You may be thinking, "Why are you reading this when you didn't like books 2 or 3 in this series and had basically given up on it?" A good question. The answer is I needed an audiobook for the plane, mostly, and this was available now from the library. But also people continue to stick up for this series and say it gets better. And also it has been bothering me, like one of those little itches in the back of your brain that detectives get in mysteries, that I haven't been able to pin down what is wrong with these books.
Well, the good news is that the mystery is solved. I have figured out why I do not like these books. I figured it out about 1/3 of the way in and after that I felt constantly validated until the end. Did it become a hate read? Yes it did. But it was a satisfying hate read because I kept getting more and more confirmation that I was right.
Are you ready for the solution? Okay. Here it is. These books are sanctimonious.
It isn't unusual to talk about morality or a moral code inherent in mystery novels or horror novels. There can be rules of what will get you killed and what will make you guilty of killing. But that is not what I am talking about here. In these novels, being the murderer is nowhere near the highest moral offense. It is middling at best. You can be the murderer and everyone can be like, "Yeah but we still like you." That happens here, even though the climax contains some pretty damn despicable actions, but on the very next page they are all forgotten and we will all sit down and have a chat and a cup of tea before we even arrest the person.
No, in these books there is a very specific moral code of Penny's own devising. Many of the characters are there specifically to demonstrate what it means to be a Bad Person. The Morrow family serves that purpose here, all of them being terrible to each other. And it would be one thing if they were all terrible and that was that, but instead our morally upright detectives must think to themselves about what Bad People they are and why. They will ponder their moral failings and lay it all out for us. It is like getting hit in the head with a hammer.
It is a very confusing moral code. Money is not bad, that is made clear, and yet it's only the rich people who are Bad. Two men, both fathers and both long dead, are presented to us as clear portraits. One of them found to be Good, he cared about love more than money, and yet everything we learn about this character is pretty awful! He does not sound good to me! He sounds pretty terrible actually and it's all quite confusing. The other father, Gamache's actually, is declared by many of the Bad characters to be bad, but of course we know he will turn out to be good actually. And sure enough he is. He was Bad, we learn, because he protested against a war, was a conscientious objector who worked with the Red Cross instead, and even Gamache admits that this was very bad. Again, I would disagree, he seems pretty good and has his own strong moral code, even if it's not one the other characters agree with exactly but they have no respect for it. Because in these books if you are Bad you don't get respect. That is why I liked the word "sanctinomious" so much. Because this book is so judge-y. There is practically venom on the page when certain characters appear. And, once again, she is really weird about characters' physical appearances, it's uncomfortable.
And then when we see Gamache, oh well, then it is all poetry and goodness. We will give Gamache exactly one small flaw which he will overcome before the end of the book, but only so that he is not completely perfect. He is Large, Commanding, and Gentle and those are the only words ever used to describe him. Everyone loves Gamache, this poetry-loving man, this kind police officer, this man who bears no resemblance to anything in reality. I suppose you could see it as a kind of fantasy, this police force that is not violent, that will let a killer sit and have a nice cup of tea, that will still treat him with respect and kindness. But I don't see it that way at all, enough of the real world seeps into these books that it is not fantastical at all.
You know what other author I kept being reminded of as I listened? JK Rowling. Her books also have this very strict moral code of people who are Good and people who are Bad and sometimes it's all fine because they are children's books and fantasy novels, except that it really doesn't work when she starts writing adult crime fiction. Also sometimes her moral code is rather bizarre, like when someone is Bad because they don't support slavery or they are trans. It is all kind of fine until it becomes extremely offputting and then once you've seen it it's impossible to un-see.
Anyway. I am officially calling it quits. No more Louise Penny. And I can do it with a clear conscience, knowing I am not missing anything and that these books are Not For Me.