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?