Hacker News Reader

Comment by bussierem | Hacker News Reader

Reading this, I wasn't quite clear what the intent of the story was. Usually these have some kind of moral to them, or a lesson learned, or something.

The author came across as an extremely uptight and unapologetic jerk, who "quietly tolerated" all 4 of her lifetime visits with the man who stayed behind to make it easier for them to escape. Every time he came to visit, he seemed to be the "fun uncle" personality - Loud and boisterous, but always having fun and chatting up people. He seemed to have a few problems, for sure, but overall by the end I felt really bad for the father and rather upset at the abysmal treatment the author gave him. If I was supposed to sympathize with the author, they failed pretty spectacularly.

View on HN

I read it as a neutral meditation on the author's relationship with someone who should have been a central figure in her life, but lives as the main actor of his own separate world. She still feels the faintest touch of a connection to him (through social media), but in the most important ways they are complete strangers.

Instead of being melodramatic, the author recounts some facts about their (lack of) a relationship, how and why it failed to develop, and how things stand now.

I don't think the author is looking for sympathy. Just reflecting (quite beautifully IMO) on the way things turned out.

I perceive it similarly, and marvel at some of the judgmental, parochial readings I see in comments above.

I've known more than one 1st-gen child who was a narcissistic brat, blaming their parents for not fitting in (and thus all other social failures as well), while being willfully ignorant of the sacrifices involved in simply getting them here in the first place, and scornful of the opportunities available.

The author of this piece wrote nothing that convinced me she was any different.

I may be completely wrong. But I do not think I am. I didn't live in the US until I was a teen, and I've seen this song and dance before.

I disagree. If she felt like that there would have been more excuses and less clarity.

We have differing opinions. Fair enough.

But your opinion is wrong

That's not a very compelling counterargument. :)

Seriously, it's OK to just plain disagree. Literary interpretation isn't a hard science.

My takeaway was "I was an insufferable tool my entire childhood/young adulthood and my dad eventually decided it would just be better to start a new family." (I think the author is likely in on it. There's hints of self awareness in the writing, to the point where I take the piece to written as a criticism of her younger self, but in a dry style that doesn't shove the epiphany in the reader's face.)

It may be a little too subtle - she still comes off as insufferable.

It's the New Yorker--I'd be disappointed if there were any other reaction one could have.

She still is from the snide comments about her ex.

As I get older, pointlessness seems less like an insult, and more like an accurate reflection of the world. Points can be found, and some times must be made, but the world doesn't need them. Neither does a good story. Looking for one everywhere will cloud your judgement.

She got older and realized that there is more to life than career and material status.

Edit: she also does not seem to realise that her father's behavior might have been determined by the sacrifice he made, staying behind and having his family ripped apart.

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what part of my comment this was in response to...

I definitely empathize with the father, he seemed to have things figured out for himself, and by the end seemed to just kind of "give up" trying to please the author, preferring to spend his time with people who were less uptight.

I think they were responding to your first statement.

That makes sense. My mistake!

Maybe, you should read it again. Look: the author has written the essay, when she did not have to. Does that not tell? She has picked details to report that are unflattering to her (and not because she is unaware). Does that not tell?

"Usually" these stories have some kind of moral to them? Which personal memoirs of this sort have you been reading? Why can't it just have no moral, and just be (as this author seems to intend) a description of a lived experience?

She does come across a little entitled, specially reading about his Refugee novel here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/dina-nayeri-un...

But at the same time I think both are very interesting reads, with a different point of view of what I'm used to, so for that it was a worth read.

It's very clear that the author wrote this for the reader to sympathize with the father; the author's purpose is clearly to relate that she's made major mistakes in her life, misplacing her relationship with her father. She even mentions that her 'supposedly perfect marriage' [to a rich Princeton Ivy Leaguer like her] ended up in divorce.

It's very clear the tone, and it is in no way subtle; this is a piece meant for compassion for the father, and I assume is a cathartic release for the author. By writing it up and admitting her faults openly, she's giving herself the chance to forgive herself.

Not with that big of an ego. She can just call and say sorry.

Making an art piece has more meaning than just a phone call

Meaning to her you mean? Or meaning to people who pay her money. Surely (imo) not to the father.

More meaning to other people. It's a warning: don't do what I did, you'll regret it.

While I appreciate the response and explanation, the constant hammering of how "obvious" the point of this was is very irritating, since it is easy to see this was not apparent to me.

I don't like the use of the word "obvious" because of the pejorative connotations, but to me it seemed pretty self-evident when reading for effect (rather than the read-for-"content" that seems more common around here) that this piece should be taken as self-reflective and more than a little ironic. It's all the little things: word choice, framing of all the characters (author, father, author's husband, brother, brother's wife), and in particular the structure of the ending. It's the sort of thing you read in English Comp classes to recognize those signposts; if it's something that isn't regularly apparent to you, maybe it's a subject worth exploring further.

It was clear in its particularly East Coast Smug sort of literary omphaloskepsis. It isn't as easy as it reads to project a constant sense of superiority while pretending to be self-critical. I see the framing choice as a way to separate the author from any potential agency, a story viewed from behind glass, immutable. This conveniently absolves her of needing to actually grow, and the messiness inherent in the process.

(Please note this is in no way a criticism of you, or your point, with which I agree. But my experiences as a person who didn't live in the states until I was a teen give me... strong opinions about children who refuse to understand the deep sacrifices made to give them a shot (and that's what it is, just a shot) at a better life, no guarantees.)

Interesting - have you read a lot? For me the intents of writers have become clearer over the years as I have read more and more widely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com