In her article “Hannah Gadsby’s ‘Nanette’ Makes Us Realize the present Tense” Murry Katherine argues that ““Gadsby’s position, which she explains eloquently in the special, is that, as long as we avoid telling the parts of our stories that are painful to us — the parts that we can’t roll into a punchline; the parts that we can’t pretend to be objective and unfeeling about; the parts that we can’t say without tears coming to our eyes; the parts that make people uncomfortable to hear — we’ll be trapped in purgatory with them forever, and the world won’t have to change”. I think Murry’s statement can go along with Notaro’s memoir in some way. Notaro explains her experience in something that she got through. However, people deal with things differently, so each one delivers its own experience indifferent way. Notaro witnesses the cancer suffering and knows all the hard emotion that comes with it. Notaro talked about her experience with cancer in a comedy show; some people will see that odd. It’s a tragedy moment how can anyone take it as a comic moment. However, Notaro’s show did a significant influence on the audience. It’s a different way to deliver a tragedy moment, but it works at this time. It’s Notaro’s way to take about her experience without feeling weak or pain. As Murry illustrates in her article that “we avoid telling the parts of our stories that are painful to us,” so Notaro did tell a part of her life that is painful but in a different way. In some way, Notaro did the same as what Murry think, but Notaro did it in a direction that she does not feel pain with it. As Smith and Watson illustrate in the book “Reading Autobiography” that “the autobiography might be read for what it does, not what it is”(19) so the Notaro comedic memoir has to be read for what it does as an illness narrative not as what it is as a standup comedy show.