The Dinner Analysis

793 Words2 Pages

Money—in the form of gold bars or paper faces, currency has been a system used in almost every modern society to regulate exchange and to represent wealth. While it is an effective bureaucratic system, money creates inevitable social divides. In the vein of philosopher and sociologist Karl Marx in his famous work, The Communist Manifesto, the haves and have-nots are in a constant struggle between oppressor and oppressed. The Dinner, a novel by Herman Koch, chronicles a brief encounter between the narrator and main character, Paul, Claire, Serge, and Babette, his wife, brother, and his sister-in-law, respectively. his wife, his brother, Serge, and his sister-in-law, Babette. The four must meet to discuss the fate of their children after they When considering his dining options for the night, Paul identifies with the Proletariat class and says, “We could go back to the café and order a plate of regular-person food…probably less than a tenth of what we’d have to cough up here, each” (19). Paul 's want to visit a cheaper restaurant conversely illustrates his disdain for the more expensive restaurant. Paul does not act on his opinion, but his difference in preference to Serge leads to a buildup of contempt for the restaurant. Later, after looking at the bill that his brother paid for, Paul states: “A sixty euro tip—I can’t help it, it makes me giggle” (284). While laughing at the absurdity of such a substantial tip, Paul views himself as outside the realm of the high-end despite having close ties with a very influential man. He tries to reconcile his statement when he discusses similar occasions from the past and says, “But our friends never laughed: ‘These people have to live off their tips, don’t they?’ a good friend said once during a meal at a comparable restaurant” (284), but maintains his scorn for the bourgeoisie. Paul 's thoughts on the wealthy and successful serve to further a rift between the wealthy and the Initially, Serge secures the reservation to the restaurant where the dinner takes place. After Serge was late to the reservation, Paul says, “driving would be a waste of time for someone of Serge’s status. He had a chauffeur to do that for him, so he could spend his precious time judiciously, reading important documents” (20). Even if his statement is true, Paul adopts an impetuous manner to lower and insult Serge’s image. Furthermore, the rash conclusion is a sign of a lack of understanding; when looking at conflicts between separate groups, a dearth of communication usually condemns the two parties to falsifying a bad image of the other. For example, during their trip to France, Paul says that Serge and Babette “belonged to that class of Dutch people who think everything French is ‘great’: from croissants to French bread with Camembert” (63). The seemingly lighthearted comment is another example of a form of mental propaganda--the supposition demeans Serge and Babette and makes them appear in a negative

Open Document