INTRODUCTION BY JOHN KWIATKOWSKI
Discovering Louise Penny’s books has become an unofficial rite of passage for new Murder By The Book employees. I picked up Still Life shortly after starting at the store 4 years ago. I was immediately hooked. I wanted to devour the books, but I knew I didn’t want to rush them. I would make myself take a break after every two that I read.
Louise Penny is one of the first authors I remember being nervous to meet. We host 3 or 4 events a week, and I’d already met many authors, but this was different. I had bonded with her books and characters in a way that I hadn’t bonded with anything in a while. Louise didn’t want her event to just be an author talk, she wanted it to be a conversation. Since I had just read the whole series, I got to interview Louise about Bury Your Dead. It was the first time I’d done anything like that, and I knew it would be in front of a standing-room-only crowd. Louise immediately calmed my nerves. She walked into the store and wrapped her arms around me like we’d known each other for years. We had so much fun, and it’s become tradition that I interview Louise when she visits the store. It’s something I look forward to every year.
When I heard about the Gamache series reread, I knew I wanted to host the conversation about The Brutal Telling. It’s my favorite in the series. With The Brutal Telling, Louise put a lot of trust in her readers. She told the story she wanted, and asked the readers to go on a ride with her. I love when authors make risky decisions for the sake of the story. It shows that they have faith in their readers. It might not be the story readers expected, but it’s a story that’s worth telling.
RECAP
Ch. 1-25: The Brutal Telling opens deep in the woods of Three Pines. A mysterious Hermit tells Olivier a story about Chaos destroying everything in the world except one small village. The Hermit tells Olivier, “Chaos is coming, old son.”
A ringing phone wakes Gabri and Olivier from their sleep on a Sunday morning. They rush to the bistro to find Myrna already there. On her way to the bookstore Myrna had noticed the bistro’s open doorand found a body, obviously the victim of foul play. Olivier recognizes the Hermit, lying dead on the floor, but when Gabri asks who it is Olivier lies. In Montreal, a similar call pulls Armand Gamache and Jean Guy Beauvoir away from their family time. Arriving in Three Pines, Gamache and his team find no murder weapon, and no means of identifying the dead man.
It’s clear that the blow to the stranger’s head killed him instantly, but it appears that the crime did not occur in the bistro. Gamache establishes a timeline. On Saturday nights, Olivier leaves the night staff to close up, and Old Mundin drops by with repaired furniture. Young Parra would have been the last person in the bistro, but it hardly matters since so many people have keys to the building.
As the investigation gets underway, Agent Lacoste interviews the Parra family in their modern home, and she learns that Roar might have seen a strange man in the woods near the Hadley house. Gamache speaks to the medical examiner and learns that the victim was in his 50s, and took good care of himself for a vagrant. A young man asks to join Gamache’s team, and against Beauvoir’s advice, Gamache welcomes Paul Morin to the team. Beauvoir and Gamache think the body was left in the bistro on purpose, so it would be found.
Clara hosts a dinner party for the Surete officers and her neighbors. This gives everyone a chance to view Clara’s new work for her upcoming art show, and reopens old wounds for Peter. The subject of the body in the bistro comes up again, and everyone wonders why someone would leave the body as a gift for Olivier. Gamache learns that the Hadley house has been purchased and will be turned into a spa. The spa has caused conflict between Olivier and the house’s new owner, Marc. A trip to meet the new owners uncovers a possible motive, as Gamache learns that Olivier had been overcharging them for antiques, causing them to take their business elsewhere.
The idea of reopening the bistro gives Olivier pause. He questions his place in Three Pines, and whether the community would still love him if they knew his secrets. Myrna tries to reassure him, but he decides he needs some time alone. Gamache and Beauvoir meet with the medical examiner and learn that the victim was killed elsewhere and moved to the bistro.
A search of the town doesn’t turn up any possibilities for the murder scene. At the Hadley house, Dominique has decided to bring in old horses destined for slaughter instead of the hunters she originally wanted. A conversation with Old Mundin (who is actually not old) uncovers that Olivier has also caused friction with the antiques community as more people besides Marc feel that he isn’t giving them fair deals for the pieces he purchases.
More digging into Olivier’s background turns up interesting facts. While he may pay less for his antiques, he’s known to give his clients other things (comfort, human contact,) and he owns most of the property in Three Pines.
A visit to the bank where he used to work reveals that Olivier resigned after borrowing money from clients and investing it. He was able to almost triple the money, but didn’t have authorization to do so. As a result, he resigned and his employers were never sure whether he had intended to steal the money he made. It’s still unclear where he got the money to purchase so much property in Three Pines. Olivier’s father is unable to shed any light on the subject because he barely knows his son at all. He doesn’t know that Olivier lives in Three Pines or that he’s gay.
Paul Morin learns that only two people have recently purchased Varathane, Gabri and Marc. A visit to the Hadley house reveals that their floors had been recently varathaned. Fiber from the victim’s sweater is also found stuck to the floor. But, the revelation that the body was originally found in the old Hadley house does nothing to advance the case. Marc admits to finding the body there and moving it to the bistro for revenge on Olivier, but it’s obvious from a lack of blood that the stranger’s body was not murdered in the Hadley house either.
While Marc is being questioned, a man is seen lurking around the Hadley house. The stranger turns out to be Marc’s father, a man Marc thought was dead, a who came to town right around the time of the murder. Dominique is the one who finds the cabin in the woods, and the blood pool that marks it as the scene of the crime. The cabin is filled with priceless antiques from a variety of times and places. No one understands how a treasure trove could have been hidden in the woods without anyone being aware of it. The location of the cabin makes the crime even more peculiar. If the murderer had left the body there, it is likely no one would have ever found it.
Among the treasures are beautifully carved figures. Everyone agrees that they are works of art, but they are also unsettling. One figure is covered in blood, and (we later learn) Olivier’s fingerprints. Each figure has a series of letters carved on its bottom. Even more curious is the first edition of Charlotte’s Web found in the cabin’s outhouse, and a spider web with the word Woo on it.
Clara is thrilled to meet with Denis Fortin about her upcoming art show. Denis seems to really understand what Clara is trying to say with her layout and vision. It all goes well until Fortin calls Gabri “a fucking queer.” Paralyzed by shock, Clara says nothing.
With the fingerprint results back in, Gamache confronts Olivier. This time Olivier doesn’t lie; he admits to knowing The Hermit. The Hermit was one of Olivier’s first customers and trades antiques for food. After a while, he had become nervous about being in town and Olivier had started to visit him in the woods. Olivier claims that he picked up the murder weapon, and dropped it when he discovered the blood on it. Gamache asks him, “Did you kill him?”
Ch. 26-end: Clara talks to Myrna about her incident with Fortin, and Myrna says she would have done nothing as well. Clara decides to talk with Gabri. Olivier says he didn’t kill the Hermit, but confesses that he found the Hermit dead in the cabin and moved the body to the Hadley house for Marc Gilbert to find. Gamache makes a trip to the cabin to look around before it’s cleaned out, and ponders who might have had motive to kill The Hermit. Vincent or Marc Gilbert, Roar or Havoc Parra. A casual look around the cabin reveals that several items all have one name in common, Charlotte.
Olivier attempts to talk to Gabri, but Gabri continues working on his preserves. Clara asks Peter what to do about Fortin, and Peter is slow to offer any advice. The next morning he tells Clara to speak to Fortin. Clara confronts Fortin, and just as Peter suspected he would, Fortin tells Clara he needs to reconsider her show.
Gamache gets help trying to decipher the codes on the bottom of The Hermit’s carvings and learns that several have been sold and are worth enough money to be a possible motive for murder. Once again, Olivier lied about what he did with the carvings The Hermit gave him. The word Woo and the prevalence of the name Charlotte lead Gamache to think of the Queen Charlotte Islands. Emily Carr spent time on the Queen Charlotte Islands painting and documenting totem polls, with carvings very similar to the carvings done by The Hermit. While speaking of Emily Carr, Clara mentions the concept of “the brutal telling.” Carr was estranged from her father, and later in life she said it was because her father had said something horrible and unforgivable to her. The brutal telling.
Garbi makes a trip up to the Hadley house to talk to the Gilberts. The visit doesn’t go well. Tensions are high as the group argues. Gabri explains how people come to Three Pines and find their niche, rather than moving in on someone else’s. He tries to apologize for Olivier’s actions. In an empty bistro, Gamache questions Olivier again about The Hermit and the carvings. Olivier admits to selling them online.
Gamache takes a trip to Queen Charlotte Island to see if that’s where The Hermit had come from. No one on the island knows him. Gamache strikes out, but a famous artist, Will Sommes, tells Gamache that the person who made the carvings was terrified. As he learns more about the island’s history, Gamache is certain that The Hermit spent time on the island, but no one can verify it for sure. It’s on the flight home that Gamache realizes how the carvings fit together.
Back in the Bistro, Gabri learns that Olivier has never told his father he is gay. When questioned about the order of the carvings, Olivier claims he doesn’t know the story they’re trying to tell. In a rare moment of frustration, Gamache pounds on the table and demands the truth. With more pushing, Olivier tells them that the Hermit’s name was Jakob, but Gamache doesn’t know much more about him. The Hermit came from Czechoslovakia just as the Berlin Wall fell, stored his treasures in Montreal, and moved them to the cabin once it was built. Olivier says that The Hermit was telling him the story of the carvings, but never finished the story, and Olivier has never seen the final carving.
As the officers meets at the B & B, they ponder the story the carvings are trying to tell, and The Hermit’s possible connections to the Czech community in Three Pines. Though they’ve asked many Czech families about the treasures found in the cabin, they’ve had no leads. Another trip to the Parras doesn’t turn up anything new. A search team tears apart the Bistro, and hidden in the fireplace is a sack and a Menorah, the murder weapon.
Olivier swears he didn’t kill Jakob. He spent time with Jakob, and had to go back when he realized he left the artifact he was given. When he returned, Jakob was dead. Olivier took the Menorah because it had his fingerprints all over it, and admitted that part of the reason he moved the body to the Hadley house was to stop the clearing of trails that would eventually lead to the cabin. Olivier took the Menorah and the sack with the last carving, and hid them in the fireplace of the bistro. Another revelation lets us know that Olivier was the one telling the story to Jakob. Olivier knew Jakob was afraid of something, so he made up a story to keep Jakob scared and isolated. Despite claiming that he didn’t kill Jakob, Olivier is arrested for the murder.
The key to the codes on the bottom of the carvings is the number 16. With the code, Gamache was able to learn that the words under them were Emily and Charlotte. Cracking the codes still doesn’t offer any insight into their meaning.
Vincent Gilbert decides to stay in Three Pines and live in Jakob’s cabin, Clara is contacted by Therese Brunel, and has hope that her art show might still happen. Gamache is confronted by Gabri again, trying to explain that Olivier couldn’t have murdered Jakob. As the book closes, we see Ruth’s duck Rosa take to the sky and fly away. Gabri is with Ruth to comfort her as they watch the duck go.
FAVORITE QUOTE
He watched Beauvoir sit up, “How was it?”
“No one died.”
“That’s a bit of an achievement in Three Pines.”
“Every surface of the kitchen was packed with colorful jars filled with jams and jellies, pickles and chutneys. And it looked as though Gabri would keep this up forever. Silently preserving everything he could.”
CONCLUSION
Bury Your Dead was the first book release I experienced at Murder By The Book, and every customer wanted to know if Louise was going to fix what she did in The Brutal Telling. I think that’s a beautiful testament to the world that she created. The citizens of Three Pines have become like family to us all, and with The Brutal Telling we learn some things about our family that we really didn’t want to know. There’s no way to fix it. A Rule Against Murder changed the series because we were taken out of Three Pines, but The Brutal Telling changes the series because it changes Three Pines.
We’re left in a place of transition. Olivier is in jail, Gabri is still convinced he didn’t do it, and even Ruth’s pet duck has left.
It seems dire, but I think Louise left us with some hope. I love the tender moment between Ruth and Gabri as Rosa takes flight. We see hope is Gamache’s patience with Gabri, and we’re left with some hope that Clara might still have her art show.
When I think of this book, the image in my head is always of Gabri and his preserves. Louise so perfectly captures that need to complete some task in order to have some control in the chaos. Part of the beauty of the series is the way Louise just nails those very human moments.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- Why do you think Gamache consistently recruits outcasts as members of his team? How is that mirrored by Dominique’s choice of horses.
- The Brutal Telling starts on the last weekend of the summer, how do you think the changing season mirrors the changes in Three Pines?
- What would you have done in Clara’s position? Would you have confronted Fortin or stayed silent?
- How would you describe Olivier’s friendship with The Hermit?
- How do you think the citizens of Three Pines are going to react when they learn that OIivier owns most of the town? Do you think they will still love him, as Myrna said?
- Do you think Olivier murdered The Hermit?
- Do you think Peter was purposely trying to sabotage Clara with his advice?
- We see Gamache get visibly angry with Olivier, and he’s usually so collected. How did it make you feel? Why do you think Gamache lost his cool?
- How have the events of The Brutal Telling changed your opinion of Olivier? Do you think he did it?
- What do you think was Olivier’s brutal telling? Do you think any of his lies were unforgivable in the eyes of Three Pines? Was Peter’s advice to Clara about the art show a brutal telling?
- Gamache says that he doesn’t believe Olivier is a murderer, but that he does believe Olivier has killed. Do you agree with his distinction?
264 replies on “Series Re-Read: The Brutal Telling”
The first time I read this book, I gobbled it up at break neck speed – anxious to finish it and move on to the others that followed. With this reading, I found that my pace slowed considerably and that I was disturbed and really bothered by this novel. Apologies now for this lengthy entry.
BRUTAL TELLING
I haven’t been posting regularly because I haven’t been able to identify/articulate just what has bothered me about this one in particular. This is going to come out as a mishmash as I’m still trying to collect assorted threads. I watched the vid-clip that L. Penny recorded for the “Reading Group Guide” for this book. In it she relates an anecdote about seeing Emily Carr’s paintings in a museum and reading information block beside one of them. It mentioned an almost surgical cutting of ties with her father (with whom she had been very close) as the result of a “brutal telling.” Basically it’s the same info that appears in our book. Penny liked the phrase and decided to use it as a book title.
I’ve had problems with just what that phrase means or implies. Is it: 1.) a brutally and honestly reveal of the truth? 2.) a brutal statement of what someone believes to be the truth (which may or may not be so)? or 3) a brutally hurtful statement deliberately made to inflict pain/ discomfort on someone else (whether truthful or fabricated)?. Yes, I’ve read all of the postings here and assorted insights into this issue. But – the ambiguity of the three possibilities has been disconcerting for me in this work.
BEYOND THE PALE
Another phrase that our author introduces and explains is “beyond the pale.” For some reason ( or many), I find much of this novel to be just that – beyond the pale of believability. A lot of myth-making – much like that of the Mountain King tale.
The investigation, questioning of ‘suspects, – especially with Paras and Ollie are beyond the pale of believability for me. So many times (I reread last 50 or so pages), we hear Gamache and his team assuming inferences to be facts. “Suppose that… ” is frequently uttered. “Maybe he…” “Well then, if…” — with little or no evidence to back up assumptions. This is especially true with all of the info/guesswork that is provided about the Hermit and his supposed past. We are to assume he was Czech because Ollie said he spoke with a Czech accent. Gamache & team create this back story for him with actually no solid proof. Assumptions are made, but there is no direct witness or record to substantiate their assumptions. Gamache does the same thing with the Paras. Because they were Czech, he applies the same assumptions to them as to the Hermit. Where did they get their money? How could they possibly afford or construct that incredible home? Reading that interview with them sounded so much like profiling. Yes, Armand’s not a superhero. He has feet of clay and can be wrong. I think much still needs to be discovered and explained about the Hermit and about Ollie.
And our Olivier (Ollie). Yes, it was despicable that he moved the corpse to the front hall of the Hadley House. Yes, it was wrong to take the menorah and pouch from the cabin, Yes, he probably should have been more forthcoming sooner and more direct about his relationship and encounters with the Hermit. There is a circumstantial case for his arrest. But — Olivier eventually admits to what he did do – and continues to insist that he did not murder the hermit. Things could have happened the way Ollie says. We still don’t know who or what the hermit was. We still don’t actually know what occurred during that time period when Olivier left the cabin and then returned for his creamer.
On the last page, Gamache opens that pouch and sees the Hermits last carving. “It was a simple carving. A young man in a chair, listening. Olivier.” Ollie the listener – not the story teller. “The carving was beautiful and yet the young man seemed utterly empty. His imperfections worn away. The wood hard and smooth so that the world slid right off it. There would be no touch and therefore no feeling.” Then Gamache decides – no – it’s the Mountain King. Armand is assuming the figurine is of a ‘no feeling ‘Olivier, is of the Mountain King, is also assuming that “Conscience”is what hounded the Mountain King as he tracked down the boy who stole his treasures and the villagers. Armand’s making up his own stories too.
A NEW REPEATED ITEM – NON-FATHERS: We’ve seen repeated patterns in preceding books of : holiday settings; assorted methods of murder; whining, privileged men who felt they were entitled, that they were the centers of the universe. In this one we can add to the list – self-absorbed, disconnected fathers who basically contributed swimmers to their son’s creation. We heard about Poppa Morrow in the last book. In this one we encounter “the saint”(?) Dr. Vincent Gilbert who abandoned his family to ‘find himself’ in India and allowed his son to believe he was dead for the past 20 + years. Then there’s Jacques Bruel, Ollie’s ‘father’, who doesn’t remember the last time he spoke with his son, knows next to nothing about his childhood or youth and doesn’t even know where he lives, what he’s done with his life or who he loves. Just wanna smack each and every one of them! These biological ‘fathers’ ore ‘beyond the pale’ of what society – and children expect a father to be. Wonder also if Jean-Guy’s parent fits into this category too – especially as he is so very much invested in Gamache more as a father figure than as a boss. (yeah, a Meg assumption – with no evidence! Just wondering)
PETER VS OLIVIER
Also think that Peter is “beyond the pale.” He’s a middle-aged man who hasn’t had any job, putters with his pixel paintings – and surprisingly, (astonishingly) has made a few thousand dollars a year from sales. Description of his last “painting” gives evidence that his lack of talent puts him beyond the pale in ability when compared to Clara’s masterpieces. I have very little – if any patience- with a grown man who deliberately sabautages his wife, undermines her confidence and sets her up for a disappointment. Yeah, Clara’s kind hearted. She’s nice to animals too (Jane’s dog), and is just beginning to become aware of what she’s married. She’s not there yet, but faint stirrings have begun.
Ironically, Olivier has done what Peter never has been able to do. Also with a disconnected father, Olivier made sure he had an education that would lead to a self-supporting job. He more than succeeded at making money for that bank (albeit without superiors’ permission). He successfully built a business in Three Pines, expanded his holdings, is in a solid relationship with Gabri, was a respected member of the community. He actively made choices to establish a life for himself – unlike our Pouting Peter who passively chose art school and barely subsists financially – until Clara inherited Jane’s property and funds. Olivier does; Peter idles.
No. I’m not condoning Olivier underpaying for goods he purchases for resale, nor his obsession with needing ‘more.’ The guy has a vast hole of emptiness caused maybe by his father. His actions in relationship to the Hermit are also two-sided. He did maintain a relationship with the man, took him supplies & food. Yes, recompense was disproportionate. I don’t know. I’m not ready to write him off, but wouldn’t give a second thought to doing so to Peter. I don’t dislike Olivier. In some ways I admire him for moving beyond the emptiness of his family life and creating a life for himself. Peter on the other hand just passes through the days considering himself the center of the universe.
Peter wasn’t trying to actually sabotage Clara as much as the fact that with his fears so close to the surface they simply leaked out with his frustration over her growing skill.
I’m reading the comments and almost finished with book 5 , the brutal telling I’m curious about the bag that the hermit won’t show to Oliver, it has another carving in it, but I’m wondering what the carving was and why were the people who looked at the other two so astonished, what were they seeing? Does the third carving give the answer?
FAVORITE QUOTE
Of course, Gabri was on a marathon preserving spree. If he could preserve enough “things”, maybe he could preserve his life with Olivier as it had been. This dear and gentle man had had so much of what he believed about the person he loved, Olivier, proven wrong. How dreadful to find that someone you have loved for a long time is not who you thought. That is enough to make you doubt his love. Gabri stands resolute and never waivers from his belief that Olivier is innocent.
I agree – though I think that for Gabri, it’s not that he has discovered Olivier is not who he thought he was. I have to think that Gabri knew, even if he didn’t let himself see it, truly. But Gabri really KNOWS Olivier, and loves him wholeheartedly anyway. He knows, too, that Olivier was, indeed, capable of lots of awful things, but not this last. Not murder. I think it’s just us and the rest of the village who are surprised by Olivier’s character not being what we thought it was. And as I’ve said before, the greediness, to me, is nothing much. I really don’t think that’s any more awful than a lot of other things. But the nastiness to the hermit and the desecration of his body – those are the things that really shock and dismay me.
# 5 I understand the difference in law and the degrees of murder, manslaughter, murder with extenuating circumstances, and such but am not at all clear about what Gamache meant. I remember wondering when reading the book the first time. Maybe he meant killing the spirit of the Hermit. Is it possibly a hint at something in the future, when Gamache’s instinct will be proven correct.
I very much agree that there is a real difference in murder and killing although as has been said it is the same for the deceased.
I think you’re right Barbara, about the killing maybe being what he was doing to the hermit, slowly, deliberately. That “brutal telling” was killing him by degrees until his spirit was worn down to almost nothing. As we will find out more later, I think I will leave it at that for now, but I’d love to come back to this point in the discussion of the next book.
As many others have said, I dreaded rereading this book – I remember how devastated I was by the ending the first time. I even sent a Facebook message to Ms. Penny telling her that I admired her bravery by having a main character be arrested for the murder at the same time I was angry at her for taking Olivier from us, and mainly from Gabri. When I finished reading the book last night, it had the same effect on me as the first time, even though I knew what was coming.
And now a word about Ruth. I have always adored Ruth, from the very first book. When my mystery readers group read Still Life, so many of the members expressed their intense dislike of Ruth, which really and truly surprised me. Couldn’t they see that underneath the prickles, the sneers, the obscenities, there is a woman who deeply cares for others? I love that Ruth has, from the beginning, particularly cared for Jean Guy and it really began to show in this book.
I, too, have loved Ruth from the beginning. I have looked forward to reading about her in each new book and am surprised that some of your book group could not see beyond the exterior Ruth shows the world.
I love her remarks and have to remember to be careful when and where I repeat them.
Well, that’s one of Ruth’s problems! She doesn’t seem to have your awareness of when and where to say some things. Like very young children she lacks that filter. But maybe she is making steps in that direction?
I think she is making steps in that direction – and reaching out to Jean Luc is a good way to start. I had trouble liking Ruth at first. She is someone who, if you actually met her in real life, you’d have a hard time liking until you really got used to her, and most people wouldn’t bother getting used to her, as she’s so abrasive. I almost feel that a few people understand how to talk to her, and Gamache knew instinctively to give as good as he got. Immediately, Ruth laughed when he did, and it broke the ice, for Gamache and for us.
I think she is more like some older people that decide filtering means that some of those being addressed don’t get the point. When Ruth talks, people usually get the point.
I think of Ruth not only as the reflective mirror, but the foreshadow. It’s almost as if she’s psychic.
#2 We see Gamache get visually angry with Olivier, and he is usually so collected. How does it make you fell. Why do you think Gamache lost his cool?
When I read the scene, I could feel Gamache tremble with frustration as he tried to get at the truth. How terrible to be faced with the possibility that someone you thought you knew and considered a friend might be a murderer. Gamache has already found out so many things he would have never thought Olivier we do. Now Olivier will not let Gamache help him but instead continues to lie. I wanted to reach out and grab Olivier by the shirt and give him a good shake. No wonder Gamache lost his cool.
I think there are several examples of “brutal telling” in this book. One comes in the pages where Gabri inserts himself into the questioning session between Olivier and Gamache. When Gabri discovers what’s been going on, that Olivier had been visiting the hermit and taking “treasures” from the cabin, Gabri says,
” And you took it?”. Then Olivier answered ” Of course I took it… I didn’t steal it, and those things are no use to him.”
Gabri then said, ” But he was probably nuts. It’s the same thing as stealing.”
“That’s a horrible thing to say. You think I’d steal stuff from an old man?”
“Why not? You dumped his body at the old Hadley house. Who knows what you’re capable of.”
“Really? And you’re innocent in all this?” Olivier’s voice had grown cold and cruel. “How do you think we could afford to buy the bistro? Or the B and B? Eh? Didn’t you ever wonder how we went from living in that dump of an apartment—”
” I fixed it up. It wasn’t a dump anymore.”
“–to opening the Bistro and the B and B? How did you think we could afford it so suddenly?”
” I thought the antique business was going well.” There was silence.
“You should’ve told me,” said Gabri finally, and wondered, as did Gamache and Beauvoir, what else Olivier wasn’t saying(pp.464-465).
Now, in this exchange, both Gabri AND Olivier say some brutal things to each other. Gabri tells Olivier that what he did with the hermit was as bad as stealing, which is exactly what Olivier does NOT want to hear from his partner. Olivier then delivers himself of a speech that was brutal also, in impugning the innocence of his partner, making it clear that he regards Gabri as being complicit in his, Olivier’s activities. There are many relationships that would not have survived an exchange like that.
Another brutal telling is when Marc finds out that his father isn’t dead. I’m not sure exactly which is the more brutal–that his mother told him in the first place that his father was dead, or the finding out, years later, that she had lied to him, and that his father went along with it.
I also think that Clara’s experience with Fortin is another example of brutal telling( I mean the second meeting, where she tried to confront Fortin about his insult to Gabri). Note how Fortin reacts–he does not apologize for hurting Clara’s feelings by insulting her friend. Instead he turns on her:
” It’s the small-town girl after all. You’ve been in that tiny village too long, Clara. It’s made you small-minded. You censor yourself and now you’re trying to stifle my voice. That’s very dangerous. Political correctness, Clara. An artist needs to break down boundaries, push, challenge, shock. You’re not willing to do that, are you?”
She stood, unable to grasp what he was saying.
“No, I didn’t think so,” he said.” I tell the truth, and I say it in a way that might shock but is at least real. You’d prefer something just pretty. And nice.”
“You insulted a lovely man, behind his back,” she said. But she could feel the tears now. Of rage, but she knew how it must look. It must look like weakness.
“I’m going to have to reconsider the show, ” he said. ” I’m very disappointed. I thought you were the real deal, but obviously you were just pretending. Superficial. Trite. I can’t risk my gallery’s reputation on someone not willing to take artistic risks” (pp. 504-505).
Note what Fortin has done here. Not only has he refused to take responsibility for insulting Clara’s friend, but he twists words to make it look as though Clara, and not he, is the real bigot. Then he makes it worse by impugning her artistic worth. As though her talent could be tainted by standing up for a friend! That, my fellow posters, is a truly brutal attack, an assassination of character AND ability, by Fortin.
Well said. All your remarks are right on point. People like Fortin do try to turn things around and put the fault on the other person. As you said, “Truly brutal”. A big Bully.
Jane, you always manage to find the nuggets that show what we’ve been struggling to say! I have to say that I have been highlighting my books in the hopes that I’ll be able to quote from the book to make my points, but end up with so many highlights, it’s practically impossible to go back and find the right note! I think what you say about Gabri and Olivier is correct in almost every way, but I don’t think that Gabri is wrong in pointing out that taking the priceless antiques in exchange for milk and sugar is stealing. Olivier doesn’t want to hear it, but he doesn’t want to hear it because he knows it’s true. Gabri’s saying this is not him being unsupportive. He supports Olivier by knowing this, by thinking that it’s wrong, very wrong, and by loving Olivier still.
Jane, you always do manage to hone in focus for us!
THE NOTES RUTH LEAVES FOR BEAUVOIR I’d like to talk about all the little notes that Ruth keeps leaving for Jean Luc – the poem that seems to be coming to him one line at a time, and which he can’t make any sense of. What do you think that signifies – and why did she do it?
Julie, I think she did it because she cares about him and sees past his often hard exterior (like hers?). Still, it is somewhat discomfiting to Beauvoir, so much emotion and vulnerability in the poem.
Yes, I think that must be right, Cathryne – though I do wonder how she got to liking him? I think she must have seen the vulnerability in him, and perhaps, recognized herself in him, somewhat. After all, she can’t always have been a bitter old woman. This is one of the first inklings we begin to get that Jean Luc can and will change – he’s going to grow up a bit. He’s also going to fall down the rabbit-hole. If he can climb out, we hope he will be stronger and wiser for it.
Anyway, part of what I love about this little bit is the degree of discomfiture it brings Jean Luc (why is she doing this?) and his being mystified as to the meaning of the words. More proof that “Anglos are crazy!”
I lol every time I read the remark, “Anglos are crazy!”
I don’t think of Ruth as a bitter old woman. I think some who do not know her may describe her a such but I think she’s blunt and outspoken. On the inside she’s soft as duck down.
Um, Julie, it’s Jean Guy
Jean Luc is the captain of the Enterprise on Star Trek.
It sure is – early on, someone said “Jean Luc”, and it reminded me of that old International Coffee commercial with the young women remembering a waiter in paris…’Jean Luc!’ – and I’ve been getting the name mixed up ever since! Another thing I’ve noticed, as I’m reading through again is that in some books, Louise writes it as Jean Guy and sometimes as Jean-Guy! None of us can get this poor guy’s name straight, hahahaha.
#4. What do you think was Olivier’s brutal telling? Do you think any of his lies were unforgivable in the eyes of Three Pines?
I was so taken by Ruth’s response when Olivier came “to visit.” He came in and “sat in her front room like a fugitive.” They sat together for an hour, not speaking, until Rosa waddled in wearing a gray flannel blazer (Olivier’s ?). Olivier dissolved into tears and told Ruth everything. “Ruth didn’t care. All she could think of was what she would give in exchange for the words. To say something. The right thing. To tell Olivier that she loved him. That Gabri loved him and would never, ever leave. That love could never leave.
She imagined herself getting up and sitting beside him, and taking his trembling hand and saying, “There, there.” (Pp. 351-352). I don’t think it mattered, though, that she couldn’t say the words. He came “to visit” because he trusts Ruth, as the children of Three Pines do, as Rosa does. I think the others of Three Pines will forgive him in time, following Ruth and Gabri.
This was such a powerful scene. I can’t believe I didn’t remember it at all until tonight. How amazing!
Gamache says that he doesn’t believe Olivier is a murderer, but that he does believe Olivier has killed. Do you agree with his distinction?
Yes, as Olivier killed with words, He killed the hermit’s spirit and hope. He certainly has wounded Gabri’s heart and who knows how many in Three Pines he’s killed figuratively. He’s killed trust in many people. He killed truth.
What do you think was Olivier’s brutal telling? Do you think any of his lies were unforgivable in the eyes of Three Pines? Was Peter’s advice to Clara about the art show a brutal telling?
I think it was the telling of that story to the hermit. How brutal to make someone who thinks he’s a friend to make them a prisoner and bind them up like that. I like to say that most everything is forgivable. Not forgettable, but forgivable. I don’t see Peter’s as being a brutal telling. Maybe mean, or selfish. Brutal is savage.
How have the events of The Brutal Telling changed your opinion of Olivier? Do you think he did it? (Remember, no spoilers from Bury Your Dead.)
Oh ugh, I was so disappointed and angry. How could he let so many down. Sure he’s flawed, we all are, but he went to the nth degree and then lied and covered everything up. I can’t remember the next book! lol I don’t know if he did it or not. I still want him to be innocent in that. It’s going to be hard on the people taking him back if he comes back out of this. Trust is a very hard thing to get back.
. We see Gamache get visibly angry with Olivier, and he’s usually so collected. How did it make you feel? Why do you think Gamache lost his cool?
I did feel uncomfortable, but Olivier had it coming. He told lie after lie after lie. He was uncooperative. Besides, I think Gamache always thought of him as a friend and now, here is this friend acting like this. So part of the anger, I think, is maybe due to Gamache feeling hurt that his friend not only is involved, but he’s being dishonest.
Everyone has so thoughtfully answered the questions that I”ll mostly be echoing what all has been said! I love doing the re-reads as there is so much I don’t remember. Also I love seeing the new insights I missed the first time.
. Do you think Peter was purposely trying to sabotage Clara with his advice?
Poor Peter has such a battle with his good/evil twins! He does want to, but then I think deep down inside he doesn’t. He is jealous and fearful. He is insecure and lacks self confidence. I think if the tables were turned he would not have defended Olivier as he’s weak and a coward.
No doubt in my mind that Peter was trying to sabotage Clara’s psyche when he advised her to confront Fortin. Peter is like someone with a dual personality because he does appreciate Clara but he also wants to see her fail, which is not being supportive. So is it love or is it a need to have her there to do things for him. The word childish has been used to describe Peter and I would agree that he is childish but it is a childish selfishness he displays whereas Clara displays a childish naivete. She is not sure of herself which makes it easy for Peter to take advantage of her.
Olivier has always seemed to be a good guy and not the sort to commit murder. We don’t believe he is the murderer and yet more and more the evidence points to him as the one who did the deed. I was not surprised when Gamache lost his cool with Olivier because I could see it coming. Gamache desperately wanted the truth from Olivier, feeling that Olivier knew more than he was telling. Even when Gamache arrested Olivier for the murder, you could see that he wasn’t totally convinced. He just didn’t have the evidence to do otherwise.
So what was the brutal telling? I am not sure but it seems to me that what Peter told Clara was quite brutal given the results.
Being of Czech descent, I was happy with the resolution of this book.
Just noting here that I am doing the Gamache series re-read and loving it. My first read was of library books. This time I bought e-books and had to wait until my finances allowed. Now I have the books I have had some difficulty reining myself in, though I tried, so am reading The Beautiful Mystery.
Sorry I don’t take part in the discussions, but I have read most of the comments. Thanks for the insight and much material to mull over.
I found the Emily Carr bits very interesting and also wondered what her father told her that was so awful she couldn’t tell anyone. That happens, sometimes, that a person with brute sensibilities will say something that is so horrible that we can’t confide in anyone and I’ve seen this happen when it’s something that involves another person- such as the comment Fortin made about Gabri. Bad enough that Clara heard it, but how hard was it to share with anyone else. And there are worse things said, or that can be. It really is cowardly to hurl remarks that way. As we discover later, Fortin had a hidden agenda, quite calculating and horrible, really. I think Clara did the right thing by confronting Fortin, for the right reasons, no matter Peter’s motives.
I will say that I am enjoying the series more the second time than the first and I have been a huge fan right from the first chapter of the first book of the series.
I seem to have much more faith in Clara’s ability to see Peter and understand him. And I really don’t understand this need to constantly condemn him out of hand. I think Peter struggled with what to advise Clara about Fortin because Peter knew Clara needed to be honest about her friendships even if it meant lost opportunity, but he is also aware of his own insecurity and had to examine his conscience to ne sure he wasn’t purposely sabotaging her. I cannot believe anyone reading about Clara could think she would do anything other than talk to Fortin honestly. Come what may. And I think Peter knows that.
It is as if the village is in a state of flux exacerbated by Peter’s envy, Oliver and Gabriel, and finally Ruth’s duck!
Gamache says that he doesn’t believe Olivier is a murderer, but that he does believe Olivier has killed. Do you agree with his distinction? I do. I think that Gamache has the opinion that Olivier got carried away by his greed and his fear that the hermit was about to discover that there was no chaos on the way in the outer world, and that he acted in the heat of the moment. It’s why he made sure Olivier was charged with manslaughter instead of murder. I think that this is a distinction that makes some sense. It’s why the law provides for degrees of homicide. First or second degree murder. Voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. These are all gradations of something that result in the same thing – someone’s life being taken by another.
I think, in the end, that Gamache truly believes that Olivier killed the hermit. And I think this bothers him, because he knows Olivier did not have murder in his heart. Still, small consolation to the dead person.
I agree, Julie. That distinction is important in a court of law, but not really to the person killed. He or she is still dead at the hands of another person, whether or not that person planned to do harm ahead of time or not. It is of some consolation for Gamache to believe that Olivier did not go to the cabin that fateful night intending to kill the hermit, but for the hermit, the end result is still that someone took his life away from him.
So do you think that Oliver actuallu killed the Hermit?