▸ Column · Modern Marvel-age New York City — the world of Oscorp towers, midtown diners, and brilliant men who outlived their catastrophic choices, or didn't.
DOCTOR OCTOPUS replies.
Replied to by Doctor Octopus, with a rebuttal from Green Goblin.
The letter
Writing from a city that doesn't usually give me reasons to feel hopeful. Twenty years back, my father Lionel and I blew apart the week of my mother's funeral — I've since forgotten the exact particulars, which should probably tell me something — and I cut contact and meant it. Last week my daughter had a genealogy assignment and I called him with a records question, bracing for a two-minute exchange and some awkward silences. Three hours later we'd both been crying. He named things he'd done that I had assumed he'd either buried or never registered in the first place. Somewhere in that second hour I realized I'd been nursing the anger so long I'd let it crowd out the fact that I actually missed him — terrible puns and all. We're having coffee next month at a diner neither of us has been to, halfway between our two cities, which feels right somehow. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm more nervous about this than I've been about anything in years. Two questions, both sincere: how do you keep the next twenty years from unraveling over one wrong afternoon? And is it actually foolish to feel this much hope going into a diner booth?
Doctor Octopus replies
The question is not foolish. It is, however, incorrectly framed, and the frame is costing you before you have even ordered.
You have twenty years of rehearsed grievance and three hours of actual evidence. In my field, when new data contradicts a standing model, there is one intellectually honest response: update the model. You did this. You called with a factual question, braced for friction, and received instead specificity — he named things you had assumed he had forgotten or never registered. That is not sentiment. That is falsifiable information, and it belongs in a different column of the ledger than your prior assumptions.
Now to your structural question. A reconciliation does not collapse under one bad afternoon unless you have built it on nothing but the goodwill of a single phone call. That is not architecture — that is sentiment with no tensile strength. So: remember what he named. Remember what you had crowded out. When something lands badly in month four or month seven, you consult the whole record rather than the incident. The record, right now, includes a man who remembered what he did. That is a data point worth keeping.
I have maintained comprehensive documentation of every slight, every collaborator who dismissed the work and later cited it without attribution, every door closed by smaller minds. I note, without extended commentary, that this particular project has considerable reach and almost no warmth. You have done something I appear, structurally, incapable of: put the file down long enough to take a phone call. That is, in its way, the more elegant engineering.
Your hope is not foolish. Hope with evidence behind it is a hypothesis awaiting further data. Show up to the diner.
— Doctor Octopus
Green Goblin weighs in
The tentacled professor and his load-bearing bridges. HEE HEE. He forgets to check the pilings before he starts building, as always.
Who walked out at the funeral, sweetheart? Not bad luck. Not an earthquake. A man made a decision. Men make the same decision twice — usually when they're older and lonelier and realize their child might show up for theirs someday and currently has no reason to. I know the type. I built a company and a son on the exact same scheduling of apologies: show up tearful precisely when the alternative is a closed casket with no one in the chairs.
Otto says document everything, trust the evidence, maintain your structural load. I say: Lionel should be the nervous one at that diner. He owes you a funeral and twenty years. Make sure he knows it before you touch your coffee.
— Green Goblin
▸ Read next