I must confess, I chose to read this book mainly due to the number of terrible reviews it had received, both here and 'across the Pond'. Call me masochistic, but I was curious. Could it really be as bad as all that?
If anything, 'Mrs de Winter' serves the purpose of being a good example of How Not To Write A Novel, never mind a sequel to one of the most beloved classics of 20th century literature. In fact, I would encourage all writers to keep it at hand as a guide; let's see, entire paragraphs held together by comma splices; a complete lack of narrative drive; a storyline that is dependent solely on melodrama and coincidence; a ludicrous and frankly predictable climax, and characters who seem to have experienced a kind of pre-frontal lobotomy since we last saw them, never mind failed to have matured in any way; missing all of the quiet strength, strange empathy and intensely unique personality tics that made du Maurier's original characters so enduring.
What surprises me most is the fact that the author of this sorry piece is Susan Hill, a seasoned writer who is responsible for, among other things, The Woman In Black, an intelligent and hauntingly gothic ghost story that was made into a very successful stage adaptation, and which I had the fortune and pleasure of seeing on tour earlier this year. In other words, there is no excuse for the poor quality of this novel. Undoubtedly Hill has talent, but one would not realise it from reading 'Mrs de Winter'. Was I not aware of Hill's other work, I would have dismissed her as one of those lucky idiots who occasionally slip through the publishing net and manage find an audience for their fanfiction.
I suppose the moral of this story is: sequels are generally a bad idea, unless written by the author of the original work. And even they don't always work out.