The Dinner
discussion
The ending of "The Dinner" (contains spoiler)
date
newest »
newest »
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..."I thought she had had an abortion.
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 thought the hospital stay was an abortion--that she was pregnant with that second child. Michel had already been born because Serge and Babette had come to take him from Paul.
Rosella wrote: "I already returned the library book, but I'm pretty sure Michel's name was actually mentioned on the paperwork, which means it happened during one of the routine visits she made to the hospital whi..."I think Claire knew that the kind of people Paul and Michel were was a burden. She didn't want to add to that burden. She was dealing with two of them and didn't want a third.
Maybe I missed it completely, but I thought the moral dilemma of "What are we willing to do for our children, regardless of right or wrong, social expectations, economic status?" was the blatant theme. Where does our moral obligation lie, to protect our children from societal rules, even if murder has been committed?
This was a slow start for me. All the minute detail about the mundane in the beginning, I almost abandoned it. I'm glad I didn't. At first, I sympathized with Paul and Claire, the long suffering relatives of a major political figure. Meeting them for dinner amid much hubbub, everyone deferring to Serge, the important politician, who was a wine connoisseur with a second home in rural France, who reeked of the inauthenticity of a sow dressed in a suit. As the author intended, I liked Claire and Paul and disliked Serge and was neutral about Babette. then as the dinner goes on and Paul takes us on the journey through time and all it's vagueness, I slowly began to think that Serge was the only sane one in the story. Some things we know for sure; Paul is a sociopath with violent tendencies and may have Huntington's Disease. Google the symptoms or listen to "this American Life, dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde". Amniocentesis is done as a matter of course in pregnant women of a certain age. Claire knew before she had Michel that he too would have this disease. Claire is a psychopath. She would have killed Serge if she needed too, that much is implied when she tells Paul to only hurt him. As Paul points out in the beginning of the novel, Claire is smarter than him. She has always been the mastermind of their life together. As far as the hospital stay when Michel was in first grade, who knows. There was always some jeoulousy in Paul that Michel preferred Claire to him. It is hinted that Paul enjoyed being Michel's caretaker, being so important to him, allowing Michel privileges that he would not normally have. Paul seems to also be in denial about his fear that Claire might die. As for why she's in the hospital, who knows. This could either be a story about what happens when a psychopath and a sociopath have a child. It could be a story about how we as a society care more about our tiny microcosms of domesticity than we do about general human decency and fairness and other human life outside of our bubble we call a "happy family".
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..."Absolutely agree.
Aisling wrote: "I felt she decided to go ahead with the pregnancy regardless of the test result - not because she wanted a child "just like Paul" but she wanted to have a child regardless of what issues it had."Yeah, I really don't think the results of the pregnancy test were in any way important to her. She wanted to have a baby and I believe she loved her son more because he is just like his father. At first, she didn't tell her husband she knew about what their son did until she knew her husband was back (behaving like he used to)..
I am left wondering if a few things would be clearer in Dutch...I thought it might be significant that he says he never refers to Claire as "my wife" and then does throughout the book.
Also, why did they even give Serge and Babette a "mermaid-like" daughter they never mentioned again?
Lisa wrote: "I got something totally different from that. I thought "Decision by parents" indicated that the child was Serge's not Paul's, hence, Paul going on about how everyone talked about the child looking..."I never caught this until you pointed it out--it makes absolutely perfect sense!
I'm surprised more mention hasn't been made of that telling remark by Claire alluded to in a couple of the above comments, namely, the "...just suddenly heard myself talking...about brothers and sisters. And listen who I'm talking to!"So shall we at this point add to the list of character defects that these two share that they are also incestuous? Because this comment sure makes it sound as though they are siblings. Neither's childhood is ever discussed. To me, this is a much more titillating tidbit and revelation than the amnio report (yes, Claire WAS indeed pregnant with Michel; no, Serge was NOT the father - Paul was; and maybe the amnio had more to do with potential birth defects relating to incest than with any psychosis).
I still don't get why or how Serge didn't file charges against Claire. And I appreciate the comment/s by reader/s about several of the acts of extreme violence narrated by Paul and acted out by Paul being actually imagined - I was wondering why there was never any follow-up or action against Paul, and I was too dense to 'get it' while I was reading the book!
It was indeed a story that invites a good long shower to wash off the ick afterwards - but, also as a previous reviewer said, you don't have to like the characters to enjoy the book. 'Enjoy' might be too strong a word, but the book certainly had an impact and is very, very discussable!!
You don't need a cell phone to check your messages. Phone messages are saved on the phone carrier's server, not the phone itself. You can log into your message center and retrieve your messages from another cell or land line at any time.
Oh my goodness, I feel like I never read this book at all. After completing it I got rid of the book! Now I want to go find it again and re-read. I was just disgusted by every character in the book, so I moved on...but now I'm curious.
Just finished this book last night. So disturbed by it that I couldn't sleep. I found the book to be engaging, but was left with the same questions/uncertainty that the above readers had, which I share below:I def don't believe Serge was Michels's father. There is nothing to indicate through any of the interactions that this is the case.
The box marked "decision by parents" means Claire made the decision by herself to keep the baby she was carrying rather than to abort despite the results of the amnio test. Why this is significant is beyond me because I feel Paul would not have wanted the abortion, either.
Michel may have inherited Paul's disease, but also given Claire's manipulation and Paul's influence would have been a sick person, anyway.
I like the way the book develops so that initially the reader thinks Paul and Claire are innocent, "normal" people and that Serge is the one to question. As it turns out, Serge is the only one with a conscience. Babette is weak and a hanger on.
I don't believe Claire was pregnant a second time. The amnio test was from her pregnancy with Michel. Why she was hospitalized when Michel was a toddler is beyond me. I don't understand why this is part of the plot except to make the point that Claire preferred Michel to be taken care of by Serge and Babette. And why she would want that, I don't know. Maybe I haven't had a chance to think it through enough. Thoughts by anyone on this point?
I don't know if I liked or disliked the book. I guess with the way it has left me so much in thought about it - unlike most other books I have read - means I like it.
It's been a while since I read it so I may be a little lost here.I commented before about the amnio but I'll do it again here since it's been awhile. I never got the impression that the test results were anything other than signifying that Claire knew that Michel would likely have the same condition as Paul. She didn't tell Paul because she knew she wanted the baby, she is also a sociopath (much worse than Paul) and didn't particularly care what Paul wanted. And it's not like she hid anything from him, the results were easily found in a drawer. Either she was only concerned with what she wanted or she knew that she knew Paul well enough to know he would agree with her. Don't you get the impression she sort of treats Paul like a child?
As far as the time she was in the hospital- I don't remember Claire wanting Serge and Babette to take Michel. I thought they just offered. But even if she did, I don't think it's because she was worried about Paul hurting Michel; maybe it would have had more to do with Claire worrying that Paul would have too much on his plate and she didn't want him stressed. I think she was in the hospital because Paul hurt her in a moment of passion.
It's hard to comment on that without going back and re-reading that section. Maybe I'll do that because I really loved this book; it made my top ten favorites of all time.
Fijke wrote: "I like part of that, but some things could have been tied up a little bit more neatly in my opinion."I loved how it ended, but I completely understand what you mean. It did have A LOT of loose ends and for some people that is a strike against a book. I chalk it up to personal preference.
I have a theory.....Brunner syndrome
I know this has been mentioned previously, but I'd like to elaborate. I, too, was curious as to why consequences or punishments were never mentioned to the violent acts that Paul committed - namely the assault of the school principle and the hot frying pan on Serge's head. Someone suggested that this may be because Paul imagined his violent episodes.For the frying-pan incident, such an injury would certainly have left scars on Serge's face, no? Furthermore, near the end of the book, when Serge talks about working together as a family, Paul mentions that he expects Serge to bring up the frying pan incident, but he doesn't. A similar instance occurs when Paul believes that Claire will bring up the time he assaulted the principle, but once again she doesn't. It's an interesting coincidence that this happened twice, no? Also, when Paul supposedly assaulted the principle, he mentioned how in others would certainly come running in soon, but this is never mentioned.
Paul also has bits of lost time and his condition seems to lead to overintense thoughts and an overactive imagination - so perhaps his violent acts were nothing but a product of those.
I tended to agree with the "family of psychopaths" theory. And Claire's need for 3 surgeries perhaps being inflicted by herself / Paul / or perhaps even Michel as a little kid? What I am wondering is about Babette. Unless I missed it, she has not been mentioned here. I think she is part of the psychopath party train and perhaps she knew full well she was leaving her phone on the table.
There were hints that Beau was a bit of a purposeful tattletale as a child and that she (Babette) played along with it. You also have the "silent" daughter, hardly mentioned, who could have been victimized by any member of the family. And out of the blue Beau is blackmailing the other two??? His closest buds??? Sounds like more than a few psychopaths.
Additionally, let's look at two other things... Babette's near violent freak out over the dessert for no reason and the fact that she is crying. Crying because her child is a murderer? Oh no! Crying because her husband is going to back out of the election. Let's carry on! Murder shouldn't stop the candidacy.
Lastly there is a line about the fact that Serge would "of course" not press charges against his sister in law. That hints to me that perhaps there were other reasons why charges weren't pressed in violent episodes mentioned in the past and that those events weren't mentioned at the table because they were (to that family) just a common occurrence.
I need to stop now.... keep thinking of more reasons why they are ALL psychopaths.
When Paul read the paperwork, he realizes that Claire had been lying to him the whole time that she didn't know that they were having a boy. "The box with "boy" had been checked. Claire had known that we were going to have a boy-that was the first thing that came into my mind. But she had never told me. What's more, we had gone on coming up with girls' names until the day before she went into labor."Then when he sees the box checked "Decision Parents" he says "It didn't say "Decision parent" or "Decision mother." It said "Decision parents." Those are the two words I will carry with me from now on...". I think he's referring to how Claire was making all the decisions regarding Michael and what Michael needed to do to Faso and what she was wanting Paul to do to Serge. She was the one in charge of all the decisions.
My take on the ending-:Paul's "sickness" is not of being VIOLENT, but it's of being a fantasist.
I.e: I don't think he really beat up the principal (that would have been jail,etc..). I think he was just yelling at him, and his mind made up the rest.
i.e: he smashed a pan on his brothers head..Yet, the brother doesn't remember, and is all WARM.
See..The only violent person is the wife, and she did the only REAL act of violence.
The ending of this has haunted me for years. My understanding was that the parents are brother and sister and the child was a result of an incestuous marriage.
Andrew, what leads you to that conclusion? (I read it quite a while ago now.)
yes I read it years ago now and ent my copy to someone BUT there is a brief reference to suggest they are brother and sister. sorry not to be more specific!
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..."yes, that's what I understand from it.
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 think the point is to infer Michel has the same genetic predisposition to violence as his father, and so more importantly, assume Michel and Rick killed Beau that night.
It seems no one in the forum has spoken about what this movie is all about to begin with, This Family is an obvious analogy to the fight between the North and the South in the American Civil war. Hence the Civil War Medley scene which makes absolutely no sense in the movie unless there where a civil war analogy within the story.The Family is divided, one is an eletist, fine dinning Senator. The other a self proclaimed man of the people, he has a rant in the beginning stating exackly that. The angry and super rude "Trumpite "Paul is obviously a representative of the South, and in the beginning states his irrational dislike of his brothers adopted black child , furthering the south connection.
The family is divided on a problem, and although the black adopted son is not present or herd from during the family discussion, he is a central concern of both parties, the Northern represented Father concerned for him as any father would be. and to Paul his black nephew is a serious problem, having the power to take down his family if he choses to tell anyone what his son has done. in the end an attempt is even made on is life.
Why has no one mentioned this theme within the movie? it seems to me that this has to be the reason for the Civil War meddly scene, and the reason Pauls character is so angry, his anger toward the children he teaches, seems a representation of his anger toward the change taking place in the country. The kids represent a new era of thinking, change, ect, all the aspects know to be in wanted by the conservative south during Abolishion. Anyway, is there any chance I'm wrong here, I don't think so, and I think its a great movie and pretty apt for the political climate we are facing today, days after the Virgina Riot over the Robert E Lee statue, Months after Trump election and his use of the "Southern Stategy" (look it up if not familure), and the simmingly growing racial divide in this country...."Sad" -Trump 2016
Chris wrote: "It seems no one in the forum has spoken about what this movie is all about to begin with, This Family is an obvious analogy to the fight between the North and the South in the American Civil war. H..." Hi, Chris, you're right -- we've been talking only about the book here. I haven't yet seen the movie. I have to say that one of my favorite things about books and reading is that every reader brings his or her own interpretation to it. It sounds as if the producers and director of the movie brought something to it that might not have been present in the original book or intended by the author.
Chris wrote: "c" No one has spoken about this because we are all discussing the novel which took place in Amsterdam in 2013.The book does discuss a little bit about war, but it is about victims in WWII. Paul goes on and on about not all victims of the war being innocent. That just because someone dies in a war, that doesn't automatically make them a good person. That some of them were evil and deserved to die. A theme which is later connected to his son's school paper.
He goes on to rant about how many more people would be in the world if all the people who died, had lived instead, and gotten married and had children.
I just finished listening to the book tonight. I originally rated it two stars, but after reading the forums to answer some of my questions I changed my rating to a five. Mostly, because I now realize that what I perceived to be lose ends, or vague details, were actually tools used by the author. He is brilliant. There has been some discussion regarding Claire and her hospital stay. The book says she felt 'off' or 'uneasy/unbalanced' in the morning, but went out to do errands on her bicycle anyway; and that she didn't come home. She was in hospital by the afternoon. This leads me to believe that Paul was in no way responsible for her being there.
I believe her hospital stay is a tool the author used to show us just how skewed Paul's perception of reality is. As narrator Paul tells us how he keeps everything normal for his son. He runs the laundry, prepares regular meals, and shaves every morning. In reality when Serge and Babette come over, the house is a mess. Laundry, papers and dishes everywhere.
Two other quick thoughts.
1. throughout the book Paul talks about the restaurant where "normal" people eat. The word "normal" is repeated a lot. Perhaps this goes to show that "normal" is a subjective thing.
2. I don't really get the bit about Claire/Paul brother sister discussion. If Paul and Claire were brother and sister, that means Serge would also be Claire's brother. I think that would have been a big issue for Serge as a politician. It could not have been ignored.
After finishing 'The dinner' (in english) and reading some of the comments here, there is one conclusion I have reached or at least think I have. Claire at the restaurant around the time desert is served refers to Michel as ''my son'' and we can see Paul is troubled by that, not necessarily because he doubts he's Michels' father but rather because he would prefer Claire to consider the importance Michel has for him too (as his father). After discovering the hospital documents showing ''Parents decision'' is ticked while Paul recalls no such collective decision at the time Michel is born, I think the author wants to point to the fact that Michel is not actually his son, which is enhanced by the sarcastic remarks people have already pointed out in this section that follow. While the true fathers' identity in my opinion is not relevant to the book, the point the author wants to emphasize is that Michel has inherited his violent and possibly psychopathic nature from Claire rather than Paul.
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 ..."Who knows, since he is a very unreliable narrator, if he actually did any of those things or only imagined he did.
The Dinner People are too stuck on the decisions of parents thing. It's really not an important detail. You're as fixated at Paul on trivial details. She probably just got a test when she was at an appointment that Paul didn't go to because it was suggested. Then she found out she was having a boy and felt bad she found out without Paul being there and they weren't planning on finding out. She's clearly unstable as well, but I don't think getting a test that a lot of mothers do shows that she's a sociopath. More like she's an excited mother but wants to make sure that the baby is healthy. What I find strange is how is no one talking about what happened to Beau??
And how no one tells Babette or Serge or they don't assume anything. Their own son Rick (unless he wasn't involved which it doesn't say) hasn't told them and they said he could barely sleep after they toasted that homeless woman. He would have known about Beau blackmailing Michael and himself so wouldn't he assume Michael had something to do with it, even if he wasn't involved? And if the kids already went to their parents about KILLING someone why would they have a problem telling their parents that their brother/cousin is trying to blackmail them for a scooter? Also if they could see that Beau made a call to his mother, why haven't they noticed that he texted and called Michael. So he definitely would have been questioned. My main question is where the hell did this 15 year old kid kill and hide a body and it hasn't been found? Oh and yes again Claire is a nut job, but Paul straight up laughed about the homeless person dying AND when Michael went into detail about what he did to Beau! Dear old dad is psycho!
I had read the book a couple years ago and recently discovered it was made into a movie, so I watched the movie. I believe the ending of the movie was different from the book. Shocking and horrific. It prompted me to reread the book, which I checked out of the library again today. Am looking forward to refreshing my memory about the differences between book and movie.
Mary Lou wrote: "I had read the book a couple years ago and recently discovered it was made into a movie, so I watched the movie. I believe the ending of the movie was different from the book. Shocking and horrific..."I haven't seen the movie -- I'd be interested to hear what you find!
Linda wrote: "I have a theory.....Brunner syndrome"One of the symptoms of Brunner syndrome is low IQ - was there evidence of that? I thought the first amnio was to confirm that her son had whatever her husband - and the operations later were the result of a bad abortion - knowing that the gene could be passed on, the first amnio showed that, hence when she got pregnant again, she decided to abort.
I do like the idea that the scenes of violence were all in his imagination - sort of a "bad" Walter Mitty . . .
Beckles wrote: "Just finished this book last night. So disturbed by it that I couldn't sleep. I found the book to be engaging, but was left with the same questions/uncertainty that the above readers had, which I s..."
I believe Paul had Huntington’s Disease. You can detect I an amino.
Robin Nugent wrote: "It just dawned on me - I thought Paul's first 'episode' with whatever his 'disease' was didn't happen until AFTER Michel was born. If I'm remembering correctly, why would Claire have the amniotic f..."Because SHE had it, folks!!! OMG I'm just realizing this. SHE had the disorder...
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 ..."You have it correct on all fronts. Claire had the fetus tested and went ahead with the birth even though the test indicated the disorder that Paul has. She did this without telling Paul.
As for the messages, I don't think messages are "stored" on even old fashioned Nokias like the ones in the novel. I think the police can get the messages from Faso's phone or from the phone company.
So I could be wrong, but I don't think that Claire has whatever disorder her husband and son have. Yes, she hits Serge, but her plan is premeditated. Paul mentions at the beginning of the book that Claire is smarter than him and he is okay with it. Paul's violent outbursts never were planned (whether they did or didn't happen, he never had a plan for attacking someone, he just did). Further more, Claire asked Paul to attack Serge before she did, and when he said no, she did it herself. I believe him looking at the box in the basement with the paperwork is significant because Claire knew about his diagnosis before he did and didn't tell him. She has the amnio, probably was aware of her husbands quirks and had suspicions and if not before during her research, and decided to still have the baby. She kept the baby's condition a secret from Paul to keep his own diagnosis from him. She even talked him out of coming to the doctor's with her. The only thing I wonder about is if she intended on having Serge attacked or attacking him herself the whole time, because it's a great alibi for her and Paul, and a great reason for Babette to confirm that she talked to Michel, to give the whole family an alibi whenever Bo went missing.
I watched the movie. I Definitely need to read the book. There was a comment on here on page one that said the frying pan could have been Paul’s imagination In the movie when Stan goes to sit down,I think,Paul said hello scar face. In the Beau must have because he would have run out when they called him. Paul reminded me of the kid in the Good son
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)
On the whole, I think this book sucker-punches the audience with an ending conjured out of nowhere and consequently has gaps in the plot you could drive a truck through. Disappointing.