The House on the Strand

Daphne du Maurier has a very rare talent, and that is to concisely describe the little details that make up such a great part of her stories. She notices the dust on the windowsill, a certain glance of light, the ant crawling through the grass, and turns it from a trivial, fleeting thought into a concrete one. It's so natural. The human mind is capable of so many thoughts, but few human minds can capture them so perfectly.
But enough digression... This was a grand and glorious book, about a guy and his scientist friend Magnus. Written in first person as many of D du M's books are, right away the story draws the reader into the very mind of the main dude (whose name I cannot remember so I'll call him "I"). Basically, the main guy is Magnus' guinea pig. Magnus is one of those scientists who, like Dr Jekyll or Dr Frankenstein, delve into the unknown and in the end destroy themselves or others. Magnus does both. In a way, more than Magnus or Mr I, the drug Magnus creates is the main character. It is a dangerous menace. And addicting. Magnus and Mr I cannot be content with only one trip. The trips take them many years back in history to their town as it used to be, and "I" particularly is caught up in the lives of certain people there. Magnus is the same to a less determined degree.
The trouble is that when Magnus extracted Mr I's promise to do the experiment, "I" was not counting on his wife and sons coming around to see him at Magnus' house...
So he has to be careful when and where he takes the drug. Sometimes he winds up very far from home. Sometimes it leaves him ill. But he is caught up in history and will not be content to stop.
The ending is unrivalled. There is no other book that I've ever read with such an unexpected last paragraph. Do me and yourself a favour and don't dare look at the last page until you get there. The entire impact of the book rests on that last line.
I recommend this book with all my heart. It is altogether fascinating and I want to read it again very soon.

Like her spoiled protagonist in this novel Dick Young, Daphne du Maurier was haunted by the past of her native Cornwall and could not seem to let it go. THE HOUSE ON THE STRAND, often considered the major book of Du Maurier's later years, is ostensibly about a failed publisher at a friend's Cornish mansion who uses a hallucinogenic invented by the friend to travel back in time and witness the events of the fourteenth century. But it is also more generally about the grip that the past can have on the living, and how violently it can disrupt their lives in the present (a common theme in all of Du Maurier's books). as Dick becomes more and more obsessed with the live of Isolda, a Cornish noblewoman who lived near the house six centuries before, he begins to neglect his wife and stepchildren in the present--and begins to get the two periods more and more confused.

Given the great Gothic topic here and her great skills as a writer, it would have almost been impossible for Du Maurier to have produced a novel out of this that is anything less than gripping. Dick's obsession makes the novel a genuine page-turner, and as usual Du Maurier never settles for the expected (there are few novelists who had a better skill at introducing genuinely unexpected plot turns). But true to her theme, Du Maurier was perhaps too obsessed with the past of her Cornwall neighborhood to make the novel fully enjoyable as it might have been: she insisted on using actual Cornish names and figures from the actual historical past, and settled on for the central narrative in the past a group of intermarried cousins whose relations are incredibly difficult to sort out (as are their long Cornish last names and often shared first names). Who is who and who is related to who is never completely clear, and Du Maurier has a much easier time explaining the miserable family relations of Dick in the present (as well as his tortured relationship with Magnus Lane, the owner of the house). Yet she also makes Dick's addiction to the drug seem palpable, so that we sympathize with his desires to slip back into the past; and some of her scene-painting in the historical scenes (particularly a scene of an otter hunt in the snow, which seems to be nearly akin to Brueghel in its hallucinatory detail) are remarkable.

This is about my favourite du Maurier novel - and close to my favourite novel, full stop. It is a brilliantly original time travel story, as well as a compelling exploration of addiction.

Dick, unhappy and dissatisfied in his contemporary world, finds refuge of a sort in 14th century Cornwall - a drug developed by his scientist friend, Magnus, has the ability to transport him back to that era, although he can only observe, and not participate. He becomes fascinated with the people he encounters - in particular, Roger the steward, who is almost his unwitting guide, and Isolda Carminowe - to the extent that his present-day relationships suffer by comparison, and the people of the past seem more real to him than those of his present.

This novel is exquisitely written, with well-drawn, three-dimensional characters, as well as a suspenseful plot - and a great depiction of 14th century Cornwall. Excellent on all levels.

First, my criticism: Not one of the characters from the 1300s speaks in the vernacular, which is incredibly frustrating for one looking for authenticity.

Despite this one critique, the story is original and thrilling. It is original because du Maurier has the ability to create realistic modern day and historical worlds. It is thrilling because the tension only mounts as the main character struggles to live in both ages.

This is a fully underrated work by a master of suspense.

I really enjoyed The House on the Strand because Du Maurier made wonderful transitions between the 14th century and the present in the novel, and entwined these transitions with an interesting story line. From a scientific point of view, however, the author left a lot of things very vague in relation to the drug, possibly because it is a wild and imaginative idea to have a "time control" drug, but I would have preferred a little more detail. No one even mentions what this drug-weilding professor really researches throughout the novel. But, taking all into consideration, it was a very intersting book

I enjoyed 'Rebecca' and wanted to try another of the author's books. "The House on the Strand" was an average read, but I recommend it to time travel buffs and those who enjoy Du Maurier's style. The book takes place in Cornwall, England in 1969 and the 14th century. I was fascinated by Du Maurier's descriptions of the landscape and surroundings in each century as the main character travelled back and forth. The story line starts out interesting, but frankly not much really happens. There is a lot of intrigue and none of it ever gets wrapped up. I was a bit bogged down by names and roles of many of the 14th century characters, but a family tree in the beginning of the book was very helpful. The story is light, and besides the 14th century names, it is a fast read. I would say it is a good vacation read for someone going to Cornwall, or a reader who just enjoys a little old fashioned time travel.

Possibly my favourite Daphne du Marier novel. Dick Young is staying at a holiday home owned by a friend who is also a biochemical researcher. He agrees to take an experimental drug developed by his friend and find it takes his mind - but not his body - 600 years into the past where he witnesses intrigue, adultery and murder. He becomes increasingly obsessed with the characters from the past and resents the time he must spend in the present world. Despite evidence of the dangers to his present day body and relationships, he can't resist taking just one more trip into the past.

Daphne Du Maurier is best known for her masterpiece, Rebecca; however, I think The House on the Strand, is just as good if not better. The House on the Strand introduces a clever idea of a way of time-traveling that is simple, and doesn't leave you confused after you have read the explanation. This is also no fantasy land that Richard Young (the main character) travels to. After Young drinks a mysterious potion, he finds himself in the exact place where he was before...except now he's in the fourteenth century. I recommend this book to anyone who likes history, time travel, or mystery.

Anyone who has ever read Rebecca knows that Daphne du Maurier was always ahead of her time. Her concern with what we now call Women's Issues was a hallmark in all of her works.
In none of her books is that more apparent than in The House on the Strand. Although the viewpoint character is male, the concern for women's rights still shines through.
If you have seen the TV miniseries 'The Two Worlds of Jennie Logan' or the motion picture 'Somewhere in Time' you will at first think that both of them somehow got their inspiration from this book when you first start reading it. But this is much deeper than either of those stories. While the major character does indeed flash backwards and forwards in time, his discoveries in the past help him understand his present circumstances. The emphasis then is not on his wanting to 'escape' the present, as in the two movies, but on wanting to understand how the present and the past interrelate.
Also, some of the minor characters are historically real, and this adds a lot of interest to the tale. It makes you want to go visit the area in southern England where the story is set, and do a little investigating for yourself.
Provides some real food for thought.

I wasn't expecting to like this book - my reaction to all time-travel stories can be pretty much summed up in one word -

"blah". So I was surprised to find myself enjoying the book. Du Maurier's prose is as excellent as ever. Her characterization, especially of Dick, is for most part compelling, though I felt that some of the characters from the past were somewhat lacking in depth. (Roger, Isolda, and Otto, however, were all powerfully realised.) I found the plot sufficiently well designed to keep me interested, and I appreciated the way the writer seamlessly wove the past into the present, as well as Dick's struggle to comprehend it all. The story as a whole possesses surprising depth, and I recommend it, particularly to du Maurier fans.

Du Maurier's "Rebecca" and "The Scapegoat" are both among my all-time favorites, and after reading the reviews here, I was looking forward to "House on the Strand." I've got about 40 pages left, though, and am not a fan of this book.
While the story itself is intriguing, I am not hooked -- even on repeat readings of the other two books I mentioned, I couldn't put them down. This one ... it just doesn't pull me in. I think it's because the characters are all rather two-dimensional -- both in the past and present. I didn't really care what happened to any of the people the narrator interacts with; rather, the most interesting thing to me is his growing addiction to this time-travel drug. So in that respect, I liked it -- and that point, along with Du Maurier's writing, is why I gave this as many stars as I did.

Daphne Du Maurier's THE HOUSE ON THE STRAND receives a powerful reading by narrator Michael Maloney - perhaps influenced by his many Shakespeare roles on the London stage - as it tells of an experiment which transports one Dick to 14th century Cornwall where he becomes involved with medieval murder and intrigue. But the question remains: is he really moving through time, or is it all a dream?

I love this book. Daphne DuMaurier has the ability to make the reader feel that he REALLY is back in 14th century England. Have you ever thought what it would be like to have your mind travel back into time, yet at the same time your body is still here? That other people can see you walking blindly along the road and up hills, yet your mind is in another world and you're seeing something totally different? This story is hauntingly real and has several surprising twists to the plot that will keep you mesmerized. I'm a voracious reader, yet this is my favorite book of all time.

This and Rebecca are my favorite du Maurier novels. I've often thought this one, The House on the Strand, didn't get the attention I thought it deserved. The first time I read this I was in high school, and the court scene has always stayed in my memory. It's a fairly quick read, so go ahead and give it a go.

After fighting my way through Rebecca, this author wasn't on the top of my 'must-read' list. But for whatever reason I tried The House on the Strand, I am grateful. An interesting story well told that wraps you up and carries you along.

I long ago classified this book as my favorite book of all time. I know that is probably hyperbole at this point as I have read so many books since my Du Maurier period in my 30's. But it is a very engaging book. It is one I have re-read several times which is a very rare compliment from me who believes there is so much to read, why spend time re-reading.

Oh yes, certainly. Everyone loves a story that involves time travel, romance, intrigue and beautiful scenery. 'The House on the Strand' has all this but, unfortunately, this reader was left unimpressed with it all. Why? Well, let's see...

The setting, Cornwall, wasn't the problem. It is rich in history, and its geography/topology is fascinating. The story, about a couple of men who regularly time travel back to the 1300s, was MOST incredulous but not especially dull. However the science behind all this was completely bonkers. Imagine, a British scientist discovers a mind-altering drug which transports people back in time mentally (but not physically) to a certain, inexplicably, important time in history. Subsequent doses transports them back to a slighter later point in time that, again inexplicably, is also pivotal in time. Why not transport them to back when everyone simply mulling around and milking cows or something. But nooooo.....! It had to be when a murder was about to take place or a plot to overthrow the realm was being devised. Thankfully du Maurier's fine prose and characterizations save 'The House on the Strand' from being a contrived mess.

Bottom line: easily one of the author's most dismal efforts. Not recommended.

Daphne and I have a tumultuous relationship. We can't seem to find a happy middle ground. I either love her or I'm angry with her for wasting my time with her underwhelming drivel. Dick (who lives up to his name) continually keeps taking a drug that allows him to mentally travel back in time. He becomes addicted to watching a soap opera we call the Fourteenth Century. Sure, there's scandalous love affairs and even murder, but the whole thing came off as juiceless. When Dick (who lives up to his name) comes down from his time traveling high and must deal with his present-day problems, that's juiceless as well and I got by with skimming through some chapters.

I loved REBECCA and JAMAICA INN, and even the enigmatic, though uneven, MY COUSIN RACHEL. However, I found HOUSE ON THE STRAND to be unengaging and ponderous. Too thick with description to make a stimulating story, I found it slow and filled with unnecessary detail. Maybe it was better to readers thirty years ago. Out of respect for the author's literary command and prose, I am giving it two stars, but I can tell you it disappointed this reader.

After absolutely loving DuMaurier's Rebecca, I had high expectations for this book, especially since the storyline based on time travel sounded promising. I was disappointed and frustrated when the novel did not deliver what it promised. First of all, it contained barely anything resembling a plot. The main character just wandered around, secretly used the drug, and became violently ill. Lather, rinse, repeat. The detailed descriptions of his pain and retching were especially unpleasant. The time-travel scenes did at least have a storyline, but it was disjointed, confusing, and incomprehensibly written; this was compounded by the fact that the historical characters had near-identical surnames (I realize that there was a minor reason for this, but it proves a huge disadvantage for the reader). The spark of romantic connection between Isolde and the main character was also promising, but nothing came of it. I read the entire book, hoping that there was a point somewhere, but not even the smallest payoff ever surfaced. This book just rambled around in the gloom without any direction or destination, and I found it dry, unenjoyable, and a waste of my time.