Gamache Series Open Discussion

Join us here in The Bistro for a discussion on the entire Gamache series. Feel free to ask or answer any questions about any of the books or the series as a whole.

Paul Hochman

Discussion on “Gamache Series Open Discussion

  1. Julie Buck says:

    I love those actors, too. Viola Davis would be wonderful as Myra, and what can’t Maggie Smith do? Now, who do you see as Clara, Mark? That one’s tougher, because Louise agrees that the character is based on her… so I have her in my mind, usually, as I read.

  2. Julie Buck says:

    Mary Cate – that baffled me too, at first, but I came to see that it was to frame – well, I can’t remember his name – the new chef at the Bistro. He was blamed by so many who loved him for the death of the person who died from drugs in college – one of the group of friends that still hung around together and who visited the village as a group. I’m sorry – names would make that clearer, but I just don’t remember them, and a quick search isn’t telling me anything because it’s central to the plot, and people are so nice to not want to give away too much in reviews. Anyway – the real murderer took the bat, put DNA from the chef on it, and then replaced it for the police to find and arrest the chef. It didn’t work, but only because Gamache was already investigating the chef and didn’t want to tip his hand.

  3. Julie Buck says:

    Thank you, Cathryne – see how much clearer that is with names, hahaha.

  4. Peg H. in Wisconsin USA says:

    So I finally finished the book thanks to the local library and found it a little too confusing at first with the shifting time frames. Whatever. That old church has certainly had an interesting history! I kept waiting for Agent Nicol to make an appearance and was disappointed at her absense.

    My big question is why is Louise not talking about working on a new manuscript? Or maybe I am missing something in the Facebook and newsletter postings?

    This is not one of my favorites, probably because of all the drugs let through to ruin so many more lives. I know, I know….

  5. Julie Buck says:

    Peg, I agree – that’s troubling. And it’s not exactly right with my vision of who Gamache is… but it made for a very exciting climax, I thought. My husband hates to have a story jump around in time like that, too. He has so much trouble following which one it is now. I always notice on TV if they do that, they use a different filter on the lens so that the past is kind of “blue-tinted” or the present is with a hand-held camera or something like that, but he never notices those things and is hopelessly lost. Sometimes I think they are all too clever for their own good.

    I’m sure that Louise is working on another book – she often doesn’t talk about it until she hits a milestone, such as starting the second draft. That’s usually in January or so, I think. I’m pretty sure I remember her talking about starting the first draft.

  6. Hi, Peg. I think you have hit on the “feeling” I have. LP’s life has taken some interesting turns. I think she wants do have much more of a life than just being a writer. She travels so much. I’m wondering if she is going to move to England. I don’t mean this year but before too much longer.
    As we all know, authors and publishers renew their contracts and while she has been tied in for a book each year something may change. Maybe a book every two years. Part of me says Nooo. another says whatever is best for LP. She has given so much of herself to her writing and to us and all of her readers.
    She seems to really enjoy travel and her friendship with the Clintons.
    I,too, had a hard time dealing with drugs being allowed to flow freely. I am very opposed to drugs and know that so many of the problems in the US today are caused by drug usage. They take away a person’s very essence.
    I hope we are not going to lose Gamache and all the wonderful people of Three Pines.
    Need another cup of coffee as I have managed to depress myself. I must remember not to be selfish. Ah, Three Pines.

  7. Julie Buck says:

    Ah, Barbara – I got depressed just reading your post, too. But I think that it’s not so dire yet. I know Louise said in her talk here in Seattle that she is working on the next book. But she is probably coming out from under a cloud of not being able to take advantage of so many of the opportunities opening up to her because of her writing. I think she will become an “international citizen” – I can’t see her totally leaving Canada behind – she writes of the Francophone people in Quebec with such love. But we have seen her get an apartment in New York (so envious of that), and let go of one in Montreal. I can certainly see her buying one in London, too, and hopping around quite a bit. But I think her heart is in that village, and I can’t see that changing a lot. Still – Jane Austen gave us only 6 perfect gems, and they have lasted for hundreds of years. If Louise could only give us 13, we should not begrudge, I guess.

  8. Julie Buck says:

    Anna brought up an interesting thought awhile ago, about Michael, the archangel. I, of course, have no religious background to fall back on, so can only look at this through cultural lenses. Yet, I feel there must be some rich discussion that could come about on this topic. I’d love to hear other people’s ideas and views of why the archangel should appear to Ruth. We all know that Ruth is somewhat of a “fallen” angel – that she has kindness at her very center and feels a great deal of guilt for some of the things she’s done in her youth. And my rudimentary understanding of Michael is that he was an angel at the “right hand” of God, but for some reason (here’s where my education is sadly lacking) was fallen and has no-one to consort with now but the devil. Why would Ruth identify with that?

  9. Lucifer is the fallen angel. Michael the Archangel and Gabriel along with Lucifer were the three highest ranking angels mentioned in the Bible.
    Some interpret Genesis 49: 1-2 and Matthew 10:2 to mean Jesus Christ is Michael before and after His time on Earth.
    I’m Baptist and we never studied much about angels so we have probably hit upon the weakest part of my Biblical knowledge.
    I need to reread before I can discuss Ruth and the Archangel.

  10. Cathryne Spencer says:

    Wow, fascinating. More, more! You’re both making me think.

  11. Julie Buck says:

    Oh – I knew Lucifer was a fallen angel, but I thought somehow, so was Michael. I had no idea about him being Jesus. I know Millie has some thoughts on this, and would love to have more information…

  12. Tish says:

    is there a discussion of Glass Houses? I truly love Ruth and her Duck! And Ruth’s holding Lacoste’s hand is beautiful!

  13. Julie Buck says:

    Hi, Tish – we have begun a discussion that hasn’t had much traction as yet – not quite sure why… But do jump in – a new prospective will no doubt spark some new comments and thoughts. We started on page 135 toward the bottom… and I, for one, would love to talk more about the book!

  14. Cathryne Spencer says:

    I have been confused by references to a supernatural element which some people said they didn’t like. I didn’t feel there was a supernatural element. All I can think of is the Cobrador but the Cobrador was not supernatural. Any thoughts?

  15. Hi, Trish. Cathryne, I’m glad you mentioned not noticing a supernatural feeling. I didn’t either, but I was too silly or proud say so. Thank goodness I’m not always so foolish.
    Would some one who felt it explain? That is if you can. Sometimes I just “feel” something but can not even begin to explain. Of course, it may be that I was reading too fast to notice any nuances. I have slowed down the reading of LP’s books through the years, but it’s hard to remember to slow down because I am always so anxious to know what comes next.

Leave a Reply to Cathryne Spencer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *