Ned thinks children hold it against their broken parents who "raise them to be whole," while Artie thinks they aren't whole, just "broken in more delicate ways by finer instruments." What is your view?

Ned and Artie discuss their children. Ned opines that their children hold it against their broken parents who "raise them to be whole", while Artie believes their children aren't whole, just "broken in more delicate ways by finer instruments." What do you suppose each means? Do you agree with one of the brothers over the other? Why or why not?

I agree with Artie. Children will never be whole. No human is. We're battered by life and our experiences. But parents can minimize the damage they inflict and do their best to raise resilient children who can strive to be whole--to be "broken in more delicate ways." I think this is a more reasonable and realistic approach.

I remember someone saying to me once that we try not to repeat the mistakes of our parents so ending up making mistakes our children hope not to repeat with their children. I think Ned and Artie's approaches fail to make this connection. Parents have a big responsibility to protect and nurture their children while making sure they nurture themselves. Without doing either both become broken.

I wonder if these statements reflect their own childhoods. I would think the parental views would have contributed to these different views.

Parenting is so hard no matter what generation you are in. Ned does say it best, "..our children could never survive the world we've come from, and we could never survive the world they're going into." Ned, like most parents, wants a better life for his children, to make them "whole." Children, like all humans, will never be whole as they grow up. Life is going to throw things at them, and everyone has some issues with the way their parents raised them. So Artie is right that their children are broken but just in different ways.

I agree with both brothers. I think most parents do try to raise their children to be "whole" adults, but as others have pointed out it's an impossible task and one that's largely out of parental control.

My parents tried to raise my sister and I to be whole in ways they never were because they were part of the Greatest Generation. First, they survived the Great Depression and then World War II. They were permanently scarred by those experiences.

But we ended up "broken" in other ways. In fact, to some extent we were both "broken" as a result of their attempts to shield us from suffering as they did while imposing their wounds on us. My parents were not wealthy, but all I ever heard growing up was "we can't afford it" or "we don't have money for that." I was afraid to ask for things, or voice a desire to participate in experiences or activities because of the answer I would receive. I strongly feel I was held back because I didn't get to pursue interests that really meant a lot to me, even though, unlike my parents, I never doubted that I would have a roof over my head and food on my table. They were not sophisticated enough to understand how they were impacting us -- and wouldn't have accepted the truth had it been pointed out to them, anyway. They had no capacity for simply enjoying life. It was always a chore because of what they had endured. Their security was living in a home with no mortgage and knowing they had money in banks that would not fail. They didn't see what my generation knows, i.e. that leading a full life constitutes more than just existing.

So, based on my life experiences, Artie is right. Children are "broken in more delicate ways by finer instruments." I still struggle sometimes to drown out my parents' voices in my head, especially when contemplating a large expenditure or buying something they would consider frivolous. I have to remind myself that I am spending MY money that I earned and I don't have to answer to them about what I do with it. I have nothing to feel guilty about, but I'm still sad that they never were able to really have fun.