45 pages • 1 hour read
Herman KochThe Dinner
Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 2009A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Family Versus Morality
The novel prompts how far one would go to defend a family member. In the text, two teenage boys have committed a brutal murder and their parents have discovered the truth about the matter. They face a choice: reveal the truth and possibly destroy the futures of the two boys or keep quiet and possibly allow guilt to consume them. When Serge arranges the dinner, this is the question that is seemingly hanging over the heads of every diner: Should they sacrifice their family in the name of morality? Every decision taken in the novel stems from this dilemma. Whether it is Paul reading a message on his son’s phone, Claire cutting her brother-in-law’s face with a broken wine glass, or Michel murdering Beau, all happen under the pretense of protecting the family and ensuring that the family remains together. This ensures that there is a specific unifying morality to the narrative. As told from Paul’s perspective, nothing—from lying to murder—is impossible in order to protect Rick and Michel from prosecution. The family trumps morality, highlighting its higher importance of the two.
But it is not the happiness of the family that gets prioritized. Rather, it is the simple unity of the family. They must be together, even if they are unhappy. Thankfully for Paul, he bonds with his wife and son in the wake of their ultimate decision. He laughs with Michel about the murder of Beau and finds a new admiration for his wife once he sees her cunning plans up close. For Serge, it is not quite the same story. The other diners make the decision for him: Babette and Claire object to his idea of holding a press conference, and Claire attacks him. He loses the election and remains quiet in the aftermath. He does not press charges and the truth about the death of the homeless woman is—presumably—kept secret. The resolution of the novel’s central dilemma ends up thrust upon Serge, rather than resolution through his own agency. But once the others make the decision, he accepts it. Serge’s happiness isn’t more important than the unity of the family. The theme comes to bear and, by the novel’s final chapters, it is clear that family has triumphed over morality. Whether readers will agree with this judgement, however, is unclear.
The Unreliable Narrator and Truth
One of the novel’s defining characteristics is Paul’s position as an unreliable narrator. With the entire novel seen from Paul’s perspective, readers gradually come to mistrust Paul’s interpretation of events and begin to question the veracity of the events as described in the book. Whether Paul truly hospitalized the principal, whether he really hit Serge in the head with a scalding pan, and whether he laughed in Michel’s face when Michel first told him about the murder are all called into question. As such, it becomes difficult to trust the narrator of the novel, feeding into a wider theme of the nature of truth.
There is little evidence to support many of Paul’s more outlandish claims. He never serves prison time for his outlandish attacks, for example, and neither he nor Serge bear the scars from their supposed fight. The events might have happened or they might have taken place entirely in Paul’s head. The result of this is that readers must examine their own notions of trust. Do they trust the narrator? Does he earn trust? For instance, other characters seem not to trust Paul. Claire does not tell him about her plan until the final minute, and it takes Michel a long time to reveal the story behind Beau’s blackmail scheme. The way in which other characters seem wary of trusting Paul informs the reader’s decisions: can they trust a man to tell the truth if his own family doesn’t trust him? Ultimately, the family brings Paul into their circle of trust. As a result, they cover up two murders. Even if Paul is trustworthy, then, the results can be horrific. If that is the case, what is the price worth paying for the truth? Can an unreliable narrator ever do the right thing? If the answer is no, then the demand for veracity and trust gets misplaced. Throughout the novel, truth is a flexible concept. The role of the unreliable narrator is to cause the audience to question the value of objective truth. If the audience trusts Paul like Claire and Michel trust Paul, how does this affect the morality of the narrative? Is trusting Paul and his version of events akin to sympathizing with a deeply immoral man? The wider theme demonstrates that truth is a malleable concept, made all the more malleable by the narrator’s unreliable nature.
Fraternal Resentment
A key theme in the novel is the resentment Paul feels toward Serge. This bitter relationship seems unilateral: Paul feels an acute loathing toward Serge but Serge seems to feel ambivalent toward Paul. Because the narrative is entirely from Paul’s perspective, Paul’s early aggressive attitude toward his brother lays the foundations for the audience’s perceptions of Serge. At first, it seems as though Paul is right. Serge is pretentious, self-centered, cynical, and the very worst kind of smarmy politician. There is little to no fraternal warmth between the two and—like Paul—the audience can find little about Serge which would indicate that he is a good person. The fraternal resentment is very evident and—in the early stages of the narrative—seemingly justified.
But as the novel develops, Serge’s relationship with Paul becomes more complicated. The resentment is justified to some extent but mediated by a more sympathetic, concerned approach from Serge. Paul loathes Serge regardless, but Serge occasionally goes out of his way to help his brother. For instance, when Claire is in the hospital, Serge and Babette offer to take care of Michel for a while. Though Serge is his typical aloof self when visiting the house, he can see that his brother is struggling so offers a helping hand. Paul reacts violently to this, attacking Serge with a scalding hot pan. When Serge offers kindness (however small or self-interested it is), Paul responds with violence. Thus, the dynamic of the fraternal resentment changes. For all of Serge’s terrible qualities, his brother seems much worse. The theme of fraternal resentment becomes unreliable. Just like the narration, the emotional truth of the relationship comes into question. The audience must confront the idea of whether Serge is truly horrible or whether Paul is actually the malicious brother.
By the end of the novel, this question finds an answer. The fraternal resentment is evidently one-sided. Serge never considers attacking or harming Paul, but Paul has no qualms about suggesting that Claire hurt Serge. The theme of fraternal resentment becomes another way in which Paul’s odious qualities come to light, calling on them to question his judgement, his morality, and his actions. Serge, the target of the resentment, becomes a victim and earns the audience’s sympathy.
