This book was so triggering for me that I've revived my decrepit Goodreads account just to write this review.
This book is based on the true story of the author, Yiyun Li, and the experience of both her sons committing suicide. I came across this book through a BookTok recommendation (perhaps this was my first mistake). I was skeptical at first, but I was drawn to the topic of grief, suicide, and family. There was an underlying feeling of unease (Would this just be a self-serving grief narrative? After all, the dead can't speak), but I brushed it aside and came into it with an open mind. But by the first couple of chapters, it became clear that my suspicions would be confirmed. I persisted though, to the end of the book, hoping for a "gotcha" moment that never came.
For a book that Li herself describes as "a book for James," she does so little of talking about James or Vincent than of herself. I know nothing of her sons, except for their academic achievements. I know that James could play the Oboe at 5 years old, knew multiple languages, attended prestigious private schools, etc. But I know nothing about -him.- In fact, I could see more of "him" in the 3 page memorial article in Princeton student newspaper than in the 172 page book written by his mother supposedly dedicated to him. Instead, Li focuses on stories of her own childhood trauma, on showing examples of how great and infallible of a mom she was, snarky and defensive retorts to past and future criticism, and many references to highfalutin literature with accompanying intellectual rambling and Olympics level mental gymnastics.
This book is particularly offensive because (as a Chinese American with a similar background) I relate to Li's sons. So when I read the Things in Nature, I am reading Li's words, but I "see" the unspoken story of Vincent and James, peeking out beneath the veneer of her narrative.
But you need not be Chinese American to be able to read between the lines. Her writing tells on herself.
An example: Li praises herself for not being like other parents because she allows 5 year old Vincent to not join soccer club, despite her suggestion, because Vincent says that "[Li] would be doing that not for his happiness, but because [Li] wanted him to be just like the other children." She pats herself on the back for not forcing him to do something he doesn't want, but does not question why a 5 year old would even have such a nefarious thought about his mother's motivations.
Another example: Li writes, "A mother's job is to provide a framework for living: things to do, places to go..." Indeed, Li excels at his - fencing lessons for James, tennis lessons for Vincent, traveling all around the world, perfect aesthetic meals curated for each member of the family, etc. However, when it comes to emotional depth and finding oneself in life, Li's motherly framework for living offers little. The closest she comes to this is her statement to James a few weeks before his suicide. She says to him that only 10% of life is joyful and the other 90% must be endured... Imagine offering this as a framework for living, and then having the audacity to be surprised when your son commits suicide.
Perhaps there is a reason that the only two adjectives we see her sons describe her as are "dense" and "gormless."
Li uses those comments as pretense to show how she could never have understood her sons because they were geniuses who were so above her.
I interpret those comments as her sons' observation of how lacking she is, not in raw intellect (she is clearly very academically skilled), but in emotional intelligence. And by the way, these are not static skills - one can strive for better (but this is a reality that Li refuses to admit - she writes "reality has no alternatives" as a justification of why she doesn't focus on the "what-ifs").
Also, the way she absolves herself of any critical thought when it comes to anything that may be self-incriminating (but at the same time casually judging others) is extremely infuriating to read.
There multiple uncalled for asides of Li demeaning her students for not understanding a concept (is it not the job of the professor to guide her students to said concept?), of Li mocking well-meaning, but poorly executed condolences from her peers, of Li calling her critics deficient... the judgements that Li incongruently adds in the middle of her ramblings doesn't offer anything to the point she is trying to make, but does offer insight into the kind of environment that her sons may have grew up in. Imagine growing in a up in a household where mistakes and perceived stupidity are given no grace, and character insults are thrown around like candy. It is no surprise to me that Li keeps on saying that Vincent was a perfectionist, and James near-silent to everyone except his brother.
In fact, Li concludes that Vincent committed suicide because he was a perfectionist and life could not meet his perfect standards. For James, she concludes that he committed suicide because he was an autistic savant who was lonely because no one could meet him at his level.
That Li reduces her sons to these tropes while glazing her own role as their parent is infuriating.
--
I am so confused about the glowing reviews. Admittedly, it is a book that is easy to read, albeit disorganized sometimes (one reviewer said it was like reading a blog post - I agree with this sentiment). But to give a uncritical review is only if you take the author's words at face value and do not question her at all, even when her own cherry picked vignettes points to something darker or when she contradicts herself between chapters. I understand that people are kind and give a grieving mother grace, but to ignore how the author is showing herself as an unreliable narrator, someone who would have a personal interest in controlling the narrative around her sons' suicides?
I find it an interesting observation on how Chinese critics (she just had to dedicate multiple paragraphs throughout the book to reference and defend against) are more harsh than the Western critics. Aside from the nonsensical nationalist arguments and the tone deaf delivery of some Chinese neitizens, I do think this distinction between the critics is worth noting. Is it because Chinese people understand the perniciousness of our achievement based culture that Li's sons may have faced? Because Chinese people understand how important "saving face" is in our culture and see through Li's intentions?