Book 17: Why does Louise include this story in the novel?

Thoreau was in jail for standing up for what he believed in. He asked Emerson what are you doing out there. Thoreau thought Emerson should also be standing up to what he believed in which was protesting his opposition to the system of slavery in the United States. Much like Thoreau speaking out against something that he believed in, Armand spoke out against Abigail’s dangerous agenda.

Louise seems to always find great quotes from literature and history to illustrate the themes in her stories. This quote goes to the heart of The Madness of Crowds, showing how people deal with injustice, cruelty, violence, etc. You can take action, or you can sit and watch, worry, talk, but do nothing to remedy the situation. It’s interesting that Gimache and Dr. Gilbert had this conversation because the two of them embody these ways to face the world. Gamache acts, Gilbert does not.

I’m sure Gamache was struggling to understand why this “Saint” is hiding in his cabin in the woods. Why isn’t he using his title and expertise to help fight this horrendous injustice being spread around the country? Why isn’t this saint helping to protect the future of children like Idola?

LP often makes reference to Thoreau and Emerson, in describing the cabin and Vincent Gilbert’s life there (“two chairs for company”) and Vincent and Armand’s relationship. They are genuine friends, as were Emerson and Thoreau, friends who for all their external differences share a love of ideas, literature, family and travel. I think it is a friendship both treasure and one that adds a measure of difficulty for Armand in regarding Vincent as a potential suspect. The story takes place when Thoreau has been arrested for refusing to pay taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican American war, his statement of conscience. I think that Vincent finds himself in an analogous situation viv a vis Abigail Robinson’s writings. Gilbert, however, struggles with the cost of making that statement. In the end, the statement Gilbert prepares to make is more personal, an apology for and acknowledgment of his part in Cameron’s research. I hope that would have been a prelude to a public denunciation of Robinson’s conclusions. In the final visit to the cabin, Armand asks if Gilbert’s statement of conscience may lead to Robinson’s murder.

It’s interesting that you chose this question because that quote has stuck with me from the first time I heard it. I think it reminds us that sitting back and doing nothing is not the way to live. It’s a little bit like “If you didn’t vote, stop complaining “

That quote was perfect for this subject matter. It was a reminder that sometimes a person must make a stand, and let their conscience be their guide. “Put your money where your mouth is,” so to speak. Passivity is often mistaken for agreement, or apathy, and it often leads to things getting out of hand. People, in the aftermath, often wonder, “how did that happen?” without realizing that sometimes terrible things can morph from simple inattention and inaction against insidious ideas. Thoreau gently rebukes Emerson for not taking action, and Armand does the same to Vincent. Gilbert has a certain amount of stature and power; he would be listened to, and is strong enough and smart enough to make cogent arguments that might stop Abigail’s alarming theories from taking root. If he truly wants to help, he needs to get in the game. The quote also applied to Haniya Daoud, who essentially is rebuking Armand in the same way when she calls him weak for protecting Abigail during the shooting instead of taking action against someone and something he finds dangerous and despicable; for not following his ideals and doing what must be done, as she had, to protect others. (Yet she acknowledges that murder would have created a martyr, and not killed the idea). So then the argument could be, how much is enough? How much is too much? When is the line crossed? These characters (and Jean-Guy, when he made his decision to hold his fire against Abigail) all had to make their personal decisions on this and decide what they could and could not live with; as we all do, really.