Author Interview: Louise Penny
Q: I really can't remember a first novel I've enjoyed so much,
except maybe In the Bleak Midwinter by Julia Spencer-Fleming. It's
so accomplished; is it really the first thing you've ever written?
A: What an honor being compared in any way to Julia Spencer-Fleming! Thank you.
You know, the truth is, I've tried to write a book every decade of my life,
except perhaps the first, thank God. I'm now 48, so that gives you an idea
of how many failed attempts there have been. The first two had good ideas but I
was young and saddled, handicapped really for a writer, with a very happy home life.
So I had very little natural insight into the terrors, insecurities, pettiness that
accompany fully formed human beings. I learned those intimately later. For many
years I struggled with my own demons and coming out the other side has given me an
understanding of what it's like to live in fear, to be self-absorbed, to be
angry and jealous. And to be joyous, as well. And full of gratitude. My life has
been enriched by those dreadful times, and I hope my writing has too. If not, well,
too late! Still Life is the first book I've finished after almost
30 years of trying.
Q: Still Life is an almost perfect traditional mystery - definitely in
the "golden age" mode of Christie, Sayers, Marsh, etc. - but you have
somehow made the formula more modern. It might be the emotional content, which feels
very contemporary. Where there deliberate choices made on your part to make this
book feel so modern, or was it a natural outgrowth of your writing?
A: What an interesting question. I love and read all the authors you mentioned -
I'm re-reading a Christie right now. One of the great delights of reading
them is a sense of place, of time, of tone, of an era long gone. It didn't
seem to me a gift to readers to try and duplicate that time and place but rather to
create the same thing - only to be true to my own era. It really was a deliberate
attempt to update the classic mystery, while at the same time acknowledging the
heritage. Also, for all that I love Agatha, she wasn't famous for her character
development. It seemed important to me to have that dimension in the Gamache books.
You might also notice that while there is some reliance on technology, it plays a
very minor role. Someone once told me about a phenomenon they called "High Tech,
High Touch." That was years ago and I've never forgotten it. The theory
is that the more technology we have in our lives, the more acute our need for the
human touch. Still Life and the other books are about the human touch.
Q: I love the setting and the description of it. The way the story is
written it's like evil has invaded Eden. Is there a place much like Three Pines
that you had in mind when you were writing the book?
A: Three Pines is based very loosely on a couple of villages in the Eastern Townships
of Quebec and a village called Flora, not far from Toronto. Physically it's
totally fabricated but emotionally it feels like these other places - where people
go for a café au lait and a paper, where they stop by the baker on the way home,
where people walk dogs and chat. I deliberately created a place that would feel safe
because then when the worst of all crimes happens it's even more of a violation.
Oddly, Three Pines is so vulnerable and kindly, it survives the violation just fine.
In Three Pines kindness will always trump cruelty.
Q: Did you have to do a lot of research on bow hunting? Here in Michigan, I
know people bow hunt, but I certainly don't know much about it. Are there really
hunters out there who use the traditional type of bow you describe?
A: There's a lovely old feed store not far from us where we buy dog food. One
of the men who runs it is a bow hunter and he gave me a lesson and lent me magazines.
Apparently some people are "traditionalists" and enjoy the added challenge
of a re-curve bow. While I respect their choices and certainly like many hunters
personally, the whole thing repulses me.
Q: I loved Jane. The book is really a tribute to her and as you read it and
know her better you just like her more and more. It's unusual, I think, to kill
off a character that everyone likes so much. It's kind of a twist on the formula.
Again, was that a deliberate choice?
A: It was. I wanted to play with the idea of killing someone without enemies. Who
would want this woman dead? But I did find it a challenge since she was so loved she
had to be mourned and it got a little sticky, since in the first draft the villagers
spent far too long weeping and depressed - someone had to get on with the investigating!
So I had to struggle with that and find a natural balance between mourning this much
loved woman, and getting into action. In the next book I decided to go in the other
direction and kill off someone universally hated. Electrocuted her in the middle of
a lake in winter. Most satisfying though a little baffling.
Q: How much planning do you do in advance? Do you outline everything or does
it become evident as you write it? I've heard all kinds of answers to this question,
all are interesting!
A: The first thing I did was buy a book called How to Write a Murder Mystery,
edited by Sue Grafton. Very helpful. Sat on a terrasse overlooking the village pond
with a café and read it cover to cover, taking notes. Then I filled a notebook.
Character studies, red herrings, real clues, false leads. I drew up a diagram of
Three Pines and put it on a stand by my desk, and also drew up floor plans from the
various homes. I still refer to these. Then I got a huge piece of board and some
large stickums and wrote out what happens in each chapter. Not in great detail but
things like, "Gamache arrives, interviews Clara." It was, for me, absolutely
necessary, if only as a starting point. It gave me confidence and perversely allowed
me to deviate from the plan. I read over these early notes recently and realized that
while these early bones are still there in the finished book, so much else changed.
But I need a plan to start with. Always will, I suspect. Wish I was more of a
"free spirit" but I'm just not.
Q: What's more key to you, character or plot? This is such a wonderful
book because it's meticulously plotted but everything that happens is really
character based.
A: Definitely character. Now when planning a new book I always come up with characters
first. And some overweening, unhealthy emotion that has twisted and grown so grotesque
the only way out is to kill. But all wrapped in a reasonable, even likeable, facade.
Then add other characters with their own needs and emotions. Then I figure out how the
murder might happen. But the "why" always precedes the "how".
It starts out very, very simple. Then I complicate it. That's a real hoot.
So much fun.
Q: I just finished a book by Ruth Rendell who I admire very much, and I think
you have some similar strengths, but one of the things I admired about your book were
the bits that were actually joyful rather than entirely depressing. Do you see yourself
ever going off into the "dark side" covered by writers like Ms. Rendell?
Or do you think you will retain the balance you portray in this novel?
A: Thank you so much for that comment. It means a great deal to me that you see that
and comment on it. In the book I use a lot of poetry, as you know, including one of
my favorite quotes from one of my favorite poets, Auden. He wrote, "Goodness
existed; that was the new knowledge. His terror had to blow itself quite out to let
him see it." That is really at the heart of the Gamache/Three Pines series.
It's about terror, terror so horrible it leads someone to kill. But finally,
the books are about goodness. I've been fortunate to have learned that in my own
life. Like some of the characters in Still Life, I too have been "surprised
by joy." This is a long answer to your very elegant question - but unless something
strange happens my books will always have a deliberately redemptive quality.
Q: I love Inspector Gamache, too! He reminds me of Maigret! Is Simenon an
influence?
A: God, nothing gets by you! I think I've read all the Maigret - now there's
a series evocative of time and place. Yes, physically he is certainly like Maigret -
large, old world, gentlemanly, courteous and thoughtful. I hope Gamache has a bit more
humor and delight in him than Maigret, who always struck me as a little stern. I
didn't deliberately set out to fashion Gamache on Maigret, but that sort of
fatherly, kind and calm and compassionate character fascinates and attracts me. As they
do, honestly, in real life.
Q: Who are your influences, mystery-wise? I noticed you mentioned Michael Innes in
the book, one of my personal favorites.
A: All the people you've already mentioned - Christie, Marsh, Sayers, Michael
Innes certainly. I love Josephine Tey. I think her Franchise Affair is perhaps
the best mystery ever written. In terms of modern writers, I love Reginald Hill, Julia
Spencer-Fleming, Caroline Graham.
Q: What's next for you? Another Inspector Gamache? Will he be back in
the city this time?
A: I'm actually thinking about a mystery for him in Quebec City, but that will be
further down the line. In the second book, called Dead Cold, he's back in
Three Pines for the murder of a horrible woman at a Boxing Day curling match. Since the
seasons are as much a character in Canada as the people I've decided to set each of
the first four books in a different season. Dead Cold sees us back in Three Pines
for Christmas - which has been such a delight to write. But, as someone commented recently,
at this rate, Three Pines will be a ghost town by the time summer rolls around!
Thank you, Louise!
To browse more interviews, use the navigation links at the top of the page.