What do you think of Gamache’s decision regarding the plot? Would you do the same thing?

It’s a hair-raising decision and while he accepted the responsibility, I don’t think I could live with myself if that many people died. I’d probably have chosen to risk sharing it to a trusted person or small group. That could have been disastrous, I know.

“A guilty conscience. He (Armand) shoved it away. It did no good and only messed with his mind. He needed clarity, needed all his focus. Ironically, the only way to save his agents was to keep them there. In the dark. In danger. It was necessary to give the impression of normalcy.” Not knowing who to trust made it more difficult for Armand. Whitehead describes to Beauvoir the “knock-on effects” of the water being poisoned: deaths, sickness, inability of first responders to cope, panic, rioting, the breakdown of authority, vandalism, misinformation, conspiracy theories, distrust, chaos, anarchy. So, I would agree with Armand that it was important to catch those involved without alerting the public because they were lucky and had a warning this time, but might not be in that situation again. To compare Armand to Rodin’s Burghers of Calais was very apropos with the statues showing their misery and inner doubt as they offered their lives to save their town from extermination.

What a lonely place for Gamache to be. Ultimately, he is the one holding the key to the future of Montreal and all who live there. He alone has to decide who he can trust and when to warn the public. Yes, Jean-Guy and Isabelle know what might happen but it’s not up to them to make that dreadful decision. To not warn those around him and/or all of Canada is testament to Gamache’s intelligence, strength of character, courage and ability to put others before himself. It once again reminds us of his values. His strong beliefs in the grey wolf. How hard it must have been to carry that load on his shoulders not knowing who above him might be involved. And how would he know if in the end he had caught everyone involved? Daily he resisted the urge to scream to the people he met to “run away – take your family and leave Montreal.” But he remained silent.

I think the only saving grace for Gamache during this nightmare was Three Pines. There his family would be safe because of its very location and lack of city water. While he did secure his entire family and Isabelle’s family they did not know why they were sequestered in Three Pines. Only Reine-Marie knew. How dreadful for her as well. And, once again Gamache’s strength is tested when he doesn’t trust Daniel to tell him what might happen. How awful to know your son finally trusts you and now after all these years of distrust, you don’t dare trust him with this secret.

I can only hope I am never in that kind of position. However, if I should be, I hope I’d have the strength, courage, and wisdom to properly carry the weight of such a burden and decision.

I think Gamache is in a real dilemma. His hands are tied in many ways because he’s forced not to tell the higher ranks of the Surete, although he does end up confiding in Toussaint. He can’t go to the counterterrorism department in the federal government either because the portfolio falls under the purview of the Deputy PM’s office and he doesn’t trust Caron or Lauzon. As for whether I would do the same thing, thankfully, I am in no position of authority to have to worry about keeping such secrets. But there is something to be said about not creating hysteria and panic in the population. Bad things can happen when suspicions and fear spread, especially now in this age of misinformation. That said, Gamache certainly left things to the last moment to assemble the “troops”! But I think Gamache’s extreme caution was justified given there was a villain in every echelon of authority (and with possibly many more villains in his circle to still to uncover).

No easy choices with this one. I wonder if he could have demanded that all water plants be shut down immediately out of precaution? But then how long could a city go without drinking water? I did think by the time he and Jean-Guy figure out what water plant is the target, that I would have begun notifying more people in authority at that point. By this point Gamache is pretty certain he knows who’s involved, but I can respect that he thinks a covert team stands the best chance of thwarting the terrorists at the plant given they only have under an hour to save the day and they still have the element of surprise. I’m just glad I don’t have to make these choices!

This reminds me in many ways of the decisions Armand made years earlier in his brief tenure as Chief Superintendent of the Surete to withhold information and allow some drugs into Quebec and the US in an effort to bring down the cartel and its leaders responsible. Information is power and withholding it sometimes represents even greater power. Armand, I think, understands both his power and his responsibility and uses his power for what he carefully decides is the greater good even though the greater good is not clear cut and he second guesses his judgement as in the scene Nancy describes.

This surely fits any definition of an ethical dilemma, ie “an ethical paradox or moral dilemma, is a situation in which two or more conflicting moral imperatives, none of which overrides the other, confront an agent.” (Wikipedia) If Armand and his agents fail to prevent what they expect is the plot, the likely outcomes are devastating. If they make public their suspicions, they may ultimately be unable to prevent the same outcome.

I think the weight and personal cost of this on Armand is actually evident in his discussion of Caron with Daniel. “He was so tempted to tell his son about the threat to the drinking water, it actually hurt. But could Daniel keep it to himself and not warn friends in Montreal who had their own young families? Perhaps. Probably. But Armand could not risk it.”

I am also grateful to have never found myself in any similar position. I honestly don’t know what I would do.

Well said, everyone. Such thoughtful responses so far. And it’s a subject worth thinking about. People in power have had to make decisions like this throughout history, and I suspect it’s been done more often than anyone will ever learn about. Serious threats, be they of a terroristic nature, or biological threat, or natural disaster, have occurred throughout our history, and as many a disaster movie will tell you, panic and destruction may often occur if the general public is made aware. In some situations, there is just nowhere to hide, at least not in time, or without scrambling over the bodies of others. Innocents are harmed, in any situation like this. We know of Churchill’s decision to allow Coventry to be bombed during WWII, as it was referenced in the books when Armand made that decision about the drugs that Jane mentioned; I am sure there are many other real examples out there, if they’ve ever come to light. What a horrible dilemma; a Sophie’s Choice, to have to make one reprehensible decision in order to obtain a best case outcome. What a terrible burden for a leader to bear, which is one of the reasons why it’s so important to have strong, incorruptible leaders who have their heads on straight. Armand, in this no-win situation, lacking any safe counsel other than that of JG, Isabelle, and Reine-Marie, did, I think, the right thing, and thankfully, it turned out well. What would he have done had it not? How could he have lived with himself? Would he? Would he face the consequences of such a horrific disaster? I know he was willing to face whatever came his way after his decision about the drugs as Chief Superintendent, but could he face this scale of disaster, with the deaths of friends, co-workers, so many innocents? I’m pretty sure I couldn’t, and I’m so glad that he, even in his fictional world, didn’t have to!

Very interesting comments from everyone. There is always the discussion questions proposed which lead me to sometimes straightforward answers, but then there are the varied answers here that make me think of different scenarios, perspectives and past books. It’s always an interesting experience when everyone puts so much thought into their answers.

For me, I think Gamache was correct in his actions because the terrorist plot is different from, say, a disaster warning. His reasoning that the terrorists could move the target, disappear, escalate the attack, delay the attack, are all valid reasons to not tip off the public. When you issue alerts to the public about storms, floods, wildfires, people can maybe, in some cases, prepare and evacuate in a calmer manner. However, what do you do when there’s a criminal threat but you have no hard proof? For a criminal threat – such as a bomb threat – again, you can evacuate the premises while continuing your investigation and that’s because you know the target location. But Gamache is not certain at the beginning of the investigation if the recipe is a “shopping list” or a herald of an attack. And he’s not dealing with a small target. He also doesn’t know initially which water plant is the target. So the scale of trying to manage an evacuation, without knowing where people could go to be safe is another reason to keep the information hushed. It does make you wonder though, if similar threats have happened in real-life and we simply don’t know about them.

Some perspective on how much worse the panic and chaos would have been if the poisoning of the water had been made public: how many have seen people emptying shelves of bread, milk and eggs or snow melt when severe weather such as a heavy snowstorm is predicted or emptying shelves of toilet paper during the Covid pandemic? Makes Armand’s decision to keep quiet much more reasonable, but heavier to bear.

• This reply was modified 4 months, 2 weeks ago by Nancy Herrington.