I actually raised this topic about a year ago on the discussion list, and since the question was better-phrased by a more alert, better-rested version of myself at that time, I might as well self-plagiarize - "...What does everyone think about [the nature of Penelope's relationship with Alex] - is it intense sibling-type love, or an inappropriately-placed romantic love? I've always leant toward an exceptionally fierce case of the former, but I can't be sure - Penelope seems so worshipful, doting, and jealous of the man. All this can be explained by Penelope being extremely possessive of her brother, though there's just something about the fond, flowery, idealized way in which she talks about him that makes me suspicious. I'm not trying to be prurient (if it were the latter, it clearly wasn't acted upon) - it's just that the issue has kinda nagged at me whenever I think of [The Cat Who Played Post Office]."
Most (if not all) of the folks respondents leaned toward the idea of romantic love, most of their observations (all of which interesting; go to eScribe from the Links page and do a search for "Penny") encapsulated in a post from Patricia Noone:
"I think I always leaned toward assuming there was misplaced romantic love which Alex made use of to control and exploit Penny. But now that I think about it, there's no real definite proof of this offered in the book. I remember someone, maybe Amanda (?), saying the situation between the two had been ready to blow for ages, so people in the town are aware there's something bizarre."
Entirely thanks to a thorough search by Eileen C. (merci!), the passage of which Patricia speaks has been located, in Chapter 15. To quote Eileen's e-mail, "Qwilleran calls Penelope's suicide 'unthinkable', to which Amanda responds" -
"Not to me! I knew that unholy situation was headed for an explosion, but I didn't figure on suicide. I thought she'd blow her brother's brains out, if he has any."
Ah. Great Amanda line at the end there. Also, Melinda does vaguely mention in the last chapter that "a lot of us had guessed at the relationship between Penny and Alex". Patricia continues:
"Plus Penny dodges all male invitations...and I think Jr. says she's known for this." The narrative indeed makes a significant point of Penny refusing Qwill's dinner invite - "Most women welcomed his invitations....His doctor was eager for his invitations; why not his attorney?" (All right, Qwilleran is still semi-fresh from the city and yet has a sizable ego woman-wise, but the length of time that the story dwells on the refusal denotes it as something suspicious and possibly pertinent to the plot in the future.)
The most revealing text comes in Penelope's letter to Qwilleran at the end of the book; her reactions to her brother's behavior are not necessarily out of the realm of sibling affection (albeit unusually ferocious sibling affection), but Penelope's wording can be considered telling. Penelope describes Alex's fling with Daisy Mull as "a knife in my heart", feeling that her brother "betrayed" her; she considers the death knell to their partnership her brother's "bringing a 'brilliant' young attorney to Pickax as a partner in the firm and - this was the crushing blow - as a wife!", mourning that "the face that I had thought so beautiful" had "thrown away in a moment...my lifetime of devotion and sacrifice".
Profound hurt at betrayal by someone to you've devoted yourself to and sacrificed for your entire lifetime, around whom you've structured your entire life, is the most persuasive explanation that supposes purely sisterly love, but then the question arises of why one would continue for such an unusually long time to extend that devotion and sacrifice. Penelope was indeed thrust into a definite role of Alex's protector by her family; the story notes that her father asked her to study law in order to support and save face for his incompetent son, effectively requesting that she build her entire career around taking care of her brother. But then, no one forced Penny to, say, hire the school bully to protect young Alex from getting picked on in elementary school beforehand, or to stick right by his side on social occasions forever afterward. And Penelope herself notes that "I have always loved my brother with an irrational passion. Even as a child I was enamored and possessive, yearning for his attention and flying into a rage if he bestowed it elsewhere." Habitually protecting Alex somewhat started out as familial duty and surely reinforced any existing incestuous feelings, but Penny continued the role long after social pressure and familial obligations obliged her to. The need to protect is likely an effect, not a cause, of the love.
Perhaps much the reason why the platonic-love theory seems plausible is because it is the proper, genteel (and still plausible) explanation, better suited to the series's relatively proper, genteel tone. Not to say that controversial subjects do not arise in the Cat Who... world, but it's just that Braun is not interested with having her series invest itself in overly lurid details - the sordidness one would associate with the subject of...incest, and thus the less seems the more appropriate. I'm still settled in the sisterly-love view in my mind, if only mostly out of habit, but I now see that the misplaced-love opinion is more logical from an "intellectual", so to speak, point of view.
All this would be very good if it came to something or even hinted at something without a definite conclusion, but without any direction it's all very frustrating, alas.
Willful suicide - Isabelle being aware of the fire and just letting the flames consume her as a convenient way out of her dead-end life - cannot be ruled out either, considering her mental condition. Barring that scenario, though, Isabelle's best and most likely chance for salvation if she was indeed inebriated to some extent at the time of the fire would be, as a friend of mine theorized, Sweetie Pie - if the little kitten somehow roused her or alerted the woman in time to save herself (which leads to another pressing question - did Sweetie Pie survive?). It boils down to a matter of opinion, I guess. Myself, though, I can very easily see her sprawled out on the couch unconscious, oblivious to the fire all around her...
What about shortchanging her family, though? Well, Euphonia was rather peculiar in to whom she gave money and to whom she didn't; being family did not assure that Grandma Gage would take care of you. Ask Senior Goodwinter.
That said, though, there's a very good chance that the identities of Euphonia's heirs were left intact but that the amounts left to each were altered. Though she believed in having her offspring forge their own way in the world likely would not have set her grandchildren up for life (perhaps using the rest of her fortune to support a favorite charity or cause - she seems like that type of person to me, and she surely has an activist's conviction), it seems she would at least have willed them enough for a little treat or nest egg (at the very least for Junior - she did give him his Jag, after all); having her grandchildren fly in from the four corners of the U.S. for the reading of the will only to slap them in the face by awarding them just $100 is a spiteful act ill befitting Euphonia.
But...could it be that she wished to teach her grandchildren a lesson about the wages of greed? Could Euphonia have deemed the Jaguar to be reward enough for her favorite grandkid, rejecting the others, who, from what we can tell by the books, mostly ignored her, in favor of the neighbors for whose attention she was so grateful in her final days? Euphonia would have been torn between two competing loyalties in composing her will, and, considering the circumstances, the so decisive triumph of the one so new, so welcome, and so long in coming to her is not implausible. But who's to say? Can one really fathom the workings of a mind which orchestrated something so abstract and surreal as the funeral Euphonia threw for herself?
Fe-bru-a-ry
Fe-bu-a-ry
Fe-bru-ra-ry (or "Fe-bru-wa-ry", depending on your speech idiosyncracies)
Fe-bu-ra-ry (or Fe-bru-wa-ry)
The second greatly vexing point about this "Sand Giant" business is that having an mysterious, unexplained death in a whodunit eventually explained away as being caused by something natural, or at least noncriminal, completely unconnected to the mystery is frustrating, illogical, and disappointing. (And that goes doubly so here, as the folderol surrounding the backpacker's initially mysterious identity was a similar letdown. Actually, having a dead body pop up in Pickax and prolonging the enigma of his or her identity, making ferreting out the victim as central to the whodunit as the perpetrator or motive, would be a promising and unique plotline. But that's neither here nor there, alas.)
Yeah, so this entry doesn't really offer any deeper answers or speculations on the "mystery", just griping and expressions of dissatisfaction. From the e-mail I've gotten about the subject, though, I'm not alone in my feelings...
The move was indeed an impulse, but, ultimately, not an out-of-character action.
Back to the Ronald Frobnitz and Family index.