A NOTE FROM LOUISE PENNY:
Welcome to the first meeting of the Three Pines Book Club—gathering in this virtual location of Myrna’s New and Used Bookshop.
Our first book to re-read is Still Life. I suspect most of you have already read it, but I also think some of you might be new to the series.
The novels are set, for the most part, in the fictional Quebec village of Three Pines.
I created the village as a place of refuge. A place I would choose to live. That was beautiful, and peaceful. That offered company, companionship—as well as croissants and rich café au lait. And licorice pipes.
I was much taken, years ago, when reading Virginia Woolf’s Orlando. Orlando, the main character, had lived many lifetimes in many guises. Now, I’m paraphrasing the opening of that book, but Woolf wrote something to the effect that over the years, in each of those lifetimes, Orlando was looking for only one thing. It wasn’t riches. It wasn’t power. It wasn’t even love.
What Orlando yearned for was company.
I’d been through periods in my life when I thought I would die from loneliness. And so the idea of belonging, of company, of home, was powerful.
The world, when I started writing Still Life, was suddenly a pretty scary place. 9/11 had happened the year before and more attacks seemed imminent and would almost certainly be completely unexpected. Suddenly places and activities that had seemed benign, safe, fun, were riddled with insecurity.
I wanted to pull the sheets up over my head, stay in bed, and read.
But, like you, I couldn’t. But what I could do was create that safe place.
Oddly, perhaps, I also chose to violate it—by bringing murder into the pretty little village, and into the lives of Clara, Peter, Ruth et al.
But it also brought Chief Inspector Gamache. The decent man, who made a living investigating the indecent act of homicide.
Just as I created a community I would live in in Three Pines, and villagers I would choose as friends in Clara and Myrna and Gabri etc—I also intentionally created, in Armand, a man I would marry. Because, in many ways, I knew if Still Life spawned a series it would become like a marriage. And he needed to have the qualities I admire in a man. In anyone. The qualities I strive for, and so often fall short of, myself.
But peace untested might prove an illusion. And so Three Pines is tested when Miss Jane Neal is murdered.
And goodness might be shallow, situational. And so Gamache is given Agent Nichol to test him and, more insidious, the Arnot case. To see if he really is a decent man, or just pretending to be when things are going his way. The first reference to Arnot is in Still Life—it clearly refers to something horrific, but unexplained, in Gamache’s past. And in the recent history of the Sûreté du Quebec.
This was intentional. It was important that it be clear that all these characters have pasts, and we are coming in mid-life, mid-leap. But, as with new friends, all will eventually be revealed.
Here now, in Still Life, we are introduced to Gabri and Olivier, to Ruth, the demented old poet. To Clara, who creates art from her heart, and Peter, the more successful artist in their marriage. To Ben, who never strays far from home, and Myrna, who found a home in Three Pines. And all the other villagers whose lives mix and join together. From here their stories move forward, but we also see further and further back. To what made them who they are.
These books are murder mysteries, but they’re not about murder. They’re about love and belonging, about loyalty and choices. And the courage to be good.
INTRODUCTION BY LESA HOLSTINE:
I recently heard Louise Penny interviewed by her publisher, and, knowing Louise now, it came as a surprise to hear her say she identified with Agent Yvette Nichol. However, here’s the final paragraph in the Acknowledgements in Still Life. “I went through a period in my life when I had no friends, when the phone never rang, when I thought I would die from loneliness. I know that the real blessing here isn’t that I have a book published, but that I have so many people to thank.” I never knew that lonely Louise. She herself is an example of the duality she writes about. I see her much more as Clara Morrow, and, she has said that as well. (Doesn’t an author put herself into many characters?) Clara is a kind woman, who really wants to belong. I only know that Louise Penny, the warm, kind woman who reaches out to others.
I first read Still Life in 2006, and met Louise in 2008 at The Poisoned Pen Bookstore in Scottsdale, Arizona. I saw a woman who reached out to every member of the small audience. I’ve repeated this story often. There was one teen in the audience, dragged there by her mother. She had headphones on. Louise started by asking her age, and when she was told thirteen, she asked if she’d read Rick Riordan’s mythological series, Percy Jackson and the Olympians. That teen was at every subsequent appearance I attended at The Poisoned Pen.
I know the Louise Penny who loves gummi bears. (Did you catch those references in Still Life?) I know the friend who always found time to squeeze in a short visit when she was in town, and I found how she listened with her heart. I know the Louise Penny who wrote me after my husband died. “I am devastated for you, as is Michael. . . . Oh, Lesa . . . our hearts break for you. How are you? Would you like to come up? Spend quiet time away and we could look after you? . . . When you feel like it please write and tell us how you are. Michael sends his love and grief, as do I. Actually, we don’t send our grief—you probably have way too much of that already. We send light. And peace.”
I know the Louise Penny of light and peace.
I know the Louise Penny who created Three Pines. She may have needed it as a refuge at one time. Fortunately for all of us, she created a place that can only be found by people who are lost. Three Pines has sheltered many lost souls.
So, welcome to Three Pines and Still Life.
RECAP
Before we meet anyone else, readers meet the victim, Jane Neal, and the investigator, Armand Gamache. We learn a little about each in just a couple paragraphs. Jane was unmarried, seventy-six, and her death was not natural. She was kind and gentle. Gamache is in his mid-fifties, “at the height of a long and now apparently stalled career”, and, even though he was head of homicide, he was always surprised by violent death, hoping it was wrong.
Still Life is more than a murder mystery. Penny has said her books are not really about murder, but what murder dislodges in a community. And, the first half of this book introduces the community. We meet Clara Morrow and her husband Peter. They are both artists, but Peter is a success, while Clara is unknown in the art world. We learn that beyond marijuana, Three Pines had no crime. “No break-ins, no vandalism, no assaults. There weren’t even any police in Three Pines.” So, Jane’s report of an unspeakable action perpetrated by some boys came as a shock. She recognized the boys under their masks, and called out their names.
The Friday before Thanksgiving, we meet a small group of friends at a dinner at the Morrow home. Ruth Zardo is swigging Scotch. Olivier Brulé and Gabri Dubeau are the two gay men who own the Bistro, victims of the hate crime witnessed by Jane Neal. Myrna Landers, “huge, effusive, and unexpected”, is the owner of the bookstore, Ben Hadley is Peter’s best friend. Jane is celebrating the acceptance of her picture, Fair Day, for the local exhibition. When she tells them the picture was painted at the closing parade of the county fair, they all remember it was the day Peter and Clara had to tell Ben his mother, Timmer, had died while he was in Ottawa. Despite that sad recollection, Jane invites them to have drinks at her house after the opening of the exhibition.
It’s into this village that Armand Gamache brings his team. Yvette Nichol is a young agent, on her first case, desperate to make a good impression. Inspector Jean Guy Beauvoir has been Gamache’s second-in-command for more than a decade, a man who hears Gamache’s command, “Tell me what you know”, as the beginning of the hunt. Isabelle Lacoste is the agent who, walking to the site where Jane Neal died, promises her Chief Inspector Gamache would find out who killed her.
These two groups of people are brought together under the watchful eye of Armand Gamache. It’s important to know all of these characters, people who continue to show up in the series. It’s most important to see Gamache, and recognize his style of investigation.. “I watch. I’m very good at observing. Noticing things. And listening. Actively listening to what people are saying, their choice of words, their tone. What they aren’t saying.”
It doesn’t take the team long to discover that Jane Neal was killed, shot by an arrow. In a meeting of the villagers, Peter, Ben, and Matthew Croft reveal how many of them are familiar with bows and arrows, how many of them hunt, and that Jane Neal was known to confront those who were doing wrong, from Croft, who was caught hunting illegally, to the three boys who attacked Gabri and Olivier. But, Jane Neal’s death still bothers Gamache. “And that’s the puzzle, thought Gamache. Why? Why an arrow and not a bullet?…An old-fashioned wooden arrow with real feathers used to kill an elderly retired schoolteacher. Why?”
The investigation immediately swings toward looking for someone who shot that arrow, even while Gamache is interested in other aspects of Jane Neal’s life. Who inherits her estate? Naturally, the heirs are always suspect. And, Jane’s niece, Yolande, is an angry, hard woman. Who else might have reasons to wish her dead? Her painting, Fair Day, had just been accepted for Arts Williamsburg, because it was brilliant. Were other artists jealous? Clara pointed out that only a small group of friends knew the painting had been accepted, and they were all close enough for Jane to invite them to her house. So, who had the bows and arrows, the ability to kill Jane Neal?
The investigation leads to the Croft family. Matthew Croft, who hunted illegally, was once caught by Jane Neal. The police find Matthew’s wife, Suzanne, trying to hide something from them in the basement. And, then, there’s fourteen-year-old Philippe, one of the boys Jane caught attacking Olivier and Gabri. While the police wait for the results of lab tests, suspecting they found the home of the killer, Gamache decides to try out other theories. He doesn’t like to close a case too early. “Just to be on the safe side.”
As Gamache waits, he learns more about the villagers. Ruth Zardo is one of Canada’s most famous poets. And, Clara and the villagers have a different view of the deceased Timmer Hadley than Myrna did. They’ve known Timmer longer, as Ben’s mother, a hateful woman who terrorized her son.
And, as the villagers wait, they once again gather at Clara and Peter’s where they deconstruct the crime, and realizing one of them is a killer, they know someone killed Jane Neal on purpose. Readers who want to continue the series should watch the scenes in which the villagers gather because there are glimpses of their true characters in these moments.
When the lab results come in, the team once again visit the Crofts, where Philippe turns on his father, but Matthew Croft’s confession isn’t enough to convince Gamache of his guilt, and he refuses to arrest him, going against orders. Gamache is suspended, and Beauvoir is forced to take his gun and badge from him.
It’s while attending Jane Neal’s memorial service and reception that Gamache realizes one of his officers lied to him, and didn’t check on Jane Neal’s will. And, when the women of the village hold a prayer ritual, they discover another piece of evidence, an arrow that was still in a tree. That piece of evidence exonerates Matthew Croft, proves Jane Neal really was murdered, and it wasn’t an accident, and brings about the reinstatement of Gamache as officer in charge of the investigation.
And, it was the will, leaving everything to Clara, that opens Jane Neal’s house to the police. They find horrific wallpaper and paint in the house, but, when they look beneath it, they discover Jane Neal’s gift to the community. Her paintings on her walls reveal the history of Three Pines. And, Gamache knows that the murderer was someone on those walls as well.
But, it’s Clara, the artist, who is the first to realize who the killer is. And, her attempt to confront the killer leads to a horrifying scene, and a rescue attempt during a hurricane. The discovery of the murderer would change the villagers forever.
Louise Penny, a master storyteller, foreshadows so many of the relationships and actions in future books when she talks about her characters. Remember the characters, their reactions, their feelings, as you read future books. And, remember Three Pines. “And the pall of grief that settled on this little community was worn with dignity and sadness and a certain familiarity. This village was old, and you don’t get to be old without knowing grief. And loss.”
But, also remember Armand Gamache’s last view of Three Pines. “He looked down at the village and his heart soared. He looked over the rooftops and imagined the good, kind, flawed people inside struggling with their lives….Life was far from harried here. But neither was it still.”
FAVORITE QUOTES:
Ruth Zardo quotes poet W.H. Auden. “Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table.”
Matthew 10:36. “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”
CONCLUSION:
As we read the other books in this series, it’s important to remember what we’ve learned about the characters. Keep in mind what you’ve learned about Gamache, Beauvoir, and Nichol, as well as about the villagers themselves; Clara, Peter, Olivier, Gabri, Ruth and Myrna. And, remember what Louise Penny said. Her books are not really about murder, but what murder dislodges in a community.
In a 2007 interview with author G.M. Malliet, Louise Penny said, “I think of Three Pines as a state of mind. A village occupied by people who have made conscious choices in their lives. Not because they’ve never been hurt, not because they’re too protected, or foolish, or shallow to know that the world can be a dreadful place. No. It’s for that very reason they’ve all made their choices. They’ve all been hurt. As have we all. But when wounded some people become embittered, cynical, sarcastic. They hurt back. But some, and I sometimes think they’re the ones most wounded, make another choice. They know nothing good comes of giving in to our darker instincts. And so they turn to what Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address called, ‘The better angels of our nature.’ Three Pines is a place where kindness trumps cruelty, where people help each other, and care. Where sharing isn’t a word to be laughed at and even an embittered old poet is welcomed.”
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
- Louise Penny has said she modeled Armand Gamache on her husband. How do you picture Gamache?
- Other than Armand Gamache, who is your favorite character in the first half of the book? Why?
- People in this book have secrets, even Gamache. What secrets surprised you?
- What is your reaction to Agent Nichol’s behavior?
- Is it a flaw in Gamache that he has a desire to help people, and that he’s too compassionate?
- Ben Hadley tells Gamache the story of the three pines. Do you think the trees and village still serve a similar purpose for those who seek refuge?
- What happened to the Three Pines community as a result of Jane Neal’s death?
- Gamache has a fear of heights, and shows unexpected anger. He also refuses a direct order. Do these flaws make him more human, or indicate weakness?
- What did Clara mean by having “Surprised by Joy” engraved on Jane Neal’s tombstone?
- Louise Penny says this book is about choice. What did she mean by that?
- Three Pines is Louise Penny’s ideal village. What is your ideal village like?
- Penny uses poetry throughout the book. Is there one poem or line that resonates with you?
736 replies on “Series Re-Read: Still Life”
Gamache’s flaws make him more human. I’ve loved him from the start 🙂 He is a great leader who is decisive and holds people accountable for their actions. We all have flaws.
So many unanswered questions addressed. Thank to your insights…
I think Peter lives a still life with his introspective work and his hidden resentments of Clara’s work.
There’ve been several comments on the choices of many of the characters, but I think the key decision that underlies Gamache’s whole professional situation is his choice regarding Arnot’s deadly activities in the North in previous years. That whole situation underlies not only this book, but reveals gradually in subsequent books. It is important to recognize and be alert to the consequences of choices … like Peter’s treatment of Clara, Olivier’s greed, Ruth’s faith and love, even bad clothing choices — really underpin the whole series. Choice is an essential and commonly shared experience for the characters, us as readers, and I’m sure for Louise and her publishing team too.
I agree that there is a lot of foreshadowing in this book. In some of the later books, I became more and more disenchanted with Peter and the way he treated Clara. I think in this, the first book, we get some of the early signs that theirs is a marriage that has some fault lines in it. I’m wondering if anyone else felt like Clara was having to do most of the heavy lifting, emotionally, in that relationship. Also in this reading, I picked up on the fact that Ruth’s last name is not the one she grew up with. We still don’t know(or I can’t remember) if she changed it for privacy purposes, or if she was married at some point. If she was married, is she a divorcee, or widow? No one seems to have that information about her private life. Very mysterious! Will Louise Penny at some point clue us into the truths about Ruth’s personal life?
I think one thing that draws us to the Ruth character is that she can be so blunt and authentic and that without any striving to be a people pleaser, she can still be accepted, valued and even loved by a group of genuine friends.
You know I loved the novel and I love the whole series. But I have a quibble. If a house had been painted and wallpapered all through within the past week, would you not SMELL that the minute you walked in? That has been bothering me since the first time I read this book. It is rare for Penny to show such a big logical cohesion mistake, but this one (particularly the description of other aromas in the house) really got to me as a ‘nope, no way’ issue.
I read Still Life so long ago that this re-reading was truly a treat. What struck me as I was reading was the seeds of the development of each of the characters as we now know them. I don’t know about you but I feel I do know them and that they are friends with whom I want to have a café au lait. I wanted to be truly present to this reading–there were so many “wow” moments for me (wow there is already the revelation of Gamache and his flaws/human-ness!, wow there is Ruth in all her bitterness and heart! wow there is an inkling into Peter and Clara’s relationship!)–so I had to work hard to concentrate! Ha! But Lesa’s comment on keeping all these character “clues” in mind going forward with our reading is a really good point.
Choice. We make so many different choices every day. It is the human condition…where even making no choice is certainly a real choice. The Three Pines villagers certainly have the choices of everyday life placed before them: Peter-to become emotionally committed or to continue to be self-absorbed, Yvette Nichol to choose to see that the solution lies within herself or not, etc. And they are faced with choices they never expected to have to make: about trust, about relationships and assumptions, and about acceptance and now a choice as to how to move on. I can see why Louise says this is a book about choice, though I don’t think I would have realized it without it being said. I think I am even more impressed with Louise’s writing having read this much more deeply this time–her ability to paint the reality of all the choices, all the emotions and life.
The humor is such a big piece for me. It just makes the characters become even more alive. My first guffaw came on page 13 in my edition when Clara was described as the “Carmen Miranda of baked goods” as a walnut took residence in her hair. I have a friend like this. And by page 18 Ruth enters and the bantering begins and I wait for the next laugh in the middle of the action. I love Louise’s sense of humor!
Gamache is Gabriel Byrne to me. Beauvoir is the chap from Criminal Minds…. Love Ruth, she is how an old lady should be, **** the world!
One thing that these books have made me realise is, as a British fifty something, I know pitifully little of Canadian history, and they have awoken a urge to learn more. Especially why there is French Canadian and English Canadian. More reading to come then!
I also gallopped through on my first read. I was happy to see the “Surprised by Joy” explanation
The use of the Leonard Cohen lines also sent me in search of his past recordings which I listened to years ago and had not thought about in quite some time.
I think of “L.C.” as the “Canadian Bob Dylan”.
I haven’t addressed any of the questions posed, but I’m still pondering the poetry, especially now that I know it was written by Margaret Atwood. I’m wondering which came first–the poetry or the opportunity to use it? I’m thinking particularly of the often-quoted “Who hurt you, once, / so far beyond repair / that you would greet each overture / with curling lip?” Wonderful image, wonderful concept that fits so well with the personality and the story. Did Louise see an opportunity to use that phrasing for her own novelistic purposes or would she have asked Atwood to fashion something around the idea? Can one ask a poet to do that? Fascinating!
Loving this discussion! I want to tell you all about my experience reading Still Life – I’m an ex-pat Canadian living in the US. Very happy to be here, and for the most part, I don’t miss home, but every once in awhile a wistful little thing will remind me. Louise’s very Canadian voice is one of the things that keeps bringing me back to this series. It’s authentic, and recognizable from miles away! I was immediately struck by it with this quote – from chapter 7 – “Ruth Kemp… who defined the great Canadian ambivalence of kindness and rage…”
This statement speaks to me on almost every level! I often am asked the difference between the US and Canada, and it is very difficult to pin it down. I always say that the differences are not obvious, but are very profound. It goes deep into your core as a way of feeling – of seeing the world. When I read those words above, I knew that Louise understood… and of course, therefore, so did Gamache!
It’s so difficult for me not to just jump in and chatter away on any and all topics – but I promised myself I would try to stick to the topics and answer the questions this time.
1. What happened to the Three Pines community as a result of Jane Neal’s death?
I think that the Three Pines community as it had been was blasted apart by Jane’s death, but that it had been built on a “foundation of sand”… After her death, I think a core group – Clara, Myrna, Ruth, Gabri, and to a lesser extent, Olivier, came together to form a solid community that is stronger than before. There IS still life. Gamache is someone who comes into a community knowing he will blow it all apart – that the very act of solving a murder means that he must lay bare everyone’s secrets (and we all have them). It must be very hard for him – especially when he comes upon a place like Three Pines, because he seems to fall in love with it as fast as all the others… Peter is left on those shifting sands, I think, wondering what went wrong… I don’t think he really feels a part of the community the way he did when he had Ben.
2. Gamache has a fear of heights, and shows unexpected anger. He also refuses a direct order. Do these flaws make him more human, or indicate weakness?
I’m not sure I would call a fear of heights a flaw – just a characteristic, like brown eyes. The refusal of a direct order, I think is a strength, rather than a weakness because he refused the order due to his principles, not his pride, and we are getting hints that his position at the Surete is not really as solid as we would like it to be. Anger is a hard emotion – hard to control, and can really get you into trouble – but oh, so human!
3. What did Clara mean by having “Surprised by Joy” engraved on Jane Neal’s tombstone?
Clara loved and understood Jane more than anyone, and I certainly agree with all the wonderful comments here about the poem and the sentiments. I think that finding the wonderful art all over the walls of Jane’s house surprised Clara with joy – and left her with tangible evidence of the joy that Jane brought to Clara.
4. Louise Penny says this book is about choice. What did she mean by that?
I think that all of Louise’s books are about choice. We each of us, every day, choose – to get out of bed, run a comb through our hair, smile, get out of the house, to be happy. To me, every small choice adds up to the very large and important choice to be happy, and I think that Louise gets that. I’m one of those people who is surprised when others think something different than I do, but I’m learning that not everyone feels that being happy is a choice they can make. For me, this is very true and has always been how I’ve lived my life. I think that Louise has her characters learn this in her books…
5. Three Pines is Louise Penny’s ideal village. What is your ideal village like?
Well, of course, Three Pines is perfect – very much like Brigadoon, or Shangri-La – it’s what people need it to be. The place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in. A refuge, a family, a creative muse…. I am happiest by the sea (or at least, where I can see water). But it’s the people who make up my village, much more than the place.
6. Penny uses poetry throughout the book. Is there one poem or line that resonates with you?
The lines on Jane’s wall that Ruth says she wishes she’d written:
Jenny kissed me when we met,
Jumping from the chair she sat in;
Time, you thief, who love to get
Sweets into your list, put that in!
Say I’m weary, say I’m sad,
Say that health and wealth have missed me,
Say I’m growing old, but add,
Jenny kissed me.
Don’t we all need that love and acceptance more than anything else?
Well, after all that, I’m not sure this adds anything to the discussion – but it has been so fun to “relive” Still Life. Now that I’m reading A Fatal Grace again, I’m loving seeing how time does it’s work on people, and love knowing I don’t have to say goodbye to these dear friends.
This poem so resonated with me. It is so awful to be the outsider, never part of the whole. When next you go to a parade, when the clowns throw candy to the children, notice there are always some children that don’t get candy. There’s so often persons that are not unpleasant but seem aloof or somehow set apart. When everyone else gets a hug, they get a handshake. I have often been the one passed over, and I find it hard to be demonstrative in public. For me there have also been a few “Jenny”s who have reached beyond the others to where my heart was yearning to be recognized just once. An almost unbearable treasure.
Maybe this is what Louise meant by “hurt beyond poetry”! I think that’s why I was struck by this poem, too. Sometimes I think we all feel like the outsider.
I know we have a few more days to discuss Still Life. However, the conversation is dying down, so I wanted to thank everyone who has participated. I’ve enjoyed reading all of the comments. I hope you all read A Fatal Grace for next week, when you’ll have a very special moderator. Thanks for loving Louise Penny’s books as much as I do!
Dear Lesa,
Thank you for yeoman efforts to corral and lead this discussion – especially in the face of initial tech difficulties! Three gold stars for your forehead! Thank you, – meg
I am listening to all of the books on CD and just finished the first book. (Love Ralph Coshams voice!) Marvelous to be taken back to the beginning. I’d read it a number of years ago and didn’t remember much, except Ben Hadley’s part. I had forgotten that Yvette Nicole’s character began with the first book, thought she came along later, but even though she is still annoying I enjoyed looking at and listening to her and trying to understand her better. I identified with her more this reading, though at times I did want to slap her. She almost became a larger character this time, in the scheme of the story… knowing where the thread continues to.
I had actually planned to to this re-read last year and got side tracked–too many holds at the library! But this year is really perfect and I’m able to get the books more in order.
About Gamache, I think of him as an Anthony Hopkins like character, like in the movie 84 Charing Cross Road, except bigger. Hopkins portrays a presence like Gamache and a self-effacing quality, but an inner strength and intuition that comes for watching and listening and maybe feeling. I’m loving reading these again, and seeing/hearing/feeling/understanding more!
By the way, Louise, I remember back when you had written maybe two of this series, sending you an email one night after finishing reading way into the night, telling you how much I loved the books and Gamache. And when I woke up the next morning you had answered my email! I was amazed that one of my favorite authors had taken the time to answer my email, and so quickly! And I’m still loving your books! Thanks
Meg R., look back. Very surprisingly, it was the fastidious Olivier who took Gabri’s hand, raised it to his smeared lips, and kissed it. Another example of Penny’s stunning writerly decisions, causing the reader to stop, mouth open.
Catherine, You’re absolutely right! Thank you for pointing this out. I really don’t have a sense of Olivier as a person so far in this book and in retrospect – transposed the kissing action to the character who seemed more real to me. I was wrong about this!
Apologies for mis-spelling. My screen jumps, Cathryne. Didn’t notice my error until posting took.
Sorry for the overload of postings. Was unable to get online and ideas wouldn’t shake loose.
2. One of the Reader’s Guide questions asks for an examination and comparison of the three main couples in this novel: Gabri & Olivier, Clara & Peter, Armand & Reine-Marie.
* Gabri and Olivier (why do I want to call him Ollie?) seem to be in the book primarily for comic relief, to provide lodgings for the police team, to provide a public gathering place where assorted characters can meet and chat. Gabriel seems more of a real person to me of the two. He’s the roly-poly one who looks out for their guests – providing thermos of coffee for Gamache, leaving sheperd’s pie for them when he & O go to join other villagers at Clara’s for pot-luck supper. Gabri’s the one who checks to make sure that his B & B and bistro guests are comfortable and have what they need. He’s also the one who isn’t afraid to call Ruth a bitch, slut, etc, as the two of them frequently snip at each other, Wasn’t Gabri the one who kissed Olivier’s hand during the duck-shit toss scene? Gabri seems to be what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of guy. Wasn’t he also the one who suggested that Phillipe come and work for them to ‘atone’ for the vandalism? Olivier – in this book – he seems to just be a thin, blonde who has attached price tags to almost everything in the bistro abd B&B. I really don’t have a clear sense of him yet (in this book) as a real person. One probably has to assume that there is a real connection and commitment between these two for them to have moved to Three Pines and established a successful bistro and B& B together.
*Armand & Reine-Marie. We’ve seen very little of them in this book. We know that they’ve been married for quite some time. Have an adult daughter somewhere. That he does ‘bring his work home’ and honestly shares everything with his wife about what’s going on and his feelings. They’re honest and comfortable with each other. He seeks her advice about his decision to not arrest Matthew Croft and they have a history of telling silly stories about why Gamache does not appear at obligatory family gatherings when he’s on a case. This, to me, is a loving, trusting, long-term and comfortable relationship. They’ve also weathered whatever happened with the Arnot case too. This is a solid union.
*Clara & Peter. This pair seems the most problematic to me. My initial reactions to them came from descriptions of their art works. Clara’s the intuitive, impetuous, questioning artist who paints what feels right – i.e. emotionally, compositonally, aesthetically, and/ or true to her subjects- i.e. her goddesses and feminine subjects. Peter on the other hand seems to be the total opposite. He’s gained fame and acclaim for basically deconstructing things. It’s like he takes a portion of a photo of an object and reduces it by painstakingly painting every individual byte/pixel to the point of original object being unrecognizable. His work is mechanical, methodic and slow. As I read Penny’s description of his work, I had sense of nothing being alive even capable of engaging his viewers. Clara is the appeaser in this marriage to Pouty Peter. Just wanted to smack him when she asked if he had forgiven her for talking to Gamache about the hunting blind – after he had been sulking for a while. I think Peter needs her to prop him up in this ‘marriage’ than she needs him. Think Jane provided for Clara the total unconditional motherly love that she needed. Peter’s love always seems to need conditions. Loved that Jane painted him as Ben’s shadow. Both of these guys (B & P) reminded me too of that quote I found in Kathleen George’s book about a character looking like a man, talking/acting like a man, but emotionally a child inside. Peter’s so self absorbed that he can’t even empathize with Clara’s grief over Jane’s death. Think he said something to Clara like “You think this is all about you.” Supportive husband? Nope! This is the couple that is exposed to the reader the most in this book and of the three listed above – they are the most problematic.
If we wanted to go on in this vein, we could also consider Matthew and Suzanne Croft, Yolande and Andre Malefant and Nellie and Wayne Robertson. I’ve blathered enough for now! :~}
1. Something struck me as strange when I read the line that “Matthew Croft had finally ‘been hurt beyond poetry.'” Just didn’t make any sense to me. Poetry, unless it’s of the deliberately satirical nature, can’t inflict harm. Was this statement a hyperbolic comment on the depth or lock or lack of depth of Matt’s disappointment and hurt caused by his son’s rejection? Matt’s hurt feelings are not of epic stature. Yes, he’s afraid because he and his wife assume that his son may have cause Jane’s death. Yes, he’s confused by change in Phillipe’s behaviors and attitudes. Yes, he’s hurt because his son falsely accused him of physical abuse. But, Matthew does just what his son does. Instead of holing up in his room with earphones on tuning out everything with Eminem’s music, Matt ‘tunes out’ by not confronting or talking about any of this – with Phillipe or Suzanne. Matt just literally enables others to put him in room/cell – to take the blame for what he thinks Phil may have done. Neither of the Croft ‘boys’. talks about or tries to understand what’s going on currently in their lives with the other. Both seem to prefer to “stoically” suffer in silence. There doesn’t seem to me to be anything ennobling about that – or ‘poetic.’
I’m not discounting Matthew’s pain over the estrangement and suspicions. Both are probably very real to him. What I don’t get is how he was “hurt beyond poetry.” Maybe I’m just too much of a literalist at times?
Meg R, when I read that line about Matthew being “hurt beyond poetry,” it seemed to me that even poetry, which was the major consolation in Matthew’s life, and which indeed appeared to be like a life-line for him, even that couldn’t make up for the injury which his son had inflicted upon him. So my guess is that yes, you are reading that line a bit too literally. It isn’t poetry itself which is the thing, it’s that it was a crutch for Matthew, only the events which transpired in which he and his wife were trying desperately to protect their son, and then to realize that the son, Phillipe, didn’t appear to have any feeling of love for them, only contempt. Even reading poetry after that wouldn’t heal that wound for Matthew.
It has been years since I have participated in a book discussion. Thank you to our leader for putting forth thoughtful questions. Carolyn
Don’t know why, but for some reason or other – images stick with me. When I heard of G. Garcia Marquez’s recent death, the image of a flock of yellow butterflies were immediately recalled. A repeated image that stands out for me in the second half of “Still Life’ is of Nichol looking into the mirror in Ruth’s bathroom & seeing the sticker – “you’re looking at the problem” – but yet again – not getting it. This is repeated as she stands outside of the gallery after Jane’s entry is revealed. Nichol again sees her own reflection in the glass as she watches the crowd inside & thinks – “you’re looking at the problem.” Again she doesn’t get that the problem is herself – she assumes that Gamache is ‘the problem.’ There’s a third replication of this image – but I can’t find it. Seems to me it involves Clara seeing her own reflection in a window/mirror too. Just an observation.
I also love Ruth’s poetry and the other poems in the series. Louise said that Margaret Atwood writes the poetry in the books. This came out in an interview at Poisoned Pen that Lesa writes about in her blog.
Wouldn’t it be fun to have a ‘Poetry in the Gamache Series’ collection as well as ‘Food in Gamache’?
Connie, thanks for sharing that information about the poetry–I didn’t realize that Margaret Atwood wrote it!
Such interesting perspectives! I am so enjoying the idea of the, in my case third, reading of this exceptional series. It’s this third read and second read in order, that I read more slowly, savoring the words, the characters and the clues to the Big Picture which I missed before as I loped through, keeping up with the action. Gamache is all the more an endearing central character because he has flaws, makes mistakes, lives with regret and sorrow. (And, yes, sign me up for living in Three Pines! A great fiber shop would be a wonderful addition.) Ruth’s poetry is uncomfortable and provocative and I love it. A book would be nice , but unnecessary as I enjoy coming onto her poems in context. I have turned several of my DRFs (devout reader friends) into Gamache fans and they are thankful!