READING LOG #001.1 - Frenchman's Creek, by Daphne du Maurier

 

READING LOG #001.1 - Frenchman's Creek, by Daphne du Maurier

Currently on Chapter 4. I’m enjoying the story, despite being able to guess where it’s going so far. The hints are placed there for that very reason, though, so I’m hoping that du Maurier will surprise me as the story progresses. As it stands, I can tell that William’s “late master” is probably our male lead, who we’ve seen only through William’s perspective in memory so far, but whose character is already so well-defined in the story that there it feels like a puzzle missing a piece the size of this character. I’m hoping we’ll get introduced to him soon. My suspicion is that he is the one who has been using Dona’s bedroom, and who has left the book and the tobacco, and that William lets him stay there to lay low after certain crimes take place. We’ll see if I’m on the right track. I’m glad I went into this completely blind. I was told this is a romance, but I am hoping there’s more to it, and I’m happy to be reading this author again. Her style has always been an inspiration for me.

"In fact, I will withdraw my command about visitors, William. Should your late master ever call, I will not feign illness or madness or any other disease, I will receive him."

Speaking of style, and the choices authors make which make up so much of their style, it's come to my attention that the copy I have of this book has modernized du Maurier's writing somewhat, changing her language in subtle but distinct ways.

One example is linked to that same quote I shared above. Rather than use "any other disease", the original used "distemper". The official explanation is that it's simply not something we say anymore, because it was a word that generalized a broad range of mental conditions, and which is, in today's language, mostly reserved for dogs. From a historical perspective, it seems that the word was used often in the understanding of the balance of the Four Humors; an imbalance could have been referred to as "distemper." It really just meant that you were angry, or grumpy, or irritated.

It's interesting how much language changes with the times, and what changes publishers feel necessary to make. I know that much has already been said about this topic, especially around the time that Roald Dahl's works underwent the editing that they did (I recently faced these changes when reading Fantastic Mr. Fox with my student and realizing his brand new copy had significantly different language from mine). Nevertheless, it remains an interesting subject, because it presents a live evolution of language, and I find that intriguing.

It's understandable, of course, to not want to connect our protagonist with a dog, or even to use a word which was used as an umbrella term for a range of different psychological conditions. The connotations would be highly negative today. However, I do wonder, for example, if most people would pick up on the modern interpretation of this word, which seems somewhat lesser-known, or if, like me, they would simply intuit from the etymology of the word that Dona (du Maurier) meant anger - a distemper of the spirit, so to speak.