THE DINNER, A NOVEL BY HERMAN KOCH (BOOK REVIEW)

Hello dear readers! I'm back with another book review. The Dinner, a novel by Dutch author Herman Koch was first published in 2009. This novel has been described as a bestselling phenomenon. Certainly, this novel has achieved international success.  The Dinner was not only successfully translated into many languages, it was also adapted to film. There are four notable film adaptations of this novel. Out of these film adaptations, the Dutch one was made first, followed by Italian, American (USA) and South Korean films. So, what kind of novel is it? What is the secret of its success?

First of all, it's a dark novel. Reading the blurb, I gathered as much. However, I wasn't prepared for how dark it truly was. It starts off as a thriller, but it turns into something darker with every page. The novel has been compared with the Gone Girl, but it is a very different kind of novel. The suspense that the author builds in this one is more psychological, and less dependent on the plot. Perhaps it could be argued that The Dinner can be connected to psychological horror in the sense that it creates a feeling of unease. Unlike traditional horror, this novel does not aim to scare you, nor does it use graphical violence or paranormal events, and yet it is deeply unsettling.  As the novel states: “Even when you act like nothing is happening, something happens—I don’t know how to put it any more clearly.

Herman Koch moves pretty quick in this novel, getting almost straight to the point: a crime of some sort. A parent discovers his child has done something terrible. What is next? Revealing so much right at start left me wondering whether the novel will held my attention and with what.  I needn't have worried. The Dinner certainly hold my attention. I read it quickly, in what felt like a heartbeat. I remember talking with my colleagues about it and they were surprised that I read the book so quickly. As fast the reading process went, the suspense and the uneasiness I felt while reading it made the whole reading experience feel uncanny in a disturbing way. Scroll down and find out just what I mean!

THE DINNER IS MORE PROFOUND (AND DISTURBING) WORK THAN IT SEEMS AT FIRST

  In many ways, reading this novel was not an easy experience. This novel is not your typical thriller. The more you learn about the protagonists and the society they live in, the darker and more evil they seem. At times, reading this novel was a sickening experience. 

When I decided to write this review and started reflecting on this book, I actually had a moment when I felt almost nauseated. I remember how when reading it, I thought how surely things could not get worse- and yet they did.

 This novel dives into darkness that we sometimes call a human being. So, I don't know whether I would recommend this novel to everyone, as it might not be for the sensitive ones. Its message might fly over many a head.

 What I will say is that I consider it to be a serious if uneasy read. The Dinner speaks about themes that are often taboo. It questions and it provokes. holding a mirror to human society. It uses dark humour and satire, but at its core it is a tragedy. 

There is more than meets the eye at this novel, so much more that I admit being impressed. I admire the writer for putting so much food for thought into this novel. The Dinner might not be for everyone, but it deserves all the hype it got. I do believe that in many respects, The Dinner is an ambitious work. 

“Sometimes things come out of your mouth that you regret later on. Or no, not regret. You say something so razor-sharp that the person you say it to carries it around with them for the rest of their life.”

A striped white and blue dress: second hand/ A pair of pink sneakers: Nike

WHAT GENRE DOES THE DINNER BELONG TO? 

What is the genre of this novel? Now, that's an interesting question, and one that might be somewhat open to interpretation.

 Some critics have compared this novel to popular thrillers, and often to psychological thrillers, but is The Dinner really a thriller? 

After all, there aren't that many plots and turns in this one. There is no emotional rollercoaster or sudden plot twists that we usually connect with thrillers. 

Nevertheless, as we can define psychological thrillers as works dealing with psychological narratives in a  thrilling setting/situation, this definition of the novel is not exactly wrong. 

As a subgenre of thriller, psychological thriller has links to detective fiction and domestic noir, especially when featuring a distressed, dissolving, paranoid or uncertain sense of reality. 

Moreover,  domestic noir is the genre this novel is often described as belonging to.

Domestic noir overlaps with dark realism in many respects, as the two genres are closely connected. From the point of literary history, dark realism belongs to the second half of the  twentieth century, but we can find its echoes in this century as well, especially in domestic noir. 

On overall, domestic noir is more concerned with a psychological study of a family, and often involves a crime of some sort. Now, that seems to fit The Dinner perfectly!

However, with the domestic noir the narrator is not necessarily unreliable, whereas psychological thriller is usually narrated by mentally unstable or stressed individuals.

The narrator of The Dinner is definitely unreliable, so it could be said this novel is (like psychological thrillers or psychological horror novels) narrated through the viewpoint of psychologically unstable or stressed characters.

Domestic noir is also sometimes more linked to a female perspective, although there is no reason to be so divisive as no genre is gender exclusive.  

From what I understand the difference between domestic noir and psychological thriller is that the latter is more 'thrilling' in the sense of ups and downs, more eventful on overall, and more a rollercoaster. 

The psychological thriller genre is sometimes hard to distinguish from the psychological horror genres, 

as the two genres overlap so much at times that the differences can be really subtle. 

I already mentioned that while there are elements of phycological horror in this novel. That was how I experienced it as least. How does one exactly describe this novel? What genre does it belong to? 

PYSCHOLOGICAL THRILLER, A DOMESTIC NOIR, DARK REALISM OR A HORROR NOVEL? 

I think this novel can be classified into different genres, actually. Perhaps, the perception of its genre identity will primarily depend on the individual reader and his reading experience. 

Some readers will focus more on the family dynamics and the crime that shakes it, so they will define or experience this novel as domestic noir. Other readers will focus more on psychological suspense, aided by the increasingly more disturbing unreliable narrator, so they will experience this novel as full psychological thriller or perhaps even as a psychological horror. 

After some thinking, I myself would define this novel as psychological thriller with elements of psychological horror and domestic noir. However, I wouldn't insist that my definition is correct. As I explained, I think this novel can be experienced in different ways, as every reader might focus on some other aspect of it. There's also a fair bit of social satire in this one. 

As I already said, what I admire about this novel is that it made me think. As a reader, I definitely felt engaged while reading it. Perhaps it is also the style of writing what really appealed to me. The usage of unreliable narrator is fabulously done. The novel kept me on my toes, even if it was not a typical thriller or noir reading. The novelty of the style  contributed to such a strong impression, I'm sure. Nevertheless, the novel does have a lot going for it. 

A STORY NARRATED BY A FORMER HISTORY TEACHER PAUL LONGHAM

The fact that this novel is told in first person by an unreliable narrator is very important for the plot. As the story progresses, we learn more and more about the protagonist. We are privy not only to his thoughts, but also to the conversations he has with other characters. However, how sure can we be of what he is reporting to us? 

ALL HAPPY FAMILIES ARE ALIKE AND EVERY UNHAPPY FAMILY IS UNHAPPY IN ITS OWN WAY

This novel quotes Tolstoy, and it does not stop there. Like the beginning of Tolstoy's novel, the writer introduces us to two couples. In Tolstoy's novel, it is Anna that comes hopping to save her brother's marriage. Here we have two married brothers meeting for a meal with their spouses. Naturally, a comparison of their marriages presents its.  

In this novel, Paul and Claire meet with Paul's brother Serge and his wife Babette in a fancy restaurant. 

The question of martial happiness often comes up, as does the question of happiness in general. What makes a family unhappy or happy? 

“If I had to give a definition of happiness, it would be this: happiness needs nothing but itself; it doesn’t have to be validated.”

Our narrator seems to define happiness as something that needs nothing, whereas unhappiness prefers company. As the famous saying say, misery loves company. 

“Unhappiness loves company. Unhappiness can’t stand silence—especially not the uneasy silence that settles in when it is all alone.”

As these quotes might indicate, Paul is not happy to meet with his brother Serge. That much is obvious from the start. However, as the novel progresses we can see that his feelings towards his brother are deeper than dislike. Paul seems to genuinely hate his brother Serge, a handsome politician that is to run for the prime minister of Netherlands. Paul is somewhat more sympathetic toward Serge's wife Babette, though. Still, he is not looking forward to spending an evening with either of them. However, Paul is going to do just that, always ready to add a poisonous and cynical comment (in his mind, that is). 

“That’s the oppressive thing about happiness, the way everything is out on the table like an open book:”

PAUL AND HIS WIFE CLAIRE MEET WITH PAUL'S BROTHER AND WIFE BABETTE

Even before the two couples meet, we learn that something is off in Paul's and Claire's life. Paul has discovered something on his son's cellphone, something that would terrify every parent. As readers, at this point we still don't know what it is. We do learn about the dynamic between these two couples. They meet regularly if not often. However, there's little love between them. Paul certainly does not care about his brother's family much, and his feelings seem to be echoed by his wife Claire. Everything indicates that Paul and Claire would rather spent a nice evening together. From the comments Paul gives from the start, it is clear he admires and loves his wife Claire. However, Paul has kept a secret from Claire. Will their son come between them? Will he tell her? What has this secret to do with Serge and Babette? Does it have anything to do with them? It is clear that Paul is on the edge, and he looks forward to his wife's arrival.

“Claire is smarter than I am. I’m not saying that out of some half-baked feminist sentiment or in order to endear women to me. You’ll never hear me claim that ‘women in general’ are smarter than men. Or more sensitive, more intuitive, or that they are more ‘in touch with life’, or any of the other horseshit that, when all is said and done, so-called ‘sensitive’ men try to peddle more often than women themselves.”

One thing that seems obvious is that Paul loves his wife. He considers Claire to be smarter of the two. That's something, especially considering how he seems to have a low opinion of just about anyone. Paul is extremely cynical, and sometimes even a bit cruel. However, it seems that his wife is his soft spot. The reader is naturally curious. What is their marriage like?

“The chair was Claire’s, it belonged to my wife. Without a doubt, he could now feel her body heat, left behind on the seat, right through the cloth of his trousers. The thought of it made me furious.”

THE SETTING FOR THIS NOVEL IS A FANCY RESTAURANT 

The setting for The Dinner is as the title would imply a place to dine in, that is a restaurant. Not just any restaurant, a fancy restaurant. Paul makes it clearly that he detest both the restaurant and his brother. Paul detests fine dining and sees it as snobbery. In particular, Paul criticizes the Dutch dining experience that he sees as a clear rip off. 

A fancy restaurant is not an accidental setting. In fact, it is meaningful on more than one level. In one sense, a fancy restaurant can represent the falseness and  hypocritic attitude of the society in general. It can imply shallowness. Paul equals fine dining with dishes that have little value and that cost too much, seeing it as snobbery. This is important for a number of reasons. 

“This particular restaurant is one where you have to call three months in advance—or six, or eight, don’t ask me. Personally, I’d never want to know three months in advance where I’m going to eat on any given evening, but apparently some people don’t mind. A few centuries from now, when historians want to know what kind of crazies people were at the start of the twenty-first century, all they’ll have to do is look at the computer files of the so-called “top” restaurants.”

By looking down on overspending (especially on dining), Paul might represent the typical or traditional virtues of Dutch society. There is a fair amount of social critique in this novel. In a way, the Dutch society itself is portrayed. It is not a detailed portrait, but we get some insights into it. 

Both couples belong to the upper class, and while Serge and Babette are obviously better off financially, they are all people living with a certain privilege. It is clear that Paul sees himself and Claire as the more intelligent and better than Serge and his wife Babette. He internally rolls his eyes when conversation turns to films, and makes a point of hating any film his brother Serge has seen or liked.

“When the conversation turns too quickly to films, I see it as a sign of weakness. I mean: films are more something for the end of the evening, when you really don’t have much else to talk about. I don’t know why, but when people start talking about films, I always get a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach, like when you wake up in the morning and find that it’s already getting dark outside.”

Paul never misses an opportunity to criticize the way his brother eats. Paul seems disgusted by Serge's appetite. His thoughts often end up being digressions. Paul tells us about the past, not just the present, but his recollections are connected to the person present to dinner. 

“When we were still living at home, all he ever drank was cola, huge amounts of it; he had no problem knocking back an entire king-size bottle at dinnertime. Then he would produce these gigantic belches, for which he was sometimes sent to his room, belches that lasted ten years or longer--like subterranean thunder rolling up and exploding from somewhere deep down in his stomach--and for which he enjoyed a certain schoolyard fame: among the boys, that is, for he knew even then that girls were only repulsed by burps and farts.”

INITIALLY, IT IS EASY TO RELATE TO PAUL,  BUT AS THE DINNER PROGRESSES ONE SEES HOW POISONEOUS HE CAN BE 

At the start of the novel, it is easy to feel for Paul, a man who just wants to be with his wife Claire. One could even mistake his cynic attitude for intelligence. Paul does make intelligent remarks. His criticism of everything from false intellectuals is certainly sincere enough.

“Perhaps he didn’t eat the flesh of mammals, and was anti-American, or in any case anti-Bush – the latter stance gave people carte blanche not to think about anything any more. Anyone who was against Bush had his heart in the right place, and could behave like a boorish asshole towards anyone around him.”.

However, as the dinner progresses, one wonders at Paul never-ending criticism. Does he hold himself superior to everyone (with perhaps the exception of his wife Claire)? Trying to figure out Paul can certainly keep a reader on his toes. Even as we see more of his bad temper, he seems such a mix of good and bad that it is hard to judge him so harshly. Afterall, Paul loves his wife. Can a man that loves his wife so be truly a bad man?

THE TWO BROTHERS COULD NOT BE MORE DIFFERENT

Paul and Serge are brothers, but profoundly different. Serge is a successful politician, whereas Paul (as we will learn) does not  even work. However, Paul's mind is always working. He analyzes everything and everyone, from waiters, to society. Paul's view of other people are always negative and he does not show any empathy towards anyone but his wife and son. While Serge devours food, Paul has no appetite. 

“You sometimes hear about people who have lost their sense of smell and taste: for those people, a plate of the most delicious food means nothing at all. That was how I looked at life sometimes, as a warm meal that was growing cold. I knew I had to eat, otherwise I would die, but I had lost my appetite.”

THE NOVEL TAKES COURSE OVER ONE FANCY DINNER

Almost completely empty plates can represent emptiness of the society and the individual. Paul's remarks about the food are followed by remarks about people and society. He sees fine dining as absurd, and so does he perhaps sees the society.

“The first thing that struck you about Claire’s plate was its vast emptiness. Of course I’m well aware that, in the better restaurants, quality takes precedence over quantity, but there are voids and then there are voids. The void here, that part of the plate on which no food at all was present, had clearly been raised to a matter of principle.
It was as though the empty plate was challenging you to say something about it, to go to the open kitchen and demand an explanation. ‘You wouldn’t even dare!’ the plate said, and laughed in your face.”

The whole novel practically takes place during one dinner. Sure, it goes on after the dinner, as month pass by until its eventual finish, but this is narrated in haste. In reality, everything of the importance happens during this dinner. 

Chapters follow one after another as one fancy dish takes place of another. 

Not soon into the dinner, there are arguments and tears, but it's hardly the beginning. As the dinner progresses, more and more secrets are revealed. 

“The evenings were the worst. I stood at the window of my hotel room and looked at the traffic and the thousands of little lights and the people who all seemed to be on their way to something.”

CLAIRE IS A CANCER SURVIVER AND PAUL IS NOT QUITE SANE

Just as Paul grows more intolerable, we learn that his wife is a cancer survivor and suddenly we are inclined to be more sympathetic toward him, and certainly to her. 

“Is it life threatening?” they asked. They said it slightly sotto voce, but you could hear the thirst for sensation right through it: when people get a chance to come close to death without having it touch them personally, they never miss the opportunity.”

At this point, it is clear that Paul is more then a little unreliable as a narrator. He's not mentally stable. The reader learns that he has been retired because of problematic behaviour.

“No, on the outside view there was nothing for anyone to notice about me. I remained one pillar of a trinity, another pillar was lying only temporarily (temporarily! temporarily! temporarily!) in the hospital, I was the pilot of a three-engine aircraft, one of whose engines had stalled: there is no reason to panic, this is not a crash landing, the pilot has thousands of flight hours behind him, he will land the plane safely on the ground.”

We also learn that Serge and Babette tried to help Paul during his wife's sickness, and that he once again reacted violently. 

“I amazed myself, above all, with how well I was able to manage. Michel got to school on time, his teeth brushed and his clothes clean. More or less clean: I was less critical of a few spots on his trousers than Claire would have been, but then I was his father. I’ve never tried to be ‘both father and mother’ to him, the way some half-assed, home-made-sweater-wearing head of a single-parent household put it once in some bullshit programme I saw on afternoon TV.”

“… when Michel came home from school, for example, and everything was as it should be. My own voice, above all, asking him what he wanted in his sandwich, also sounded as it should have. The larder was full, I had done all of the shopping that morning. I took care of myself as well, I looked in the mirror before leaving the house: I made sure my clothes were clean, that I had shaved, that my hair didn’t look like the hair of someone who never looks in a mirror - the people in the supermarket would have noticed nothing unusual, I was no divorced father reeking of alcohol, no father who couldn’t handle things. I clearly remembered the goal I had set for myself: I wanted to keep up the appearance of normality. As far as possible, everything had to remain the same for Michel as long as his mother wasn’t around. A hot meal every day, for a start. But also in other aspects of our temporary single-parent family, there shouldn’t be too many visible changes. Normally, it wasn’t my habit to shave every day; I didn’t mind walking around with stubble. Claire had never made a big deal out of that either, but during those weeks I shaved every morning. I felt that my son had a right to sit at the table with a clean-smelling, freshly shaven father. A freshly shaven and clean-smelling father would not prompt him to think the wrong things, would in any case not cause him to doubt the temporary character of our single-parent family.”

Just a random photograph of me strolling, location:  Medena (Seget)

PAUL'S VIEWS ON LIFE ARE QUITE TROUBLING

As we dive into Paul's memories and thoughts, shocking things emerge. As a teacher, he was extremely unkind to his students. When confronted with his actions, Paul became violent. 

“-You give her a three, he said...
-That three was entirely fitting, I said. It was complete garbage. Not the kind of thing I expect the
students to hand in... In addition to the Second World War, I also deal with a large part of the history that came afterwards,’ I interrupted again. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, the Middle East and Israel, the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Palestinians. I deal with all of that during my classes. So then you
can’t expect to turn in a paper about the state of Israel in which people mostly pick oranges and dance
in sandals around a campfire. Cheerful, happy people everywhere, and all that horseshit about the
desert where flowers blossom again. I mean, people are shot and killed there every day, buses are
blown up. What’s this all about?
-She came in here crying, Paul.
-I’d cry too if I turned in garbage like that.”

Paul was eventually forcefully retired, but one wonders what kind of solution was that? Paul is a danger of society, a man who thinks himself extremely intelligent, but who harbours much hate and is unable to control himself or his violent impulses. 

“I let them do some simple arithmetic. In a group of one hundred people, how many assholes are there? How many fathers who humiliate their children? How many morons whose breath stinks like rotten meat but who refuse to do anything about it? How many hopeless cases who go on complaining all their lives about the non-existent injustices they’ve had to suffer? Look around you, I said. How many of your classmates would you be pleased not to see return to their desks tomorrow morning? Think about that one family member of your own family, that irritating uncle with his pointless, horseshit stories at birthday parties, that ugly cousin who mistreats his cat. Think about how relieved you would be - and not only you, but virtually the entire family - if that uncle or cousin would step on a landmine or be hit by a five-hundred-pounder dropped from a high altitude. If that member of the family were to be wiped off the face of the earth. And now think about all those millions of victims of all the wars there have been in the past - I never specifically mentioned the Second World War, I used it as an example because it’s the one that most appeals to their imaginations - and think about the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of victims who we need to have around like we need a hole in the head. Even from a purely statistical standpoint, it’s impossible that all those victims were good people, whatever kind of people that may be. The injustice is found more in the fact that the assholes are also put on the list of innocent victims.”

THE TWO COUPLES ARE UNEASY WITH ONE ANOTHER

It is clearly that the two couples are extremely uneasy one with another, and as the dinner progresses it becomes apparent why. There is past between them, troubled past, but there is also a troubled present.

No wonder, as Paul is clearly mentally ill. Paul has been diagnosed and given pills, but he does not take them. From what I gathered, Paul suffers from personality disorder. 

Through Paul's digressions, we learn of more violent outbreaks of his. He tells us about a time when he almost beat up a man with a pump in front of his son. Poor child!  No wonder it grew up into a violent teenager. 

“I let go of the pump as well now. I registered a sense of fatigue. And regret. It was the same fatigue and regret you feel when you miss a tennis ball. You were planning to smash it, but you swing hard and miss; the arm holding the racket meets no resistance and lashes wildly through the air.”

A CRIME COMMITED BY TWO TEENAGE SONS

As the dinner draws to its conclusion, things get tense. What to do about a crime? Serge, the politician surprisingly ends up being the only one not completely morally bankrupt. Serge says the only solution is for the kids to admit their crime. Nobody agrees with him. What shall they do? 

THE PARENTS NEED TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE CRIME

Now, it is up for the parents to decide what to do. 

“The dilemma I was faced with was one every parent faces sooner or later: you want to defend your child, of course; you stand up for your child, but you mustn't do it all too vehemently, and above all not too eloquently - you mustn't drive anyone into a corner. The educators, the teachers, will let you have your say, but afterwards they'll take revenge on your child. You may come up with better arguments - it's not too hard to come up with better arguments than the educators, the teachers - but in the end, your child to going to pay for it. Their frustration at being shown up is something they'll take out on the student.”

T-shirt/jacket: my present work uniform /trousers : second hand United Colours of Benetton, sneakers: old (Deichman)

Thank you for visiting and reading. Have a lovely weekend!