Murdering Mr. Monti Read online

  Thank you for downloading this Simon & Schuster eBook.

  * * *

  Join our mailing list and get updates on new releases, deals, bonus content and other great books from Simon & Schuster.

  CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

  or visit us online to sign up at

  eBookNews.SimonandSchuster.com

  CONTENTS

  DECIDING TO DO IT

  1 THE MURDERING KIND

  2 YES TO ADULTERY

  3 OY, IS THAT A GENIUS!

  4 THIGHS AND WHISPERS

  5 AND DO NOT FORGET THAT YOUR MOTHER, THOUGH DEAD, STILL LOVES YOU

  6 SHE MATES AND SHE KILLS

  DARING TO DO IT

  7 HEAVY-DUTY RASKOLNIKOV-TYPE GUILT

  8 THIS IS A HOSTAGE SITUATION

  9 THE MYTH OF THE G-SPOT

  10 BANANA, BANANA, BANANA

  11 MY MOM IS A SLUT

  STILL DOING IT

  12 A LEAN MEAN KILLING MACHINE

  13 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE

  14 I-THINK-I-CAN-I’THINK-I-CAN

  DONE

  EPILOGUE

  for my two beautiful and beloved daughters-in-law Jane Hamill Viorst and Hyla Stacey Viorst.

  DECIDING TO DO IT

  • September 21

  1

  •

  THE MURDERING KIND

  I am not the murdering kind, but I am planning to kill Mr. Monti because he is doing harm to my family. I don’t look like the murdering kind, being a short, blond, rounded, very married lady, with bifocals and a softness under the chin. On the other hand, I don’t look like the kind who, just a few weeks before her forty-sixth birthday, slept with three different men within twenty-four hours. And since I indeed did do that, I might indeed be able to murder Mr. Monti.

  Nine months ago Mr. Monti’s daughter Josephine told him that she was engaged to marry my Wally. Five weeks ago poor Josephine was having a nervous breakdown and Wally was being accused of stealing a large sum of money from Mr. Monti’s safe.

  “I know you didn’t do it,” I said to Wally in my most reassuring maternal-supportive voice. “But could you just explain how a hundred and fifty thousand dollars happened to be in the trunk of your Chevrolet?”

  “It’s a really long story, Mom,” he said, so we sat in the living room and he told me the story. And then he kissed me goodbye and disappeared.

  I have complete confidence in Wally. Jeff, my other son, the older one, is a whole different matter. I mean, who could have complete confidence in a real estate developer? But Wally, who is going for his Master’s in Social Work at Catholic University, is a good boy, a truly lovely person. And it doesn’t hurt a bit that in the right light, with his perfect profile and roguish blue eyes, he is definitely a Mel Gibson look-alike. In fact, if someone told Mel Gibson that he looked like Wally Kovner, Mel could take it as a major compliment.

  Though I ought to have known better, I tried, on the second day of Wally’s disappearance, to talk over possible plans of action with my husband, Jake. Not the murder part, which I hadn’t come to yet, but several other thoughts I had on the subject. Jake did not wish to hear about them.

  “We’ve got a lawyer handling this now, Brenda. So I’m going to ask you, nicely and politely and with a great deal of respect for your autonomy, to back off.” He took a big sip of coffee and resumed reading The Washington Post.

  We’ve been married forever, but I continue to be fascinated by the way Jake can push a button in his brain and switch off the outside world as if it’s a TV program he no longer wishes to watch. Lately, however, I have noticed that I am the TV program that Jake keeps switching off. Who could resist a line like “I’ve got something desperately important to discuss with you”? Who could ignore a statement like “What I have to say could totally alter our lives, the lives of our children, and perhaps the lives of our future grandchildren as well”? Jake could, can, does, and—that second day after Wally’s disappearance—did.

  I tried again. “I know you’re feeling annoyed with me,” I told him, trying to sound hurt but not reproachful. He swigged down the rest of his coffee, got up, gave me an insincere pat on the behind, and was out the door and into the car before I could finish the rest of my sentence. I was going to say “. . . and I can even understand why you might feel that way,” which would have added just the right tone of empathy and humility. I often tell my readers that if you put yourself in the other person’s shoes and display a little good-natured self-effacement, you will greatly enhance your communication skills.

  It’s a shame that my column (which appears in 372 newspapers around the country) doesn’t run in The Washington Post, where Jake might stumble upon it from time to time. I believe he is confusing the name of my column—“IN CONTROL OF OUR LIVES”—with my character, which he seems to view as far more controlling than I am emotionally or philosophically capable of being. Indeed, I often make the point, in the 750 words allotted to me three times a week, that (as Spinoza or somebody very much like him once said) “Freedom is the recognition of necessity.” Which means that, when confronted with a stone wall that is blocking your path, you need to recognize its stone-walledness and not go banging your head against it. But which also means that you could dig a tunnel under it, walk around it, climb over it, dismantle it, or find another road to where you want to go.

  This is an attitude that has equipped me to help hundreds of thousands of readers (and two dozen or so of my closest friends) with troubled marriages, difficult children, midlife crises, aging parents, and blasted dreams. This is an attitude that has also equipped me to provide them with a wide array of useful household hints (including foolproof gourmet recipes), the names and phone numbers of first-class psychotherapists, thoughtfully annotated book and film recommendations, and (though there is not a lot of call for this) the lyrics to vast numbers of popular songs from the nineteen twenties, thirties, forties, and fifties.

  In other words, what we’ve got here is a “can-do” attitude, which is something quite quite different from “controlling.” So I don’t intend to sit around and wait for a lawyer (who may be more into necessity than freedom) to protect my family from harm when there is, in fact, something I can do. Like murder Mr. Monti.

  You must understand that never once, in my column, have I recommended murder. I am, however, in favor of capital punishment. My problem here is that I have recently lost some of my once starry-eyed confidence in judges and the jury system, and therefore would want to be the one who personally decided which criminals merited the death penalty. I acknowledge that this philosopher-king approach (derived from Plato’s Republic, a surprisingly good read) is at odds with my basic liberal-humanistic-ACLU bent, but—as I often tell my readers—the capacity to live with ambivalence is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of healthy adulthood.

  Jake doesn’t think that I live with ambivalence. He thinks that I am absolutely positive about absolutely everything. He has always thought this about me, but when, at age eighteen, I was absolutely positive that he was the man with whom I wished to lose my virginity, he thought I was adorable. And when, at age twenty, I was absolutely positive that he was the man with whom I wished to spend the rest of my life, he thought I was irresistible. Over the years, however, his enthusiasm for my certainties has waned, and he now insists on seeing me as a black/white, day/night, wrong/right, unnuanced kind of person. I could resent his failure to appreciate my subtleties, but instead I accept responsibility for his misperception and intend to keep working (marriage, I tell my readers, is a full-time occupation) at correcting it.

  Actually, if you want to see a truly unambivalent, un subtle, absolutist controller, take a look at Mr. Monti. A nonnegotiable Roman Catholic, he has bullied his wife
into pious submission and made sure that his two older daughters married in the faith. When Josephine began dating Wally, a distinctly Jewish person, last autumn, Mr. Monti brought out priests, nuns, and other big guns, but failed to prevent Josephine from continuing to see Wally and very quickly falling in love with him. When, during the Christmas-Chanukah season, Josephine agreed to marry Wally, Mr. Monti, moving to his next line of defense, launched into a passionate pitch for conversion. He told Wally and Josephine that this was the kind of accommodation—okay, call it sacrifice, even—that people in love were more than willing to make. Such sacrifices, he said, were good not merely for the marriage but for the soul. Wally completely agreed with him and went on to praise his sensitivity to the needs and obligations inherent in all committed human relations. (Wally has learned a lot from me over the years.) He also said he was certain that Mr. Monti would understand if his soul took a while to get used to the whole idea. Accustomed to having his way, Mr. Monti confidently waited through the first three months of the new year. So in April, when he was informed that Wally wouldn’t be converting, he felt not only defied and disdained but personally and publicly humiliated.

  Mr. Monti has no sense of humor and no sense of proportion, both of which are also necessary (though not sufficient) conditions of healthy adulthood. He is a large, vain man who, though vision-impaired without his tinted glasses, instantly whips them off when there’s an attractive woman around, the better to dazzle her with his expressive eyes. He also seems quite enamored of his overly styled black hair, through which he fondly runs his fingers while bragging about his vast wealth, extraordinary business acumen, and the fact that he has never ever ever lost a fight. It’s true that his suits fit him to perfection, but he wears a bit too much gold to make a favorable impression on us less affluent but more tasteful types. (I confess to being hostile to gold chains worn by men of a certain age. Make that any age.) As for his pinky ring . . . Well, suffice it to say that Mr. Monti—with his bullying and boastful ways, his manicured nails, his custom-made shirts with the monogram on the left cuff, and all that gold—would not be my first choice for one of my future grandchild’s four grandparents. But if that’s what he was going to be, I have to say I was pleased that this hypothetical grandchild was going to be raised by a Jewish father. Pleased not only because I wished to perpetuate our heritage (which I did), but also because (and I grant that this is a deeply unattractive part of my character) it gave me a lot of pleasure to screw Mr. Monti.

  Which, to get back to an earlier point, I had already done.

  What I mean is that, while I wouldn’t ever choose a person like Joseph Augustus Monti to be one of my future grandchild’s four grandparents, I had in fact chosen him to be one of the three men I went to bed with just a few weeks before my forty-sixth birthday.

  I could plead insanity, but I won’t. As I often tell my readers, all of us—if we wish to call ourselves adults—must take responsibility for our actions. Despite unhappy childhoods. Despite social and economic inequities. Despite life’s cruel, random blows. We are responsible and, within the limits imposed by necessity, we are in control. No one is forcing us to have sexual congress with burly, bullying Italians who wear gold chains and pinky rings (though he did, in response to a moan not entirely of pain, have the courtesy to remove the ring). We make—I made—that choice.

  • • •

  I had taken the coming of age forty-six very hard. This may well surprise my readers, to whom I have confided that, despite an innate optimism (which has carried me through many a dark moment), I have long possessed a tragic sense of life and been well aware that someday I too would grow old and die. I had presented myself, and had thought of myself, as someone who had come to terms with mortality.

  Several months before my birthday, however, I became increasingly obsessed with a grim statistic: My grandmother had died at sixty-nine. My mother had died at sixty-nine. And so had her only sister. As a rational person committed to staring unflinchingly at the truth, I had to conclude that, given this relentless family history, officially my life was about to be two-thirds over.

  As a rational person I then had to ask myself, Why am I taking this so hard? First of all, I still had twenty-three years left. Second of all, I had already enjoyed a richly fulfilling life: Love and work. Marriage and the family. Personal satisfaction and public recognition. Good friends and good health. Indeed, I had often proclaimed that, were I on a plane that was going down in flames, I could not complain that I was being significantly cheated of life’s delights. Except . . . Except . . . Except for one thing. Sex.

  I am embarrassed to say this, but as one who has lived by the guiding principle Know Thyself, I could not let shame, guilt, or anxiety deflect me from facing facts. And the fact was that I felt sexually deprived. Let me hasten to add that I did not feel deprived of sexual pleasure. I have always had plenty of that, thanks to a certain natural talent on Jake’s part and to my willingness to accept (as I urge my readers to accept) full responsibility for my own orgasms. No, I felt deprived not of sexual pleasure but of sexual variety. I had married young and committed myself to marital fidelity and now I was going to go to my grave having had carnal knowledge of just one man—my husband.

  At first this realization struck me as unutterably sad. But after many sleepless nights and much self-analysis, it began to strike me as intolerable. I asked myself, as I often do in such situations, What would you tell your readers? My answer was that I’d tell my readers a lie. I’d say that instead of finding sexual variety by going to bed with many different men, they could find it by going to many different beds with the same man. I’ve actually written several columns advocating this viewpoint, waxing quite eloquent about the thrill of taking a long lunch hour at an in-town motel with your husband, about the thrill of spending a Saturday night in a Jacuzzi (and don’t forget the wine and candles!) with your husband, about the thrill of slipping off with him to a deserted corner of the beach on a sultry summer evening and . . . These are not bad ideas, but they do not answer a couple of urgent questions: What would it be like with another man? And, perhaps more important, what would I be like with another man?

  • • •

  As all my readers know, I am philosophically opposed to adultery. It involves lying, sneaking, and cheating. If you are an essentially decent person, you will not adjust well to lying, sneaking, and cheating. Therefore you will either confess, unconsciously arrange to get caught, feel morally rotten, or provoke your mate so that he or she will wind up behaving badly enough to justify your being morally rotten. All of the above (and I haven’t even mentioned sexually transmitted diseases) are serious threats to personal happiness and matrimonial stability. So even though I’m well aware that my same-man-in-different-beds prescription leaves an enormous amount to be desired, I still believe I’m correct in telling my readers that they must say no to adultery.

  I myself decided to say a mature, responsible, rational, can-do yes.

  • • •

  Three days after Wally took off, he telephoned me from Rehoboth, Delaware, where a friend had lent him a house right on the beach. I was in the kitchen, washing and drying lettuce leaves, which I then stored in plastic Baggies and refrigerated until ready to use (I have found this the ideal way to prevent soggy salads), when the phone rang.

  “Mom, I’ve been worried that you’re upset and I don’t want you to be,” he said, which is the kind of thing that makes me so crazy about him. “I’m safe, I’m fine, and I know exactly what I have to do.”

  “And what is that, Wally?” I asked, bagging the last of the romaine as I moved freely around my kitchen thanks to the modern marvel of the portable phone.

  “I have to get Josephine away from her father and that phony psychiatrist he’s hired to work her over,” Wally said.

  “She’s in bad shape,” I reminded him, taking out the chicken breasts and starting to marinate them. “I don’t think she can manage without some sort of therapeutic help.” />
  “But the right sort, Mom. Not that Dr. Phony. So I’m just going to slip quietly into town and rescue her.”

  “Is that what she wants?” I asked.

  “Not at the moment, I guess. But when she comes to her senses, she will.”

  “Except at the moment,” I pointed out, “what you’re planning to do might come under the heading of kidnapping. May I make a few alternative suggestions?”

  “You did that the other night, Mom. I rejected them. So . . . are you going to help me with this, or what?”

  I thought about Jake and sighed. “Your father would—”

  “He would if he knew.” Wally’s voice turned soft and cajoling. “Why does he have to know?”

  • • •

  It is my observation that there are mother’s sons and father’s sons. Wally has always been a mother’s son. He clearly thinks that I married a man who is too insensitive to fully appreciate me, and that I deserve someone better, perhaps someone more like himself. But beyond the usual Oedipal business, Wally enjoys my company, trusts my judgment, and confides in me. Over the years we have kept many small, but potentially irritating, items of information from his father. Now that we were moving into big-time secrets, however, I was feeling rather uneasy.

  “What do you want me to do?” I asked him as I set the table for dinner. (I tell my readers that it’s quite all right to eat dinner in the kitchen, as long as they use cloth napkins and never serve directly from the pots to the plates.) By the end of our conversation, after supplying a few creative modifications, I had agreed to participate in Wally’s rescue (or kidnapping) of Josephine.

  I provided an edited version of my conversation with Wally when Jake came home exhausted from Children’s Hospital. It was better that way.

  Jake is a pediatric surgeon rather than a general surgeon because he deeply believes in specialization. I do not. It is Jake’s view that pediatric surgeons operate on children, psychiatrists practice psychiatry, architects design houses, and lawyers handle legal matters. It is my view that we should develop informed opinions on a wide range of subjects and not mindlessly defer to the so-called experts. Now I wouldn’t, of course, attempt to do a kidney transplant on a two-year-old (unless it had to be done immediately and there was no one else around), but I have never hesitated to contribute my psychological insights, my architectural esthetics, or my legal opinions. Or my extralegal opinions, for that matter. I am basically committed to law and order, but when my child’s life is being endangered by a pinky-ringed Italian psychopath in a $1,200 suit, it is my opinion that we ought to bend a few laws.