What would you do if you one day meet your exact body double? And what would you do if this body double came along at the best possible time? That's what happens to Jean de Gue, a French aristocrat who wants to escape from his personal responsibilities. He meets "John," a lonely, bored English history professor on holiday in France. One night of drinking, sharing and mischief turns to the improbable when John wakes up the next morning in the hotel room alone, with all of his possessions gone -- all except for his identical companion's belongings. Before he knows it, he is taken to de Gue's estate, where he encounters the man's entire family. In one week, he learns all of Jean's secrets, most of which include deception and cruelty. The family business is in trouble, Jean's daughter has some quirks, Jean's sister hasn't spoken to him in fifteen years, his mother is addicted to morphine and his wife is having his second child. Will this reluctant impostor help the family or make things worse?

There is a lot of symbolism in this novel. I couldn't put it down. It is amazing how people believe what they want to believe, even if something is staring at them right in the face. There is also the thing about spending a lifetime with someone and not know them at all, as it is the case with Jean de Gue and his dysfunctional relationship with his mother, sister and brother. I enjoy Daphne du Maurier's first-person narrative and contemporary novels (set and published in the 1950s) better than her period novels written in third person. John's language is precise, insightful and beautiful, and even though he is naive at times, it just makes him all the more appealing. He lacks Jean's malice, and that is just one of several things that makes him different from his otherwise identical "friend." The ending is a little disappointing, but it does leave you thinking about love and life. All in all, I enjoyed The Scapegoat. I think I like this just as much as Rebecca. A wonderful piece of fiction. I look forward to reading more of du Maurier's work.

Daphne du Maurier is one of the great unappreciated writers of the 20th century, and I was pleased to find this opinion validated in "The Wall Street Journal" this past weekend. Her insights into human nature make her a writer of the first order; and her ability to build suspense and atmosphere with her deft characterizations and descriptions are superb.

It's hard for me to decide which Du Maurier book is my favorite -- of course I read and re-read "Rebecca" many times, and was fascinated by "My Cousin Rachel" -- but I think "The Scapegoat" may actually be my favorite. Something about the narrator, John, really connects with the longing to belong and care about something or someone that lives in all of us. I found myself turning the pages compulsively, marvelling at how credible she made this incredible story seem. If you haven't read du Maurier before, treat yourself to this little gem or any of them. You will enrich your world, no doubt about it.

Never have I wished for a person with questionable values to be the winner or try to solve an unsolvable problem. It would be worse if there were not a child involved! No one should give away anything in this intriguing novel. As good as Rebecca, and I never heard of it until now. Start reading and you're hooked. I bet you don't put it down very often until you arrive at the final end. A great book club discussion!

Apparently,'The Scapegoat' is not one of Ms. DuMaurier's more popular novels, and having just finished reading this curious and frustrating book, I think I see why. While I had to admire DdM's undeniably virtuosic technical achievement, I can't say that it gave me the same pleasure I usually derive from reading her books. Certain aspects of the plot, most obviously the non-filial resemblance between the narrator John, and Jean de Gue' I found just too far-fetched to swallow. How could his family have had no idea that this was not the man they knew? Even if their looks were identical, would the British John's French be completely unaccented? Other personal traits and idiosyncrasies would surely reveal themselves to a close family member. I felt I was asked to suspend far too much disbelief in this regard. On a moral level, I can't say that I cared at all for how the imposter falsely manipulated everyone with whom he came into contact during his week at St. Gilles, though I have to say I found no one in the household to be a particulary sympathetic character, and was never really bothered about their ultimate fates. I found the hothouse atmosphere of St. Gilles to be stifling and claustrophobic, and looked forward to the scene shifting to Villars and the verrerie, where I could breathe a bit of fresh air. Though John may have possessed more 'tendresse' than his non-attendant double, I still found him cold, manipulative and never fully human. There were times during my reading of 'The Scapegoat' when I thought I could just not finish the book, the action remaining stagnant for long stretches, and the characters just too trying on my nerves. What redeemed it all for me in the end was DdM's consummate use of language and single-mindedness in stitching her story through to the end. Perhaps an eventual rereading will prove enlightening, as I may just not have 'gotten' it the first time through.

This is my second book of Du Maurier. I was intrigued by the-Prince-Pauper thingy but with more weight on the issue that caused the charade. Although I can't say I like the ending but I feel it is the true way to end this story. Not a simple type of ending where everybody get all they wanted, the good characters win over the bad. It belongs to the whole story, adding the irony. Each character was in grey zone, no one was all white or black.

The issue of family and people relationship played the circumstances over the exchange of John and Jean, the 2 look-alike person but with very different background. John, the loner, had no family ties, as the narrator. While Jean, a father, lives with a sick mother, a silent sister and a troubled family of his brother to deal with. While John felt himself as a spectator of life, Jean complained about his demanding family. Was it only the family's fault or Jean's himself who caused the oppressive situation?

All things were started from inside oneself. It is like throwing a stone into a pool effect. What you think, which will come out as words / action will affect all the people around you. What you think a good decision does not always give the same impression to other people because each person has her/his own perception, unique way of viewing a problem.

You would just feel as conceited as the characters you were reading. A thoughtful story.

The theme of the living double or strange twin is not uncommon in literature. In Fyodor Dostoyevsky's, The Double, (1846) Mr. Golyadkin believes he sees himself on a train, haunted by this manifestation, he becomes obsessed with meeting himself, chasing this figure endlessly through the streets of St Petersburg. Many have commented that this nightmarish story is ultimately about the fear of confronting one's darker nature, the terrible "other", and if viewed in totality, could well lead to death.

In The Scapegoat, du Maurier explores a similar theme, where the protagonist, John, a very English and staid history lecturer of French culture, one evening meets his exact double in the train station at Le Mans. John is bored, searching for some connection to life, a meaning to his empty existence. Jean de Gue, however, has a full life, a member of an aristocratic family, a wife, child and a century's old business and the many problems that come with so many connections and responsibilities. He's not happy with this life and wants only to escape. Both men have dinner, drink too much, and John wakes up the next morning to find his cloths and belongings vanished, and Gaston, the driver and head servant, ready to drive him (John) back to the Chateau, St Giles. John decides to play the role of Jean de Gue's scapegoat, though in a few days, finds himself inextricably involved, emotionally and otherwise, in de Gue's affairs and family.

Du Maurier is an excellent writer. John's journey into the world of his double is strangely intriguing, as he narrates his deceptions and observations, and how easily he falls into the role. No one in the family suspects his masquerade, though he comes very close to revealing himself many times. The repressed emotions and history of du Gue's family runs deep and hold numerous dark secrets. I found myself rushing through the tale to discover these secrets and what John will do next. The plot sounds outlandish on the surface, but this is psychological realism at its best, causing this reader at least, to become obsessed with how the story finally resolves itself - and it is not disappointing.

These characters certainly come from another time and another place. Jean de Gue's daughter, Marie-Noel, is a deeply religious child who experiences visions and loves her father beyond words. My thought was that if any of the family would see through John's deceptions, it would be the child. This young child, through her innocence, is the only voice of truth in the house, and her antics and precocious dialogue speaks of another time - a truly unique and memorable character.

This is a masterful piece of literature, a unique thriller that will be just as fascinating and entertaining for readers a hundred years from now.

This book is so much fun I couldn't put it down. If you are a fan of Rebecca you have to read this book!!!!

I loved this book. The characters were fascinating and full of intricacies -- you loved them, you hated them, you were surprised by them. The pace, while I thought it was a little slow at first, became absolutely compelling. The daughter, seemingly so old for her years, was touching. My only wish would have been to know what de Gue actually did in London while John took his place instead of finding out at the end. Highly recommend reading it and her other works...Rebecca in particular.