What on earth is funny about The Man Who Loved Children?

Read Jonathan Franzen's essay on "The Man Who Loved Children" in the Times Book Review. He's right about a few things. This book is not for everyone, though it will have devote adherents. Count me out. Yes, Franzen is right that it's well written. Stead probably accomplishes everything she meant to in this monumental book. Franzen notes that the main character, Sam Pollit, is based on Stead's father, and the daughter Louie is based somewhat autobiographical. Every writer knows the feeling that writing well is the best revenge, and Stead must have exorcised many demons and exacted some measure of vengeance against her awful father - let's hope he read the book in agony. But must we read it? Sure, if you love to read about the suffering of children, about a perverse and gloomy world in which every adult is mean, petty, cruel, or grotesque. Franzen finds this book funny. I guess he's not alone. There are bright passages one can cite, quote, or excerpt. But overall? It's funny that this father forces his children to eat food that he's masticated in order to improve their resistance to disease? It's funny that Louie, basically friendless, is invited to a neighbor's house in order to do the old lady the favor of drowning her cat in a bathtub? It's funny that the father forces Louie to "decode" her secret notebook and read it aloud to the family and then stand there as he mocks her for writing the stupidest stuff he's ever read? I'm glad Christina Stead had to courage to become a writer, and this book may bring insight to many, but it brought no joy to me.