely dislikeable character who shows a complete disregard for everyone he comes into contact with. His cruel controlling and heartless nature first appears as a young child when the family flees their village at the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war. Where it becomes clear that love, possession and control are the same thing in his mind with a short but totally brutally shocking scene which sets the tone and tells you exactly what sort of person Julius is. Yet it is the genius of Du Maurier’s writing and storytelling which makes you want to carry on reading and find out what happens next as the story progresses, and actually eager to find out more about this heinous man and while he gets increasingly worse in his behaviour, you actually want him to succeed and want to see if there are any redeeming characteristics in him. It is all done with such subtlety you don’t actually realise it and that is the genius of Daphne Du Maurier’s writing, where a less talented writer would leave you feeling overwhelmed by such a twisted character and his appalling actions and behaviour.
Julius is certainly a tremendously complex character, the list of his repulsive faults and flaws is seemingly endless. He does not live in the here and now he is always searching for something more and he is basically completely ruthless with how he goes about achieving his goals. He is a man who wants to control, possess and dominate and will literally stop at nothing, and people are just a commodity to him to realise his dreams. The darkest part of the story is his unhealthy and obsessive relationship with his daughter and how that all comes about. Questions have been raised over the years as to whether aspects of the relationship Du Maurier had with her own father Gerald who it has been written was a very controlling and domineering character have been used in the relationship between Julius and his daughter Gabriel, and this part of the story is quite uncomfortable to read as it does hint at an almost incestuous controlling and ultimately destructive relationship.
Although Julius achieves tremendous success, he also ultimately destroys everyone in his life with his actions and behaviour in one way or another. In the end he is written as a very sad pathetic character as he ultimately destroys himself, and in the final chapter the story ends as it began with him looking up at the sky and reaching for the clouds. It was an oddly moving ending considering everything that had occurred and how in some respects Julius had got what he deserved at the end, and once again that shows the genius of the story telling ability of Du Maurier which manages to provoke such a wide-ranging plethora of emotions from the reader.
This book is certainly uncomfortable and shocking in parts and on the other hand it could also be argued that by today’s standards this story is considered tame in some respects and yet completely in your face shocking in others. Then there is also the underlying subtlety as some things are just hinted at that it has an edgy feel to it and wrings out every possible emotion from the reader and just takes you on the ride of your life. This is without a doubt a powerful masterpiece of psychology delving into the more unsavoury aspects of human nature whilst creating a completely compelling, captivating and convincing story with an almost fable like conclusion.
October 1, 2015
Daphne Du Maurier certainly enjoyed writing about the dark side of human nature. Julius, the main character in this novel is a quintessential narcissist and a bit of a sociopath. Du Maurier traces the beginnings of his cold, self absorbed nature from his childhood(the mostly dispassionate disposal of his cat) to the deliberate murder of his only child.
In the final analysis, I agree with Myerson's assessment that Du Maurier was not specifically anti-Semitic, but quite frankly-- the prevalent stereotypes that exist RE: Jews are certainly played up in this novel, there is no denying that.
This is well-written and has lovely descriptions of place, and feeling.
In the final analysis, I agree with Myerson's assessment that Du Maurier was not specifically anti-Semitic, but quite frankly-- the prevalent stereotypes that exist RE: Jews are certainly played up in this novel, there is no denying that.
This is well-written and has lovely descriptions of place, and feeling.
March 6, 2014
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 18, 2017
Julius is not very sympathetic but it is an interesting character sketch of a driven man.
March 24, 2020
My goodreads says that I had started to read this book on March 22,2019. Surprisingly, I finished reading the book exactly a year later on March 22,2020. No, it wasn’t planned. I had given up on this book then but I have made a resolution to read all the books in these weeks that I had given up on previously. Having read ‘Julius�, I am glad that I made the resolution. Maurier chalks out a dark, mysterious tale of a man telling the journey from rags to the riches in the 19th- 20th century Europe. I remember having read ‘Rebecca� four years ago and sitting flummoxed and amazed at such an exploration of a female character. Maurier has succeeded in painting a male protagonist too and she makes the readers loathe him right from his childhood. Her style of writing is magical. Her writing holds your attention with every sentence and doesn’t make you put the book down for a second. However, I was a little turned down by the building of the stereotypical Jewish picture to that of Shylock- money-minded, cunning, insensitive, ambitious and a hateful man. Notwithstanding this Jewish image, I liked how she explored the darker aspects of a man’s personality; his want to control, possess, own, be it woman or the world. Nonetheless, she has also delineated the repercussions of being a man in a patriarchal society. Julius� character is the alpha masculine, toxic character and his tale is a tale of suffering that comes with unparalleled power, overarching ambition and the need to assert his masculinity in a society where questions of his own identity are left unanswered.
PS- I know times are tough these days but I hope you all are reading.
PS- I know times are tough these days but I hope you all are reading.
October 26, 2019
This DDM's third novel, and this is yet another novel focusing on a thoroughly unlikeable male protagonist. Julius is essentially a high-functioning psychopath with no emotional attachment to those around him who only seeks to gather power and money. In that way, the message of this story is how money corrupts and ultimately leaves us with nothing, but yet again (much like the aptly named Dick in DDM's second novel ), I was dissatisfied by the 'comeuppance' he received - if it even was that.
I wouldn't say this was chilling or thrilling, Julius was just revolting, the way he treated the people (particularly the women) around him was abhorrent. I also felt uncomfortable with the casual anti-Semitism that peppered the story - I couldn't tell if DDM was making a comment on how Jews were treated at that time or if she was anti-Semitic herself. I would hope for the former; nevertheless she chose to write a Jewish character that was genuinely awful stereotype of Jews (greedy, money-grabbing etc.) that she could come up with, so to write a character like that in the 1930s doesn't suggest an author trying to use literature to challenge social norms.
2.5 stars rounded up to 3 as I was hooked in places and it clearly provoked a reaction in me - even if it was entirely negative!
Content warning for violence against women and suicide
I wouldn't say this was chilling or thrilling, Julius was just revolting, the way he treated the people (particularly the women) around him was abhorrent. I also felt uncomfortable with the casual anti-Semitism that peppered the story - I couldn't tell if DDM was making a comment on how Jews were treated at that time or if she was anti-Semitic herself. I would hope for the former; nevertheless she chose to write a Jewish character that was genuinely awful stereotype of Jews (greedy, money-grabbing etc.) that she could come up with, so to write a character like that in the 1930s doesn't suggest an author trying to use literature to challenge social norms.
2.5 stars rounded up to 3 as I was hooked in places and it clearly provoked a reaction in me - even if it was entirely negative!
Content warning for violence against women and suicide
August 25, 2021
Ako sa dá pracovať so sociopatom v hlavnej úlohe celého románu?
Spýtajte sa Daphne du Maurier.
Julius Lévy je postava, s akou sa človek v úlohe hlavného hrdinu nestretáva bežne. Jeho nesmierna túžba niečo dokázať a získať bohatstvo ho poháňa ako motor. City, či potreby iných ľudí pre neho nič neznamenajú a bezohľadne ide za svojím cieľom, pričom sa neštíti použiť akékoľvek prostriedky a odstrániť z cesty každého, kto mu v nej stojí.
Nemá žiadne morálne hodnoty a jeho majetnícky postoj k tomu, čo mu podľa vlastného názoru patrí, sa vzťahuje ako na veci, tak aj na zvieratá či ľudí a radšej ich zničí, akoby mali patriť niekomu inému.
Nie je to kladný hrdina a nenájde sa na ňom jediná črta, kvôli ktorej by ho čitateľ mohol aspoň ľutovať.
A keďže jeho činy odzrkadľujú pochody jeho pokrútenej mysle, na dvestopäťdesiatich stranách popisujúcich jeho životný príbeh, čitateľ dostane len minimum niečoho pekného či pozitívneho.
Napriek tomu je to fascinujúce čítanie. Temné, znepokojivé, ale pútavo porozprávané.
Autorkin štýl je hladký, plynulý, unáša ma ako more malú lodičku. Bez jej schopnosti rozprávať príbehy by ma asi kniha sotva bavila. Ale štýl Daphne du Maurier je taký podmanivý, že som jej zobala z dlane aj pri tejto knihe.
K tomuto románus sa síce sotva niekedy vrátim, pretože Julius bol na mňa priveľmi temný, ale čítanie ma bavilo a som rada, že som sa do knihy pustila.
Spýtajte sa Daphne du Maurier.
Julius Lévy je postava, s akou sa človek v úlohe hlavného hrdinu nestretáva bežne. Jeho nesmierna túžba niečo dokázať a získať bohatstvo ho poháňa ako motor. City, či potreby iných ľudí pre neho nič neznamenajú a bezohľadne ide za svojím cieľom, pričom sa neštíti použiť akékoľvek prostriedky a odstrániť z cesty každého, kto mu v nej stojí.
Nemá žiadne morálne hodnoty a jeho majetnícky postoj k tomu, čo mu podľa vlastného názoru patrí, sa vzťahuje ako na veci, tak aj na zvieratá či ľudí a radšej ich zničí, akoby mali patriť niekomu inému.
Nie je to kladný hrdina a nenájde sa na ňom jediná črta, kvôli ktorej by ho čitateľ mohol aspoň ľutovať.
A keďže jeho činy odzrkadľujú pochody jeho pokrútenej mysle, na dvestopäťdesiatich stranách popisujúcich jeho životný príbeh, čitateľ dostane len minimum niečoho pekného či pozitívneho.
Napriek tomu je to fascinujúce čítanie. Temné, znepokojivé, ale pútavo porozprávané.
Autorkin štýl je hladký, plynulý, unáša ma ako more malú lodičku. Bez jej schopnosti rozprávať príbehy by ma asi kniha sotva bavila. Ale štýl Daphne du Maurier je taký podmanivý, že som jej zobala z dlane aj pri tejto knihe.
K tomuto románus sa síce sotva niekedy vrátim, pretože Julius bol na mňa priveľmi temný, ale čítanie ma bavilo a som rada, že som sa do knihy pustila.
November 8, 2022
4.5*
This is the rags to riches story of Julius Levy from the day he is born until the day he dies. There is not much to like about him, he is self-centred, cruel, ruthless and rude, particularly to women. He steals, cheats and deceives. His drive to be successful in business is what keeps him up at night and early to rise in the morning. Yes, he is hard working and enterprising but the way he gets what he wants, is not a nice way to live a life. Moving from Paris where he is born, his watches as his father murders his mother. They are forced to move to Alger, they are always hungry and Julius despises his father's weaknesses, taking it upon himself to find food and make some money. His start in life is poor and difficult, he has people around him who will help him but his friends bore him and he uses people. When he reaches London, he quickly gets to work to make his fortune, first starting as a baker, then a cafe, then several cafes and so on throughout his life. This is a fantastic story and Julius is a memorable character, even if he is wholly unlikeable. I really enjoyed the book.
This is the rags to riches story of Julius Levy from the day he is born until the day he dies. There is not much to like about him, he is self-centred, cruel, ruthless and rude, particularly to women. He steals, cheats and deceives. His drive to be successful in business is what keeps him up at night and early to rise in the morning. Yes, he is hard working and enterprising but the way he gets what he wants, is not a nice way to live a life. Moving from Paris where he is born, his watches as his father murders his mother. They are forced to move to Alger, they are always hungry and Julius despises his father's weaknesses, taking it upon himself to find food and make some money. His start in life is poor and difficult, he has people around him who will help him but his friends bore him and he uses people. When he reaches London, he quickly gets to work to make his fortune, first starting as a baker, then a cafe, then several cafes and so on throughout his life. This is a fantastic story and Julius is a memorable character, even if he is wholly unlikeable. I really enjoyed the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 27, 2018
A very sad story of progress. It seemed very authentic. The characters were very rich. This book was so different from Jamaica Inn. I can't wait to read another by her to see if they're all unique. Apparently there is incest in this book. I completely missed that. Now everything is much sadder and creepier.
November 3, 2019
Well....that was....dark. I love du Maurier's very descriptive writing, it really does shine in this tale. Most, if not all, of the characters are unlikable, but that's the point. Each uses his or her own talents for getting ahead. Does the use of those talents pay off in the end? Read it to find out...
October 20, 2024
'He was cruel, he was relentless, he was like some oppressive, suffocating power that stifled her and could not be warded off; he gave her all these bewildering sounds and sensations without pausing so that she was like a child stuffed with sweets cloying and rich; they were rammed down her throat and into her belly, filling her, exhausting her, making her a drum of excitement and anguish and emotion that was gripping in its savage intensity.'
June 1, 2022
I think re-reading this has dramatically increased my enjoyment, if you can enjoy such a bleak and dark book.
For a book in which every character is unlikeable, I couldn't put it down and was utterly enthralled by the writing.
For a book in which every character is unlikeable, I couldn't put it down and was utterly enthralled by the writing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 151 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.