- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 4 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
When Gamache first meets Charles, he makes a note of his accent: joual, a language that is “guttural, almost harsh. If a Québec winter could speak, it would be in joual,” Armand thinks to himself. After hearing the accent, Gamache feels an instinctive trust for the stranger. Should Gamache have trusted Charles at their first meeting? Would you? Have you had a similar experience, liking or trusting someone because they remind you of something from your upbringing or background?
-
I believe that Gamache was not in a good mental place when he went to meet Charles. The haven and peace of Three Pines had been shattered by the incessant ringing of his phone. “The caller was already in his head, he sure didn’t want them burrowing into his heart.” He lost his patience and told the caller to “go to hell.” Reine-Marie was shocked. Then the alarm company called to inform Armand that the alarm in their home in Montreat had gone off, seemingly a false alarm. More strange things happened. His jacket was missing. Tardiff dismissed Armand’s feeling that two murders are related and mob hits. It felt like the monster was “resting, watching and gathering strength.” A package was delivered, containing his jacket, a note asking to meet at 4pm at Open Da Night and an ingredient list. Open Da Night was not a “comfortable” place. The man who entered “wore a hoodie, with hood up, on a warm afternoon. His hands were in the bulging front pouch of the sweatshirt. He was stocky and walked with the rolling, wary gait of a boxer approaching an adversary.” Gamache became concerned, almost fearful that this was a setup because this was not the man who had delivered the package. As Charles became less reluctant to provide answers, Armand became more frustrated and weary. His instinct said Charles was lying, but about what. “It had been a long, stressful day.” And Charles had “created a house of specters, of partly seen, insubstantial threats, and then thrown Gamache into it.” Gamache could have saved Charles, but he had to make a choice and chose the man’s granddaughter because at that moment, Armand could identify more with a grandfather and his granddaughter who was just a little older than his own granddaughter Florence. I think if Armand could have saved Charles and the little girl, he would have because he is not a man who likes to see someone die. But, I think his frustration and suspicions helped him make his choice of saving the little girl. It was the choice of the moment and I don’t know that it can be described as right or wrong. It just was. Obviously, for the plot of the story, Armand should have trusted Charles and saved him.
-
We are constantly being told to trust our instincts. Listen to our gut. The survival of animal species depends on their following their instincts. It’s when we humans ignore them, over think things, then we seem to get into trouble. Instincts are our internal compass. By checking that compass regularly we always know where our True North is. Throughout the Gamache series Gamache has demonstrated how strong and accurate his instincts are. Look at how Isabelle and Jean-Guy have turned out because Gamache trusted his gut feelings about them when they were young officers. Something told him they would be exemplary officers with the right guidance and he was right.
So absoulutely Gamachhe should have trusted his emotionally charged reaction to Charle’s joual accent. “Joual … a code that told another Quebecois that the speaker … was salt of the earth. He or she could be trusted.” Gamache was smart, though, to trust his reaction with caution. To keep checking that internal compass. After all he was dealing with a more dangerous situation than just becoming friends. He was investigating murders and trying to prevent an attack on his country. He had no reason to trust this chameleon of a character other than his instincts. If Gamache had dismissed Charles every time he wondered how trustworthy he was thousands of people would mostly likely be dead. It was that initial instinct and the growing accumulation of clues and information that kept bringing Gamache back to Charles. It was his initial reaction that served as his compass when he began to lose his certainty about Charles’ trustworthiness. Like Gamache we should listen to and trust our instincts and in some cases check our internal compass more often.
-
Yes, I agree Libby. When I backpacked in my younger years, I would often need to rely on my instincts whether or not to trust strangers. I don’t know if anyone had similar experiences, but I’d get off the train and there would be people holding up cards advertising they had a room to rent or a B&B. You’d get in their car and off to their house you would go. I did do this a couple of times (I was travelling with a friend so at least I had a bit of security there). When I think about it now it seems so trusting. On a few occasions when I got really stuck I hitchhiked alone, which I admit was a bit dangerous. But I had to trust my gut instinct and I did avoid situations that didn’t feel right for me. In Gamache’s world, who to trust and who not to is always a question because it creates drama and suspense and we all want that in a murder mystery. But I think you’re right that he has been right in trusting his instincts in the past. I think he knows this, but still trusts with caution.
-
-
Should he trust Charles after hearing a joual accent? No, especially given that prior to their meeting Charles broke into his apartment and stole his jacket. Theft is a violation of sorts, so I don’t think Gamache is wrong to be suspicious of him right away. But it’s understandable he feels an instinctive trust based on something distinctly tied to Quebec’s cultural identity. I think people do tend to be more trusting of people who come from the same places we grew up or share a similar heritage, or even like the same sports team! Maybe it dates back to our early ancestral instincts and tribalism. I’ve liked someone because they have reminded me about something from my past or we have connected over a similar interest. But I have to meet someone more than once in order to build trust with them.
-
Charles is scattered, nervous, and lying when he meets Gamache, so I completely understand why Gamache’s assessment of whether to trust him or not goes back and forth throughout their conversation. Charles just isn’t forthcoming and he broke into Gamache’s apartment and stole from him, so he’s not really trustworthy. But I think Gamache recognizes Charles is obviously frightened and paranoid about something important, so he is objective when he listens to what Charles has to say.
-
Even after reading a third time, I found myself suffering a bit of whiplash trying to follow Armand’s conversation with Charles. I see Gamache making decisions largely consistent with his experience and judgement as a police officer and his fundamental beliefs about people and how they operate. Even against the backdrop of personal threats, the call from Caron and the break-in of his home, Armand is willing to consider that the risk extends beyond him and he has a responsibility to pursue that.
Armand also recognizes his personal reaction to Charles’ accent, “Hearing it now, Gamache felt a sort of affection for this stranger. It was instinctive. That too was something to guard against, and he wondered in passing if this young man was doing it on purpose.” I think Gamache managed to both trust Charles’ enough to get some vital information and remain skeptical of Charles’ purpose and honesty. In some ways, I don’t think Gamache had an option not to trust at least some of what Charles said.
As for that instinctive response, I would say it applies to me and my experience. And it goes both ways, instinctive trust and instinctive dismissal of those who sound, look or represent a different background or upbringing. That is more of a challenge to consider, I think.
-
Oh Jane, I agree with everything you’ve written here, but the last two sentences really pack a punch. I hadn’t considered the flip side of this question at all, and it feels like the discussion could get turned on its head here. I really admire how thoughtful you are in considering so many angles to situations.
I imagine most people would say that they have no bias against people who sound, look or are different in any way, but I think that that claim could be challenged quite strongly, especially given current events and the resurgence and popularity of certain ideologies that were certainly shameful to hold not so long ago.
It’s also interesting given the post on names that Jo-Anne published earlier today. That traditional names scored more highly, meaning that the familiarity of names makes them more beautiful, intelligent, popular and kind. Which means that people with familiar names are more likeable, and, by extension, more trustworthy.
I think that Louise has again pointed to a very interesting aspect of human behaviour here. Our instincts to trust and like, and conversely, our distrust and … apprehension?, of people solely based on characteristics that have nothing to do with personality and morality.
-
Louise, and by extension our Book Club Friends admins, really do send us down thought provoking paths, don’t they! Thanks for your comments.
-
-
-
Well, I’m sure the familiarity with Joal was endearing to him, just like a familiar smell or sight might trigger a memory, but I think Gamache is too experienced a detective to let that cloud his reasoning and judgment. I’ve liked meeting people who have grown up in the same part of town as myself or gone to the same school. Not sure that means completely trusting the person, but it does bring more ease in getting to know them and a good start to begin a friendship.
-
I agree with Nancy that when Gamache meets Charles he is rattled by the break-in and the call from Caron so much so that he’s on edge during their encounter. His instincts are maybe a bit out-of-whack and I think LP definitely writes Charles as swinging wildly in his behavior so that he is difficult to pin down as trustworthy or not. So I totally understand the “whiplash” you mention Jane!
I think it’s easy to say yes, Gamache should have trusted Charles because we later learn that the stakes are super high but Gamache doesn’t know that at the time. So I think his uncertainty is quite plausible throughout their encounter. As for having maybe made a mistake choosing to save the little girl over Charles? For myself, I don’t think Gamache made a mistake there. The bigger mistake with Charles was not interpreting Charles’ last words correctly. Instead he let his personal past experience cloud his judgment. Which I think ties in so well with the notion of trust again. Because we do, as Libby says, rely a lot on our instincts. But our instincts are often colored by our past experiences. This is certainly the case with Gamache’s distrust of Caron. On the flip side, it’s interesting that Caron trusts Gamache precisely because of the same past experience. She trusts him because she herself is untrustworthy.
-
I think Armand’s decision act to save the little girl rather than Charles is one he is unlikely to second guess but one that will have a prominent place in his “longhouse.”
-
-
So many great insights here, as usual! My first reaction upon reading Armand’s reaction to the joual being spoken was that he shouldn’t be taken in by it, because some people can be so manipulative as to use our instincts against us (I think there’s a lot of that in advertising, politics, and many other life experiences, for example). And, as it so happens, Charles was one of those people in this case. But I also trust Armand as a character, and I feel his instincts are generally sound; and like Libby says, we are supposed to listen to our instincts, our “gut.” He was smart enough to realize that he was possibly being played in this situation, but he tempered it with his gut reaction, and he was correct in his evaluation of this young man. I think he was right to consider both points.
As to the other part of the question– would I have trusted Charles, or have I had similar experiences? I probably would have initially been taken in and relaxed a bit upon hearing that accent, but the inconsistencies in his story would have probably been a red flag for me— I hate being lied to, and that would have put up a barrier between us. And yet, it would have been hard to not have had sympathy for this kid. Still, I don’t trust easily, and I would have been leery of Charles based on that one meeting. He really was all over the place, and I thought Armand exercised a great deal of patience with him overall.
Yes, I’ve instinctively liked people because of certain traits, things in common, etc. — like Tara said, maybe it’s an inherent form of tribalism. When I’m in a group of strangers, I tend to look for those common denominators; I think it’s a subconscious protective mechanism. But I’m reminded of the tattooed young man in A Trick of the Light, who people assumed was a screw-up based on his physical appearance, when in fact, he was the one who most had his act together in that AA group. I think it’s useful to trust our gut, but I think, like Armand, we should be aware that what we’re seeing could be “a trick of the light,” and use our best judgement with both in mind. So easier said than done!
-
Susan, what a great example and connection to another LP story. I had not thought about that but this is spot on. And, as I recall, Armand assumed first that the Judge was a leader rather than member of the AA meeting and then assumed he was the young man’s sponsor rather than the other way around.
-
Yes, you’re right about that. Armand made a false assumption based on appearances, just like so many of us might do. I love that LP makes him extraordinary, but also still very human.
-
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.