Article 353: Tanguy Viel

Tanguy Viel’s Article 353 explores a murder through the narrator/murderer’s ex-facto explanation of the crime. A definition of exactly what Article 353 is can be found at the end of the book. After watching 6 seasons of the French series Spiral, I can’t say that I understand the French legal system, but I have grasped that it is very different to America (and Britain). I’m glad I had the Spiral experience in order to understand a little of the French legal process.

Article 353

Article 353 is set in a dying seaside town on the Brittany coast. It’s the 90s, and middle-aged divorced, Kermeur, is expecting a 400,000 franc layoff payout. Thanks to the town’s mayor, Le Goff, Kermeur at least has a roof over his head for himself and his young son. They live in a gatehouse of what is rather grandly termed the local chateau. Kermeur maintains the grounds.

As always in these sorts of towns, places with beautiful scenic views but no industry, there’s always talk of Big Money coming in and making a splash. In this case it’s Lazenec, a middle-aged man who arrives one day at the chateau along with the mayor, Le Goff. Lazenac is new to the region but suddenly he’s everywhere in his fancy car and his fancy yacht. He buys the Chateau and the land and plans to build a resort on the land. It’s an investment opportunity:

What I should’ve thought that evening, and what I’ve learned to think since, is that it’s never a good sign to run into twice in the same day a guy you didn’t know the day before. 

I’m not revealing spoilers to say that Kermeur is arrested for the murder of Lazenac: for tossing him off of his yacht 5 miles off the coast to be exact. The novel is Kermeur’s side of things as told to the judge.

Imagine that, I told the judge, a seaside resort here on Brest Bay! And I continued reading the article line by line, with its big sentences like all the region lacked was the faith and courage to face the future, there was undeveloped potential here, it said, for generations we’ve been sitting on a gold mine covered by cabbages and artichokes, a new era of tourism and development was dawning, it was time to prepare to enter the new millennium

I was part way through the book when I looked up the currency exchange rates for 400,000 Francs in 1990. At that time, it was about 69,000 dollars and change. Now Kermeur is a man in a tenuous position: he doesn’t own a home, has a marginal job and  may lose that plus the home he lives in as a result of these swanky resort homes. Kermeur is seduced by the idea of success & wealth, and he acts foolishly. When a slick developer goes knocking on doors looking for investors, that means he DOESN’T have the money himself: he wants yours.  He’s not doing you any favours, he’s helping himself. Whether or not you think Kermeur is justified in his subsequent actions is going to be a personal decision.

I liked the book’s premise; I enjoy books that centre on people’s relationship with money. We spend our whole lives working for money, spending money, thinking about money, and not understanding money. Many of us lived through the last crazy housing boom and saw people assuming insane amounts of debt. We all read about the suicides, the marriage break-ups, the moonlight flits. People seemed to want to climb out of their established status, and use the boom to move on up the ladder–flipping houses and perhaps even becoming landlords in the process. I knew many people who were ruined and will never recoup. So who made all the money? Makes me think of Marx and The Wages of Labour. … 

I found the book’s bias … is that the right word ? … or should I say, decided moral direction, uninteresting. Someone is swindled. His life is ruined. Is murder justified? Unfortunately, the book’s structure leads the reader down a certain prescribed path of judgement. A different structural narrative (say events as they occur) would have allowed for a wider scope of issues such as morality, wishful thinking, etc. As is, we know what happened. Kermeur finally understands why he did what he did: Why he gambled with the largest amount of cash he would ever get his hands on in one lifetime–money he could not afford to lose. I felt as though I was being at best guided, at worst, told, the moral judgement I should feel about this ‘case.’

review copy

Translated by William Rodarmor


Filed under Fiction, Viel Tanguy

6 responses to “Article 353: Tanguy Viel

  1. Don’t they have an odd tradition of investigating magistrates or judges in France? Property speculation is big here too, and I think people like that deserve all they get, so I would probably be on the side of the murderer.

    • Yes. I’m sure Emma could jump in and explain it.
      Actually while I have a great deal of sympathy for Kermeur, my opinion is that people have to take some personal responsibility for their actions. Can’t run around bumping people off.

    • I’m not a specialist of the French legal system but I think that the big difference with the US system is that the investigation is led the police but under the supervision of a judge. (un juge d’instruction)
      During the trial, the Ministère Publjc (DA’s office in the US, I suppose) has to prove that the person is guilty. The defendant is presumably innocent unless otherwise proven. The defendant doesn’t have to prove their innocence.
      I think that both the Ministère Public and the defendant have access to the investigation done by the police and the juge d’Instruction. The defender’s lawyer doesn’t have the same role.
      The “plead guilty” thing doesn’t exist and to me it is total nonsense as people are tempted to confess something they haven’t done to avoid a costly trial.

      When I read If Beale Street Could Talk, I wondered how it would have turned out with the French system. The fact that the investigation is led by another judge than the one who prosecute the defendant ensures a better impartiality, I think.

      And last but not least: none of the people involved in justice (police, gendarmerie, judges, ministere public) are elected. They are civil servants until they retire. They cannot be fired. I will never understand the American custom to elect a sheriff or a DA. Isn’t that a recipe for non-impartial justice?

  2. I have no first hand knowledge but I think people plead guilty not so much to avoid a costly trial but to reduce a sentence if it’s a slam dunk case. Thinking of that recent case in Colorado where the dad murdered his wife and two daughters. The Watts family.

  3. I don’t think this is for me. I don’t know anything about the differences of the various legal systems, to be honest.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.