54 pages • 1 hour read
Louise PennyThe Nature of the Beast
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2015A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Destructive Consequences of Deception
Throughout the novel, several characters conceal important information and lie in order to maintain their secrets. However, such attempts are almost always shown to be futile and destructive. The novel’s strategic descriptions immediately reveal that Ruth is keeping a secret related to John Fleming and the play; as soon as she learns that Fleming’s influence has invaded the village, Ruth finds herself vainly hoping that “maybe it would be all right. Maybe it would stay buried” (28). Ruth eventually reveals that she has been haunted for decades by a secret shame. This shame originates from the moment when Fleming approached her with a commission. Horrified at the aura of evil she could sense from the serial killer, she directed him to ask Al Lepage instead. Ruth’s shame at diverting the man’s attention to a neighbor is so great that it has robbed her of her creative abilities for many years; she explains that after the encounter, “she didn’t write again for decades” (286). She also attributes the encounter to a fundamental change in her personality, claiming that she was “nice once” (289). However, Ruth gradually comes to understand that her internal damage was not due to the traumatic encounter with Fleming itself, but to the secrecy she maintained around the event. Once she tells the story, she experiences forgiveness and empathy both from others and from her inner self.
Significantly, Al Lepage and Brian Fitzgerald also keep secrets of much greater weight, for their secrets are born of cowardice and greed as they fundamentally disguise their identities, histories, and motivations. Al becomes enmeshed in his false identity, internalizing “the story he’d told himself every day, until he believed it […] until the lie became the truth” (293). Both characters are also required to commit acts of emotional or physical violence in order to maintain their respective ruses. For example, Al has to lie to his own wife for decades, while Brian becomes desperate enough to resort to murder in order to conceal his secret goal of locating the supergun. However, in both cases, the men cannot build new lives that are based on lies. By the end of the novel, their secrets are to light, and both are arrested and forced to face justice. Notably, Ruth finally chooses to freely disclose her secret, while Al and Brian cling to concealment until their lies are exposed. Because Ruth takes the risk of speaking the truth, she can find peace, whereas Al and Brian must face long-delayed consequences that are worse because they tried to hide the truth.
The Moral Implications of Art
This theme is primarily established through the ethical dilemma of whether it is ethical to perform a play that was created by an author who is a known serial killer. The debate is particularly meaningful because many members of the Three Pines community have creative professions and are keenly familiar with the nature of art as a creation of the artist and as an abstract yet independent agent in the world after it is created. Some individuals feel that it is unfair and dangerous to halt the play, comparing this choice to an act of censorship; for example, Myrna lists well-known books that were suppressed and notes that they were “all banned by people who believed they were in the right” (30). Gamache, on the other hand, takes the hard stance that “if John Fleming created it, it’s grotesque” (31). While everyone agrees that works of art cannot be considered to be morally neutral, the debate shows that even individuals who care deeply for one another can have divergent ideological perspectives. It is also significant that this debate occurs within a work of art (a novel), and thus, Louise Penny uses the scene to challenge readers to reflect on the ethical choices they make about the art they consume.
The unfolding of the novel’s plot doesn’t offer a clear stance on who is right in the debate, leaving the theme to exist as an open question rather than a conclusive verdict. On one hand, the play is shown to be a malignant influence on the town, for it is linked to weapons of mass destruction. The connection of the play to dark and violent events supports arguments that it should never be endorsed or performed. On the other hand, it is only by closely reading and even performing a read-through of the play that Gamache is able to solve the case, find the plans, and ensure global safety and security. Thus, although the play is dangerous, it can also function as a force for good. Depending upon how it is treated and presented, it can either threaten to tear a community apart, or it can implement a new sense of safety and security. The exploration of the theme of The Moral Implications of Art therefore functions to show the significance and power that art can yield, both for good and for evil.
Compromises for the Greater Good
Throughout the novel, characters are required to consider taking morally ambiguous actions in pursuit of a larger goal. While characters who make these compromises too lightly are shown to be morally compromised, individuals must also be willing to make these terrible choices when it is truly necessary. The debate about moral compromises largely occurs between Mary Fraser and Armand Gamache; it quickly becomes evident that the former only cares about preventing the plans for the supergun from falling into the wrong hands; she is far less interested in solving the murders or preventing more murders from occurring. As she bluntly states, “I have one brief, and that’s to make sure no one else ever builds a weapon like the one we found in the woods. That’s all I care about” (235). Gamache counters that individual lives always matter; this viewpoint reflects his years of experience as a homicide detective, as well as his role as a member of a close-knit community in which every individual is a valued member of a greater whole. While Mary Fraser sees events on a global scale, Gamache appreciates the local perspective.
Mary’s and Gamache’s differing philosophies and motivations often put them in conflict with one another, especially when Mary withholds information that could help Gamache to solve the case. She even insults him outright by declaring, “You’re a coward, monsieur […] [because you are] not willing to accept a few deaths to save millions” (236). However, Gamache will later reverse his position while engaging in a similar debate with Jean-Guy. As the risk of the plans falling into the wrong hands increases, Gamache becomes increasingly desperate and begins to entertain the possibility of working with Fleming to locate the plans. Jean-Guy is shocked by this idea, and while Gamache acknowledges the risks, he also feels that they have no other choice. As Gamache explains, “If those plans are found, how many more wives and husbands, children and grandchildren will be killed?” (319). The narrative makes explicit the terrible moral calculus that Gamache is considering, for he actively contemplates “being an accessory to a slaughter, for the greater good” (319). While Gamache is ultimately spared from making this terrible choice because he finds the plans in time, his actions show that he is willing to go through with the plan. By having Gamache occupy both sides of the debate, advocating both for protecting individuals and for making sacrifices for the collective good, Penny shows that this question is too complex to have a single correct answer.
Related Titles
By Louise Penny
