Espresso and Grappa Digestif

Before we reflect on the taste and experience of the meal as a whole (the AP worthiness or lack there of), we must first savor the final course, the digestif.  The digestif is an alcoholic beverage at the conclusion of the meal, incidentally to aid digestion. However, the interesting piece is that none of the main characters, Paul, Claire, Babette or Serge, had such alcoholic beverage...

The question became, knowing why they got together for Dinner, what they were going to do about the crime and their sons.  Serge, brash and single minded, decided, on his own, that the only way to save his son, Rick, was to fold his candidacy for the prime minister of Holland.  The rightful argument by the rest was that this was not his sole decision to make.  We finally know why Babette had been crying before she and Serge entered the restaurant, because he had only just told her his intention.  Serge was resolute in his resolution and had set up to have a press conference the next day to announce that he would no longer be running.  This is the major conflict for the last 80 or so pages, which oddly enough ends in ... alcohol.  

Serge and Babette leave the restaurant to head to the 'ordinary cafe' where the conference was to be held the next day.  Paul and Claire had bluntly stated that he had silently appropriated THEIR cafe, as they were the ones who went their regularly.  Is Serge pushing too hard to appear normal?  Here is another example of an invasion of space, just like Serge sitting in Claire's chair.  In some ways it is irrational but at the same rate we can relate to Paul and Claire and how they feel about Serge using their cafe.  After they leave, Paul and Claire know that Serge will not change his mind and decide for drastic action.  What is something that could keep Serge from holding that press conference the next day?  Claire's initial idea had been to have Paul do it since Paul has a violent medical syndrome and hasn't taken his pills since he saw the video.  Paul responds that it would give the wrong impression.  If Paul does it then Serge's idea that he has a violent brother is reinforced, however, if deliberate and smart Claire does it, Serge knows there is only purpose in the action.  Claire heads after them into the cafe and Paul stays behind in the restaurant.  Serge comes out on a stretcher and Claire comes out with the police after she smashed a bottle of alcohol on Serge's face.  And so we get the digestif.

A parallel subject is Michel, Rick and Beau, the blood and the adopted.  Beau blackmails Michel and Rick bringing the discussion of what a blood sibling would do.  Paul notes that even if they refuse to speak to each other, blood siblings will still protect each other when life and death is brought into the mix.  I think that the connection an adopted child has with the rest of the family depends on the adopted themselves.  Obviously there are a myriad of ways that they can feel disconnected or separate from the rest, skin color, physical abilities, mental abilities, etc., but some character types might overcome that naturally.  Seeing the disconnect and their parents, at least Michel's, understanding Rick and Michel relieve themselves of the blackmail by what can only be described as more crime.  Basically, they are killing to hide a killing... Maybe at last they will be able to loose their initial crime, but at the cost of another life.  There is an interesting conflict because we all cherish life to some degree, yet never really liked Beau, because of the way he was presented, so have Michel and Rick crossed a line?  

Happiness, vagrants, prime minister, violence.  Has this culminated in an AP worthy meal?  

What are the types of things you look for in an AP novel?

journeys

sensory-meaning correlation

underlying message

recurrence

founding first scene or chapter

for AP students

usability

being memorable

not so simple as to show little analysis, at least somewhat of an iceberg

So.  Journey, not so much, every example I can think of such as Paul going out to talk to Michel, feel like too much of a stretch to support.  Sensory-meaning correlation, there is single noticeable one with garbage smell and violence.  This comes from the garbage smell of the homeless women, and then at the end when Paul recalls beating up Michel's principal, who smelled like garbage.  However, this seems to be the only one, colors and textures never really came up in the novel.  Underlying message, perhaps a discussion on how to deal with or not to deal with your kid having committed a heinous crime. Recurrence, happiness and violence are the two things that appear regularly throughout The Dinner.  As far as a change in view points about these two, there is none at all.  Founding first scene or chapter, there is some hint at Paul's distaste of restaurants in Holland, and a whole lot about Serge, but nothing about violence or crime, or their kids, so not really.  Usability, The Dinner has no lack of interesting points, as I have attempted to discuss throughout my other blog posts, but there is no real change from start to finish.  It seems hard to me to try to use a novel on an AP Question 3 when none of the characters changed (the only arguable one would be the amount of violence referenced by Paul in say 50 page sections, but I'm attesting this to the author correlating his pills wearing off with when Paul talks about something violent he did).  Being memorable, the key pieces about happiness, and their family conflict will probably last some time.  Iceberg, not so much (see all above sentences of this paragraph).  

Is it AP worthy?  I'd say no, however, this would be a fantastic book club or discussion group book as there is so much to talk about and so many starting points for conversations.  I would wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone who is looking for a thought provoking book.

Time to pay the check and head of to the cafe!

Doei!

Why Else Would You Go Out To a Fancy Dinner With Family Than To Talk About... MURDER!

I guess murder might be considered an overstatement but a crimes, a crime, a crimes, a crime.

People go out to dinner for a variety of reasons, because it's convenient, as a treat for a birthday or an anniversary, because the oven doesn't work, or simply just because.  However, The Dinner is far from interested in any of these options.  Serge and Babette and Paul and Claire are eating together to talk about their sons and what they have done.  After 120 pages we finally get to see what exactly they did.  As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts there was mention of France and that the three of them, Michel, Paul and Claire's son, Rick and Beau, Serge and Babette's blood and adopted sons respectively, had done.  However, it seems that there was something more serious and pressing for the four diners to discuss.

Initially Paul takes a removed approach from the happenings.  As our narrator he uses generic pronouns such as "the three boys," and "two were brothers. One of them was adopted ... The third boy went to a different school .  He was their cousin."  At this point, the first few paragraphs of the chapter, we can easily tell that these boys are the sons in question, but at the same rate by using these generic pronouns instead of their names we get a more removed view, as an onlooker.  Later on it also becomes clear that Paul wants to distance his family from the events so as to avoid detection.  No they did not hide in some shelter somewhere or even dash away to a foreign country but merely made it look like nothing had changed at all.  The footage of their actions, recorded by a security camera, aired on Holland's version of our Most Wanted series, Opsporing Verzocht.  It's understandable to reason why Paul would be so interested in acting as if nothing had changed, even though it had, when he tells us that "the general reaction had been one of outrage ... even the appeal to restore the death penalty had raised its hoary head again."

Paul also makes a statement straight to the readers, or rather to the purposeful omission of his ideas and knowledge in The Dinner "because technically [he] can still deny everything."  This comes from an interesting reach out into the real world.  As a work of fiction we know that this didn't actually happen, however, Paul states that at the time he is writing The Dinner "the investigation is still going on."  This is an interesting function of a work of fiction as it forces you to pause and think about what you've seen in the news even though a moment later you realize both that this is a book so it could have actually been a while ago and second that it is a work of fiction and therefore wont actually have taken place.

Watching the video clip and finding one on YouTube, Paul realizes that "the police, possible in collaboration with the makers of Opsporing Verzocht, had decided not to include [the] final moment[s] in the broadcast."  One of the explanations is that they omitted it so that there was "something that only the culprits knew about... To prevent mentally disturbed individuals from claiming [the] crime."

The earliest hint about their crime, which only becomes related after reaching a later part of the book, is when Paul thinks about how he went up into Michel's room and looked through his phone.  Happiness, and more specifically happy families, certainly is becoming a theme throughout The Dinner as Paul again mentions how he respects Michel's privacy, out of virtue and out of happiness. Related to this, very early on Claire and Paul talk about Michel acting strange lately and Paul thinks about how he doesn't want to pressure and ask their son for fear that he may "clam up" altogether.  This sounds to me like the teenage condition.  Everyone has their own perspective on a functioning family and how each member treats each other, but it is without a doubt that clamming up has the potential of happening.  In short, I find it fascinating how throughout the book I can more of a window into other's and parent's perspectives.

At this point it may be aggravating to find out or finally talk about what exactly was on that video, but welcome to anticipation I felt while reading The Dinner.  I knew that there was an underpinning discussion that needed to take place, and yet knew nothing of what it was going to be about until almost halfway through the novel.

As I mentioned above, the first time that Paul saw the footage was on his TV in the living room.  The back story goes that the three boys wanted to get money from the ATM for one last beer on their way home from a party.  Note that the drinking age in Europe and specifically Holland is much younger than it is here in the United States.  They knew that there was one particular on their way but upon arriving they find a homeless person in the cubicle where the ATM is.  Here comes an interesting mix of morals, alcohol, and a certain amount of shock.  Paul later notes that "In Holland, [there is] a social safety net.  No one had to lie around and get in the way in an ATM cubicle." This begs the question as to why they were there.  At any rate when Rick walks in to get some money he immediately turns around and leaves, remarking at the incredible stench describes as a rotting corpse.  Paul notes that "A person who stinks cannot count on much sympathy."  Whether you know them personally or their a stranger there is no doubt that our impressions are partially formed by the smell.  Also people tend to avoid terrible smells and so how someone smells can create a distance between them and those around you.  One of the things I've enjoyed about this book is these little anecdotes that make you reflect on how you think about the world and what you do.

The adopted son says they should leave but ends up leaving by himself.  Rick and Michel stay and try to get the homeless person, who they find out is in fact a woman, to leave the cubicle.  The awful thing is that in her screaming and foul language they begin to laugh, uncontrollably almost, which if nothing else gives the appearance to the cameras that they are enjoying it.  While reading Paul's recount the disconnectedness seems to convey that it wasn't that they enjoyed what they were doing but merely found the woman's reaction hysterical. Once they started, like most laughing, it became hard to stop.  Before they had nudged the women to get her to emerge from her sleeping bag, but they moved to the garbage by the street and throwing it in at her.  The culmination was two incredibly bad choices. First, Michel threw in an empty gas can, which landed just by the woman's head.  And the second, which you might have guessed, was throwing in an open lighter.

Where does crime begin?  Does it start with an innocent intention, to get money from an ATM, and then evolve from other preconceived notions, that homeless people do not belong in ATM cubicles?  Does it start with an alteration or obstacle, the stench was so fowl that it couldn't be bared over the time it took to draw money?  Rick and Michel had no understanding, they had an idea but not an understanding, of what they were doing to the woman.  They came back to see what had actually happened, shocked sober perhaps.  And as soon as Michel got home he told Claire, his mother, and asked her what he should do.  They were innocent in their guiltiness.  Yet at the end of the day the deed was done.  Are these boys criminals?  Since Michel is more of the leader of the two, is he more responsible?  Now that Claire and Paul both know what Michel did can they be a happy family?

The Beard, the Politician, and the Main Course

You were hungry so you decided you wanted to order two appetizers this time.  And when they finally came they said two things.  The first was that this, and probably subsequent blog posts are really going to lay the spoilers on strong so if you don't have the taste for that, stop at this appetizer, pay your bill, and happily leave knowing you know nothing.  The second tells you that I have exceptionally enjoyed reading The Dinner so far and would recommend it to anyone. Yes, the premise of going to dinner over 300 pages seems a bit odd, yet it is well crafted and has the aroma and aura to keep you from ever wanting to leave.

We have finally reached the bringing of the main course of their meal.  But before it arrives Claire and Babette left the table the latter crying, mad at Serge for an unknown reason, and the earlier attempting to comfort Babette.  After the meal arrives Paul goes out to find them and tell them so.  At first I thought we might get a mini-journey by our narrator, but I think we will need to wait and see for a later section if there is any re-reference.  Although they are in Holland, Paul finds the outside air to be "pleasantly warm," and had a smell "that seemed almost Mediterranean."  This reminded me of the ginger air in the Song of Solomon but so far, through the first half of the book, it hasn't recurred.  Perhaps more interestingly is that while outside between the building and the garden with a pool, a pool... is that he remembers when "[he] had looked outside any number of times but with the falling of darkness had been able to see less and less ... however, [he] was able to see almost the entire restaurant reflected in the glass."  From inside this was a change in his view going from viewing both the inside and the outside worlds to only being able to view the interior.  From outside the interior of the restaurant could be easily seen.  A one way window if you will. This could be symbolic of the clarity from onlooking as opposed to the confusion in the midst.

At a nearby table sits a man and who Paul originally assumes is with his date who is also many many years younger than him.  This man, affectionate named The Beard by Paul,  asks if his daughter (so not a date) can get a picture with Serge and if Paul would ask for him.  He makes an interesting point when he says, "I realize that it's a private dinner for you and everything, and I don't want to bother him."  Well isn't he still bothering Paul by asking?  It's interesting how people value other people's time based on their importance.  It sort of reminds me of a detail about Bill Gates that for a while it was not worth his time to stoop and pick a 100 dollar bill from the ground.  Is his time more valuable than anyone else's?  Is Serge's time more valuable because he is a famous politician? When the Beard finally asks Serge for the photo with his daughter Paul reflects on the duties and conflicts of the famous.  As a politician it was imperative for Serge to maintain a good rapport with the people and so must appease them to at least some degree.  When the Beard asks, Serge is forced to be polite and agree to a photo.  After it became fairly apparent that their brief picture time was over the Beard continued to ask questions, which Paul attests to the fact that "They wanted something exclusive, an exclusive treatment.  A distinction had to be made between them and all those others who came up and asked for a photo or an autograph."  This of course makes the situation awkward for Serge or his equivalent and out of fairness they shouldn't give in.  The reason Serge can't tell him to simply go away is "the so-called snowball effect." Basically the Beard would tell his friends how rude Serge was and they would tell their friends and "the story would take on increasingly grotesque form every time it was told."  Eventually Serge might get a mark against him for it.  To avoid all this Serge uses the call excuse and pretends to have a call he was expecting and had to take.  What we should, and Paul does, get from this is not that when people say they have a call they are trying to shoo you off but that it's better for everyone if you don't ask in the first place.  The Dinner provides a view into the lives of the famous, which I find to be eye opening.

Darkness and light are opposites and so are truth and lies.  Typically light and truth are paired together, and yet that doesn't seem to be the case here.  When Paul went out to give Michel his phone back he pondered where he should stand."In the dark, when we couldn't see each other's eyes, Michel might be more willing to speak the truth." In this way associating darkness and being hidden with truth.  When Michel does arrive they end up meeting in a well lit place.  Paul had been on Michel's phone listening to a voice mail when he first got there and so Michel asked who he was talking to, to which Paul responded, " ' I was trying to call you, ... I was wondering what was taking you so long.' " This then associates light with lies.  This is something that could be considered with the above paragraph about the window.

One more plug on racism, or rather the contrariness of it.  Paul mentions that "As a little boy [Beau] had climbed into "Mother's" lap much more often than Rick or Valerie did" and when Rick was asked what he did to make Beau cry he states, " ' All I did was look at him.' "  Paul notes, at Claire's joking accusation that he is racist, that he " ' would be racist if [he] liked that little hypocrite simply for the color of his skin or where he comes from.' " It's not racist to like or dislike two people of the same race as you but are you then forced to like ones that are not?  Welcome to the world of Catch-22.  Most people do not want to be viewed as racist and so make a concerted effort to show appreciation for other races, thus giving unequal treatment and therefore acting based on race ... racism.  So by trying to be and act non-racist you are being racist...

Other interesting pieces from the section


At one point while Claire is out of her seat Serge sits in it to be across from and talk to Paul.  Paul makes the interesting note that "The chair was Claire's.  It belonged to my wife." Which we know that she didn't actually own the chair but it was still an invasion of her space.  This could be similar to when someone tries to act like someone else or push them out of your life.  An invasion of a  metaphysical ownership or slot in your relationships.

Serge in his infinite wisdom also presents the idea of us and them when he says that "[Menopause] sounds like something that would never happen to our wives."  Emphasis on our.  People can often assume that something bad or perceived to be bad will happen to someone else and not them or the ones they love.  Nature doesn't care who you are or what you've done and certainly doesn't place some people as being above others.

When Michel, Paul's son, calls his phone to try and find it Paul notices, because he has it, that it is Claire's face attached to their land line number.  Yet, Paul notes that "Home was Mama. Home was Claire.  [He] didn't feel left out, [he noted]; somehow it was actually a comfort."  Begging why is it a comfort, it may be that he doesn't want the specific duties of being "home" or that he wants Michel to be close with his mother.  However, should he feel left out?

Fitting in, isn't that what most people want to do, to fit in?  Well I imagine it would certainly be true for Serge and Babette's adopted son Beau.  This came up over the subject of nicknames of which Beau had one, Faso.  Faso, derived from Burkina Faso where he is from, Serge considered to be impolite or racist.  However, Beau accepted it because " ' Eveyone's got a nickname,' ...  Everyone. That was what Beau wanted.  He wanted to be like everyone."

The tournedos, a cut of beef from the end of the tenderloin, of this section and a key flavor of The Dinner will come in a later post where I'll delve into what Paul, our narrator, found on his son's phone, on the TV, and the cellars of the internet.

The Pleasantries of Famous Family, the French, Having "As Much Wine as Possible [Forced] Down Your Throat" and Race

That person with a three piece suit of "pale green with blue pinstripes" and a blue hankie sticking out of the breast pocket might also be known as "The floor manager- or maitre d', or supervisor, the host, the headwaiter, or whatever you call someone like that in restaurants like this," and is our fumbling, bumbling character that seems to be tongue tied by the Lohmans.  He represents a restaurant was formerly "a dairy ... or a sewage disposal plant." I don't know about you, but I would love to pay hundreds of dollars to consume fine wine and 'snacks' for meals in a building that used to be a sewage treatment plant.  (Keep this detail in mind when you read about the dark pond next to the building...)  Back to our floor manager.  Recurring attributes are his hand and how he presents the food.  Our narrator, Paul Lohman, takes constant note at the height of the floor manager's hand above the food, approximated to only be a centimeter or so, largely a jest at the intrusiveness of the floor managers and how they constantly 'check in' to make sure the food is good.  The other attribute is how at first he uses just his pinky to point to the different parts of the food on the plate.  This drives our narrator to winder why, what was he hiding, and "was that supposed to be chic?"  Conclusion, "perhaps they were covered with flaky eczema or symptoms of some untreatable disease." Sounds appeal into have a centimeter above your food right?  Later on we find out that the fingers that had been curled underneath had nothing wrong with them. This gets at both the dangers of giving others the perception that you have something to hide, but also making assumptions simply based on the fact that they appear to be hiding it.

Food and its cost is an interesting consideration when choosing and ordering at restaurants.  For our narrator this is of particular fascination at the most 'high end' restaurants.  His reasoning and interest is in how the "yawning chasm between the dish itself and the price you have to pay for it."  For many paying 30 or 50 dollars for a clean plate and a little bit of lamb on it is unfathomable.  As the saying goes; 'would you like some lamb with that plate?'  It's "as though the two variables - money on one side, food on the other - have nothing to do with each other." And then comes the apparent practice of only Dutch fine restaurants to "top up your glass, [and] cast a wistful eye at the bottle when it seems to be getting empty.  Our narrator recounts a friend telling him that their tactic was "to actually force as much wine as possible down your throat, wine they sell for seven times what the importer charges for it."  And then waiting a long time between bringing the appetizer and taking orders for the entree so that "people will order more wine out of pure boredom."  And lastly when "the customers [begin] to look around impatiently were the plates shoved into the microwave." Sounds like fine dinning to me.  Reminds me in part of the argument against monopolies.  Once you sit down at their table, although it's possible to leave, you are basically tied to it from ordering your appetizer to getting the check.  The argument against monopolies is that they will abuse their control on their customers, which sounds eerily consistent with these restaurants.  This also can bring about the question of what the responsibilities are for the restaurant to allow you to complete a dinner in a reasonable time and wont be abused by them.  

Even been eating with your family and notice that the atmosphere in the restaurant suddenly changes, or happen to notice that someone famous has just entered and the staff are all bumping around?  Well, as you might have expected there is a noticeable difference when Serge Lohman, Paul's brother, and Holland Prime Minister shoo-in strolled in beaming.  Many of the customers attempted not to display recognition that Serge and Babette, his wife, had walked in.  Yet "they all seemed to lean a few fractions of an inch closer to their plates, all apparently doing their best at the same time to forge ahead with their conversations, to avoid falling silent, because the volume of the general hubbub increased audibly."  Interestingly people, well at least those who don't blanket stare at the new guest, make an effort to make it appear as if they are oblivious to the entrance of the famous person. An interesting social observation that Paul mentions later is that whether you stare or forge on with your conversation you are effectively doing the same thing, taking note that they are there.  In someways, unless you are used to them or seeing famous people, you are stuck noting their being there once you see them.

Several pages of this section are dedicated to the recount of the events in France with both families sons including the adopted one.  Paul notes that Serge and Babette "belonged to that class of Dutch people who think everything French is 'great.' " However, he makes sure to point out that if they looked deeper and simply didn't "fail to see" that they were unwelcome quests.  There was graffiti that featured "Anti-Dutch slogans" but were shrugged off for being only the thoughts of " ' a tiny minority' " when in fact that is not the case.  One of the reasons the French are unhappy with the wealthy Dutch moving in is because they are being displaced by rising housing prices.  This is extremely relevent today in California.  All the time we hear about protest about the skyrocketing prices in San Francisco and the whole Silicon Valley area.  We don't know yet what the French people do, if anything, but it could be interesting to compare reactions.

What would a Dinner be without discussing which movie is the most racist and arguing on how races should present themselves.  The conversation drifts to black men who dress in suits as white men do.  Claire notes that " 'at least [violent blacks from the worst neighborhoods] were themselves. They were no longer some watered-down version of a white man.' "  Serge brings up the point of whether we would rather have them remain that way and "go on killing each other in their ghettos." Obviously this isn't what the world wants, but this reminded me of Song of Solomon as we know Macon the second as being very similar to a white man in contrast with the men in Solomon's General Store that Milkman fights with.  The conversation goes on to talk about how "Dutch people, white people, Europeans - look at other cultures. The things [they're] afraid of." A universal perception that we know is not always true. And the final comment on race, or rather sexuality in this case is of a woman who was interviewed on a TV show.  She referred to them as " ' ' Such sweet boys!' ' ", but Paul thinks that what she "Meant to say was that even though her two neighbors were homosexual, the way they took care of her cats when she was gone showed that they were still people like you and me." Then he goes on to say that "you have to turn the situation around.  If [they had] instead had pelted [the cats] with stones or tossed poisoned pork chops ... they would have been just plain dirty faggots."  This holds two parts, one is that it could be a jest at societies values or perhaps just a reflection of our narrators, but the other gets at the real meaning or understanding behind people's words, even if it's through a TV.

Interesting pieces from the section:

The idea of the "uninitiated."  In this case the initiated or the knowledgeable are Paul and Claire of each other.  This gets at the depth of understanding that can come between two people that have spent time and interacted with each other.  Think of twins, or some couples who know the other so well that they can seemingly finish their sentences or convey a world of meaning in a single nod.  This allows for a sort of hidden conversation, something that fosters this knowledge in the first place.

Paul, the narrator also presents an alternate use for the "Law of drama.  The law that says no pistol must appear if no one's going to fire it."  In The Dinner's  case the pistol is the unhappiness that Babette has for her husband, something Paul wants to come out.  The law of drama comes in in that he knows that it will come out before the end of the night

Adoption, a usually positive action, as it is in The Dinner takes on a slightly different note.  In this case Serge and Babette support a child in Burkina Faso and then formally adopt him after some time.  Paul on the other hand notes that it's "a sort of rent-to-own agreement ... Or like a cat you bring home from the animal shelter; if the cat scratches the sofa to bits or pisses all over the house, you take it back."  This a more ownership based view, and this might remind you of indentured servants or slavery.  Of course these are interesting things to pair alongside adoption.  This could be a comment on Serge, the adopter, or our narrator himself and how he views the world rather pessimistically.

Relationships can be fineky, as Paul pointed out all happy families are alike but "every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."  It seems that Serge and Babette don't exactly see eye to eye.  This is bubbling up to a major argument which Paul wants to bring out, as I have mentioned elsewhere.  Paul cites the way Babette takes about how Serge went to go "tasting wine in the Loire Valley," and how Babette from his observations made an effort to let him know that she had been crying on the ride there, and then later Babette storms off from the table.  Yet Babette has stayed with Serge which Paul attests to being like "the way you don't put aside a bad book when you're halfway through it." Is this a real function of relationships?  I would guess yes with the addition that it depends on the personality of the unhappy person.

Appearance versus reality also comes in with the lamb's lettuce on one of the plates.  Paul recalls that they reminded him of "the little leaves [they] would push through the bars of the cage each morning," in elementary school, to the hamster or guinea pig.  Something like what he fed to animals is now being served at a fine restaurant.  This part also may give some foreshadowing when Paul remembers "one morning [finding the hamster] was dead, just like the little turtle, the two white mice, and the stick insects that had preceded it."  Are we going to see some casualties or death later on? I guess we'll just have to read on down the menu.

30 Minutes Late is the New Early

As an only child I find the family dynamic in The Dinner so far quite interesting as I know that the closest I will ever come is say with one of my cousins.  This dynamic is being successful yourself yet someone, with the same last name or similar looking enough to be mistaken for you, is so famous you are eternally overshadowed.  In this case the brother, Serge Lohman, of our narrator, Paul Lohman, is for whatever reason extremely famous and able to make reservations the day of at Please-reserve-a-table-three-months-in-advance restaurants.  Paul notes at the end of chapter four that being "[Serge's] brother," "was a victory smacked in defeat."  This is what it is like to be related to someone so famous.  By some of the critical tone Paul uses when he talks about Serge we can tell that it annoys him to some degree.  "There was one thing [Paul] didn't feel like that evening. [He] didn't feel like being there when the owner or on-duty manager greeted Serge Lohman as though he were an old friend."  "We were half an hour late already ... for once, just this once, it might be [Paul and Claire] and not the Lohmans who arrived last."  What then is the role for the famous and the relatives of the famous in their relationship?  Should the famous try to bring their relatives along with them into the realm of the famous or distance them so they can try to lead a normal, ordinary life?

One of the other aspects that Paul mentions frequently is happiness. He introduces the idea with "Happiness needs nothing but itself; it doesn't need to be validated." and a quote from Tolstoy, " ' Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.' "  Happiness could come from similarity between spouses and kids, but also a similarity of view with extended family as well. And then the same way that happiness comes from similarity, unhappiness comes from dissimilarity. To be happy it is worth trying to assimilate to the views of those you are closest to?  "Unhappiness loves company" because then you can talk to those you are most similar to.  And lastly "unhappiness can't stand silence" because it festers. When we are left to our own view point of a past event, everyone twists it in their favor.  This in turn redoubles the unhappiness as they become more unfair, unjust, and/or wrong and we become more brilliant, reasonable, and/or right. Type one readers (see first post) skip the indented section.

This we can make a certain amount of connection to what we know will happen.  Paul and Serge, or at least Paul, have some unhappiness between them and by forcing a confrontation they are going to get to see the other side's point.  However, the likelihood of understanding is low.  First because we know it isn't going to go well. Secondly, because each has their own family interests that they care for more than anything else. Had this conversation happened closer to whatever event, maybe it would be different.  We'll see.

One other major point that Paul brings up is presentation and perception.  "Everything is a statement ... If you don't scrape off the day's stubble, you were too lazy to shave; two day's beard immediately makes them wonder whether this is some new look; three days or more is just a step from dissolution."  This gets at how closely people read into appearances. This begs the question of how far is too far. This also exhibits how much people perceive change and how each of us is, to a certain degree, expected to look like us. What we looked like in the past is perceived as a requirement for what we will look like in the future.  Paul goes on to note that "No matter what you do, you're not free."  This reminds me in part of a Catch-22 where now if you take the liberty to not shave you have to deal with the questions, but if you don't want to bear the questions you have to shave, and lose the freedom of not shaving.  And lastly, shaving can be used as "a statement as well."  If you shave "you found this evening significant enough to go to the trouble of shaving."  What you wear, whether or not you shave and how you present yourself all provide the evidence as to how you perceive the event, whether it is important, a relaxed occasion or basically just a requirement.

Lastly I would like to touch upon the appetizer.  You know how by looking at what is offered in the appetizer menu you can learn so much about the rest of the menu and the restaurant.  For example if the prices for the appetizers are listed around $20 you know each person will spend over $50 on their entree.  You can also tell where this restaurant specializes; do they favor Italian, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, or American. You might also get a hint at a specialty dish that the restaurant is known for.  Well in a similar style, first chapters of literary novels can work as an appetizer menu.  From the first chapter we know that the narrator is well off.  That he "never [wants] to know three months in advance where [he's] going to eat." That Serge Lohman is famous and wealthy and takes getting a table at the top restaurants the day of as a sport.  That Serge wanted to be perceived as and fit in with ordinary people but doesn't  regret how famous he is. Notably we hear a lot about Serge but know very little of our narrator and these characters relationships. From this we will likely see or hear much of Serge throughout the novel, probably one of the people at the Dinner.  We will also hear about the differences between our narrator and Serge.  Now we'll just have to wait and look at the rest of the menu.

Narrator:  Paul Lohman - well off, likeable, wise, logical thinker, may weigh happiness over thruthfulness, loyal
Wife: Marie Claire Lohman - smart, observant, loyal
Son: Michel Lohman - 15, many friends who are girls, somewhat hands on

Brother: Serge Lohman - famous, wealthy, wants ordinary people to not make special note of him, doesn't regret wealth or how well known her is
Wife: Babette
son: unknown



Serge wasn't there yet.

Suit and Tie, Dressing-up for Dinner

It is interesting the variety of things people do before going out to dinner.  Some like to compare the hues of ties and shirts.  Some like to make the restaurant smell of their favorite cologne.  Some like to coordinate with others.  Some like to simply get out of their work attire.  And some like to forget all that and hop in the car.  Me, I stay away from the first three and fit somewhere between four and five.  People also prepare for books differently. There are those who make sure they know nothing except the title before consumption.  There are those who feel the urgent need to eat dessert, also known as the last page or chapter first. There are those who read the reviews and look up the author like smelling wine before tasting it. And there are those who jump in and don't care about how much or how little they know already, similar to eene-meene-miney-moing a menu.  I am one of the final people, I like to have a general idea but don't want to spoil some of the fun.  At this point I know what I learned from blurbs and reviews that I read while selecting The Dinner, but that is about it.



If you are one of the first types of readers skip the next paragraph.

What I know, or think I know, is that two couples go out to dinner together in Amsterdam.  However, their sons, one each, did something in conflict with the law.  The dinner starts out with the usual pleasantries but begins to sour as the courses come. I have little clue of what the actual structure of this novel is going to be, whether we will be an observer of the table, whether we'll be one of the patrons, or whether the novel will send us through a series or one single flashback.  Part of the reason I chose The Dinner is because it presented itself as an opportunity for a different flavor of novelic structure.  And in case you are one of the third types of readers here are some things I have not read/watched: from The New York Times, from NPR, from LitLovers, and if your really into preparing, the movie.

All in all I am excited to see what will develop in The Dinner.  I also hope to skewer as many of the devices as I can, and of course do them justice throughout my future posts.  The scent wafting from the kitchen smells exotic. "Oh waiter! I'd like to place my order for a luxurious Dinner of potatoes, fine wine and crime, please."