Anne Arundel County Public Library discussion

This month's book discussion is The Dinner by Herman Koch. One of the major themes in the book is family--and what one person would do to protect his family.

To start us off, how far do you think you would go to protect your family? Are there any lines you wouldn't cross?

Yes there would be. I would do anything to protect my family.

Our narrator is Paul, the man who is working to protect his family from a crime his son committed. We start off with the sentence “we were going out to dinner and I won't say which restaurant, because next time it might be full of people who've come to see whether we are there.”

How does this make you feel about Paul?

This makes me feel about Paul that he willing to do anything to protect his son and wife and will go to any lengths to do so

AACPL wrote: "Our narrator is Paul, the man who is working to protect his family from a crime his son committed. We start off with the sentence “we were going out to dinner and I won't say which restaurant, beca..."

I felt really uneasy about Paul at this point. He obviously doesn't want to give details, which makes me not trust him or his story. I know it's just a made up story, but I feel that he's too concerned with appearances and privacy. It also made me wonder who his audience is--who does he think is reading this? Will they know who he is? Will they even know enough about his environment to guess what restaurant he's at?

And, if he's trying to protect his privacy and his family, why doesn't he make up names for everyone involved? Why not make up a name for the restaurant? Why does he have to explicitly point out the fact that he's not going to name the restaurant?

I just felt really uncomfortable with that first sentence.

I picked up this book not knowing anything about it so when I read that first sentence, I wasn't yet suspicious of Paul. I thought this meant he was famous in some way - most likely politically but definitely well off enough that he could name drop a restaurant and everyone would know where it was.

Paul had me fooled for the first chunk of the book, before the actual events he was keeping hidden started to come to light and by that point I wasn't sure I could trust anything he said.

I don't think of this story as some grand gesture to protect his family, it is a selfish act to keep himself safe. It's more about reputation and status. Paul thinks very highly of himself and that first sentence is our first clue.

**Spoilers**

I read this book with no idea really what it was about. I haven't even read Gone Girl, which is what it usually is compared to. To answer the question posed above: if that were my child I'd turn them in. I'm not saying it would be easy, but this is not something that you can pretend never happened...unless you're a Lohman.

The family dynamic was definitely interesting, as was Paul's thought process. He was incredibly wrapped up in appearances, and showed a huge disdain for what he saw as affectation in his brother...but was completely unable to recognize that same quality in himself. Similarly, he could help Michel write that paper about capital punishment, but couldn't recognize the type of criminals he had no mercy for included his own son. Even when discussing the worse case scenarios, the Lohmans thought that their boys would get relatively light ("8 years") sentences.

Despite his reluctance to share all of the details with the reader, I truly don't think Paul was capable of seeing the things he hated in himself or his son.

This was a strange book to read during the holiday season. It was like many of European films - dark and tragic and full of strange "wrong-headed" characters. It could have been a long one-act play (centered around the dinner) with sharp contrast lighting, light and dark, sort of film noir style. Though moral dilemmas rarely have stark black and white answers. I was surprised at how the story progressed and I wanted to explore some of the odd thoughts coming from Paul. And then Claire too. I would probably do anything for my son too (who really knows what you'd do?), but I think I'd be disturbed by it like Serge and Babette. I see the comparison to Gone Girl for the way it presents two sides to the story - especially the thought that both sides seem to be telling the truth but neither are.

I'm glad I read the book. It was worth 4 stars for holding my interest all the way to the end.

I love the comparison to a one-act play. I can definitely see that. Like 12 Angry Men--which is technically three acts, but you get the idea.

This book wasn't about protecting one's kids who " accidentally" committed a crime---this was about a family of psychotic sociopathic thieves & thugs who were "proud" of their crimes & so far were "getting away with it"--- Paul, Claire, Michel, Serge, Beau & Rick---only Babette & her daughter were the nice loving normal people in this book---I thought it was a pretty good book---much, much better than The Goldfinch (which I read first)---because there was a dark O. Henry twist to this narrative, similar to an Alfred Hitchcock storyline---making out like the narrator Paul was a mensch, when he was actually a schmuck. Very engrossing page-turner---one of the best books I've read since joining this book club.

I plan on reading this author Herman Koch's other books, too.