INTRODUCTION BY ROBIN AGNEW
As a bookseller, I receive literally hundreds of advanced reading copies every year. I use the scientific method of reading “what calls to me”—so a vast majority of the “pile” goes unread. Several years ago of course I got an advanced reading copy of Still Life, which languished in the pile. The cover didn’t call to me. But then I got a letter from Julia Spencer-Fleming, who uses her powers for good: she sometimes sends around a letter to booksellers highlighting a book she feels passionately about, and Still Life was the topic of one of the first of these letters.
So, loving Julia’s books and trusting her taste, I dug out my (now somewhat battered) copy of Still Life and started reading. Dear Louise Penny fans, you know what happened next—I fell under the spell of Three Pines and Louise’s writing and was so excited to find a new writer I now felt passionately about, that I emailed Louise and asked to interview her via email. She of course agreed, and a correspondence and friendship began.
The Cruelest Month is one of my favorites in the series for many reasons. It felt like Louise’s assurance as writer was growing, and had coalesced in this wonderful novel. I saw Louise recently and I told her I was reviewing this one and she said, “Oh, I loved the concept of the near-enemy in that book.”
So do I. I also told her as I was re-reading it I had forgotten whodunit. She got a twinkle in her eye as she remembered who it was. As I got closer to the end I remembered too, but really great mystery writers have a dual skill: they tell a compelling and interesting story, and then they also tell a mystery with a puzzle and clues for you to solve. It makes the best of them, to me, magical.
RECAP
Ch. 1-23: The book opens with an Easter Egg hunt, and the rebirth symbolized by Easter becomes a recurring theme throughout the novel, for good or ill. As the children hunt for wooden eggs on the village green, Clara Morrow and Ruth Zardow, the acerbic, cranky, nationally known poet who lives in Three Pines have a revealing exchange.
As Clara points out to Ruth the beauty of spring Ruth says “Nature’s in turmoil. Anything can happen.” At Clara’s protest she also points out “That’s the miracle of rebirth…But some things are better off buried…It’s not over yet. The bears will be back.” Ruth’s sadly practical voice of doom sets up what happens next though Clara’s optimism is also ultimately rewarded.
Meanwhile Gabri, at the local B & B, has decided to spice things up by booking in a psychic, Madame Blavatsky. Like many things to do with Gabri, the Madame Blavatsky part is a bit of an exaggeration; “Madame” turns out to be the more ordinary seeming Jeanne Chauvet, a mousy, non-threatening type. She holds a séance at the B & B on her arrival attended by Madeleine Favreau; a grocer, Msr. Beliveau; Odile, an herbalist; Gilles, a woodworker; and Gabri.
The séance is intruded on by a cursing Ruth Zardo, who has taken under her wing two baby ducks, to everyone’s surprise. Meanwhile, Peter Morrow has gone into Clara’s studio. Both Morrows are artists; Peter is the successful one but what he sees on Clara’s easel disturbs him because it is so good and he is consumed with jealousy.
When the first séance is concluded they agree that there should be another, in the Old Hadley House, a place of wickedness in the past two novels and almost a dead zone as far as the residents of Three Pines are concerned. For the next séance, the original group is joined by Hazel, housemate of Madeleine Favreau, and Hazel’s daughter Sophie. From the start this séance feels more serious; the house is dark; and everyone’s nerves are on edge. As Madame Chauvet calls the dead the lights go out, there’s a shriek and a thud, and a dead body falls to the floor, scared to death by the séance and the house.
Moving back to Montreal we encounter Chief Inspector Gamache and his family, including his son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter, who must shortly leave for Paris. Gamache’s wife Reine Marie reads of the death in Three Pines and of course it becomes Gamache’s assignment.
In Three Pines, Gamache and his second in command Beauvoir head to the Hadley house to check out the crime scene. The dead woman turns out to be Madeleine Favreau, scared to death, though her system shows high quantities of the diet drug ephedra. Gamache knows she has been murdered. As Gamache reconnects with the villagers who are now his friends, they recount the terrifying death scene. Gamache and Beauvoir then head off to interview Hazel Smyth, Madeleine’s housemate. Meanwhile it becomes clear that Lemieux is working for Inspector Brebeuf back in Montreal as Brebeuf looks for revenge on the outcome of the notorious Arnot case, which divided and shook up the entire Surete.
Hazel describes her life with Madeleine and how much they enjoyed each other. Then she asks if Madeleine was murdered by “the witch” Jeanne Chauvet? Gamache notes that she is full of rage. Meanwhile Beuvoir talks to Hazel’s daughter, Sophie, who appears jealous of the relationship between Hazel and Madeleine. He discovers ephedra in the bathroom.
Gamache and Beauvoir head back to Three Pines where the search for Jeanne Chauvet is ongoing. When Gamache phones home, Reine Marie mentions how Brebeuf has made her feel uneasy of late, and Gamache also speaks with his son Daniel before he heads off to Paris.
Negative stories about Gamache begin to appear in the Montreal press, the first questioning his lifestyle and the fact that he lives so well. His friends in Three Pines try and shield him from the stories. The ephedra rumor begins to make it through the citizens of Three Pines, and it’s clear the information was leaked by a mistake on Lemieux’s part.
Gamache and Beauvoir finally interview Mme. Chauvet. She freely admits to being a Wiccan and said she was drawn to Three Pines by a brochure. She says séances are a method of healing—people connect with the dead in order to move forward.
Beauvoir interviews Odile at her herbal and natural grocery store and he notices the beautiful chairs that Gilles makes. Odile tells Beauvoir that Gilles is in the woods talking to the trees, looking for those that want to be made into furniture. Beauvoir thinks everyone in Three Pines is nuts.
Lemieux interviews the grocer, Msr. Beliveau who reveals that he lost his beloved wife several years back and had been in love with Madeleine. He also recalls Gamache’s four rules of detection: “I don’t know. I’m sorry. I need help. I was wrong.” Lemieux sees no value in these simple rules.
Meanwhile Beauvoir finds Gilles in the woods, where is talking to trees. He tells Beauvoir Madeleine was “full of love” and that she and Hazel seemed very happy living together. He insists that everyone had loved Madeleine, and Beauvoir points out that someone didn’t.
Jeanne Chauvet discovers from talking with Gamache that the Ruth Zardo of Three Pines is the well known poet. Jeanne loves Ruth’s poem about a woman accused of being a witch and says she’s well regarded in Wiccan circles. She also tells Gamache to be careful—”something’s coming.”
Ch. 24-44: In the second half of the book, things begin to amp up, and the damaging newspaper articles about Gamache begin to get worse. Beauvoir encounters Gamache and Chauvet sitting together, and is angry as he thinks she’s a charlatan. She says “I was born with a caul . . . and you were too.” The meaning of this becomes clear later.
Hazel plans Madeleine’s funeral and thinks “Everything had changed. Even her grammar. Suddenly she lived in the past tense. And the singular.” What a profound description of grief. Hazel is busy waiting on Sophie, who has injured her foot.
As the team reviews the latest evidence, it comes out that Madeleine was suffering from breast cancer and that’s the reason she left her husband and moved in with Hazel. It’s also clear there’s another newspaper article about Gamache but he refuses to discuss it or show that it might bother him.
Beauvoir and Nichol go to re-interview Hazel, who is apprehensive when she sees them and focused on Sophie. Gamache, Lacoste and Lemieux go back to the Old Hadley House. Gamache asks them what’s different about the house. Gamache goes off to explore on his own, leaving Lacoste and Lemiux alone. Lacoste can’t wait to escape and takes the first excuse to leave, while Lemieux takes a call from Brebeuf. As Gamache explores the basement he’s discovered by Lemieux, who is holding a gun, which Gamache thinks correctly is no accident.
Then Lacoste demands Beauvoir tell her about the Arnot case which is the ominous sword hanging over Gamache’s head. Beauvoir relates how Arnot and Gamache began their careers at the same time, both rising stars. Gamache took in the oddballs on his team, seeing something worthy in them, while Arnot took the best and the brightest, but was a bully and demanded conformity.
Things came to a head when violence on the native reserved were allowed to go unchecked as Arnot felt it was an internal issue, best handled by the natives. Then Arnot put agents in place to first stir up trouble, and then to kill, and some of the young native men began to disappear. The Surete closed ranks and there was no one for the natives to complain to.
One Cree woman whose son is missing goes to Montreal and sits outside what she thinks is the National Assembly, but it really a hotel. Gamache, with his noticing and listening skills, first notices her then listens and conducts his own investigation. What he finds rips apart the Surete and tests loyalties.
Meanwhile Gamache confronts Lemieux about drawing his gun and Lemieux pretends it was a mistake. Gamache tells him “It’s our secrets that make us sick”. This could really be the theme of the novel as a whole, as it’s the secrets kept hidden and left to fester that cause all the damage.
The latest newspaper article accuses Gamache of passing drugs to his son Daniel, who had a problem in the past. As these attacks hit his family, Gamache begins to plan how to take action.
As Gamache waits to talk with the medical examiner, he encounters Ruth, who displays her two ducklings—one strong and healthy and one weaker and more delicate. Ruth is equally proud and loving of both of them.
The doctor tells Gamache that Madeleine was in fact scared to death, as the ephedra alone would not have killed her, she also would have had to have had a heart condition, which she did. Now it’s up to Gamache to discover who knew about Madeleine’s heart condition. The doctor also tells Gamache that Madeleine’s cancer had returned and that she certainly was aware of it, as she tells him even if a doctor hadn’t told her, cancer patients are very much in touch with their bodies. Gamache also now wonders who would want to kill a dying woman.
Gamache retreats to the bookstore and Myrna, who talks with him about the concept of the “near enemy.” She tells him about emotions that look the same but are in fact opposites, one healthy, the other twisted. They couplings are attachment masquerading as love; pity as compassion; and indifference as equanimity. Myrna explains that it’s hard to tell one from the other, even for the person feeling it.
Back at the Bistro in a spring snowstorm, Gamache and Beauvoir look through Madeleine’s yearbook and find she was involved in everything—she was a cheerleader, starred in the school play, was involved in sports.
Jeanne Chauvet sits with them but apart reflecting on how Three Pines had been an unexpected safe haven for her until she saw Madeleine. She and Gamache do talk and she tells him about how she discovered she was a psychic, and it’s clear her gift has always made her feel like an outsider. Seeing Madeleine had made her so angry she couldn’t decline the second séance.
Beauvoir had called his mother to ask about what it meant to be born with a caul. His head was covered with a membrane when he was born, his mother tells him—a caul—which meant he was either blessed or cursed. His family had ignored him when he said anything odd. Beauvoir wonders if the reason he joined homicide wasn’t more intuitive than he’d previously thought.
At Peter and Clara’s house, Clara is struggling in her studio with her painting after Peter told her the color was slightly off. She’s anticipating a visit from an important Montreal gallery owner and is getting frantic, so Peter suggests a dinner party to take her mind off her work, but he’s really trying to sabotage her.
The next morning Gamache is awoken early by Gabri with the morning paper, which has a photo of Gamache’s married daughter Annie with her married boyfriend. Gamache talks to his wife, Annie, and then calls Brebeuf, who is Annie’s godfather. Of all of them Annie is the least concerned.
At the dinner party Clara is uncomfortable and worried. Talking to Gamache she thinks “She often felt foolish, ill constructed, next to others. Beside Gamache she only ever felt whole.” Gamache asks her what she thought of Madeleine. She says she liked her and mentioned it was lucky she took over leadership of the Anglican Church Women so Hazel wouldn’t have to do it.
She also tells him she was fond of Msr. Beliveau and thinks Odile is a terrible poet. She then worries to herself about her own work.
Lacoste interviews Madeleine’s ex-husband, who tells her living with Madeleine was like “living too close to the sun”, in other words, too close to constant perfection. Lacoste also goes by Madeleine’s high school and picks up her old year books and report cards. A photo Nichol found at Hazel’s house shows a much heavier Sophie eating cake.
Gamache and Beauvoir return to re-interview Hazel and Sophie, asking both if they knew Madeleine’s cancer had returned. Neither seemed to.
When the team meets up again to share what they found, Nichol’s rude outbursts are too much, and Gamache sends her far afield, to Sophie’s college, to ask questions there. The rest of the team is pretty certain Sophie is the killer.
Later, Gamache and Beauvoir hit the road and Gamache reveals more details about the Arnot case. When Gamache presented the evidence against Arnot to the Surete, they let Arnot leave to get his affairs in order. The rest of the Surete hoped he would kill himself but Gamache finds him and two other officers and prevents it. Because Arbot was very popular, some parts of the Surete and the public distrust and dislike Gamache for his part in bringing him to justice.
Finally at the side of the road Beauvoir angily demands that Gamche hold nothing back, and Gamache finally tells all, leaving the two men as bonded as father and son.
A new accusation in the paper points the finger at Gamache, saying he’s a drunk and again linking him with Arnot. Gamache takes himself off to talk to his family and make sure everything is fine with all of them.
At the Morrows’ dinner party, Clara closes the door to her studio to shut her guests out and seems distracted. The dinner guests discuss the cruelty of April—beautiful days and killing frosts or snowfalls that lay waste to the new flowers. There’s also a discussion of the solstice and how every culture has a spring ritual. They talk about how Hazel is willing to give help but unwilling to accept it, and had turned down the dinner invitation to nurse Sophie.
Ruth then relates the story of her two ducks hatching—Rosa, the stronger one, hatched out easily, but the more delicate Lilium had trouble breaking out of the shell and Ruth had helped her. Everyone silently suspects Lilium won’t make it but a feisty Ruth leaves early to tend to her babies.
At the B&B that night, Gamache, Beauvoir and Jeanne Chauvet all have trouble sleeping and meet in the middle of the night over tea. Also up late, Ruth realizes her kindness had killed little Lilium, and in her studio, Clara gets back to work with a clear mind.
The latest reports from the media show that Daniel has been arrested in Paris of suspected drug possession. Gamache leaves to go back to Montreal and set everything straight, possibly to resign.
Meanwhile, as the team plans to arrest Sophie, a broken Hazel appears protesting Sophie’s innocence. She’s given over to Clara’s care for the day. Nichol reports that Sophie is well liked at college and never injured when she’s away from home. Gamache also finds that Odile sells the herb ephedra is derived from, Ma Huang, at her store.
When Gamache arrives at the Surete and meets with all the department heads, including his enemy, Francoeur, he offers his resignation. Gamache returns to Three Pines to reveal the killer, assembling everyone who was at the séance back at the Old Hadley House. He first turns his attention to Sophie. He says she loved Madeleine and then talks about how the near enemy of love is attachment, which is what Sophie felt for Madeleine.
Then he turns to Jeanne Chauvet, who it appears, knew Madeleine in another lifetime and deliberately set out to scare her at the séance. But then Jeanne talks about how she’d realized Three Pines was a magical place full of good energy. But she also reveals she was at high school with Madeleine and Hazel and both hated and envied Madeliene and tried to make herself over for her, so become superficial and pretty.
Gamache then gets up abruptly and leaves to confront Brebeuf, who has come to Three Pines. Gamache had realized that Lemieux was working for Brebeuf and that Brebeuf, not Francour, was the enemy within the Surete as the friendship the two men shared from boyhood had for Brebeuf become a jealous competition. Breboeuf still can’t figure out why Gamache is happier than he is despite his success.
Then Lemieux draws a gun on Gamache and fires; Gamache is saved by Nivhol, who proves herself loyal to him. Gamache reveals that he put the hateable Nichol in place on his team as a distraction, so that he could observe Lemieux. Gabri, Myrna and Jeanne then turn up to rescue Gamache.
They all return to the séance room where the killer is revealed. Gamache recounts how Madeleine was the high school sun; she starred in the school play while Hazel produced it. They were both on the basketball team, but Madeleine was the captain. They were on the debating team, but Mad was the captain. Hazel’s high school motto was “she never got mad”, meaning literally that she never caught up to Madeleine.
Hazel’s near enemy turns out to be pity, which she has substituted as compassion. She makes a life for herself in Three Pines but Madeleine turns up, taking her daughter’s affection; taking over the Anglican Church Women group and finally capturing Msr, Beliveau. And Hazel had known that Mad’s heart was bad, though not how sick she was, when she gave her the ephedra herb. She is arrested.
Gamache misses his friend Brebeuf who has resigned in disgrace from the Surete. He has tea at Agent Nichol’s house in an effort to better understand her. The Gamaches return to Three Pines where a community spring cleaning of the Old Hadley house is going on. And finally Clara reveals her painting, which is so beautiful Peter only feels happy in front of it.
FAVORITE QUOTE
“Gamache loved to see inside the homes of people involved in a case. To look at the choices they made for their most intimate space. The colors, the decorations. The aromas. Were there books? What sort? How did it feel?”
“Our secrets make us sick because they separate us from other people. Keep us alone. Turn us into fearful, angry, bitter people. Turn us against others, and finally against ourselves. A murder almost always begins with a secret. Murder was a secret spread over time.”
CONCLUSION
One of the things I love most about this book is the unsettling concept of what jealousy can do to you and how destructive it can be. Louise takes it to an extreme to tell her story, but as always with her books, the ordinary becomes extraordinary and makes you think about your own behavior. But the “love” part comes when the wrap up to the story also includes redemption.
Re-birth, a theme carried through the book as much as jealousy is shown to be painful as much as it is necessary, another profound concept. While Louise uses the standard form of the mystery novel—red herrings, clues, even the inspector drawing together his suspects to reveal the killer, a la Poirot—she has such profound concepts she’s illustrating with her story, that again, the ordinary becomes extraordinary.
And what stays with you when you are finished? A glimpse of Three Pines through Louise’s words; characters we look forward to seeing in each novel; new characters to think about in this one (for me, especially Hazel and Jeanne); and the wrap up and explication of the Arnot case, hinted at and foreshadowed in the first two books.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- Do you believe a house can be haunted or malelovent? Penny certainly makes the case for the Hadley House being actually evil, and it’s mentioned as the place where all the sorrow from Three Pines goes.
- Gamache’s approach to detection is very intuitive. I love how he “feels” a place or situation and gets to the heart of it. What’s your favorite thing about his technique?
- Gamache is also intuitive about his friend Brebeuf who in fact is working against him, but Gamache isn’t sure. If you were Gamache, do you think you would know your friend had turned against you?
- I love Gabri, he’s one of my favorite characters. In chapter nineteen he’s reflecting on where he’s been clever or cutting instead of kind, and that would be a reason for someone to kill him. Then he thinks what he loves about Three Pines is it’s a place “where kindness trumped cleverness.” Who is your favorite character and why?
- One of the most interesting things about Louise Penny’s books to me are Gamache’s rules: “I don’t know. I’m sorry. I need help. I was wrong.” To me they seem like a useful life guide. Have any of you thought of these rules at challenging times in your own lives?
- What do you like or dislike about Ruth Zardo? I like that she’s such a cranky old lady but she writes such lovely poems, and in this one I love her attachment to the ducks. They become a symbol of the rebirth theme that runs through the book. Did you think the ducks were a corny touch, or did you like them?
- There are many sort of ordinary emotions that fester in this novel but jealousy is the main one and it’s the cause of every conflict in the story, basically. Do you think this is realistic?
- Did you cry when you read about Ruth’s Lilium?
- One of the things I love about Louise’s books is that she always ends on a positive note, even though the things she writes about are pretty dark and profound. She makes the joy profound as well. Do you like or dislike this aspect of her books?
- I was really captured by the portrait of Madeleine in this book and her effect most obviously on Hazel. Have you encountered this kind of perfection from someone in your own life? How did it affect you?
- Who was your favorite character in this book? I came to really like Jeanne Chauvet.
- Finally what are your thoughts on the percolating jealousy of Peter for Clara’s work?
299 replies on “Series Re-Read: The Cruelest Month”
It’s possible that my opinion changed in this second reading of the book, but I found the character of Madeleine too perfect from the beginning. I didn’t really like her and was sort of puzzled by the adoration of pretty much the whole village.
Now, another subject for discussion.
“Who is the guilty one?” In many mysteries, there is a process of elimination and it gradually becomes clear that one and only one person can be the one responsible for the crime. In this novel, Penny appears to show that every single party to the seance had murder in his or her heart and that, besides, most could have done the crime. A razor’s edge of difference separates Sophie and Hazel at the end. In most cases of murder, truly there are NOT five or six people who appear to have motive, opportunity, and also means. What’s the point of this? I think Penny chose to do this deliberately.
It’s not always easy to find the guilty party. I think it was the first book that Gamache thinks how the murder will touch everyone and expose many secrets. I don’t think they all had murder in their heart. Motive and actual desire are two different things. Differentiating between the two is what Gamache does best.
The razor’s edge difference between Hazel and Sophie was chilling. I don’t think Sophie would kill Madeleine but she was smug when she heard her mother’s explanation for what had pushed her over the edge.
That was a chilling moment, wasn’t it?
Yes, that was a chilling moment, and it showed Gamache and his team that there was another person who should be at the head of their suspect list. For as wonderful a person that everyone insisted Madeleine was, there sure were a lot of people who seemed to have it in for her!
I agree, Linda, that not all the people who attended the seance had murder in their heart. I think for some of them, it was just an event, something to “scare” themselves with, rather like watching a scary movie or taking a roller-coaster ride at an amusement park.
I think the main reason Gabri asked Jeanne to do a seance in the first place was to keep his customers and other villagers interested. Things must have been REALLY boring, for him to resort to trickery to get a guest to perform a seance!
As for looking for “the guilty one,” once Gamache figured out that Ephedra was used to create a heart attack, the field was narrowed down. I think at best there were only four possibilities–Sophie, Hazel, Odile, and Gilles. I think it the most difficult part was going to be whether it was Hazel or Sophie. Sure, it was interesting to find that Jeanne had attended the same high school as Madeleine and Hazel, but did that give her an actual motive AND opportunity for killing her?
I think what Gamache means when he discusses the fallout of a murder investigation is that he not only is going to discover who is the killer, but the villagers will have their personal lives under a microscope, AND at the end, they will know that there was a murderer(or murderess) in their midst.
I for one found the dialogue between Ruth and Myrna interesting, when Ruth warned Myrna against attending the seance. Myrna usually seems more tuned in to the psychological elements around her, so I would’ve thought she would also be more spiritually aware also. I found Ruth’s statement that what the villagers were going for was revenge, and that whatever spirit was in the house would know that, spine-tingling, and if it had been ME she was telling that to, I would NOT have gone to the seance, but probably spent the evening in bed with the covers over my head!(And saying a few prayers for the safety of my silly friends!) Was anyone else surprised that Myrna chose to ignore Ruth’s warning?
Yes I was a little surprised at Myrna. On the other hand, she also seems to go where Clara goes.
I do, too, Penny. I think that this happens again and again in Ms Penny’s novels, and it shows us what Gamache remarks upon (though perhaps only to himself) in the first book – that a murder investigation is going to lay open the secrets of everyone even remotely involved, and they can never go back to a time when people didn’t know those secrets. It’s the secrets we all harbor that Penny gets at. Given the right circumstances, perhaps each of us is capable of murder, and wouldn’t we rather leave that stone unturned? Not only do we not want anyone else to know this about us, we don’t want to know it about ourselves… A murder investigation is not going to allow people to continue to keep those secrets hidden.
I am not sure about that butterfly and eggshell story–I think it is not scientifically true, or provable. But the idea of what it is supposed to be an analogy for–that we can’t make life too smooth and easy for our children, we sometimes need to let them work things out for themselves or struggle a little. “Killing with kindness” is the idea that Penny is trying to get across here, and she does it, at the cost of making Ruth feel unnecessarily guilty and sad about her poor little one, Lilium. The contrast of that genuine love and cherishing with Hazel’s false and self-regarding overprotectiveness of Sophie and hovering over her friend is a point.
Penny – I felt so sad when Lilium died, not because Lilium died, but for what it did to Ruth, who thought it was her fault, for helping her push her way out of her shell. Mother nature doesn’t coddle, though we humans can’t seem to resist. I know it’s hard to know how much to “do for” young people and how much to let them do or fail at on their own. I think this little allegory is very telling.
We are all told scary things sometimes, unsolicited information that is not necessarily true, even though the person saying it may believe it to be true. Normally I think Ruth would ignore this, but she is uncharacteristically vulnerable when it comes to the ducklings. It was heartbreaking that Ruth seemed to take on the guilt.
HELPING DUCKS
Out of curiousity I googled this. Those that raise ducks say you should try not to help ducks to hatch especially if they have made only the first pip or crack in the egg. Under certain conditions using certain techniques you may be able to help but you should be prepared to encounter a weakened duck or maybe one with a defect. Is possible that you will have a perfectly healthy duck.
It does make sense though that if the duck was having problems hatching itself, there may have been an existing defect.
In my mind I think it would be a little like a runt of the litter.
It was likely just nature taking its course, but the conversation would have cut deeply for the tender-hearted Ruth.
The passage that strikes me is when Gabri speaks of the emperor moth’s transformation from egg to adult. “In its final stage the caterpillar spins a cocoon and then it dissolves completely until it’s just liquid, and then it transforms. It becomes something else entirely. A huge emperor moth. But it’s not that easy. Before it can live as a moth it has to fight its way out of the cocoon. Not all make it.”
Another example of rebirth – and one that requires something (someone) totally break down before it can be reborn greater than it was before. Quite a few characters are going through something like this – almost all of them, really. I don’t want to give away what happens in later books, but I certainly didn’t see this the first time I read The Cruelest Month!
On jealousy —
I don’t believe that jealousy is the root of all that is wrong in life but Louise captured the nature of jealousy perfectly in the words of Gamache, “I think jealousy is the cruelest emotion. It twists us into something grotesque.”
Hazel’s transformation began in high school. Though Three Pines had viewed her as a caregiver, the jealousy had transformed her long before into a person driven to be in control. Her caring of the stricken or ill was driven not by love but by pity. Finally changed to a murderer.
Brebeuf had long loved Gamache, but when he expected Gamache to be beaten down and in need of care, Gamache was still happy. How could this be? Brebeuf was denied the opportunity to be the caregiver (ala Hazel?). I think he was jealous not of Gamache’s family or job or the respect from others. He was jealous of Gamache’s strength.
And now the nascent monster has moved on to Peter. The woman he loves will eventually surpass him. Until now, he could encourage Clara and pretend care and concern for the quasi talented woman (care again like Hazel?). He knows now she will surpass him. The monster has reached into his heart and the transformation has begun.
In every case an enemy will pay a price. However, the enemy isn’t Clara, or Gamache. It wasn’t Madeleine. As Gamache says to Ruth —
“The near enemy, it isn’t a person, is it? It’s ourselves.”
“Depends on the person,” said Ruth.
The monster can’t take root in hearts that are secure in the knowledge of who or what they are. It can’t grow and transform those that are happy with enough. It can’t twist true love into murder.
Another subject: 50 years of success and 14 days of real happiness! That sums up the self-evaluation that seems to drive Brebeuf’s envy of his friend Gamache.
I loved that quotation, and thought it gave a lot to think about. Does anyone else feel struck by that passage and want to say something?
I was struck by this passage as well. Particularly a piece that followed when Brebeuf realized that most of those 14 instances of true happiness involved Gamache.
Know what? I think Brebeuf has been unable to be grateful for what he has accomplished – for what actually is in his life. He doesn’t know how to be at peace with himself, with who he is and has become and has made of himself. Emotionally, he reminds me of a hamster on a wheel – running, running for something else out of reach, when he has everything – off of that wheel to enrich his life: professional success and stature, a wife, family, grandchildren. He’s someone who (yeah cliche coming next!) who never learned to stop and smell the roses. He also inherently seems to know that he doesn’t possess the grace and equanimity that Armand does to face hardships thrown at him. Michel’s m.o. is to react – to fight back. He doesn’t understand why Armand doesn’t get into a down and dirty fight.
Meg, your post on Brebeuf got me to thinking(again). I hadn’t thought about one of his flaws being unable to feel gratitude for what he’s accomplished, except for the fact that he’s clearly not able to feel that when he sees Gamache being happy at being number two. Hadn’t thought about his not being able to be grateful, period. Your last line made me think a bit more about why he’s not been able to support Gamache rather than playing into Francouer’s hand. I think now, that on a very essential level, Michel Brebeuf, as probably many men do, think that a man who starts a fight, like Francouer, is stronger than a man who walks away from one, like Gamache. It never seems to have occurred to him that it actually took more strength of character for Gamache to walk away from unprovoked sniping than to try to engage in say, a bout of fisticuffs with Francouer. This reminds me a lot of the plot line of The Quiet Man, where John Wayne plays the role of an American ex-boxer who killed a man in the ring, and as a result, quit fighting, and moved to his old homestead in Ireland. Trouble ensued for him when the bully-brother of the woman he loved and wanted to marry thinks he’s a weakling for not standing up to his insults and fighting. Won’t give away the end of the film for anyone who hasn’t seen it, but just that part, about how Mary Kate Danneher(played to perfection by Maureen O’Hara) and her brother both fail to recognize that it’s taking more strength for Sean(JW) to walk away than fight.
Back to Brebeuf. Perhaps he would’ve liked Armand a lot better had Gamache fired back at SF, but when I think about what might have resulted in that : assaulting a superintendant? Even if provoked, the least that would have happened would surely have been suspension for Gamache, if not termination of his Surete position. What, then, would have become of his team? Anyone want to guess what might have been the fate of Jean-Guy Beauvoir if Gamache had been fired for insubordination? Doubt if work would have been much easier for Isabelle, either. But Brebeuf is not a deep thinker. He doesn’t seem to consider any of these factors. I think he’s like a fair -weather fan, who follows blindly whichever candidate seems to be presenting the stronger front. He fails completely to see where his choice of undercutting Gamache will lead him.
One of my favorite movies. Favorite line in a movie ever.
“Here’s a stick to beat the lovely lady!”
I have trouble understanding the whole Breboef thing. I don’t understand why he came to Three Pines; did he intend for Lemieux to kill Gamache? Why? Why was Gamache apparently expecting him, especially there at that time? Was Nichol following them? That whole episode seemed strange and incomprehensible to me. I thought the motive for Breboef’s actions was a conviction that Gamache should resign because of the damage and scandal he had caused the Surete, but his reaction and his confession of envy of Gamache’s happiness is a more personal motive, and apparently caused his own disgrace, due to Lemieux’s actions.
Sharon – I don’t think Brebeuf wanted Lemieux to kill Gamache – I think Lemieux got way out of line and couldn’t be controlled by Brebeuf anymore. I do think that Brebeuf came to Three Pines because he wanted to instigate a fight. He wanted to “poke the bear”. I think he thought if he could get Gamache to hit him, he could have him arrested and finally bring Gamache down in total disgrace – get rid of him from the Surete – not that he expected him to resign, but that he could be fired, and maybe even jailed for attacking a police officer. Certainly, at least, he could be fired for “conduct unbecoming”… Because he set Lemieux down the path, and then couldn’t control him, of course, he only orchestrated his own fall from grace.
Jane – I love this analysis of Brebeuf and his motivations. I think his not being able to see a few moves ahead in his chess game has really been his undoing. He was fine as long as everything was going along in the status quo, but as soon as Gamache stepped over that “thin blue line” and showed his loyalty to humanity rather than the Surete, he spun for awhile, not knowing who to back! In the end, he felt a stronger need to conform to the “party line” of his superiors. By leaving Gamache “out there alone” – I think he felt guilt, then had to justify it to himself somehow, and worked hard at making Gamache come out as the bad guy. By the time he’d accomplished that, all was lost.
And on the note of strong men walking away – what about “The Big Country” with the gorgeous Gregory Peck walking away from bullies. Love that movie.
Penny’s exploration of envy, jealousy, and ‘the near enemy’ (all related but distinct themes, actually) touches all the characters–but that’s the created world of the novel. Addictions, bigotry, greed, misogyny and violence toward women and other sources of conflict and violence are not the focus here. In a way, that’s ‘artificial.’ In another way, when we encounter a horrific incident, that will provoke us to examine anything related happening in our own lives. In that way, Penny makes the logic of life and fiction converge even if the related threads are all pretty neatly braided into one story.
This provokes us as readers to think about our own lives, and in what way we might be involved with a near enemy, or be a near enemy ourselves.
Certainly I am provoked to think how slippery solicitude for another can be, when that other is a ‘near enemy’ towards whom we feel some resentment, or who feels resentment for us. Hazel’s constant solicitude for her daughter is disempowering and crippling. Toward her ‘friends’ it is also used as a means of being ‘one up.’ Peter’s solicitude towards Clara about her painting is a pure knife in the back, as is Brebeuf’s toward Gamache and his family trouble. I have this sort of thing going on under my own roof, as I care for a nearly 90-year-old parent with whom I’ve had a complex relationship.
Drifting along in a state of unconsciousness about the emotions one feels is what seems most dangerous. Better not to be in denial, or you may soon find yourself acting out in a manner beyond your conscious control. Notice how Peter finds himself almost involuntarily being malicious to Clara. “The real Peter” is sort of disembodied and floating near the celing while “Bad Peter” jabs and slashes at his dear wife. What if Peter were a man with real friends, who could talk to someone else about his complicated feelings towards his wife’s talent?
I may be wrong here, but I don’t think the purpose of the questions is that we only answer those questions. I think they are there to help readers think about some of the issues of the book. I don’t see anything wrong with someone taking the lead and asking or discussing other issues in the books. If fact I think it would enhance the experience. So I think you should feel free to bring up other topics and get a discussion thread going. I think the only restriction here is to not reveal more than the readers should have read by that posting date. Especially re-readers who have read the whole series.
As for the synopsis at the beginning, this might be helpful for readers to trigger thoughts about the book. If you think they aren’t necessary, don’t read them. You can just scroll down to the blog entries or post your own.
Yes. Applause.
I agree! In our actual book club at the store we start with a question and see where the discussion takes us – it’s always interesting.
Kathleen, I really don’t have a problem with guided questions to begin a discussion, but what we’ve seen are more of the same superficial stuff from week to week that seem to ask for opinion responses or preferences – instead of really looking into what’s in the book such as: – “Who’s your favorite ? ” “Would you like to live in 3 Pines” Does this help to clarify this?
Part Two of the discussion is now live: http://gamacheseries.wpengine.com/the-cruelest-month-part-2/
P.S. Anyone want to weigh in on the “relationship” between Odile and Ruth? Is Ruth somewhat jealous of the attention given to Odile, or is she rightfully dismissive of someone whose talent obviously(at least to her) is clearly mediocre or worse? And what about Odile? Why on earth would she decide to become a poet, in the very village where a rather famous poetess resides, but be so clearly clueless about the content of Ruth’s poetry? Is this more a factor of adolescent ignorance, or is it a sign of character weakness?
How interesting about Ruth. My own take is that, although she’s a far more anguished person than Gamache in other ways, she shares his apparent immunity to jealousy. I can’t think of any instance in which Ruth feels threatened by someone else’s material or critical success; her poems may be FINE, but she doesn’t question their worth. Quite possibly it helps to have huge outside recognition in the form of the Governor General’s Award, but I’m not sure she cares all that much about the opinion of others.
As for Odile: Maybe she doesn’t care all that much either? She thinks her poems are brilliant, which is the most important thing to her, even though she has a fantasy or two about worldwide acclaim. Which raises a really interesting question (to me, at least): Doesn’t Clara pretty much feel that way too? She seems basically happy pursuing her own creative vision, even if no one else understands it, though she dreams of achieving recognition some day. In what ways are Ruth, Odile, and Clara alike or different?
Yes! Ms. Jane F. of the Great Insights! — I’m going to come back to this later. The Clara – Peter painting thing’s been percolating between my ears today & want to get that down before I forget it!
A text Q: Don’t Ruth & Odile live in different villages? Ruth in 3 Pines & Odile in St. Remy (?)?
Well, I for one would like to explore more of the territory mapped out by question #1. I’ve already discussed a bit about several relationships plagued by envy, but what of the other part of the question? what are some of the other emotions we see lurking in this book? For example, I’d be interested in hearing from other members of this discussion as to their impressions of some of the other relationships we see in this book. How would you characterize the relationship between Madeleine and Sophie? Odile and Gilles? Beauvoir and Gilles? LeMieux and Nichol? Are these relationships healthy or unhealthy? Why? Any other pairings you’d like to discuss under this heading?
I will start off by saying that I was very intrigued by Beauvoir and Gilles. At first, Beauvoir is a bit intimidated by Gilles when he sees how huge Gilles is, but as he chats with him, something unusual for Jean-Guy happens. He begins to identify with Gilles, so that when Gilles tells him he won’t tell him, Jean-Guy, what the trees say to him, Beauvoir is actually disappointed. This is a huge leap for a man who is always suspicious of anything vaguely smacking of the supernatural! I wonder if others would agree with me that a lot of it has to do with Gilles having previously been a lumberjack(obviously a very manly job) and his explanation why he quit that job. I also wonder if Gilles had not been so large and intimidating in appearance whether Jean-Guy would have been so impressed by him.
:~} Jane, you peeked at the Discussion Q’s at the top right! Yes, there are some good ones there!
I think this is the magic of “Three Pines” – it heals. In healing we slowly change who we are and allow the best of ourselves out.
MEG R – GOING OUT ON A LIMB
I’ve been having some questions and issues with these “discussions” of Mrs. Penny’s books. Am just going to put my neck out on the chopping block and see where this goes. My intentions are to help enrich our sharing and understanding of novels we are reading.
1. STORY SUMMARIES: Is it really necessary to fill up opening page of each week’s ‘discussion’ with a 37 paragraph (this week’s) repeat/summary? One assumes that if each of us has chosen to join this group, that we also accept the implied responsibility of actually reading that week’s chapters. Why do we need someone else to tell us what we’ve read? We’re supposed to be responsible for that task.
2. IDENTIFICATION OF “THEMES”: By someone else doing this for us, it’s like the joy of discovery and actually thinking about what we’ve read has been usurped by someone else – BEFORE we actually begin discussion of that week’s chapters. We each have a marvelous muscle between our ears and are capable of using it! Doesn’t St. Martin’s trust its readers to be able to examine and think about what actually has been written by Louise Penny?
3. HAS ST. MARTIN”S EVER ATTEMPTED A “BOOK CLUB” BEFORE? I am assuming ( and yes, I could be wrong, but from the quality of many of the responses, I don’t think I am about this!) – I am assuming that most of our posters have been participants in other live or on-line book clubs. Frankly, this has been one of the most unwieldy ones that I have experienced. Mega-gigundo THANK YOU to Paul H for paginations and staggered postings when we specifically reply to each other. Both have helped to clear up some of the ‘burdensomeness’ of this site.
But – what we seem to be lacking here thus far – is a strong Discussion Leader – who 1) Doesn’t just give us answers or pats on the head of agreement , but 2) offers real questions about what’s actually been written that ask us to think about what we’ve read. We saw a few entries from two “DL’s” on the first page of this novel – but nothing since. Seems like Jane and Linda and Carol have stepped up to do this for us on this page. Granted. I missed much of first half of book discussion. Not here for it, but I did finish reading the book Sunday night. There have been other requests to primarily talk about the book. Is it possible for us to do that? To actually look at what Penny has written and said? I’m not saying that we cut out the chatter & the enrichment threads that we each bring into this – i.e. the Maks painting, tidbits that one person remembers that most of us forgot, etc. etc. etc. I enjoyed reading this series the first time, but have been absolutely stunned by just how many little crumbs and clues have been scattered for us that I totally missed on first reads. I love, absolutely LOVE – new discoveries made by me or anyone else – that make me think and look at things in a new way. Guess I’m just hoping for more of that -than less – in the rest of these.
Meg…I for one have never ever been in a book club of any kind. Probably because I don’t like someone else telling me what to read. (I suppose this is a hold-over from college where I took courses because I loved to read. In the end it meant that we read some of the most depressing books which totally destroyed my interest in doing that ever again.) In this case since I LOVE Louise Penny’s books I decided I wanted to join. My involvement here has been mostly to “listen” and enjoy everyone else’s views. That’s been an education in itself so even if I don’t say much I’m finding it very rewarding. Thanks All!
BUT, NAAAAAANNNNNNCCCCY! Go ahead and open your mouth! You to have a lifetime of experiences, life knowledge that you bring to this book and this discussion! Just dive right in! You – like most of us – have made observations, discoveries developed insights as you read. Don’t be afraid to share! Sure, you might get something wrong – I do frequently, but an usually enriched by the observations and discoveries of everyone else – who may or may not have seen things differently. You’re listening to the “Queen of Foot-in-the-Mouth” here! I have absolutely no problem being corrected or asked to defend a statement. I dare ya! Jump in and get your feet wet!
Some people prefer a place on the sidelines, it does not mean they are not questioning and enjoying in their own way.
Dear Meg,
I’m with you! I would really like some discussion of the structure and plotting of these wonderful books. For instance in Cruelest Month, the back and forth between the Surete betrayal story and Madeleine’s murder is tricky. Do you think Penny handled this well?
Penny has three major holidays central to each of these books… Thanksgiving, Christmas and now Easter. How well do you think she’s woven these holidays into the plots?
And I agree we don’t really need plot summaries at the beginning. Love the ‘big muscle between our ears’ mention.
I’m loving the re-reading. I see references, clues and foreshadowings that I’ve missed. May have to re-read Cruelest Month yet another time. 🙂
Connie, Yes, I have also noted Penny’s habit of hanging latest story on a major holiday. In a way, she’s bringing her story to our own experiences /prior knowledge of each of them and then letting us ‘color’ our views of her story through them. Deliberate? I don’t know, but suspect that might be so.
Know what I found funny (not ha ha – but unusual) this time? I wasn’t really that engaged in the Madeleine murder story. That seemed to be peripheral draping/ distraction for me to the Brebeuf and Francouer plotting & outcomes. Not sure why. Will post about Madeleine later. Yes, I agree with you that Penny does competently bounce between the two plot threads here.
I agree, Meg, that Louise’s use of the holidays helps ground the plot in a framework we can understand and many of us relate to. While I did not find Madeleine’s murder peripheral, I was far more interested in the Surete/Brebeuf/Arnot matter, based on the number of previous references and guessing – without giving anything away – that it will continue to haunt future books. That said, I didn’t think the murder was a distraction; rather, I thought it helped ground the Surete/Brebeuf/Arnot matter and give us further insights into Gamache and his working relationships with the team.
Marie, (and others) let’s not forget that it is the suspicious death of Madeleine which brings Gamache and his crew back to Three Pines. Without that fulcrum, there wouldn’t be any way to work in the machinations of Lemiuex and Brebeuf.
Meg. I love you being here and always enjoy your take on the subject.
I like the way this is working, though. In every book club I’ve been in there is a leader that sets the tone. It’s not always the route I would have taken, but that means I’m moved out of my comfort zone to new discoveries.
I think the synopsis is for those of us that get tired flipping back and forth to refresh our failing memories on the order of things. Just scroll past it. Easy peasy.
If there’s something someone wants to discuss, be daring and bring it up. There’s nothing wrong in introducing, politely, a new subject. If someone wants to speak of the plot or relationships or whatever, it’s good to exercise our own creativeness in getting around to sharing what we have discovered. Whenever that’s been done here I always say to myself, “JOY!” (Insert a happy melody here.) We all have brains, individual brains and to join them all together and get them moving in the same direction someone needs to get us started and we the participants can then take it to wherever it seems to want to go.
There are two things I think would help me and they’re quite simple.
1) It would be nice if we each responded to one topic at a time. It’s hard to respond to someone when they have answered every question in a single posting.
2) In the book clubs I’ve participated in we’ve been asked to read the entire book before the discussion. Be that as it may, at the very least I find it difficult to fully cover a topic when I have to be so careful about spoilers. It’s not difficult to avoid revealing information about upcoming books, but when within the same book those that haven’t finished should be reminded that they may run into spoilers during the discussion.
We all have a love of these books, it’s such Anjou to participate! Less harrumphing more joy!
Hum, Anjou? Was my subconscious thinking about pears? It should have been “a joy”.
:~D
Hmmmm – I have been seeing that you are not happy with the way the group is working, Meg, but wonder why, instead of bringing up a batch of new rules and procedures for how you think things ought to work, you don’t instead, just open a new thread to discuss something that you wish to discuss. I, for one, need the synopsis at the top of the page. Even though I’ve just read the book, I am now reading the next one – need to keep everything straight as to what has happened so far for the discussion’s purposes. This is especially true for the first half of the book, as it’s hard for me to keep track of whether something has already happened in the story we are discussing, or if we have to hold that thought until we’re discussing the second half. So I would miss the synopsis. It’s not that long, and if you click on “comments” at the top of the page it takes you halfway down the page to where the comments begin.
I like to have a “jumping off point” given by the questions – but have absolutely no objection to someone introducing a new topic that they’d like to discuss. I like the informality of that and I feel that we have done that all along. I don’t think the “leader” is meant to cut off discussions that aren’t going the way she or he planned, or to re-direct discussions to what she or he thinks is important – all points of view should be given equal weight. Then, if some part of a discussion doesn’t interest you, you can just go on to the next thing. And if no-one has mentioned something you think would be important to discuss, you introduce that topic. But I don’t think we need to conform to a particular format.
I say this with no rancor – and I will happily follow along whatever format comes along, but just thought I ought to put in my two cents’ worth – that this discussion, as we have been going, is not something that needs to be fixed.
Know what, Julie? You just gave me an idea!
OUR HERO, MR. PAUL H! – Would it be possible to put these lengthy story summaries as a blue band in the top right – like the ones you have for “Overview, Part I Discussion, Part 11 Discussion, Reading Guides, Buy” – under the photo of the book cover?
That way, they’d be there as a resource for anyone who wants/needs a recap – and would free up discussion pages for quicker access to our postings? Whaddaya think, Mr. Paul? :~}
I am not trying to be obstinate, but why have to click over to another page to see this just because you would rather not see it? If you just click on the word “comments” at the top of the page, you zoom to the comments section. It seems to me easier for you to do this than for those of us who want the synopsis to have to page back and forth.
Meg, I know you had something in mind when you joined this group – that you had expectations for how it would work, and this is different from that vision that you had. I have been enjoying this group so much, and have been doing the re-read and the discussions for fun. I have a feeling you think I’m having fun wrong. I’d really prefer to leave the format as it is and allow any and everyone to bring up a subject they’d like to discuss.
It’s been said that people “hope there will be more discussion of plot” and other things, and rather than hope for that, why not just start a new topic and discuss the plot? We can all start a new thread whenever we want – no need to change formats for this to happen.
Julie, I agree. The format is perfectly fine to me. Feels like a conversation with a group of friends. Some people answer one way, some another. It’s all fine. If it were more structured – that would probably be fine, too. But it would make me crazy to have someone telling me I am answering wrong – saying too much or too little. I am just happy to have a forum to discuss books that have had a profound impact on my life. I breeze by the synopsis and go right to the questions. I do like having it there to remind me of what this book includes. As someone who has read these books through many times, I forget what happens in what book and would be likely to get a little muddled without it. All in all, I don’t think there’s a reason to change the format or introduce tight control.
I so agree Julie. I’ve participated in so far, but I’m mostly a sideliner. I love the synopis as my muscle between the ears is not so supple anymore! lol
Julie, Guess I’m just spoiled! I’m used to book clubs (live and on-line) where it’s easy to carry on a discussion – without interminable scrollings to find something. Actually was in one that allowed us to use italics and colored fonts to separate ideas & add quotes from each other or the text for more careful responses.
This lock-step responding to 6 opinion based questions in one block is tiresome and makes it difficult for all of us to focus on a topic.
I’d love to see some means developed for including our questions/topics for discussion to be added to supplied lists. We seem to come up with some good, and frankly, at times – better stuff!
Am gonna keep plugging at this and wait for our resident Miracle Man to see what he can do!
I would love each question to become a thread. The comments seem to jump all over the place to me.
I read this book in one day because I could not put it down. Good thing I am retired….Louise Penny is a terrific author and I have come to love each one of the characters in Three Pines. I especially like the tokens of philosophy evident throughout the book. I feel that I am learning something new every day or a new way of thinking about something I already feel. Yes, I wanted to cry when Ruth’s Lilium died. A well intentioned act leading to a tragedy is always hard to fathom, especially when it is done by one’s own hand.
I can’t believe how much I forgot about this book. What a joy to be reintroduced. The best thing about these books is getting the chance to visit with my old friends.
The rules: These rules keep one open to learning and they keep one humble. The first time I, as a college English teacher, told a class I didn’t know the answer to a question, the class was very upset, but I told them I’d try to find out, and I did. That admission changed the whole relationship between the class and me. These are also the “rules” of the Anonymous programs, that keep those in recovery from getting arrogant and back onto the substance that took them there. Another rule or tool is secrets. In chapter 29 Beauvoir talks about keeping secrets making one sick. I think Penney uses these rules to show the power of Gamache’s honesty and openness.
1. There are many sort of ordinary emotions that fester in this novel but jealousy is the main one and it’s the cause of every conflict in the story, basically. Do you think this is realistic?
Yes, I think it is realistic. From the time we are toddlers, we feel envy and jealousy–perhaps towards a sibling, especially when that sibling is getting attention from a parent that the child wants for him/herself, or towards friends and acquaintances who may have shinier toys or playthings than the child does.
In The Cruelest Month, we see how jealousy erodes relationships. I can think of three particular instances of jealousy and how it poisons a person’s thoughts towards another. (1) The jealousy felt by Hazel towards Madeleine. Madeleine brought a lot of joy to Hazel’s life, but all she could see was that with Mad around, she would always be in second place. Hazel was able to accept Madeleine(albeit briefly when Mad was in need of care and dependent on her), but when it looked as though Madeleine was going to recover, all of the old envy came roaring back.
(2) Perhaps even worse than the jealousy Hazel felt for Madeleine is that felt by Brebeuf towards Gamache. I think the festering feeling has actually made Michel a bit mad. What’s the reason for HIS jealousy, since he’s the one who edged out Gamache in what would look like all the important areas of life–spouses, grandchildren, success at work? What spoils it for Brebeuf is that in spite of being number two, Gamache is still happy! A different kind of man would have felt relief that his friend was weathering the storm so well, but alas! Michel Brebeuf has shown himself to be in the same league as Francouer.
3. Peter and Clara. Peter is eaten up with jealousy when he views Clara’s masterpiece for the first time. Apparently, her previous work, like the “Warrior Uteruses” was inferior or mediocre enough that it did not fuel his envy. Having a wife who was “dabbling” in art was clearly much more comfortable for him than having one who was capable of turning out splendid works of art. To cap off his unease, Denis Fortin made it clear that it was CLARA Morrow whose work he wanted to see, not Peter’s. I think that if Peter could have just expressed to Clara how hurt that made him feel, it would have had the effect of clearing the air between them. But, as I wrote earlier, Peter is uncomfortable with feelings, so he is not going to let Clara know how envious he is of her work now.
The important thing in each of these instances is that each of the persons who felt envy made a choice to let that fester rather than dealing with it upfront and letting the other person know how they really felt. In a way, each of those figures is tragic, because they have a lot to offer, both in talent and potential for making a good influence on people around them. Instead, they welter in their own frustration because, although life has been good to them, it’s apparently been(or is going to be) even better for their friend.
Jane–I think this is a fantastic analysis of the jealousy that eats at three central relationships in the book. I wonder, however, if clearing the air would have really been possible in any of these relationships.
For example, if Brebeuf told Gamache about his resentment, I’m guessing that Gamache would be calm and understanding–which might infuriate Brebeuf still more, since Brebeuf is already enraged that Gamache isn’t jealous of HIM? Similarly, if Madeline told Hazel she understood how Hazel might feel, would Hazel really feel reassured, or would she see it as yet another example of Mad being radiant and wonderful in ways that cast Hazel in the shadow?
I also find it hard to see such a discussion between Peter and Clara ending well. Might it not put Clara in an impossible position (which she may sense anyway) of feeling that she can’t have both a successful career and a loving husband?
But it’s fascinating to imagine how these conversations might have altered events. For example, while I’m not sure whether Mad could have reassured Hazel, I’m thinking that it might have saved her life if she had found an excuse to remove herself from Three Pines and Sophie’s life.
Hope,
I think you are probably right that for the three characters I was discussing who had the most difficulty with feeling envy, it would not have been easy to express that to the person to which the envy was directed. Perhaps all that could be hoped for is that each one of those persons could have been honest with him/herself and admitted (to themselves) that (a) he/she was feeling envy and (2) it wasn’t really logical. Think about how life might have been better, for example, had Brebeuf taken himself to a pyschologist or psychiatrist to discuss his feelings of envy towards his boyhood friend. Or, if Hazel had just been able to articulate to Mad how hurt it made her feel that her, Hazel’s daughter, greeted Mad first instead of her. Perhaps it would have hurt Madeleine’s feelings, but at least she would have been aware that she should take more care not to get between Hazel and Sophie. Have to say that of the three people who are in a relationship where they feel envy, Peter Morrow is the least able to deal with his envy. Oh, sure, temporarily he thinks he’s gotten rid of the feeling, but it’s clear what he was really doing was suppressing it. Not too surprising since it’s clear he doesn’t trust feelings, so what options does he have, then, in dealing with them, aside from denying what he’s feeling? I mean, the man can’t even admit when he’s feeling anger, and that’s one of the easiest emotions to recognize.
Jane F. – I think that the jealousy Brebeuf has for Gamache is so real. My husband is a professor. One day, shortly after we were married, he was sitting in his office when a colleague he didn’t know very well stopped by and asked him – “You are nowhere near as successful as I am – I have been published more, have chaired the department, gotten awards – so why are YOU so happy?” When my husband explained that he didn’t expect to get his happiness from work, the man looked at him incredulously, and walked away. He was clearly eaten up with jealousy, but for no good reason… This is what I thought of when I read about Brebeuf, and I think the most telling part about the whole episode is Brebeuf remembering (too late) that Gamache had been a part of all 14 of his happy days… I think that Gamache’s memories of the support he felt from Brebeuf when they were children caused him to want to hold onto the friendship longer than was good for him, but I love that he gave him the benefit of the doubt almost to the very end. Even then, he didn’t confront – he waited patiently for Brebeuf to make his move. Gamache is not vengeful – just saddened by what has been lost.
Thanks for sharing that, Julie. I think perhaps what your husband experienced was an attempt at academic bullying, but when he failed to express fear or anxiety, the would-be bully walked away. Of course, for some people, success IS solely connected to their work, and not for their family or personal beliefs. It seems almost incredible that such a person would have the gall to have said that to your husband, but apparently, like Brebeuf, he couldn’t stand to see someone else being happy, and not understand WHY.
Too bad that was in the past, or your husband could have suggested to that person that he read her books because there was a character in her books that he resembled! If he still has to work around that person, giving him the nickname of “Brebeuf” would be a quite appropriate albeit sly reference to that person’s character!
Oh, it was 20-odd years ago. I expect my hubby wouldn’t even remember it, but it kind of stuck with me as just being so odd that you’d ever let anyone see such an unattractive side of yourself, as the other prof. did. I know it didn’t bother my husband, who is the most grounded person I’ve ever met. Me, it would have been festering these 20 years, hahahaha.
#3. I think Gamache feels that Brebeuf is not on his side, but he doesn’t know it yet. I had a situation like this, where I “was the last to know” something I should have known, but I didn’t want to look at it, so I shrugged it off. Still, I felt there was something wrong. We don’t want to look at ways people we love might be sabotaging us or just working against our best interests. I think that’s what Gamache is doing, too.
Jealousy is a cruel master and Louise shows us just how cruel. Just look at the relationships that are being destroyed in this book. Jealousy is like gossip — nothing good really comes from it.
Ruth is a puff-ball under that exterior of gruffness. She does not believe that she has any maternal instinct but it comes roaring to the surface in how she wants to help Lilium, which does the exact opposite. Of course she is devastated and I think that this is why she is so protective of Rosa in this book and the subsequent novels. As the layers of Ruth are exposed, like an onion, we learn more about her but not quite who or what has hurt her in the past.
Myrna is a resource that can give Gamache more insight into his cases. The more I see of her, the better I like her and want to know her better.
Peter is an emasculated male that is so cruel and jealous of Clara and her native talent, while professing his love and admiration. We need to see what happened in his childhood and adolescence has scarred him and made him such a fool! As an old saying goes, “he is brilliant in his own mind”.
Clara, for all of her intelligence and artistic ability, is blinded by him. You almost want to shake her and make her wake up to how cruel and mean he can be.
The story behind the rift in the Surete and what an “old boys club” it really is — not that unusual in any police department, no matter what country! Gamache is only upholding the law and he is really caught between a rock and a hard place and the sides are closing in on him!
The story of the Cree has come right out of recent headlines and rings true, whether you are Canadian or an American. Once again, it is Gamache’s ability to really listen to the victims. This is the lesson he is trying to impart on his team. Some listen to him and some have to stumble often to learn his lessons. I did not think that Jean-Guy would ever stand up to Gamache. He has placed him on such a high plinth that seeing Gamache as a mere mortal will have consequences.
The contrast between Isabella and Yolande is like looking at a Janus mask. This interaction is fascinating to observe.
I have had no desire to look at the painting, preferring what I imagine in my mind’s eye.
I want to take Clara aside and have her really look at what Peter’s jealousy is doing to her. I want her to see what we are seeing — that his jealousy is a sickness that is destroying them as artists and as a couple.
I also want to know more about how Reine-Marie is handling the assault on her husband and her children. She is the rock in Armand’s world and we need to see more of her and her coping skills.
It is really hard to chose just which character I love the best. They have become like a family that I can escape. Three Pines is that village where you want to call home!!
Do you mean Isabelle and Yvette?
Karen, I agree with so much of what you say, though I do think that Clara really IS aware of the damage being done by Peter’s sabotage. She is more complex and also more forgiving than we think sometimes. While she knows what Peter’s done, she also knows that all artists toe a very fine line between egotism and dismal insecurity. She does, and she imagines Peter does, as well, and of course, we can see clearly, that he does. I think that’s why she gives Peter the benefit of the doubt. I think that what he has done to her, however, is unforgivable and we will see more later. The dawning that not all is as it should be comes slowly to some of us, and we OUGHT to give our partners the benefit of the doubt until we simply can’t any longer. The support you wish for, you must also give, and she does that. These are my thoughts, anyway, as I compare this marriage to my first marriage. It took such a long time to really see what was happening, and even then, when a decision had been made to separate, and I knew it was the best thing for me, it hurt more than anything I’ve ever undergone or ever will. This is not a step you take lightly. Unfortunately, if Peter could have been a little more loving, and Clara asked for a little more honesty, it might have been avoided.
Ruth would never go against her nature which is to love deeply. The way she reconsidered giving Odile the book and instead chose to lift her up is a good indication of that. In fact Ruth is an interesting counter point to Peter. Peter chose to belittle his wife, insecure in his own talent. The famous poet Ruth lifts Odile. Who knows, maybe the encouragement will help Odile grow. Whether it does or so or not, she would realize that complimenting the struggling poet did not diminish her own talent.
Carol,
Thank you for researching what may be the inspiration for Clara’s painting of the old, embittered Virgin Mary with the tiny spark of hope in her eye — the painting “Mater Dolorosa” by Paul Mak. I had been wanting to ask Louise Penny if she indeed had a specific work in mind for this artist character’s masterpiece. I have been so influenced by this particular aspect of the story which is carried on into other books in the series. I feel that it is an important thread that the author has chosen to explore. Hand in hand it seems to meld with the poetry of Ruth Zardo as a way of helping the reader uncover the layers of depth in these two characters.
Whether this particular portrait is the spark or not, it is a haunting painting and I’ve enjoyed immersing myself in the colors and lines that create it. Looking at this work of art helps me to understand why Peter is so threatened by his wife’s talent. Had she painted something so rich and detailed and utterly absorbing, it would be difficult for another artist, filled with ego and self-importance, to graciously admit his inferiority. I think it would not be the same had the shoe been on the other foot — I think Peter feels emasculated by Clara’s talent.
And, Katherine, by his daddy’s voice which he still allows to rattle and drone on in his head – and by his own refusal, reluctance to ‘grow up.’