- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
This book is written from multiple points of view. Why do you think this choice was made? Was it well done? Was it effective? Why or why not?
+2 -
Going into the points of view of characters is a great way to be introduced to them and to have an understanding of their internal thoughts, which is not always the same as their external behaviour. And for a murder mystery I think it’s helpful because it expands the suspect list by conveying the people’s emotions and motivations. I don’t know if it was fully effective all the time. For instance, Yvette’s antagonistic persona made her a character so immature and negative, I didn’t want to spend time with her thoughts. And I’m not fully sure why we did. Perhaps to contrast with Gamache’s? Ruth too is “negative” but we don’t get too much insight into her internal thoughts, which is too bad as she’s an interesting character. (But perhaps LP wanted to keep Ruth a bit more mysterious?) That said, some characters internal monologues I liked – such as Jean Guy’s and Gamache’s. I’m curious to hear what others think.
+7
-
I agree with you, Tara, that it’s a great way to introduce a character. What they do externally, as you say, may not be what’s going on inside their heads. We see Armand apparently idly sitting on a bench, feeding birds, but what’s going on in his head is that he’s observing, gathering information, thinking. Jean-Guy shows competence, respect, and professionalism towards Armand, but in his head he worries about him and wants to help and protect him. I love taking walks in these two characters’ heads— it makes them more fully rounded people, and I see their hearts behind their exteriors.
Walking around in Yvette’s head wasn’t always pleasant, I agree, but I did find that I sometimes sympathized with her, even though her actions were often repulsive to me. By hearing her thoughts, I understood that her arrogance didn’t all stem from stubbornness and immaturity, but instead from cluelessness and a desire to succeed. Had I just seen her actions, I would have despised her. It helped me understand her better.
I found walking in Clara’s and Peter’s head to be effective for the narrative, too. Superficially, they were interesting characters, but their inner thoughts, revealing inner hurts, doubts, and at times, disappointments, made me see them and their marriage in more depth, and gave them both more dimensions.
So, I think that LP has a particular gift for unveiling her characters; making them into people that we end up caring about; making us want to know more, in many cases. By showing us not just the actions, but the inner thoughts, feelings, and motivations, we get a fuller picture and they become more realistic. No superhumans; no totally evil villains– real people, with real problems, doubts, hopes, fears. That makes a story all the more richer, to me.+8 -
Wonderful points Susan and Tara. I thought Gamache and Jean Guy’s internal monologues were the best in Still Life and they have remained the best throughout the series in my mind, although Clara is a big part of this story and future ones as well. I see Yvette as one of LP’s original villains in the Surete. There were others to follow, and although they are all quite despicable in what they do, LP always tries to make them all a bit more human and sympathetic. Although not overly so. I thought it interesting that in Still Life LP laid the groundwork for future stories so well in what she reveals with Clara and Peter and Olivier and Gabri (to a lesser extent.)
+7-
Me, too, Maureen. I can never get enough of Armand and Jean-Guy; they are my personal favorites. And I agree about those little seeds LP had planted about Clara, Peter, Gabri and Olivier. Knowing what I do now, I admire how she used that information to flesh out further stories. I wonder which came first— I always wonder how far ahead a series author plans ahead, and how much that comes after is just a continuation of plotting “what ifs” when deciding to do another book. I’m sure each author has their own method. I certainly admire LP’s!
+6
-
-
I find the internal dialogues of the characters one of the aspects of Louise’s writing that I enjoy most. They not only develop the characters but also contribute clues to the plot. So, for me they are effective devices that enrich the story.
Since this is our introduction to all of the characters, from Three Pines and from the Surete, their different perspectives, musings and conversations with one another were pretty central to the story itself.
I agree with Susan and Maureen about Louise’s ability to either set up future stories or pick up the threads of previous ones to weave them together. I know there is a later discussion question about “foreshadowings” from “Still Life” that become part of future books. I am looking forward to looking more closely at those examples.
+6 -
I agree that the internal dialogues are very insightful. Not only does this format allow the reader to understand the character from their own point of view, but also enables the reader to learn more about other character. For example, we hear Yvette’s thoughts when the murder scene is first investigated and she makes comments about Gamache that demonstrate his incredible attention to detail (the name of the mill that she had completely ignored and that he had noticed and realized the relationship with Ben). His skills and intelligence are conveyed in a way that isn’t obnoxious, which enable readers to recognize and appreciate his intelligence and positive characteristics along with other characters in the novel. It’s sometimes more powerful and influential to hear praise or “reviews” from third parties.
+3
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.