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.