We can't know how much of this is true in the author's marriage, so a reading that hinges on figuring that out doesn't take us anywhere. The reader is not playi

We can't know how much of this is true in the author's marriage, so a reading that hinges on figuring that out doesn't take us anywhere. The reader is not playing the role of the author's marriage counselor. I think we're supposed to read it for our own reaction, our competing reactions of recognition and denial and the resulting conversation in our heads. The piece is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because it's an exaggeration. But it's also ridiculous because we're ridiculous.