LOUISE PENNY’S

The Bistro

The Bistro

The Bistro Banner
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.

Discussion on “The Bistro”

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

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…

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.

Good, Julie. I don’t have much time but I think you have it just right.
Jacqueline framed Anton for Katie’s death, thus getting revenge on the two people (Katie and Anton) she held responsible for the pain and death of her brother, Eduard.

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.

I spent the last three days reading Glass Houses to my wife as a birthday gift. How wonderful, especially with the snippets of French. We re-elected the movie Still Life and while we enjoyed it again, we were disappointed in the cast. We have read all of the Gamache series and love the characterizations so we thought were another movie to be made the characters would best be played by:
Armand Gamache – Mark Harmon
Jean-Guy – Michael Weatherly
Ruth – Maggie Smith
Myra – Viola Davis (not sure I got the name right)

I love all of the comments readers have posted. Thank you all for sharing your ideas. I have a question about Glass Houses and wondered if anyone could answer it. I don’t think my question is a spoiler. Why was the bat removed and then returned? I understand it had to be there for the DNA, but why was it removed initially? I can’t find an explanation in the book.

Love that idea, Anna! I always thought it should be donated to the Art Society or whatever they called the group that was putting on the art show in Still Life. It could have been named after Jane and been their headquarters, places for fundraisers, etc. Or, I would have liked to see Clara move into it and live there with Jane’s art. After Peter, it could be a new start for her. Or she could even use it as her studio…

I forgot something that Louise said at the book signing – I’d totally forgotten. Someone in the audience asked what had happened to Jane’s house. I know we’ve wondered… She said that once Jane was gone, and Clara had inherited her house, she didn’t know what to do with it, so she just pretended it wasn’t there for the following books… She definitely felt she’d painted herself into a corner with that one… pun intended…

I know what you mean about the high level conspiracies, Anna. I don’t understand why there are so many TV shows right now about terrorists. Well, okay, I DO – people want to see our side winning. But I find the whole thing way too close to home and too disturbing to see as “entertainment”. I’m not saying put our heads in the sand or our fingers in our ears, while we shout out “woo woo woo” – we need to know what’s going on, but we don’t need to see it for “fun”.

I have wondered where we go from here, too – surely, Gamache has burned those ships as far as the Sûreté is concerned. So… now what? It was interesting that the Gamaches had kept their Montreal apartment, and I see why they needed it for this kind of work, but now what? Of course, Louise has only just let her Montreal apartment go – so maybe it’s a corresponding thing.

Thanks Cathryne. I like the examples you highlight. I have both the kindle and hardback and underline on the kindle version. But this time I did not highlight anything and I usually do. I need to reread and see if I missed things by reading quickly.
I am not sure what I felt was simply a consequence of the danger in Three Pines, although the children on the green was a chilling touch. We have been there before with evil battling good in Three Pines. Perhaps it was more peripheral then and this time the town itself was being used as a tool in a sordid game. I am not sure.
I can not imagine where Louise goes from here. Last time the Surete imploded. This time it felt like it exploded and I sort of long for a simple murder and a mystery to solve. High level conspiracies feel a little too real somehow.

Love those examples, Cathryne, and they helped me to grasp more fully what Anna was asking… I think we’ve talked before about the “magic” qualities of Three Pines. And I think this goes right to what you were saying, Anna – this book WAS different. Something ugly had been brought right in to Three Pines without regard for all the wonderful people there. I will be struck, for a long time, by the image of the village children playing on the green, dropping to the ground at the sound of gunshots – as if they had been shot. And, in a way, they had. There will never again be a time when they didn’t know that evil can be right beside you without you even knowing about it.

Yesterday, I was reflecting on something my mother said to me. I was with her on 9/11 and she said “the people on TV keep saying that nothing will ever be the same again, but it will. Things will go back to normal.” Even then, it showed me that she didn’t really understand what was happening (and to be fair, she was old, and living in Canada, her life wasn’t going to change). But I knew that nothing would ever be the same again. We now lived in a world where such things happened. Where people so hated others that they could do something this monstrous. That’s how I feel things will be for Three Pines. Even though the routes and hidey-holes had been used before for alcohol during prohibition, the evil didn’t really show up until people were willing to kill each other and innocent bystanders in a cafe over a package of drugs.

I don’t know if Three Pines can recover from this… well, I know they will, and they will be stronger for it, but they won’t have the same innocence. And, of course, maybe the innocence was a sham.

The phrases that I found are not examples of beauty or majesty, as you asked, Anna, but powerful in Louise’s way of offering us a way of finding reassurance, safety, comfort in an unfamiliar, overwhelming situation.

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Skip to content