Hypothetical Altercation

In My Humble Opinion
1

I’m reading David Nicholls’s Us (and loving it). It’s about a man trying to hold on to his marriage (his wife has told him she wants to leave him) as the two of them and their 17-year-old son travel through Europe.

In Amsterdam, Douglas (the protagonist), Connie (the wife), their son (Albie), and Albie’s female companion (Cat) are eating breakfast in a cafe while three businessmen (a Dutchman, Russian, and an American) at the table next to them discuss…well, their business, which happens to be weaponry. Albie, Connie, and Cat stare daggers at the men.

Douglas: “Well, the museum opens at ten!”
Dutchman: (noticing the stares) “You are here on holiday?”
Douglas: “Just two days, unfortunately. Come on, everyone! We’ve still got to check out.”
Albie: “The bathroom’s over there.” (standing, placing hands on the businessmen’s table)
American: “ANd why would we need the bathroom, son?”
ALbie: “To wash all that blood off your hands.”
American: (places a hand behind Albie’s neck, pressing his face toward his open palm) “Where? Show me the blood, son!”
Connie (hanging off the American’s arm, calling him an arsehole)
Dutchman (angrily gesturing at Douglas)
Cat (pouring orange juice on the businessmen’s guns/weapon brochures, Russian calling her a “stupid bitch”)
Douglas: (Holds Albie back, which lets the American shove Albie’s shoulder) “I’d like to apologize for my son.”

Following the event, Albie and Connie are livid at Douglas. Connie basically tells Douglas he should have punched the American, as she would have respected him more. She tells him, “In a fight you side with the people you love. That’s just how it is.” Which to me seems up there with “Love means never having to say you’re sorry” in terms of stupid and trite love sayings.

To my mind, the others should have been the ones apologizing to Douglas for being downright rude. In the context of the book, it seems like Douglas is wrong and cowardly for refusing to join them in making a stand (we also know his relationship with Albie is strained, so that plays into it). Other thoughts?

2

Jeez. I’m having trouble seeing why Douglas wants to stay with his wife - his whole family sounds crazy. Weaponry is a business that exists to fill a need in the market, just like everything else. If you’re a pacifist or whatever and want to stop war, blame the politicians who start it, not the middlemen who provide them with the supplies they need. So no, I don’t think Douglas was wrong.

ETA: And “In a fight you side with the people you love”? Seriously? No, that’s not “just how it is.” In a fight you side with the side that’s right.

3

Well, he’s very much in love with her and she’s portrayed as a bit of a free spirit/Bohemian type (or at least she was before she met him). I’m finding myself more infuriated by her than anything else. It’s a very good book, very funny, but I thought everyone except Douglas came off as boorish and horrible in that scene I mentioned.

4

Douglas is the only sensible person in the room.

5

Maybe it’s a trite saying, but it’s nice to know that someone has your back, even if they don’t agree with you. I’d assume that Douglas was trying to protect his son by calming things down. If it was more him being dismissive and patronising about his son’s opinions, then I don’t think that is going to do their relationship much good.

They don’t sound very compatible, but if Douglas wants to keep his marriage together, he probably needs to be supportive of his wife and child in public. He may be morally superior (depending on your view of morality), but he is probably not someone they can count on. In which case she is right to leave him.

6

WTF? Among people that shouldn’t be pissed off, international weapons dealers are probably near the top of the list, right next to terrorists, psychopaths and mob enforcers.

It’s one thing to stand up for your family; its another thing to let them take actions that lead to their deaths.

7

I’m with Dad,
If he had “defended” his family, it would simply have escalated the confrontation, with who knows what being the outcome.

Three weapons dealers against a boy, a lady and dad doesn’t look like good odds to me.
Even excepting the fact that Son was most likely doing something illegal in the first place.

8

In the book, that line comes up once before, when Douglas and his wife are at his parents’ house and the parents say some racially insensitive things about immigrants and the wife objects–Douglas says something about how he agrees with the wife, because that’s what you do when there’s a fight involving someone you love. It’s one thing to support someone in an argument, but when your loved one makes an ass out of himself, I don’t think it applies.

9

The son was rude, but that’s not illegal (and might not even be immoral, depending on whether his rudeness actually helped a bad situation or not). The American almost certainly broke the law when he grabbed the son (Battery in the US and England; not sure what Dutch law would call it).

So I think my response (at least as I consider it dispassionately now, in my ideal world) would be to get everyone physically disentangled as soon as possible. Then, in some way, tell the American that even if someone called him a name he shouldn’t hit (Maybe I’d have different vocabulary for that if I was the father of a teenager rather than a toddler).

10

Was it one of those Amsterdam “cafes” I’ve heard so many interesting things about? 'Cos if it was, I think the businessmen could have chosen a more responsible venue for a meeting involving international arms trading…

11

It wasn’t, though the characters do go to one of those cafes in a different scene.

Quercus, you’re right that the American wasn’t in the right, either. I don’t think anyone was–but Douglas at least seemed to be the only one at least trying to make a bad situation better.

Anyway, I finished the book and did like it overall. I still think wife and son are a bit…flighty, but good light reading.

12

If the son is man enough to start some shit let him get mixed up in it. Be there to make sure he doesn’t get stomped or do some excessive stomping and keep momma from getting involved.

Seriously reconsider if this relationship is good for me.

13

I’m unclear in that scene, who first touched whom? Who grabbed whom? That first contact puts the assailant in the wrong.

However, refusal to escalate to a higher level of violence is not wrong!

They’re salesmen. What are they gonna do? Kill you with a brochure? I’m no more afraid of an arms salesman than a pharmaceuticals salesman (has access to many forms of deadly poisons) or a farm-machinery salesman (has access to machines with rotating razor-sharp blades.)

14

The American businessman grabbed the protagonist’s son first.