This book reads like therapy. After a long life of confusion and bitterness and regret, both Jonathan and Sydney show up to the table with a goal in mind; explain my point of view, and understand the other person's point of view.
From Jonathan's point of view, Sydney behaved selfishly and immaturely and he put his self and his identity in front of the fact that he had obligations to the family. Nevertheless, the problem of non-traditional identities is one he understands by having had two lesbian mothers. Therefore, he is angry, but mostly he is just sad for lost time. Therefore the length of their time together might be the redemption he needed.
For Sydney, the question is regret. How has he changed as a person? If he were back in that same situation knowing what he knows now, would he have left the family? Instead of answering these questions, Sydney offers the best answers that he had available to him at the time. He remembers feeling pinned in, and India knew that there was still work to be done in Sid's character, so perhaps it was the right thing.
Nevertheless, the two people understand that their experiences have formed them, so in the fact that this story has to do with shame, identity and family, and also in the fact that it's a reckoning of two different points of view on life, one could easily conclude that this story functions as an essay about human suffering, community and identity.
