Problem drinking

Problem drinking marks David Henniger as both self-aware and unreliable about his drinking: he recognizes the familiar excuse in his own reasoning, yet drinks while facing a long drive and later denies having had a drink before a fatal collision. The novel links alcohol to his effort to manage strain, to Jo Henniger’s growing alarm, and to Richard Galloway’s suspicions, while leaving unresolved whether David had consumed alcohol when the collision occurred.

Identity and Evidence

The clearest evidence of a drinking problem comes from David himself. When Jo asks whether he should be drinking, he calls the wine fly pee and insists that a glass will make the journey easier. He immediately acknowledges that this is the lame excuse of every alcoholic. That admission makes the exchange more than casual joking: David can identify the logic as a recognized rationalization even as he uses it to defend drinking.

The label also comes from someone close to the couple. Richard describes his English friends to an American as two people whose male companion is an alcoholic, adding that he should not have let them drive. His statement is a third party’s characterization, not a clinical assessment, but it confirms that David’s drinking is visible to people in his social circle and relevant to decisions about his safety and conduct. Together, David’s self-description and Richard’s blunt summary establish the problem without specifying its history, duration, or any treatment.

Drinking on the Road

The journey gives the problem an immediate practical consequence. At the Salam, David and Jo eat tagine citron on the terrace and share a bottle of cold Boullebemme. David silently welcomes the wine after expressing frustration at the lack of a drink beyond Pellegrino Citrus. Jo then asks quietly whether he ought to be drinking, pointing out that it is fourteen percent alcohol and that he still has another five hours of driving ahead.

David’s response turns the drink into a tool: he says it will make the journey easier. Jo recognizes the familiar excuse and says she should not let him drink, addressing him as Stumblebum. He answers that he would drink anyway because the roads are empty. The exchange exposes the gap between awareness and restraint. David names the rationalization, hears Jo’s objection, and still treats the quiet road as permission to proceed. It establishes risky judgment around alcohol, but it does not establish that this particular drink caused or contributed to the later crash.

Suspicion After the Collision

After the collision, Richard’s concern about drinking shapes his response to David. He is convinced that David had been drinking on the road and worries that the Moroccan police would not be forgiving about a breathalyzer test. When he questions David about what happened, David says that blowing sand obscured his view, that the fossil seller stepped in front of the car, and that he and Jo feared a carjacking. His account supplies a description of the collision and their fear; it does not resolve Richard’s suspicion about alcohol.

David’s physical state intensifies Richard’s concern without settling the question. As David changes into a fresh shirt, he cannot stop shaking and struggles with the buttons. Richard first tries to keep him moving toward dinner, telling him that he and Jo are victims too, then asks privately whether he had a drink earlier. David dismisses the suggestion. The sequence holds two possibilities in tension: Richard’s belief that David drank and David’s denial. The narrative does not turn suspicion into proof, nor does David’s account of the sand and the roadside seller cancel the independent evidence of his problematic drinking.

Recurrence and Consequences

The concern returns at the breakfast buffet. Jo says she saw David grab a drink and guzzle it; she also noticed that his hand was shaking. Her observation gives the pattern a concrete physical sign and prompts her to swear that she will never again travel with the couple in this way. Richard agrees that keeping his distance is probably wise. Drinking is therefore not confined to David’s defensive explanation at the roadside meal: it remains visible in a later setting and damages the couple’s standing with their friends.

Across these moments, the novel distinguishes the existence of a drinking problem from the cause of a specific accident. David’s own words reveal awareness without control; Jo’s interventions show both concern and frustration; Richard’s suspicion affects how he handles the aftermath. The repeated attention to a drink, an empty road, a shaking hand, and a denied earlier drink makes alcohol part of the moral pressure surrounding the collision. Yet the available evidence leaves the decisive fact—whether David drank before impact—contested rather than confirmed.