Were you bothered by the “slow burn” of the opening?
Absolutely not! I think the slow burn gave Koch’s brilliant writing and biting social commentary a chance to establish themselves before starting in on all the action. By the time the action came, it was just a bonus. I loved it.
I loved the slow burn too, I re-read this last week in preparation for this discussion and it was even more delightful the second time around.
I complained about the slow burn while reading it. There was a point where I thought, “Okay, I really don’t want to listen to this guy complain about his brother anymore or I will lose it! Something needs to happen here.” A few pages later, it was ON! That being said, I think on a re-read I would love looking at the opening with the new perspective I now have.
I did not really mind. It kept me curious about what exactly happened and when it would be revealed. I do agree with Monika. I was tired of his complaining very quick.
What actually really bothered me was the secrecy nonsense. “Yeah that one metro station you might recognize from the description but I am not disclosing more! You know the one with the apartment buildings next to it and close to the airport and with a train station connected but I won’t say a word.”
I remember freaking out about how much I loved it within the first few pages. There’s so much snark and, like Sarah said, great commentary…but also this super ominous feeling over the whole thing. That feeling freaks me out so much more than straight horror. It reminded me of the movie Funny Games, which I still find terrifying.
Yes. There was definitely an overarching feeling of something bad is going to happen soon, which is probably why the slow burn worked so well for me.
I loved the slow burn. And I’m with Shannon—even as it was unfolding, even before we know what the boys did, the word that kept popping into my head was “gruesome”. Just the person Paul was and then Claire?! The whole situation was gruesome and became horrifying. It was worse than blood and guts probably because it was psychological, which is more terrifying to me.
Was anyone else surprised when Paul’s name was revealed? Based on his personality in the opening, I expected a much more curmudgeonly name…like Herman…rather than plain vanilla Paul.
Hahaha, are you saying something about our author? I was surprised that his name was revealed at all as I think this would have been a great opportunity for Koch to omit a name and make this into a sort of backwards ‘everyman’ novel. Which come to think of it, using plain vanilla Paul—he might have been trying to accomplish the same thing.
Oooh…could I be projecting the narrator’s voice onto our author? Definitely possible! Interesting point that this could have been a successful “nameless” narrator novel. I felt like I got to know Paul so well that I really didn’t even need a name. Could plain vanilla Paul also be meant to offset Serge’s pretentiousness….sort of a bigwig/upper class vs. everyman/middle class thing—although Serge and Paul could both be considered upper class, just one more well-known than the other?
I was pretty surprised with the combination of names. Knowing the one guy was named Paul and the other Serge I first thought they were joking about the brother thing. I do not feel it happens often that people choose a down to earth name for one child and an expensive sounding name for the other and Serge is not a common name at all.
Would you have been interested in seeing the events from Claire or Babette’s point of view?
I would have loved to get Claire’s point of view. She was the most enigmatic character for me. She came across as pretty mild and placating in the beginning, but she ended up taking the most hardline stance for allowing the children to avoid all responsibility for what they’d done…then took matters into her own hands. A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
I would have liked to hear from Claire, too. I did not get much of an idea about Babette and her personality, though with the idea she did not want Serge to pull back from the elections there might have been enough of an emotion how she was thinking about it.
Even though I’d like to hear her perspective, in a way I think Claire’s would have been too much of a give. I totally agree with her being a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
That’s an interesting way to think about. I guess what Claire was up to behind the scenes was one of the big drivers of the suspense. But, I think it could also have been interesting to have chapters with alternating perspectives. I’m curious if Claire was always planning to do absolutely anything to protect the boys or if she was driven to her actions by Serge’s unilateral decision to throw her son under the bus…more of a crime of passion.
Ohhh…I so agree with this. Had this story been told from Claire’s point of view then most of the suspense would have been lost—but what if we had just changed the names of the characters and everything Paul experienced would have been Claire—and Claire would have been surprised (betrayed?) by how much her husband was hiding from her, would that have change our perceptions? Because a mother is almost expected to defend her children to an extreme, whereas fathers like Paul merely come across as sociopaths?
I got the sociopath vibe with both. Even though a mother is easier to believe in defending her children the calm way Claire mentioned that she has known all the time and Paul did not even get a vibe made me very uncomfortable.
When Paul loses his teaching job, do you think it’s due to his illness?
I’m still confused about his illness. What was it that he supposedly had? It seemed like manic depression or bipolar disorder to me, but then neither of those would be something that would come up on prenatal testing or cause many people to terminate the pregnancy (as the book mentioned would have been common). I thought this was a relatively unexplored thread in the story. As far as the incident that causes him to lose his job, I felt like he just cracked up—had a nervous breakdown moment and lost his filter.
To me it felt like this was introduced to create a level of acceptance for the behaviour of the kid. Maybe he has the same mental issues as the dad and he really cannot help what he did. I am curious about the specific diagnosis, too.
This was one of the most interesting aspects of the novel for me because it turned everything upside down. Paul is essentially told he has a neurological illness and because it is hereditary, his son very likely has it as well. So neither of them is ‘responsible’ for their actions and it is the homeless woman’s fault and the store owner’s fault and Serge’s fault. Anytime, Paul or Michel lash out it’s someone else’s fault for triggering them—there is no sense of responsibility at all. Paul is a psychopath. I’m with both Sarah and Ciska—more about this would have been welcome.
I did feel a thread of “does he have what I have?” running through the whole story (and almost a fear about this possibility)…but what IS it?!
I got the idea that Koch left it unnamed because there isn’t necessarily a disease that fits that criteria and, like Sarah says above, bi-polar can’t be detected by prenatal testing. But I get the idea that the U.S. is much more conservative when it comes to abortion for prenatal defects, so that suppose we were talking about spina bifida, it would be totally believable that European parents would terminate.
I think part of the reason so many Americans dislike this book is that it feels too European. Also, when it was published here we heard that it was a HUGE bestseller in the Netherlands. Does it seem like a book most people love or is it pretty controversial?
It is a huge bestseller and won a public voting award.
I read the book in Dutch and actually wondered about some parts how they are translated and how the US people would receive those comments. Like the situation where he goes to the bathroom and there is this whole part about peeing next to another man and the interesting urinal. I guess it would have had a different tone if it was written by an American author in an American setting but for me this is a typical Dutch book.
The book is based on a true story: three guys killed a homeless woman this way in Barcelona in 2005. There was some talk about that, but it was not controversial. It is a book advised to take on holiday as it makes such a great beach read.
Wow. I would not have pegged this as a beach read for most Americans. (Myself, I took it on a cruise.)
Did you all see the Wall Street Journal quote that leads the blurb on Amazon.com?
“A European Gone Girl.” —The Wall Street Journal
A fair comparison or not? How do you think it affected people’s opinion of the book?
I feel there are too many books compared to Gone Girl recently as if Gone Girl is now a definition of a certain suspense level. And as Het Diner was published before Gone Girl I do not agree.
I agree…way too many books are compared to Gone Girl. And, I feel like that comparison tends to set me up for disappointment. Plus, I didn’t see that comparison until after I’d read the book and I almost spit my water out laughing. I think The Dinner is so different…much more reliant on writing and commentary instead of a huge reveal or twist. My mother-in-law didn’t love The Dinner because she went into it expecting something similar to Gone Girl.
I thought the same thing when I heard the comparison after reading The Dinner. I can see it based on the likability of the characters, but other than that there isn’t much to go on. With The Dinner’s slow pace and totally different feel, I think almost anyone going in with that expectation would be disappointed.
I’m so glad I read this before that blurb because I’m to the point where I won’t read something is it’s compared to Gone Girl. Tired of it.
Read Our Reviews:
The Gilmore Guide | The Steadfast Reader | Lovely Bookshelf | Ciska’s Book Chest | Sarah’s Book Shelves
What do you think, readers? Did The Dinner live up to your expectations or did you find yourself frustrated? Did you find the characters made the book difficult to enjoy? Who do you think is at fault?
May 20, 2015 at 4:57 am
If one more book is compared to Gone Girl!!!
I think you did a great job of discussing the book without revealing too much. I loved The Dinner and so badly needed to talk to someone about it when I read it. I loved the way my opinion of the characters completely changed as the story went on. I’m thinking of Paul and Serge specifically.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 7:26 am
We must have been shy with our spoilers this time around! They’re free to spill here – so if you need to say more about why your opinion changed, no worries about those spoilers 😉
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 8:04 am
I know you guys think I’m being cagey, but honestly it’s been so long since I read it, the particulars are rather vague!
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 3:38 pm
Completely understand! I had to re-read it in preparation for this discussion.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 5:49 pm
Yes, spill, Tanya, it’s safe here! In what way did your opinions change and at what point?
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 7:37 am
I always seem to come up with good questions the morning after a post goes live, so you know…I’m going to hop in the comments myself. Sometimes we have a major voice of dissent in our conversations, and it just happened that we didn’t this time, but this totally seems like a love it or hate it book. It only has a 3.21 on Goodreads (whatever that means, but go with me here). I really want to hear from people that hate it! I need some insight.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 8:01 am
My mother in law is coming in town on Thursday…I’ll ask her more about why she didn’t like it then 🙂 I bet we’ll hear something about the dislikable characters…
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 6:57 pm
I definitely didn’t hate it, but neither did I love it. I listened to it on audio, and the narrator was excellent, by the way. I thought all of the characters were crazy, the ways they related to each other was crazy, and the way they dealt with problems presented was crazy. None of it made any sense to me, and seemed a bit illogical. BUT, I really liked the format of the book, and enjoyed the slow leading up to “the thing” if that makes sense. It was a solid 3 stars for me, good enough, not bad, not great.
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 7:23 am
You know, I think you may be sparking a topic idea here. I wonder if audiobooks highlight certain things in some books that they wouldn’t in others…like how illogical this book was. I can totally see that *hearing* most of this would make it sound much crazier, where reading it seemed a little more plausible.
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 7:59 am
Hmmm, I never thought about it from that perspective before. I definitely do take different things into consideration when choosing audiobooks versus reading the book. (For example, not 15 different perspectives, not much longer than 400 pages, nothing SUPER serious. Memoirs are almost always a good bet on audio.) It’s completely true that I felt like Paul was telling me this crazy story, and I’m like… yeah, you guys are all nuts.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 9:01 am
Hi girls!
I have read this book for my library book club this year, and we liked it a lot.
Did you know it was based on a true case that happened in Spain? It happened in Barcelona (the thing with the two boys, not the videos of the other child after that), and they were punished (it didn’t happened like the book in the end, thank god).
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 9:04 am
I reply to myself because I’ve seen Ciska mentioned it :)))
I haven’t watched it, but I think it’s in youtube (the murder in Barcelona), but you only see the boys getting in and out, and then then the explosion.
LikeLike
May 22, 2015 at 2:15 am
Glad they did get punished for what they did 😉
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 9:06 am
The only thing I didn’t like was the justification: in the end, we might think that the boy is who he is because he must have inherit an “illness” from his father… I think it wasn’t necessary – the novel would work fine if they were normal parents, becasue I think normal parents would have that inner conflict about whether or not protect their child in this situation.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 3:54 pm
That’s something I hadn’t thought about, but it’s a really good point. I think there are definitely some parents who stick by their child no matter what. I wonder how reactions from readers would have been different.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 7:30 pm
I didn’t completely have the sense that Michel had inherited the illness from his father. I feel like Koch left it up to us to decide what to think. It’s just as possible that he has learned from his father’s pattern of behavior that you don’t need to take responsibility for your actions. And, that it’s okay to be violent if you feel there is a good reason. His reason possibly being that homeless people are stinky and unimportant. (Just to make it clear, that is not at all what I think, only that Michel might believe it.) Also, getting rid of Beau would have also felt necessary, especially with his mother’s blessing. If Mom and Dad say it’s okay, then it must be, right?
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 5:48 pm
This is such an interesting point, Isi and one I had not considered. It seems to me, it would have been enough to have one or the other as ‘normal’- either the boy made one horrific mistake and parents want to cover it up or Boy meant it and good parents struggle with what to do. Now that you’ve pointed it out it does seem like overkill- or the easy way out to say both were damaged.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 9:31 am
I read this in 2013, but it was compared to Gone Girl even then. I had to convince a few people who were not huge readers but had read GG that, yes its good, but do not expect Gone Girl. I would have loved alternating pov chapters, but I love that in general!
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 7:20 am
It’s such an unfair comparison, especially because (I think) most people loved Gone Girl for how it kept you glued to the pages. This one definitely takes some time to settle in.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 11:45 am
We just read this book for our book club, and it was a great one for discussing. We decided that Paul’s illness is likely fictional. We also wondered why there were so many secrets. We wondered why Claire was hospitalized, and someone suggested she might have been attacked by Paul in one of his ‘fits’.
I feel like Claire is just as disturbed as her husband. I’m pretty sure that most parents would come up with a different way of supporting their children.
I also loved the slow burn. Koch completely fooled me (I’m an easy target – I don’t read a lot of books like this), and I ended up completely flipping my ideas about the characters as the story went on.
One thing I want to know (and, maybe I just missed something) is how much did Babette know about what was going on. She was upset through most of the book, but we don’t really know why, except that we know she didn’t want Serge to pull out of politics. Did she leave her phone on the table on purpose, or by mistake??
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 1:07 pm
Great question! My thought is Babette didn’t anymore than she presented and was just so flustered she left her phone.
Interesting take on the illnesses of Paul and Claire. It never occurred to me that his “diagnosis” could be fictional. By that point I had bought into the book hook, line, and sinker so went with whatever Koch wanted me to! 🙂
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 4:10 pm
I recall a thread in goodreads that debated what his psychosis might have been. Personally, I think it was fictional.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 8:03 pm
Oooh – interesting…it absolutely never occurred to me either that Paul’s illness could be fictional. Now I need to turn this one over.
And – I think Claire was more disturbed than Paul.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 3:57 pm
I’m totally on Team Claire is Crazypants.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 2:21 pm
OK, I am one that didn’t like it because it hit my too many of my ‘ick’ buttons. I grant that the story was well told and the characters convincing; I just didn’t LIKE the story. I don’t like that the kids got away with it and the parents would protect them. I did not like Paul. I felt icky and it made me uncomfortable and so I gave it a 3 star in goodreads. Writing is great, yes, but it is like killing the messenger. I can’t help it. I react negatively when I hear this title. I do understand anyone who ‘enjoyed’ the reading experience, but I did not.
(PS. my review of The Dinner notes that I was ‘intrigued’ by the Gone Girl comparison and also, now that I read it, do not think they should be compared. I LOVED LOVED LOVED Gone Girl. Go figure.)
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 3:17 pm
VERY interesting that you liked Gone Girl, considering you didn’t like that the kids got away with it 😉 It’s hard to compare books that are so vastly different, and I do think that sometimes we just have books that hit us the wrong way.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 4:06 pm
You are making me consider how I justify my ‘violent entertainment’? How about this: Dinner was too real, Gone Girl was ‘just a movie’. I have a friend who can’t watch ANY violent movies but me? Kill Bill 1&2 and Payback are favorites.
In Gone Girl, it was almost farcical; they were adults and both were CRAZY together and with each other. In Dinner, these were teens and perhaps it is because I work in a HS; the violence was angry and cruel and everyone was haughty. Gone Girl just wasn’t as disturbing, it was fun-to-watch. Yikes!
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 4:11 pm
Oh, no – you didn’t have to justify! But it totally makes sense when you compare them that way. And I agree about The Dinner. I think I mentioned it in the post, but I think The Dinner is much creepier than most horror or overtly “scary” fiction…just that looming feeling gets to me.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 2:25 pm
Also wanted to add that I thought it odd that brothers would be named Paul and Serge (as Ciska mentions). They just don’t seem to fit the idea of being in the same family. This discussion proves that we do sometimes bring biases and personality assumptions to names and react to such, yes?
LikeLike
May 22, 2015 at 2:22 am
It does. There are many articles that state that social status is of influence when given a name. Therefore it is easy to be biased.
It is funny though how that is worked out in this story as the one with the expensive name is the successful one. You start to wonder if it is done on purpose.
LikeLike
May 20, 2015 at 10:58 pm
I’m out of town this week and I only have a bit but I definitely want to weigh in.
This book was not what I expected. I did expect the conflict because I had read the summary but I was hoping for more of the foodie aspect. The title is what really drew me in.
About the names, I don’t think it occurred to me. I may have thought that Serge was more uppity, and that could have been because of his name, but it was probably just from the perspective we got from Paul and all his never ending whining. I was sympathetic to Paul at first regarding his brother but then it just got ridiculous. And since the book is originally Dutch, I wouldn’t know what names are common and what names are more affluent.
When I began to realize that Paul had some psychological issues, I was seeing Claire as the supportive and faithful wife. Even when she was keeping her secrets. But when she verbally defended her son, right there at the table, saying something like, “Well, she was in their way!! It bothered them!!”, then I knew…Claire was whack too.That was scary. Appalling really. That goes way beyond protection. You protect your children, yes, but let’s acknowledge that they did something WRONG, shall we? Let’s acknowledge there has to be some consequences. I know they speak of the horrible thing their boys did but it was more like an, “Oh gosh, they did something people don’t like and they might get into trouble with it. Let’s fix it”, instead of the pure heartbreak and remorse they should have felt on behalf of their little hooligans. And THEN Claire’s easy, breezy willingness to cut up Serge’s face!! These people were messed up.
It was a crazy read and a lot of fun to talk about but I sure hope I never run into anyone like that.
LikeLike
May 21, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Me either (running into people like that) but you have to wonder…
And you’re being kind with hooligans. They were murderers. When it comes right down to it, that entire family was kind of evil. And you’re right, Claire may have been the worst. Paul was out-there crazy but she presented a normal facade making her more of a sociopath.
LikeLike
May 24, 2015 at 3:57 pm
I just finished reading this morning and I have to say that for the majority of the book I was a little confused as to what might be The Big Deal in the book, if that makes any sense. But, after all was said and done I felt a little unnerved. At first I was frustrated that Paul blamed his issues on this unnamed illness/disease/whatever he has and began leaning toward the idea that his son may also have it. It’s the age old argument of nature vs. nurture – how much do our genes control us and how much do we control them? But then… when Claire goes off to defend her son and spouts off that the homeless woman was in the way and that they had every right to be frustrated by her appearance at the ATM I was seriously like, “Whoa. What?”
But then, after I was done I thought for a bit. I think this could be a commentary on parenting in today’s society. Granted, it was published in 2013 but think about it– how many parents do you see (especially any of you in education/child care) that routinely find any excuse to defend their children’s behavior? How many go to such great lengths to place the blame anywhere but on themselves as parents and their children? I think this really hits the nail on the head as far as going to extremes to avoid dealing with these themes as they come up in parenting. It clearly showed that Paul had displayed his violent tendencies in front of Michel and therefore encouraged an environment that says, ‘hey, if someone doesn’t do what you want them to, just beat them until they give in or pass out’.
I think the likelihood that Claire was hospitalized as a victim of Paul’s violence is entirely plausible. I think it would add to the reasoning of why Babette and Serge wanted Michel to come and live with them for awhile. Also, if Claire was really just sick why wouldn’t Paul let son visit her? Perhaps it was because she was black and blue?
LikeLike
May 25, 2015 at 7:38 am
Totally agree about the commentary on today’s parenting…there are a ridiculous number of helicopter parents that are simply afraid to let their children fail. Obviously, this takes it to the extreme, but it’s definitely an interesting way of looking at how far some people could go or how out of control things could get if we continue at this rate.
LikeLike
May 29, 2015 at 3:51 pm
This was compared to Gone Girl too?? I had no idea. I did love GG, but come ON. Do any of these comparisons even hold merit anymore? Waiting for the marketing pitches “Wuthering Heights: the nineteenth century’s Gone Girl!” … “A Fine Balance: India’s Gone Girl!”… “Green Eggs and Ham: Gone Girl for kids!” ….. I could go on.
LikeLike