As I
read Scrublands by Chris Hammer I thought about why I
was so caught up in the plot. I realized it was because the plot is focused on
a favourite theme of mine in crime fiction. Scrublands
is about “why”.
As
set out in the opening to my review of the book in my last post Martin, who has
come to Riversend to write a year after follow up on the murders by the local
priest Byron Swift, finds himself in the midst of a different story. Mandalay
(Mandy) Blonde cannot understand why Swift killed five men outside his church
Sunday morning.
There
is no “who” or “how” to be determined in Scrublands.
Those questions at the heart of many mysteries are resolved before the end of
the second page. But there is not a bit of “why” to the murders for even for
those who lived in Riversend.
A
year later Mandy is still haunted by “why”. She is not alone in being troubled
by the lack of “why”. It is as an irresistible question for me as it is for
Martin.
Through
my life “why” has fascinated me. I expect I plagued my parents as a boy with
constant questions of “why”.
I
know that as a sports columnist it is my favourite question. Why was a certain
play called? Why did a play succeed or fail? Why was a player in or out of the
lineup?
As a
lawyer when a client, whether facing a criminal charge or a civil suit, comes
to the office I want to know the “why” of the facts told to me.
Thus
in reading crime fiction I am invariably intrigued when “why” is at the heart
of a novel.
When
I spoke at the book launch of Volume 3 of A
Literary History of Saskatchewan about my essay on crime fiction I told the
gathering that one of the reasons I love crime fiction is because so many fine
works in the genre delve into the “why” of the murder.
There
is good reason, in fiction and in real life, to doubt someone has commited
murder without a reason to kill.
Even
as Martin learns more and more facts about Swift and the residents of Riversend
the “why” of the killings is frustratingly elusive.
You
would think it should be obvious. Police, except for the local officer, were
content with the explanation that Swift killed for a reason related to his
alleged molestation of children. Yet “why” would he kill to protect himself
from wrathful parents or outraged community members when he could simply have
left town,
Were
it one or two killed the “why” may have related to unknown personal conflicts
but there were five.
Potentially
more promising was Swift’s mysterious past but “why” would problems in his life
before Riversend, whatever they might be, have caused him to kill five local
men.
I
appreciate not everyone wants to know “why”. I have seen readers and bloggers express
disinterest, even disdain, for the “why” of a murderer, especially a serial
killer.
Some
years ago I read an absorbing book, Explaining
Hitler by Ron Rosenbaum. In that book he explored 20 people who had sought
to explain the “why” of Hitler’s decisions. Some explored “why” the innocent baby
Hitler, as shown on the cover photo of the book in this post, had grown up to
be one of history’s worst mass murderers.
Among
the those covered in the book were two who took starkly different positions on “why”.
Claude
Lanzmann, the creator of the acclaimed documentary Shoah, fiercely asserted there should no attempt to explain Hitler.
He dogmatically states it is obscenity to try to understand:
“…. Why are the
Jews being killed? Because there is no answer to the question of why.” Because,
in other words, any answer begins inevitably to legitimize, to make “understandable”
that process.
Lanzmann
refers often to a remark by an Auschwitz guard – “Here there is no why”. He
objects to even discussing “why”.
Auschwitz
survivor Dr. Louis Micheels, the subject of a thinly veiled attack by Lanzmann,
simply and eloquently argues in favour of “why”:
He
explains the remark was accurate in Auschwitz, a world so “different and so
foreign …. another planet, light-years away. It was inhabited by creatures that
had little if anything in common with what we consider human beings …”
Micheels
continues:
“However, in the
civilized world to which so few of us, including Primo Levi, returned, there
should be – da soll ein warum sein. Without an attempt, no matter how difficult
and complex, at understanding, that very world, where truth is most important,
could be lost again.”
“Da
soll ein warum sein”: There must be a why.
On “why”
with regard to murders, whether singular or serial or mass, I will always wants
to know “why”.
I
was glad there was a “why” in Scrublands.
As to the “why” revealed I was satisfied.
****