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?
309 replies on “Series Re-Read: The Cruelest Month”
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.’
Thank you, Robin, for clarifying that Brebeuf came to Three Pines towards the end of the book. Somehow I missed that fact, thinking Gamache and he met in Quebec.
Sadly, I’ve met and had to deal with several people who are “Madeline’s.” I always found such dealings most uncomfortable and not just because that person seemed to steal the limelight, whether good or bad stealing. Rather, I always found such people sad, almost as if they felt a lacking within themselves and, therefore, had to shine to overcome that self-deficit. In a way, I classify such people as “bullies.”
And how (!) – jealousy creates and seems to generate its own conflict, whether realized/known or not. And tied in with jealousy, I see envy. Both, to me, are evident in this book. Peter is an obvious example of this, to me, in terms of his views on Clara’s paintings. Up to now, Peter has been “the” painter of renown in this family; consciously or sub-consciously, he doesn’t want anything to remove that title. So at times, I have to wonder if Peter’s “not getting it” with Clara’s paintings is affected, so he can continue to keep himself as the best of the two. That’s not to deny other things, say, in Peter’s past that contribute to this; but this is what I picked up on with Book 3.
Hooray for Jean-Guy – FINALLY he spoke up to Gamache. I was beginning to wonder if all of Jean-Guy’s inner thoughts, that we’ve been privy to, would stay hidden or if he’d say something to Gamache. I was concerned that Jean-Guy had put Gamache on so high a pedestal (like a god), that Jean-Guy let that adoration hinder a true working relationship. Personally, I find it healthy that Jean-Guy let loose at Gamache. And, I’d like to think – beyond the words spoken – that Gamache thought better of Jean-Guy for having done so. Particularly since we now know Jean-Guy is being groomed by Gamache as his successor, I think this airing of feelings will make for a healthier relationship between these men going forward.
Ruth is still my 2nd favorite (after Gamache) character. As this was my first reading (unbeknownst when I started!) of Book 3, I’m thrilled to see that I guessed right about Ruth – her rough exterior is really a cover for a very soft, genuine, loving heart. Something has hurt Ruth terribly (hopefully we’ll learn what!) in the past; thus, her gruffness is a coping mechanism. And in a way, I can relate – it’s difficult to keep the heart open and receptive to giving and getting love, when it’s been beat down so many times and from many directions. As for Lilium’s death, I saw it coming and wasn’t really surprised. That’s Nature – the strong survive; and instinctively, Lilium’s geese parents would have realized her fate and ignored her themselves. That’s just nature’s way. As for the effect on Ruth, yes, it was most disheartening; and I can see Ruth bundling her heart in even more layers of gruffness. Will she dare to open up again? I will not be surprised if that answer turns out to be “no.”
Louise’s use of jealousy rang true to me. I’ve seen jealousy make people tear others down. Sometimes it is overt, resulting in a response of “he’s not so good” when others point out talents or character. Other times it goes underground and comes out as various means of trying to diminish its object. I found it very disturbing to see how it came out with Peter. The hope is that a spouse will build you up, make you more, and help you become a better person. For Hazel, it seems that she had buried the jealousy for so long that when it came out, it came out with a vengeance.
Unlike Marie, I don’t see Madeleine as grasping for attention. I didn’t see her as “sad” in that way. I thought Madeleine was truly one of those people who is naturally talented and charismatic. Her husband said, “it’s like being too near the sun”. I thought what he was saying is that he became almost invisible because everyone saw Madeleine and everyone wanted her time. In the end, he didn’t feel special enough (or just enough).
I think jealousy always comes from a place of insecurity. Certainly it does with Peter, and I think the Peter/Clara dynamic is one of the most interesting through all the books.
Yes. Yes. I agree.
Ditto!
I agree wholeheartedly!
Thanks, KB, for your thought regarding Madeleine being “naturally talented and charismatic.” A new perspective for me, not having read it that way – truly a benefit of reading “with” others!
Marie – I think that’s very interesting that you think that Jean Guy had put Gamache on a pedestal and that his finally insisting Gamache tell him the whole story was a healthy step towards feeling more like a peer than a worshipper. I find Jean Guy to be the most complex of the characters – and one who goes through more change than any other during the books. I have often wondered if this angry outburst is not the first step down a more dangerous road, though it’s very early days yet… Not to let any further cats out of the bag, but I think that the caged “something” deep inside Jean Guy is something to watch out for…
I see – and understand – what you’re saying, Julie, regarding Jean-Guy and his outburst the start of going down a dangerous road. My reaction is based strictly on what we’ve learned through Book 3 about Jean-Guy, with no reactive hints to what’s still to come from Louise. As in many cases, I think, people’s sudden outbursts can have long-lasted ramifications.
I think Ruth ‘found’ the ducklings to allow her character to develop. Even late in life she is to be allowed to heal herself. The ducklings ‘love’ her unequivocally, I think she has not experienced unequivocal love in her life.
Through the ducklings she discovers her mistake in trying to help Lilium, she loved the duckling too much but that love caused her to mortally wound the creature. Ruth has to forgive herself for this unwitting act of betrayal and this perhaps gives her an in sight into past perceived acts of betrayal against her that she can now recognise as not deliberate.
Via this experience she learns the gift of giving love more openly and allowing love into her relationships with others. This is the start of the metamorphosis of Ruth as seen in Clara’s painting. She is publicly kind and compassionate to Odile.
Penny really knows people, her insights are so rewarding and inspiring to me.
Fiona, this is such an interesting thought. I had not been thinking along these lines at all, that Ruth’s growth and development were tired up in her experiences with Lilium and Rosa, the ducklings… but it makes so much sense now that you have shown me…
“tied up”, not “tired up”. Gotta love autocorrect!
Well maybe it was tied up AND tired. You know Ruth. 😀
I think I found Clara’s painting of Ruth online. It is “Mater Dolorosa” by Paul Mak, a Russian artist. I am unable to post the painting here, but Google it and see what you think.
I find reading Louise Penny to be very spiritual. She delves down ruthlessly to the deepest parts of her characters’ souls and exposes their struggles to be in relationship with themselves and]each other. Jealousy is indeed a deep source of conflict, jealousy of others, and indeed jealousy of the unfulfilled, failed parts of oneself. I think this is the source of Peter’s jealousy of Clara, he is not only jealous of her talent, but he is jealous of his own inability to take the risk to be unafraid of his own talent and let it flow unrestrained. So many , Hazel, Odile, Sophie, Officer Nicole and Beauvoir and Brebeuf, are jealous of the unfulfilled parts of themselves and unable to trust themselves to be happy and this contaminates their lives to various degrees.
Carol, as an impulsive fellow ‘googler’, I did look up the Paul Mak painting. I have to disagree with you. When I looked at that face, I immediately thought 1.) this is a nun (and possibly very sheltered from the world), and 2.) not only am I looking at the face of possible great grief or sorrow, but am also looking into the eyes of madness. This face isn’t at all what I pictured when I imagined Clara’s portrait of Ruth. More on this later when I sort out what I want to say, but even thick-skulled Peter, who denies emotions, received a very heavy gut punch when he not only saw something else that Clara had captured in Ruth’s eyes but surprisingly recognized it. I don’t think that Ruth is mad, as in marbles missing. I find her to be very grounded in reality. Does this make any sense?
Dear Meg R. , I do not see psychotic madness in Paul Mak’s painting, but it see the deep pain of almost unbearable grief. The grief of someone who has lost a deep love, perhaps a child. I see Ruth as very sane, and someone who loves her fellow folk very deeply, so deeply it is safer to put up a rude shell to protect the depth of her feelings. I believe Clara may be imagining the pain Ruth is afraid of feeling if her barriers came down.
The wonderful thing about art is two people can look at the same piece of art and come away with very different impressions and both are right.
Carol, you’re absolutely right! And – no worries about calling me out about my reaction. We each see, read, interpret via the strings of our own prior knowledge and experiences. When I looked at Mak’s Madonna – I saw the depth of her pain, but I didn’t see that special thing that Clara captured in Ruth’s eyes. Have you really ever looked into the eyes of someone who actually is mad? There’s an emptiness, a hollowness, a lack of connection present that one can’t escape from noticing. That’s what I saw in Mak’s portrait. What figuratively ‘knocked the socks off’ of Peter was that he could see the beginnings of Hope in Ruth’s eyes – not that despair, not that emptiness. For me – Mak painting stops at the ‘madness’ of grief/despair/loss and doesn’t seem capable of potentially moving beyond that. Clara’s painting captured Ruth making that movement. Does this make sense? I’ve been really intrigued by Ruth since the first book and so want to know her story – which we haven’t been given – except for little bit with Jane Neal and Timmer in the first book. Yeah, I like Gamache. He’s a good man and the moral center of all of these novels whom we all adore, but Ruth, Clara, Nichol and Jean-Guy intrigue me more for some reason.
I think that painting is not quite it – I don’t see the hope in that one, though I think the style might be similar to Clara’s. Interestingly, I’ve heard Louise say that the art form that moves her most is music, not painting, which I find fascinating as she writes so knowingly about it. I would in fact compare her to Ngaio Marsh who has an artist character; I think Marsh DID have artistic ambitions.
Clara’s use of green instead of blue separates Ruth from the Madonna image and creates a more ‘human’ response. This woman is not perfect, there is hope for us all.
I don’t believe Yvette is jealous. I think she wants to be invited in, she feels lonely and isolated, but as she tell Gamache, she also feels comfortable standing on the outside.
Linda, I agree – I think that Yvette really DOES feel more comfortable on the outside, and is, perhaps, envious of those who feel comfortable in the group. She longs to be part of the group and has not the first idea of how to get in there. She thinks it’s because she has “not been invited” in, but she really WAS, when Gamache invited her to join the team. Like when she stands outside her family circle, claiming not to be “invited” in to sit at the table (where there is not a seat for her), she doesn’t realize that you don’t need to be invited to be a part of your own family – especially in your own home. Her father doesn’t make any effort to bring her in – I have to think he is very happy as things are!
Know what’s funny? I read this before and completely forgot that 1) Nichol was “under cover” for Gamache and 2) who actually ‘done it’ until I reached those latter chapters!
Meg, I never remember who did the crime – it’s always the character development that stays with me. And, while I was SURE that Yvette was undercover for Gamache, I kept thinking to myself that I was remembering wrong and that she must also be working for Brebeuf (along with Lemieux).
I had totally forgotten that Nichol was undercover for Gamache. I’d also forgotten the murderer, but I always do because I enjoy the discovery process so much. But I can’t believe I forgot (or missed) Yvette’s loyalty!
The sentient presence of life’s unfolding is spellbinding.
So many senses are touched.
I find Penny’s depiction of the out-of-control envy and competitiveness that ‘possesses’ Peter very powerful. As a person who lives with a very elderly parent who always had a sharp tongue and an icy tone as killing as any flame thrower — and who now no longer has as much emotional self control as once she did — I can sure identify with what Clara’s going through. It can be as simple as ‘you’re not going out wearing THAT are you?’ to something far more underhanded. I’m no longer as innocent as Clara, or as inclined to take such slashes at face value, but I recognize them. And of course, being a family member, I have learned enough to know that this kind of underhanded thrust of the knife is available in my own arsenal, and I must be both self aware and in control of my tongue to prevent myself from doing that. Notice that Ruth’s apparent harshness is NOTHING to the cruelty of Peter’s sneaky little attacks.
excellent point
Projection. For the most part, I’d say that’s what the Hadley House contains. The projections of so much that is dark and negative, the ‘shadow’ of the perfect pastoral village, Three Pines, outcast at the edge of town. And, as time goes on in the series, I think you will find this reading will turn out to be correct. It’s a reminder to us all not to heap too much opprobrium on the stranger at the edge. That dark shape out there in the night, it’s ourselves and our worst fears and emotions we are seeing.
That said, I did once have a very odd experience with a house myself. The first house I ever owned, I bought in 1995. I had the rector of my parish (Episcopalian / Anglican) come and bless the house. For some reason, I just wanted him to do it on the day of closing, and not at a housewarming party later. I closed on a cold December day in a downpour of rain. My boys, my closest friend and my priest gathered in the house at nightfall with bread and salt and he began the house blessing, going into each room. When he arrived at the upstairs bedroom, he asked if we ‘felt anything’ in the room and seemed disturbed. He sent us downstairs and did whatever he felt he had to do to ‘cleanse’ the room with prayer.
I later learned that the owner of the house had been a young man who had died. His parents, who lived far away, were selling the house. It may be that he died of AIDS, based on a lot of mail that came unbidden to my door in the first year I lived there. It wasn’t an ‘unhappy’ or ‘happy’ house for me, nor did I ever feel there was anything ‘wrong’ with the house. I was in fact glad to have some of the nice household things, like a porch glider on the screened porch, and some outdoor dining furniture, that had been left behind. I still have a pretty little tray with a parrot painted on it, and a lovely-shaped green glass bowl that were left behind in the house. Yet I certainly had a feeling that sad or bad things had happened there before my time.
I do understand how a house where something dreadful has happened can ‘haunt’ a person. In Arlington, VA, I used often to drive past a very nice house with a double garage. The couple who briefly owned it, a real estate agent and his girlfriend, were murdered quite brutally in the garage of that home by a person who had bought a double indemnity insurance policy on the guy. I could not drive by and look at that lovely home without a shudder.
Re-reading for the 4th time or maybe 5th and actually the second time around in the past week. Was just struck by something that is not in the discussion questions but I believe is one of the most profoundly upsetting moments in this book.
” ‘But are the colors quite right?’ Peter leaned into the easel then stepped back, not looking at her. ‘Well, I’m sure they are. You know what you’re doing.’ ”
Was anyone particularly struck by this?
I was willing to accept Peter as a flawed but loving husband until that moment, but I think I stopped breathing when he said that. It was so consciously effective, devastating. He might as well have shot her.
Cathryne – it made me think a lot about what Gamache feels about murder being an emotion spread out over time and how in the last book we talked about Crie being “murdered” outside the Christmas Midnight service by CC’s horrible yelling at her.
The idea of murdering the person’s soul, spirit, etc. EVERY TIME I read that passage it shocks me even though I have read all the other books numerous times also I feel like HERE is where we see something terrible.
KE, I agree that Clara only wants to be accepted as an equal by Peter–she’s certainly not thinking of surpassing him. I think there’s a place in the 2nd part of the book, where Gamache is discussing how difficult it would have been to be a friend of Madeleine, and Clara says, almost involuntarily, that she married a very great artist. Gamache is shocked that she thinks of herself as being totally eclipsed by Peter, and tells her that he’s seen her work, and thinks highly of it.
The thing is, I do think Peter loves and needs Clara. He probably does not even realize the psychic harm he’s doing by making her doubt her work. Of course, several things had happened to arouse his deep jealousy: He recognizes how wonderful this painting is, and then the art critic, Denis Fortin, makes it clear he’s come to view Clara’s work, not Peter’s. OW! That has to have been a terrible blow to his ego. Now, had it been Gamache in his place, there wouldn’t have been all that angst–he would have been happy for Clara that her work’s finally getting some well-deserved recognition. In Peter’s view, though, Clara’s work is now threatening to overshadow his.
I think he’s like a lot of men who are happy in their marriage as long as the wife is willing to play the role of servant and look adoringly to the husband, catering to his needs. Let the wife start to grow, though, whether it’s taking a few classes at a local college, or developing a skill that can be marketable, and the perfect little Eden falls apart. Clara’s growth in her artistic ability has thrown Peter for a loop, and he can’t admit his true feelings, because he doesn’t trust feelings. Remember how he denied his anger just before the seance? He claimed he wasn’t angry, but Jeanne said calmly that he was angry, and that everyone there could feel the energy from his anger. So, I am quite sure that he does not admit to himself the anger and hurt, that led to envy, and his trying to create some kind of accidental destroying of Clara’s work are the result of his inability to acknowledge his feelings.
I did not expect to him to say that. At first I thought –How wonderful that he appreciates her work. Then I thought he was being sarcastic. I tend to think it was his envy speaking. I just can not warm to that man.
Barbara – I know what you mean. Do you think Peter himself there and in this book is actually hoping the same thing you and I were/are? I kind of think that but then I am not sure.
What are your thoughts on that?
That paragraph is so perfectly written! I’m very familiar with this kind of attack, having first experienced it from my parents, and then from my first husband. It’s so subtle, yet so insidious, that the effect is devastating, even while Clara doesn’t realize what has happened. Sometime, somewhere, this chicken will come home to roost. It’s inevitable, and if Peter ends up dead some time long in the future, I wouldn’t bee a bit surprised. I know, (and don’t want to be putting out spoilers, so hope this is vague enough), that when we learn a bit more about Peter’s upbringing, and his relationship with his family, we will understand him a bit better. But as my husband says, just because you understand someone’s actions doesn’t mean you have to accept them.
Julie, I know what you mean about it being so well written and such a devastating effect on anyone. Here it makes Clara question all that she felt she knew about her art and her ability. And rather than wanting to surpass Peter’s fame she only wants him to understand her work first and foremost and perhaps join him in notoriety in the art world. Clara never wants to take from anyone, especially Peter. Yet this short paragraph powerfully speaks of Peter’s desire to “take” something from Clara – a desire he cannot contain and holds inside in one of those “cages” Beauvoir speaks of.
KE, Cathryne, Barbara and Julie, I agree with your comments about Peter. At first I was thinking, “Great, he’s going to be supportive of her work,” but then he had to go and put that zinger in which would cause her self-doubt. Wonder what he REALLY was hoping would happen–did he perhaps think Clara would go back over the painting, which at that point was pretty much finished, and that she would ruin it by trying to “improve” it. What I like about Penny’s plotting is that even though the suggestion of a dinner party(!) by Peter was made, I believe, to keep Clara’s focus off the painting and increase her stress and worry. Instead, she got inspiration at the party, and THAT is what helped her change her painting from one that was already very, very good(enough to rouse Peter’s envy, for sure!) to a masterpiece. I just love that!
My heart ached for Clara when I read this. I don’t understand why Peter is so jealous of his wife’s art and why he is so deviously mean to her.
How lovely to read the Wasteland extracts …. I studied them many years ago and had forgotten how rich and evocative the language is . And what joy to re read these novels as I find this time the plot is not of first importance … I’m not racing through to find out what happens so can really enjoy the characters and their little foibles . I love the bit in Still Life where Clara is bathing in vegetable soup thinking it is bath salts ! I am writing from Yorkshire England where very few have ever heard of a Louis Penny and I am on a mission to spread the word !
I started reading Book 3 and thought, “Gee, I this book is so vastly different from the first 2. Then, I realized I hadn’t read it…yet!” So this reading is a real treat for me.
I’d like to address 2 of the questions:
* I don’t believe a house is or can be haunted and/or malevolent. After all, it’s strictly wood, bricks, and mortar (to use the old-fashioned terms). To say a house is haunted and/or malevolent, I believe, it to put human characteristics onto inanimate objects (I know there’s a term for that; but right now, I’m having a senior moment!). But, if something horrific happened in a house, say a murder or suicide, then I believe people’s associations with that house can become part and parcel of that building. For that reason, many states now have laws requiring such disclosures when the house is up for sale. As for the Hadley house, because of its remote location and because of what we learned in Book 1 with that house, I have a sense that the town lumps all negative thoughts with that house.
* I, too, am drawn to/by Ruth. I can’t explain it; but there’s something about her blunt rawness to everyone, yet I’m not completely convinced that this rawness – much less her bluntness – is what she really means to portray. Rather, I think it’s become a comfortable coat she wears when in public. For that reason, I find Ruth and her ducklings quite touching, giving us an inside peep (no pun intended!) into the workings of Ruth. Definitely no corniness there.
Gamache still remains my favorite character, probably because he seems so human and even more so now that we’re learning more and more about his professional past. The struggles he’s going through, yet the dignified persona he still maintains even with Jean-Guy…only rarely letting his (Gamache’s) inner self come through. Thank goodness for the scenes and/or phone calls from Rene-Marie, truly a time when we can see inside Gamache’s heart.
I wish the newest comments showed up at the end, or consistently after the comments people are replying to. Very often, I see that there are new comments by the number listed, but can’t find them without a long search.
I am so enjoying this “club”, though – you all are making sure that I get so many nuances that I would have missed on my own.
Thank you to Robin for leading the way.
I agree, Julie. But this way we can reply to specific comments. Like I’m doing right now!
I know, but half the time those replies don’t show up with the right post, so I get confused. Oh well, it doesn’t hurt me to skim over all the posts each time.
Looking forward to the discussion of the second half. I hope the questions we are given lead to a discussion of the plot and characters.
I thought the questions on this first part were very thought provoking.
We got to discuss Gabri’s introspections. (Yes I have done some things that required a reminder and recitation of Gamaches rules. I hope I got all the appropriate reparations made. Sometimes we hurt others all unknowing and so never get to make amends.)
Ruth’s bench and ducks. Crusty like French bread with a soft interior where love resides. How fitting to find the eggs during the Easter season when we celebrate the rebirth of hope and life. My very favorite character. My only problem about Ruth is that sometimes I think I become her, only without the poetry. And, without the poetry it’s hard for others to see the squishy center.
Gamache’s rules, generous spirit, intuitive approach to life, people, and murder investigations. He awaits the feast and prepares for the wake.
The old Hadley house, with its own life and several characters as bestowed differently and individually by each who have walked her path or crossed her threshold. A sentient death awaiting rebirth.
Barbara, who or what was YOUR favorite character or turn of plot so far?
Always Gamache with Ruth a close second.
I agree about hoping to discuss plot and characters in the second half.
I myself have just about had it with the OldHadleyHouse willies. It’s a gloomy, run down place where the murder was commited. The initial fear and horror leading up to the sceance was a bit over the top, but fun to read. But. By the time Gamache is doing his search of the whole house, we know that people get the shivers there. Right. You guys are Surete… suck it up and get over it. The Brebeuf, Lemieux, Nichol conspiracy is as strong a story line as who killed Madeleine.
I feel what Penny is giving us in this book, besides the who dunnit is back story and character development. We get the whole ugly Arnot case explained and why its poison lingers. We learn more about Jean Guy. Gamache’s family is described more as well as his tenderness. We get more of Peter Morrow… his self-absorbion and selfishness (interuppting Clara’s work, let’s have a dinner party). But we also hear that they love watching old horror movies curled up on the couch together.
And more Ruth. 🙂
Thank you Linda. Love is stronger than fear. We have to keep telling ourselves that. It’s so easy to get lost in the dark places it can be hard to remember.