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”
Oh, Petey is my dog.
I’ll take question # 4 first. After re-reading Still Life and starting A Fatal Grace, I suddenly thought how dense of me. Ruth’s “beer run” each afternoon as she sat on the bench in the Square. I would very much like to sit beside her and blend my grief with that of hers. (Thank God, Veternarians who have tended and known the stories of my rescues have been the ones to ease my dear dogs from this life.) I would like to think that she would be OK with my presence and would allow me to be her friend. Everyone does not understand the depth of feelings we have for our beloved animal companions. Now the precious little duckings have arrived. I have read the series so I know the rest of their story. The ducks were not a corny touch. Much about a person’s character is revealed in their love for the animals that have a close relationship with them. I feel the warmth of Petey’s body as he sleeps in my lap while I am typing this.
Barbara, I also like the idea of sitting with Ruth on her bench. Do you know, I think this is the first time in fiction that we see a person perform an act of loyalty usually only found in canines? I’m writing, of course, of Ruth’s habitual visit to the bench at 5:00 because that is the time she helped Daisy go out of this world. If any place should be sacred in Three Pines, I think it is that bench.
Of course, Louise Penny does not tell us, the readers, immediately about WHY Ruth is going to her bench. It even makes her look rude and (at least in Beauvoir’s view) a bit nutty. Thus we see her through the prism of Lemieux at first, and not from the other villagers. When I read that part about why it was called a Beer Run, and realized that in effect, Ruth is visiting Daisy’s grave every day at the same time, I almost cried.
Also, I did watch that video of Louise Penny, where she is discussing The Cruelest Month, and she mentioned that for most people, they keep their negative selves secret and present their best side to the public. Ruth is the opposite. She shows her nasty side to the world and keeps hidden(or tries to– I think about the time when Gamache was visiting her in her home, questioning her, and she confessed that she was about to be “decent”– like that was an awful thing!)her good side. I think the fact that Ruth does have a soft, or good side, but that she doesn’t want it to be common knowledge makes the villagers have more respect for her. To them, she is much more than just a cranky old lady. To me, too. What an interesting character she is!
I missed something! Where was the video of Louise discussing The Cruellest Month????
Nancy — I think the video should be on this homepage: http://gamacheseries.wpengine.com/the-cruelest-month/ 🙂
I love Ruth as well and I loved the ducks. I ALWAYS cry when I read about Lilium’s death. I have a dear customer at our store who thinks she **is** Ruth Zardo (and in truth, there are similarities) – curiously or not, this woman works with rescued birds of prey. She actually meditates with some of them. I love the dichotomy in Ruth, and in this customer (also a friend).
Wow, I like that, Robin! ( Meditating with a rescued bird.)
And meditating with her ducks seems like something Ruth would do.
I love Ruth. Not that she would be easy to live with on an ongoing basis! And, while she doesn’t change through the series, she is a walking contradiction, which is revealed in many ways throughout.
Myrna and Clara feel like my friends. They are goofy, sensitive, and insightful and understand the healing power of tea, or chocolate, or a beer.
And I wish we could have had more of Madeleine (like with Jane in Still Life).
I love Ruth. From the very start.
Ruth and her poetry and her dog, and her ducks. Little precious pearls left in each book by a wonderful author.
Gamache is wonderful. Beauvoir is heartbreaking. They are the greatness of these books, but Ruth and her ducks are the heart.
And Louise still has more room to explore Ruth. In re-reading ‘Still Life’ I was surprised to find that Ruth was once married. Her maiden name and married names are referred to in Jane’s will.
I also liked that she has hidden treasures in her basement, sorta like the hidden treasures in her heart.
I love Beauvoir too and you could argue that his character changes and evolves the most over the course of the books. Also I love the relationship he shares with Gamache and later with Annie.
I agree, Robin. I’ve often thought in reading these books that Beauvoir is like an errant teenaged son that Gamache rescued and now is grooming to eventually take his place.
1. I really don’t think a house can be evil in and of itself, but enough evil acts have been done in the Hadley House that people can be forgiven for thinking so. I’m a very slow reader, so am just barely “keeping up” with the reading. I’ve just read about “the latest” evil act in the house – Gamache’s encounter with Lemieux (may be ‘just’ beyond chapter 23). The last number of people who’ve lived there have certainly had their share of evil among them, and now, of course, the whole town thinks of the house that way. But I do think it’s more a “remembering” of what’s happened than actual evil that the house embodies. Our imaginations are very powerful things. If we think there are snakes on the floor of the basement, it’s pretty easy to convince yourself that a garden hose has just actually slithered past your leg and is about to strike!
2. I think my very favorite thing about Gamache is how well and carefully he listens. He tries to teach his team that “if you’re talking, you’re not learning anything”. Some learn well – others, not so much!
3. It’s so hard to see Gamache being betrayed by his boyhood friend. But he is a “give the benefit of the doubt” kind of person for everyone he meets, so certainly, a life-long friend would be trusted until proven otherwise. I ache for him when I see this happening. He’s such a good person and HOW can anyone side with Arnot? And yet – this is a very Canadian thing – there are examples of such monstrous behavior of whites toward natives throughout the country’s history, and some not so very long ago. It’s believable to me that it happened, and that it was condoned by some. Very believable, I’m afraid. This is the real evil I feel throughout the series, and we are really getting to it now. So hard to sit and read and not scream at Gamache to look out!
4. Beauvoir is still my favorite character – his demons are still to come out, but they will… He loves Gamache so much, but seems almost powerless against the thing he keeps in a cage locked deep in his heart. Nichol is another favorite – so complex and my heart breaks for her as she tries – she really DOES try.
5. Love these rules and WISH I’d known them much earlier in my life. As it is, I probably embody “I’m sorry”, hahaha. “I don’t know” is the one I have the most trouble with. In my family, the only sin there was, was to be wrong or admit you didn’t know. Kind of hard for a 10-year-old to live up to…
6. While Ruth was slow to warm for me – I got that she was crusty on the outside and soft on the inside, but that really starts to come home for me with the ducks in this book. As we see this tale unfold, my heart opens, flowers, shuts and breaks for her through it all… I know it’s only a little side-note to the stories, yet it’s very telling. Without the ducks, I don’t think I’d like Ruth half so well, though I do love her poetry.
One of the things I’ve been doing with this book is highlighting things that I think are important to a theme or illustrate something that strikes me, and of course, my Kindle copy is now almost all yellow! There aren’t many words that don’t fit one or both of those criteria in a Louise Penny book. I’m looking forward to the last half of the book (I’ve forgotten whodunnit, too – and really, it’s not the most important part of the books for me, hahaha).
Julie, Your response to Q#2 caused one of my old grannies to whisper in my ear! She always told us that “God gave you two ears and one mouth so you should use them (your ears) twice as much! A friend printed this on a poster for me that hung in my classroom for many years. Even got to the point where my kids would extend an arm & aim at it when one of us (yes, me included!) wasn’t really listening to what the other was saying! But, do you remember the fifth and biblical ‘lesson’ Gamache added at the end of the list that both he and Brebeuf learned also from their early supervisor? It also resonates in this book!
Matthew 10:36: “And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” It comes up in STILL LIFE and recurs as a major theme (along with the very different quote, “Surprised by Joy,” which is ultimately engraved on Jane Neal’s headstone) throughout the series.
Meg, I wish I had learned the “listening” lesson much earlier. Good for you for allowing your students to include you in the need to really listen – you must be a very good teacher.
Yes, I do remember the “biblical” lesson, too. Gamache really needs to keep that in mind for the rest of the series!
Not plot related at all by why do you put the word Biblical in quotation marks when referring the the Matthew quote?
What I love about Gamache is his ability to be still and to listen without judgment. This is contrasted with Beauvoir, who can listen, but with his own running commentary, or the younger agents (Lemieux, Nichol) whose insecurity (or other issues) make them push to be seen and heard when they ought to be listening and thinking.
I believe Gamache does judge. Actually, I believe he listens, hears, and then applies GOOD judgement.
Notice, he wasn’t oblivious to the rudeness of his “friend” he just waited to learn the cause instead of overreacting or acting too quickly.
I totally agree, Linda–Gamache does judge, but wisely, and not before listening and observing. And while even his judgment is not always perfect, he also has the wisdom to say, “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” when appropriate.
Perhaps a poor word choice…. maybe better would have been “listen without being judgmental”. Gamache listens and uses discernment and logic and comes to good conclusions, but he does not dismiss, vilify, or minimize. There is no “those crazy Anglais” etc. just because people are different. Except sometimes 🙂 .
Thank you, Robin, for your introduction into The Cruelest Month. Like you, I find the book is so interesting on the way it develops the characters that I also (temporarily) forgot about “whodunnit”.
Now, on to that first question:
. –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.–
Well, actually I believe the home we now live in has a few ghosts connected to it. One, I think is the man who lived here and whose death was the reason for his widow selling the home. A couple of other, smaller ghosts, are the souls of several of our dogs. All of these are benevolent and so do not cause any fear, but just recognition of a life now in a familiar form.
As for houses that have a malevolent spirit, I do think such things exist. If memory serves me correctly, there are several novels based on “hauntings” or negative spirits that caused a family to move from a home. Amityville Horror comes to mind as a title, but I can’t recall any of the particulars at the moment.
As for the Hadley House, I think we see that in this book at least some of the villagers are looking askance at it because of the actions of some of the people who lived in it. Clara in particular is afraid of the house. Penny writes: “That house had haunted her ever since she’d arrived in Three Pines, a young wife to Peter, more than twenty years ago. It had haunted her and almost killed her.” Then Clara goes on to tell Jeanne Chauvet about the house: ‘There’s been a murder there, and a kidnapping. And attempted murder. And murderers have lived there’ (p. 27 Paperback).
Now there are a couple of interesting things about that passage that I want to discuss. Clara feels that the house had almost killed her, but actually, Ben is the one who kidnapped her and tried to kill her. It seems a bit unfair to me that the house in this case is getting the blame for the actions of someone the Morrows had considered a friend. I also find it intriguing that in her statement about the house, Clara doesn’t even indicate that SHE was the victim of the kidnapping and the person that someone tried to kill(again note she does not even mention Ben as the person who lived in the house, who both kidnapped her and tried to kill her, and on top of that, was going to make Peter the fall guy for his, Ben’s actions!) Ben seems to get a free ride here while the house takes the brunt of the blame. This seems particularly ironic to me considering that Clara had believed Ben when he told her there were snakes in the basement. Even after she’d been rescued, and light revealed that what she had thought were snakes were really parts of hoses, she didn’t seem to realize how malevolent BEN was, not the house!
Of course, readers of A Fatal Grace will recognize that besides Ben, the other murderers who had lived there were CC de Poitier and her daughter Crie. Since the murders committed by both of those females took place away from the Hadley House, only one murder really took place there, and that was Ben’s murder of his mother, Timmer. It’s not as though Three Pines suddenly found itself having to fear a serial killer! I don’t believe that either CC or Crie would have killed anyone else, although of course that is a moot point. Ben is a different story. We see that he killed Jane Neal because he feared that she had figured out that his alibi was questionable, and then he was willing to kill Clara when he suspected she had figured out that he was the one who had changed the face on Jane Neal’s painting, Fair Day, and thus must also be her killer. Up to that point, I don’t know that the police had even thought about Timmer Hadley’s death being suspect. I must add, though, that Timmer was dying of Cancer, and what Ben did was give her an extra dose of Morphine–what in some other cases would have been deemed a “mercy killing.” It certainly was not violent, and I don’t think that action in and of itself would have been enough to make Timmer come back to haunt her son/and or the house. All of the other murders took place off site, so as far as negative energies residing in the house is concerned, I do not see how that would be enough for the house to truly be full of malevolent spirits.
Jane, What a wonderfully considered reply! I actually agree with you that houses themselves aren’t haunted, though perhaps they are inhabited by the bad things that happened inside them. The Hadley house seems to have more than its share of unhappiness and death. Maybe the idea is that those things are somehow “drawn” to the house. But I think in general your point relates to Louise’s use of almost magical realism – while things sometimes appear to be supernatural in origin in her novels, they always have a root cause in reality. It’s the anxieties of the people involved that make what happens much more terrible. Look at the difference in reaction to the house between Lacoste, gifted with an imagination, and Lemieux, not gifted with an imagination and unafraid to be there.
Robin,
I think your post is spot on. It’s the anxieties of the people in the village that lead them to project evil onto the Hadley House.
Jeanne discusses this with them when they are trying to figure out what went wrong with the first seance. As it turns out, they held it in a place that was “too happy,” and that she had thought there were”no mean spirits around.” After Monsieur Beliveau tells her abouty the Hadley House, and that the house is “evil” because “bad things happen there,” and Clara adds her bit about the murderers who had lived there, Ms. Chauvet tells them it is about balance. She tells them she feels peace in the village,” ‘From the time I arrived I felt great kindness here. . . this is an old village, with an old soul… The village has known loss, people killed before their time, accidents, war, disease.Three Pines isn’t immune to any of that. But you seem to accept it as part of life and not hang onto the bitterness. Those murders you speak of, did you know the people?’
Everyone nodded. ‘ And yet you don’t seem bitter or bound by that horrible experience. Just the opposite. You seem happy and peaceful. Do you know why?’
They stared into the fire, into their drinks, at the floor. How do you explain happiness? Contentment?
‘We let it go,’ Myrna said finally’ “(p. 28 paperback ed.).
I think this is one of the best descriptions of the villagers and what kind of people live in Three Pines. We will see that ability to let go be tested time and again, in this book and future books, but this is one thing that remains true of the people in Three Pines.
After Myrna’s response, Jeanne goes on to tell them that the energy from their anger and fear goes to the Hadley House:
” Three Pines is a happy place because you let your sorrow go. But it doesn’t go far. Just up the hill. . . To the old Hadley House”(p. 29 paperback ed.).
That’s a lot to put on an individual house, isn’t it? But it sure sets up the Hadley House as a proper place to hold a seance! Fasten your seatbelts!
Just an odd notion that popped into my head concerning what you said about Lemieux. He is quite intent on destroying Gamache. Is it a case of evil being quite comfortable in the old house?
Houses feel different. Some, occupied or not, just feel like home and family. It might be the quality of light inside them or the warmth of woodwork. And a similar house can feel cold and unwelcoming. It seems to me that the Hadley house was not a welcoming house to begin with. It was easier to blame the house (rather than Ben, who was supposedly a friend) for the dis-ease Clara felt around him and Timmer. (I believe that some of the uneasiness would arise from the dissonance between what Ben said about his mother and the reality of who she was.) It is still easier to blame the house than to accept the depth of betrayal of a friend. The house is separate, apart from the village. It is easy for the villagers to dismiss all that is evil and assin it to that house. With nobody to care for it, a negative history, and its innate coldness, it is not surprising that it attracted CC. But, is it evil? I don’t think so. I like Louise’s description in one of her books – it was a sigh. It needs someone to “heal” it and let in the light.
Hi, Jane F.! Happy to see you starting this one! Know what? First time I read this, I was reading the series sequentially – back-to-back. As many others have stated, I was absorbed by plot and focused on what was happening with Armand, Ruth, Clara, Jean-Guy, Gabri & Olllie, Myrna, Lacoste and the others and how their lives were interwoven and the direct or indirect effects of that Arnot business. Like most of us, so much more becomes meaningful or even noticed on the second reads.
I finished reading Chapter 25 last night and discovered that I was a little perturbed with our author in this one – especially in the first third of the book. Think it was Clara who said something about people liking to scare themselves by watching horror movies. I just had the sensation that hysteria was affecting almost everyone in the book over the Hadley House – kind of like that perpetrated during the Salem witch trials — or teenage screams & shrieks from a Freddy Kruger or slice & dice horror flick! There were so many references to that house killing people – even from characters that we know who tend to be a little more level headed! Wanted to call out – “Where’s the ____ that we’ve come to know in the first two books?’
Jane’s right! That house didn’t “kill” anyone. Whackadoodle Ben Hadley killed his mother there, and Jane Neal in the woods, and kidnapped & probably was planning to kill Clara there in that basement. Two other ‘damaged children”, CC and her daughter Crie also lived there and murdered their mothers – but not on that location. Almost want to go back and come up with another list of every time anyone said something about the murderous nature of that house! Found myself penciling in “NOT” in the margins frequently when characters made this claim. It just seemed very illogical to me that Gamache, Jean-Guy, Clara, Myrna, Lacoste and even our two newbies – Nichol & Lemieux – seemed to make that characterization about the building. Remember pencil marking, “NO! Ben did that! ” or “No! CC did that.” There is a greater issue in this book for concern other than the assumed ‘evilness’ of that building.’ Real thread of harm is oozing & creeping out of another structure in Montreal!
Just found all of that hysteria about the ‘fear inducing’ Hadley house to be distracting. Seance & its consequences could still have effectively occurred without all that frenzy about an evil site. Really wasn’t sure why that was included at all.
Meg R., I’m glad you agree with me about the Hadley House being unfairly blamed for so much of the bad things that have happened in Three Pines. However, I think the reason Penny “allowed” the villagers to get all hysterical about the Hadley House is that in effect, the house, and the outcomes of the seances held there, serve as a RED HERRING. A tried and true plot device of many a mystery writer, including the grand dame herself, Agatha Christie. By making the readers look at the house and not at who the probable murderer of Madeline was, she keeps us from guessing who that person is and deciding we don’t need to read any further, ’cause we have solved the mystery!
Yes, I get ‘red herring’ employment, but there are so many others in this story that I felt that Ms. Penny was really asking us to stretch our beliefs well beyond the believable when characters who have managed to keep their heads & think straight in the two prior books don’t at the beginning third of this one. For instance, Gamache has been inside of that house in “A Fatal Grace” — after falling down the cellar steps and being injured in “A Still Life.” He entered it tentatively at first when he went to speak with Richard Lyon and Crie. He noticed that it was just a tired old house that hadn’t been updated. He went back two or more times after that to speak with Lyon and to check on Crie. Absolutely no reluctance on Armand’s part about entering it. Then in this book, we have both Armand and Jean-Guy doing internal tremors about the horrors of this house, Their past actions and behaviors didn’t merit recent reactions. Just felt like they were added to increase hysterical reactions to the Hadley house. L. Penny’s reading of poem that Jeanne C. recites about a ‘witch’ tends to reinforce that ‘witch-hunt’ mentality. I’m just saying that – for me- that part of this novel just didn’t ring true. That’s all. Have made a couple of interesting discoveries though, Have to unpack my book as they’re inserted in it. (Wonderful weekend seeing smiling new great-nephew who’s just learned to chirp & crawl!)
As a child I lived with my family near a trailer home where a young father murdere his wife and then committed suicide. The wife’s family had the trailer cleaned and then took it several states away and sold it. My father’s job caused us to have to move fairly often and over the course of several years we came across the trailer several times. Each time in a trailer sales lot. I remember my father talking to one trailer sales manager who told him that the trailer appeared to have been sold many times. Once people purchased the trailer they would only keep it a short while, then resell it because they felt uncomfortable. Was it haunted? I don’t think so, but I do think that awful feelings can remain where horrible deeds have happened.
There’s also an important message here that I think is being overlooked. Some of the ones most frightened have a legitimate reason for being fearful of the house.
Clara (and Peter) had been misled by Ben into believing there were snakes in the basement. Then Ben dragged Clara there to attempt murder. There in a dark eerie basement Clara was the target of a murderer, Gamache was almost killed in the same dark basement, as was Peter. When the lights came on, Clara was surprised that the basement was actually clean, no snakes. She, and others, held on to the horrible feelings from that awful incident. It wouldn’t be uncommon or mystical in any way to be afraid of the place where you almost died. It’s very difficult to let go of the feelings of fear and vulnerability.
While some may have been overreacting, perhaps being fearful because they over sympathized with the real victims, others (Clara and ultimately Gamache) seemed to be trying to face and overcome their residual fears.
It did make for a great red herring. Effective because as we all know, just because people say you’re paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t someone really out to get you.
The house didn’t kill anyone, but LP seems to like to emulate a different type of mystery novel in each book, i.e., “locked room” mystery, stately home mystery, etc. This seems to be the one that has a “scary house” theme, among other things.