Familial bonds are often thought to be the strongest connection to exist, as members are intertwined from the beginning. From the parental instinct of protection, to the hugs and kisses, these relationships last for entire lifetimes. However, they can also be much more complicated than portrayed in storybooks. When does taking a risk for a family member go too far? How can family dynamics and environment affect the actions and beliefs of the children? These questions are prevalent in The Dinner by Herman Koch, a novel that investigates the intricacy of family relationships as well as the issue of morality.

The story follows two couples, connected through the husbands, Serge and Paul Lohman, the latter being the narrator, who meet at a luxurious restaurant as they discuss an event pertaining to their sons. Although they begin the evening in a relatively friendly manner, as the night continues, tensions rise as secrets are slowly revealed on both sides, creating a darker, strained atmosphere. Through the use of flashbacks and conversations, readers become intrigued as to how the complicated relationships between the two families will play out during the dinner, and how far each side will go to protect their own son.

The story gradually introduces an array of characters, all of whom have varying relationships with one another, both positive and negative. Serge Lohman, as a successful politician, has risen rapidly in political, economic, and social ranking. Paul Lohman, his brother, is considerably lesser in status and seems to be somewhat jealous in private. Even so, both are very well-off from a financial standpoint, and their children, Michel and Rick, growing up in a privileged environment, have become disdainful teenagers. As demonstrated through the “pranks” of the two sons, they look down upon the homeless, laying both physical and verbal abuse upon those they find in the street and viewing them as nuisances instead of human beings. This reflects the theme of class and status, because within the bubble of wealth that they grew up in, Michel and Rick’s morals become skewed and twisted. They constantly feel superior to the poor, in part due to their money and status, which eventually lands them in a complicated situation that is slowly revealed through the luxurious dinner. They had been raised under the pretense that they could carry out virtually any activity they wanted without consequences. However, when they go too far, it becomes dubious whether or not this wealth can save them anymore.

This leads to a question of morality that presents itself as a constant throughout the story. Usually, morality is portrayed as a debate between right and wrong or good and evil, however, the parents of Michel and Rick have to settle a new debate, now between personal responsibility and family loyalty. The idea of the parental instinct of protection weaves itself into the storyline as the two sets of parents attempt to determine whether or not the heinous crime their sons committed is worth sacrificing their morals for. Many of the parents’ rather dismal decisions come from an inclination to protect their children. For instance, after witnessing footage of their children committing an actual crime on TV, neither Paul nor Claire (his wife) acknowledge anything about it. Instead, Paul even mentions that he “would act the ignoramus, a rather naive father who didn’t think it was such a big deal that his son beat up vagrants and set fire to the homeless.” Even so, each parent knows that murdering someone is absolutely a ghastly crime, especially by a pair of teenagers. This demonstrates that morality isn’t always as clear as good and bad; it encompasses other factors and strings all weaved together into a mess of complications that cannot always be untangled as easily as many stories make it seem. In this case, Paul and Claire prioritize family loyalty, blurring their perception of morality. However, another question arises from this situation: do the Lohman families even care about morals? It’s clear from the story that they do indeed care about their reputation and they most definitely care about their children. Yet it’s also plain that they feel that the situation pertaining to their sons is also an annoyance, a blip in the radar of their perfect, “happy” lives. Collectively, it seems that the issue, to Paul and Claire in particular,
isn’t as much of a question of morality, as it is of maintaining a perfect little family.

Throughout the novel, there is no clear protagonist. Each character is imperfect, flawed, and awful in their own way. Yet, readers find themselves almost cheering on the narrator, Paul, since he’s set up as the “good guy.” Although he and Claire are undoubtedly vile people, he is able to defend their actions in his thoughts, saying that they only did what they did because it was necessary. Serge and Babette, the other couple, are depicted as questionable characters from the start, but with no perspective in their defense. With such an unreliable narrator, the story leaves readers feeling largely unsettled. Herman Koch does a wonderful job of weaving together figurative language, flashbacks, and events through the dinner to keep the story moving just fast enough to leave readers on edge, but just slow enough to compel readers to consider the meaning of morality and the extent to which wealth has an effect on how people of different social classes are able to live their lives.

In one evening, one setting, and one group of people, an intricate web of relationships, imperfections, and themes is weaved together in order to show how different reality is from the way it may be portrayed in storybooks. The two families, in trying to cover up for their sons’ mistakes, show readers the thin line that lies between good and bad, while also depicting the difference in morals that people may possess based upon status, wealth, and parenting. The Dinner gives readers a chance to reflect upon their own lives while grasping the idea of disparities in society. No matter what kind of life you lead, this novel will allow you to explore the ambiguity of morality as well as the complexity of human relationships and behavior.