The Dinner
discussion
The ending of "The Dinner" (contains spoiler)
message 51:
by
Kate
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Aug 31, 2013 01:24PM
I read this book for a Book Club of nine people. The ending left you hanging.
reply
|
flag
It is all very confusing. There is no "psychopath" test. I thought the whole thing was more of a commentary on the whole societal problem of condoning violence and compassion fatigue. Serge seemed to be the only normal human being in the book.
My feeling is that Serge is Michel's father. Claire and Serge do appear to hate eachother, but that is due to their hidden secret. Obviously Serge is always afraid of the truth coming out. There were many parts that did not add up - why was Paul never prosecuted for his violent actions, why was claire in the hospital? the disfigurement of Serge in the end? How they all just go on as a "happy" family. Definitely a page turner, but some very loose ends!
Lisa wrote: "My feeling is that Serge is Michel's father. Claire and Serge do appear to hate eachother, but that is due to their hidden secret. Obviously Serge is always afraid of the truth coming out. There we..."Lisa - that's fascinating, what made you think Serge was Michael's father?
One Q that bothers me is would any "normal" people go to a public restaurant to discuss and "resolve" an issue of this nature - surely you'd discuss it in the privacy of one or other of the couples homes.
That also bothered me!!Why a public place? However I then thought reasons whyGives an alibi for everyone!
No heated arguments? As Serge public figure not good for his reputation?
Plus their not a normal family so a restaurant doesn't seem out of place!!
Sax
Read this book for a Book Club. I think the ending left the reader hanging
Jillian wrote: "After I finished the book, I went back and re-read this portion about the amniocentesis test. There is really not a lot of information there. "Decision By Parents" is checked, and he says there is ..."She couldn't have tested for the disorder because they didn't know about it until the baby was 3 or 4 years old. That is when Paul was first diagnosed, when he got in trouble at his job and was sent to the school psychologist.
Keep in mind that Paul is a most unreliable narrator.
Wow, I may be even more confused, now. But, after reading these comments, I have to agree that we can't trust reality as Paul sees it. More likely, the story is his perception of events, and we're seeing the entire thing through the lens of a socio/psychopath. Fascinating. Still don't get exactly why Claire was in the hospital all that time, getting worse and worse.
A great thing about this book is how discussable it is. Most readers say that it's about how far someone would go to protect someone they love. But to me it was about how far sociopaths Claire, Paul and Michel would go to protect themselves.The story leaves lots of room for speculation. For example what was the unmentionable cause of Claire's hospitalization -- although we may be sure it had something to do with Paul. As for the amniocentesis, my reading is that it was done when Claire was pregnant with Michel. She hid the fact -- and her decision to keep the baby -- from Paul. As for whether prenatal testing is actually done for serious mental illness such as Paul's and Claire's I have turned up no evidence that it is done at present. However, within the story it seems we are meant to accept Paul's psychologist's indication that testing was available.
Another question: If Serge did not have the illness Paul had, what about his son Rick? Did he participate in the grotesque attack out of peer pressure, and find that subsequently his conscience would not leave him alone? Or, did he have the illness also?
What about Babette? If we assume that she was mentally sound can we consider her determination to protect her son from prosecution as a normal first reaction upon hearing about Serge's intentions -- just a short time before the dinner? Given more time to think about the issue would she have supported Serge?
Plenty to wonder about!
Paul did not even know he had an "illness/syndrome/disease" until diagnosed as having it after he was removed from the classroom. So Claire would not have known this, either..(But, if Paul's disorder was one of the possibilities identified in the amniocentesis, and she researched it, it obviously did not bother her, because she went through with the pregnancy. I took "decision by parents" to mean decision to abort or not abort, after having been given the results of the amniocentesis).
Vicki Renee wrote: "Yeah, that's right! Because he was HOME taking care of Michel while she was in the hospital! O-kkkkkaaayyy. That means she was having the test because she was PREGNANT AGAIN and had an abortion whi..."Well yeah - that makes perfect sense! I remember that part and wasn't surprised when I read it.
Sarah wrote: "Robin wrote: "That's right Vicki! Claire WAS hospitalized when Michel was a toddler (before the hospitalization when she had several surgeries, when Serge and his wife tried to take Michel away fr..."Well that makes sense
Serge was a public figure. There is no mention of any burns disfiguring his face. Remember he was supposedly hit in face with frying pan by Paul when he tried to take Michel away when he was four.So hitting/burning Serge was in Paul's imagination. I believe Paul imagined hurting the principal as well. Otherwise he would have been charged. And nobody would be happy to have dinner in a restaurant with him let alone confront him with anything serious. He was sent on sick leave for comments in the classroom.Paul had some very unusual ideas on punishment etc.Which he had talked to Michel about.
He was psychotic but had managed to function for many years so stress or burnout had tipped him over the edge. He wasn't sacked just awaiting a psyche review. Education would never allow someone with abusive nature back teaching.
I think the amniocentesis was poorly researched but could be a translation issue.FRom Dutch to English maybe it was some type of DNA test. Paul was indicating the Claire's Amnio had shown some problem but Claire had chosen to go ahead with the pregnancy and not given Paul the option of termination. Perhaps lying to Her obstetrician that she had discussed it with Paul. Box checked parents not just mother.Claire shows she is protective of Paul, she knows he doesn't react to situations like everybody else.So easier for him not to know about some things.Or a baby is important over all else. Claire is in charge. Michel was a copy (had Paul's problem) disregard for human life. Some type of autism? He did some weird stuff with toys.They both loved Claire and engaged in family catch ups.Everything appeared normal. Paul has lived normally for many years. Michel doesn't want to go to the hospital to see his mother, odd behavior for a four year old.Paul doesn't force the issue.
Intriguing book I can't believe Claire got Michel to murder Faso. Where can it stop.His parents are both psychotic Michel can only get worse.
Cindy wrote: "Rosella wrote: "I'm not quite sure how to interrupt the hospital results, but I think their supposed to indicate that Claire has been manipulating him for his entire marriage."I agree!!"
Rather than see it as her manipulating the entire marriage, I interpreted the ending as showing that Claire and Paul had actually been on the same page throughout, although he thought he was keeping secrets from her.
I honestly don't understand why everyone finds the ending so confusing. The amnio results showed that Claire knew Michel had inherited her husband's neurological condition, which in this fictional universe causes people to become violent sociopaths. The "decision by parents" refers to the fact that she has decided to continue the pregnancy despite the condition (remember earlier conversation with school psychologist re: would a parent abort a baby knowing that it would be born with this condition?)My interpretation of Claire's character is that she has become a sociopath through circumstances and choice, rather than biology -- she married into it, and she loves her husband and son to the degree that she is willing to abandon the morality of the outer world in order to join them in their vices [at least in a protective role]. The book is interesting, but ultimately not too deep or difficult to parse. This forum's confusion baffles me.
Well, there's the mixup - the father's carrying the son's phone and vice versa - I've forgotten if this was done deliberately or not.In general, I found these people to be what I'd call a buncha nuts, in casual convo.
I wasn't surprised at the ending.
I've been looking at the threads here, on the topic of this book. Kinda makes me think about listening to the story again.
You don't have to like characters in a book - you can hate them, love them, whatever. But I feel if an author can make you feel either way, then he's done his job.
In a poorly written book, you don't really think about the characters - you don't care who they are or what kind of people they are.
In a poorly written book, that's just too tedious to get through, I go as far as the fifty-page-rule and close it. Life's too damn short and I'm not spending an hour of mine reading books I don't like,
I looked at the last pages again, and another answer to the whole test issue could be that Claire took a test for the next child she was bearing, and that the results came out negative, so that she decided to get an abortion, while still in the hospital.This could clarify the "decision by parents" as opposed to the "decision by doctors" . It could also explain why Paul was confused about the child being a boy, as he said he thought that both of them didn't know Michel was a boy until the very last part of the pregnancy. So in that case, this child was just not Michel, but the next one of which she got rid?
When reading it I thought Michel had played some part in Claire's hospitalisation and that was why he didn't want to go. Then with the events toward the end of the book I started thinking that Claire wasn't physically ill, but had some mental breakdown. Michel had perhaps witnessed it and was scared of his mother. I enjoyed the book, however, it was hard to really understand what was real and what fiction due to Paul being the way he was.As for the end I think in the Netherlands of the book a standard test is given to all women which can highlight the condition that Paul has in the unborn child. I don't believe that Claire went out her way to get the test just that it was carried out and the potential for Michel to be effected was noted and disregarded as an issue.
I think this is why when Paul started showing signs of his disease she didn't want to have more children.
I just finished The Dinner, obviously. I thought it was very well written, but I do however have some questions about it, particularly about the ending. Firstly, there was no justice. Michel and Rick killed a person, albeit a homeless person, but still a human being. They were never punished. It just ends with us hanging there after Claire beats the pulp out of Serge. Paul continues to go on his violent ways. Then there is Michel who at least we know feels no remote for what he has done, and will probably continue to act out violently in the future. Yes, novels aren't meant to show perfect worlds, nor are they meant to teach us how we should live our lives. They are made to make us think, learn, and grow. But there was no plot development with Michel nor Paul. They were both horrible and violent people. Paul was so blinded by his love for Michel that he couldn't see it. Yes, Michel literally gets away with murder and we never even hear what he even thinks about it. Was he remorseful? He wrote an essay on capital punishment! Yet he was a criminal himself.
Secondly, why would anybody in their right mind want to talk about murder their son has committed IN AN EXPENSIVE PUBLIC RESTAURANT. What is so wrong with a cozy dinner at home where you can spend more time talking about what should happen next and not about the ridiculous price of your ridiculously small appetizer. No, just no. You don't do that.
So those were my main concerns. Of course the novel brought up other ideas such as nature vs. nurture, corporal punishment, and racism. But those two were my main concerns. I look forward to continue reading comments and posts on this page.
I too have considered the plural "parents" checked as another man was present in whatever the decision was, the true father. Serge seems to be the logical choice since Michel was 'the spitting image' of Paul. Serge being Paul's brother, the comment still makes sense. And 'Dear old Dad', as mentioned here, was therefore ironic.
I have just read this book and I thought you could interpret it that Paul who in previous chapters when he became violent laughed before he did something psychopathic perhaps turned on his own son at the end. Or it was simply Michel concluding that he would always have his 'dear old dad's approval' quote.
Re: amnio & parentage: I listened to the audio version. Wasn't there some comment by Paul at the very end about the boy's face -- the area between the nose and upper lip? It rang a bell with me, as if he'd described this in another person earlier in the book. I don't have the print copy, so can't check. Was it Serge? If so, that lends credence to the possibility that Michel might've been Serge's son.
Im completely baffled by the conclusion that Serge was Michel's father. I have only just read the book, and my hubby also read it. I thought did I miss something. He also said he didn't get any reason from the book to think Serge was Michel's father. Scratching my head, here and puzzled.
Paul and claire were undoubtedly sociopaths. I do believe Paul was imagining all of his assaults on others. Claire just kept her sociopathic instincts more to herself. After reading all the reviews, did anyone get the slightest notion that Paul and Claire were related, and their genes were intensified into their son? And, what really happened with Serge?
Sylvie wrote: "I have just read this book and I thought you could interpret it that Paul who in previous chapters when he became violent laughed before he did something psychopathic perhaps turned on his own son ..."i think the part you may be remembering had something to do with Paul wanting to punch that area on one of his victim's faces..but i am not entirely certain and do want to look that up when i can.
Vicki Renee wrote: "What "decision"? To take the amniocentesis test? Like there had to be permission from "mother" or "parents" and one of those boxes had to be checked? Thanks again! May just go to a bookstore this w..."
Robin wrote: "Vicki wrote: "Thank you again. So what kind of information was on the form to be checked off? Was there any clue for him when he was reading it? He seemed surprised about something."
The decision to keep the child after the amio--the doctor could decide the pregnancy should not be terminated, or the parents could decide, despite the doctors recommendation to terminate.
Robin wrote: "Vicki wrote: "Thank you again. So what kind of information was on the form to be checked off? Was there any clue for him when he was reading it? He seemed surprised about something."
The decision to keep the child after the amio--the doctor could decide the pregnancy should not be terminated, or the parents could decide, despite the doctors recommendation to terminate.
I'm a little late to the conversation, but here is my interpretation.Clare is a sociopath and recognized it in Paul early on. Not only does it take one to know one, but Paul even admits that Clare is smarter than he is. So even if he didn't recognize the disorder, I found it believable that Clare did.
Clare comments that Paul off the meds is the man she fell in love with so of course she would want her child to be just like him.
If I remember correctly, the psychologist said the test would NOT tell them specifically about his disorder, but that there was something seriously wrong and many people decide not to go through with the pregnancy.
I see Clare as a cold and calculating person. She knew what she wanted. She knew that an amnio may give her a good idea about whether or not there was a possibility that her baby had the same disorder. When the result came back positive for something wrong, she was betting and hoping it was Paul's disorder and opted against terminating the pregnancy. I think she didn't tell Paul because she knew what she wanted. It's not like she hid the results. They were right there in the drawer for anyone to discover.
In my opinion, there was no doubt that Michel was Paul's son-"After he was born, everyone, including Claire's parents and other members of her immediate family, said that Michel was the spitting image of me. "A copy!" the visitors to the recovery room cried out as soon as Michel was lifted from his cot.
Claire had to laugh about it too. The resemblance was too strong to deny."
I think Paul's preoccupation with the box was that even though the box said 'parents,' he was not involved in the decision whatsoever. Remember, he fixates on small details like this throughout the book. Even though the bigger issue is that Clare knew something was wrong with the baby and opted not to terminate, he is fixating on the word 'parents.'
I agree with you Claire and because its been sometime since I read it, I had forgotten about the family all saying that he looked like Paul. I definitely concentrated too much on Paul's character and not enough on Claire.
Cindy wrote: "Well, they are a family of sociopaths!! That much is clear to me. I suppose the ending is meant to be this horrible family closing ranks and protecting their own. They are not deluded, they know ex..."Cindy wrote: "Well, they are a family of sociopaths!! That much is clear to me. I suppose the ending is meant to be this horrible family closing ranks and protecting their own. They are not deluded, they know ex..."
I completely agree with you. I felt kind of manipulated. On the other hand, I enjoyed the writing, so....
I think, with the theme of secrecy so prevalent in the book, that the author intended for the ending, as well as other aspects of the book, to be unclear. I listened to it on CD, and while the narrator was amazing, I found myself unable to look back when I needed to. I have a couple of questions. Did Babette know that Faso was going to be accosted that evening? And, was there more than one incident with the cousins attacking homeless people?
I don't think Babette knew about the attack. If I remember correctly, there were more than one incident after the initial.
Just wondering if the procedure (decision parents) was an abortion and the whole thing was his imagination - maybe Michel never was.
Jillian wrote: "After I finished the book, I went back and re-read this portion about the amniocentesis test. There is really not a lot of information there. "Decision By Parents" is checked, and he says there is ..."I totally agree!
Ali wrote: "I honestly don't understand why everyone finds the ending so confusing. The amnio results showed that Claire knew Michel had inherited her husband's neurological condition, which in this fictional ..."I agree with you.
Jerrysherry wrote: "Paul and claire were undoubtedly sociopaths. I do believe Paul was imagining all of his assaults on others. Claire just kept her sociopathic instincts more to herself. After reading all the rev..."I did, when they were talking about "brothers and sisters" the last chapter when Claire thought was funny: " ..I just suddenly heard myself talking' she said, still laughing. "about brothers and sisters. And listen who I'm talking to!"
If one suspends disbelief when one opens the first page of a novel, does one also suspend moral judgment? Maybe yes, maybe no. I would suggest possibly yes, if the novel is fantasy, horror, or thriller; and no if the novel is set in our world, or is a morality play. I think this novel has conflicting elements of both fantasy and morality play.So the question isn't really whether they are sociopaths or not. To me they are all unappealing, Serge included. Perhaps it is mainly a black novel from top to bottom, where good does not triumph.
Having suggested layers (top/bottom), I would suggest the novel builds on the contrast between inner feelings and outer behavior. I think the author does an admirable job of showing the realistic inner feelings that many in society have -- the dismissal of the poor weak and homeless, the resentment of the French locals for the wealthy Dutch interlopers, and the urge to use force to get one's way or register one's anger. The ignoble interiors of the characters are very well drawn. Having built the foundation, the author explores the next level of how the characters "act out" their feelings. French run down Dutch with cars, people punch others, or threaten with bats, or provoke situations with thoughtless deadly consequences. So are they sociopaths? Of course they are. What would a detective novel be without a murder?
As to Serge, I don't like him either -- pompous domineering, scheming, hypocrite that he is. And he doesn't come to a good end either, suffering a politician's death. Good does not triumph anywhere.
So is this fantasy, morality play, or noir novel commenting on lawlessness in modern society? I think the details hardly matter in answering that question.
PS: They all get away with it. The son loves his father for standing by him again. Life goes on.
Karlus wrote: "If one suspends disbelief when one opens the first page of a novel, does one also suspend moral judgment? Maybe yes, maybe no. I would suggest possibly yes, if the novel is fantasy, horror, or th..."Karlus, very well put. Thank you!
Vicki Renee wrote: "Thanks, you two. Still wondering about that phone...any thoughts?"Paul had to access Babette's Voice Mail, the message was kept on the phone company's server. It wasn't just on the phone itself.
Karlus wrote: Having suggested layers (top/bottom), I would suggest the novel builds on the contrast between inner feelings and outer behavior. I think the author does an admirable job of showing the realistic inner feelings that many in society have -- the dismissal of the poor weak and homeless, the resentment of the French locals for the wealthy Dutch interlopers, and the urge to use force to get one's way or register one's anger. The ignoble interiors of the characters are very well drawn.Yes. Exactly. Parts of what many people feel inside, but don't act upon. The difference being, many of these characters do act out.
Karlus wrote: So the question isn't really whether they are sociopaths or not. To me they are all unappealing, Serge included. Perhaps it is mainly a black novel from top to bottom, where good does not triumph.
:) I certainly wouldn't want to have them as neighbors. One wrong word/move, and crunch!
As far as any of them being sociopaths, perhaps. They certainly exhibit some of the behaviors, antisocial behavior, lack of conscience as well.
However, I think it's more than that. The ending showed just how positively ghoulish Paul's behavior is, the enjoyment between father and son was, to say the least, disturbing. A true father-son moment. hah
Notice, the mother was not in on that little tête-à-tête. Excluded? Or just absent?
I'm genuinely confused by all the confusion here. I understood the ending EXACTLY like Ali (message 66, first paragraph). Really surprised about all the theories about Serge being Michel's real father, what the "parents decision" is (= abortion or not) etc. I thought it was perfectly clear. Am I missing something?
The mom was simply absent. Remember she was taken away by the police.
Lars, I am with you.
Christina wrote: "The mom was simply absent. Remember she was taken away by the police."Ahh, the back and forth timeline. :). I thought that took place after the mother was back home from the police station. She and Paul had been speaking of Serge's reasons for not pressing charges.
Oops, must have missed that. I will have to go back and read that part again. Nevertheless, I don't think there was anything intentional about it.
Robin wrote: "Vicki wrote: "What "decision"? To take the amniocentesis test? Like there had to be permission from "mother" or "parents" and one of those boxes had to be checked? Thanks again! May just go to a bo..."I think it was the decision to keep the baby after the findings of the amnio
Great dialogue. Honestly, I would have to check out the book once again to join this discussion adequately. Though, I did want to inquire and somewhat reinforce Bybee's assertion above. I placed this novel in the same category as American Psycho where Bret Easton Ellis had an unreliable narrator. Did you concur collectively? Or are you viewing The Dinner as a literal account with no fallacies? I am so very curious to hear your perspectives. Thanks!
At least one aspect was unreliable. The laughing. He laughs at the end, but according to the son it was not the first time.
Vicki Renee wrote: "Another question I have is about Babette's phone: how did Bo's recorded message to her get retrieved if Paul had thrown her phone into the river?????"Because you can listen to your voicemail from basically every phone if you have the voicemail phone number and sometimes a code.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Dinner (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Dinner (other topics)The Dinner (other topics)
