An Exercise in Point-of-View

I’m working on a scene where it’s hard to understand Einstein’s behavior.  It’s mid-July, 1901, and Mileva is about to re-sit her exams at the Polytech, having failed them the summer before.  It’s her last chance to pass, and, oh-my-god, she’s pregnant now, with Einstein’s baby.  You might think he’d want to be there for her, to coach her through, to help her with geometry, a subject that eluded her, no thanks to a particularly obtuse professor in the subject.  Surely she would have appreciated his presence.  Whatever happens with the tests, she must head home to Serbia afterward, to tell her parents she’s going to have a baby. 

Did I mention the two aren’t married?

How do I make Einstein’s behavior something other than a dastardly abandonment, when instead of staying in Zurich, he’s off vacationing with his mother and sister in Mettmenstetten?  Yes, indeed.  He’s at a cushy hotel, the Pension-Paradies in the Alps!  

Fortunately, I have point-of-view on my side.  The important thing here is not to look at the big picture and see what he might have done, but to get inside his head and see how the prospect looked to him.  And I don’t mean the view from the hotel veranda.  Behind his eyes, I see that the greatest threat to Mileva’s well-being is not the exams or her father.  It’s his mother.  He’s off to do battle with the dragon.  I’m reminded of Grendal’s Dam and thinking I might need to re-read Beowulf.   s

Posted in Einstein, family members, Fictional biography, historical fiction, Mettmenstetten, Mileva Maric, Pauline Einstein, point of view, Serbia, Switzerland, writing | 3 Comments

Einstein’s Particular Genius

“Nothing new comes of thinking about a problem the same way we created it,” Einstein said.  It was a good rationale for his reluctance to repeat experiments and collect data that had already been collected by someone else or to follow the directions for an experimental protocol.  If he was going to repeat an experiment for which results were already on record, he’d invent his own method.   For insisting on doing the experiments his own way, Herr Professor Pernet flunked him in introductory physics lab.  Out of a possible 6, Einstein scored 1.  And given his upstart attitude, it is not surprising, then, that when he graduated, none of his professors would hire him on as an assistant–the usual career trajectory for a graduate of Zurich’s Polytech (the ETH).  

But wasn’t this ability, his inclination to reject existing methods and accepted modes of thought, what enabled him to re-envision various problems in physics, to question the constants that physicists had built upon?  And how difficult this is, accepted thought being so foundational that most of us don’t realize we’ve confused it with truth.

Time, for instance.  It took Einstein to suggest it’s not the universal constant.  (And in the past year, some physicists are theorizing that the speed of light is also not constant, a discovery which, if proven, might lead to the unified field theory Einstein sought.)

Zytglogge Clock Tower, Bern

 

Posted in Einstein, genius | Leave a comment

Einstein’s Particular Genius

“Nothing new comes of thinking about a problem the same way we created it,” Einstein said.  It was a good rationale for his reluctance to repeat experiments and collect data that had already been collected by someone else or to follow the directions for an experimental protocol.  If he was going to repeat an experiment for which results were already on record, he’d invent his own method.   For insisting on doing the experiments his own way, Herr Professor Pernet flunked him in introductory physics lab.  Out of a possible 6, Einstein scored 1.  And given his upstart attitude, it is not surprising, then, that when he graduated, none of his professors would hire him on as an assistant–the usual career trajectory for a graduate of Zurich’s Polytech (the ETH).  

But wasn’t this ability, his inclination to reject existing methods and accepted modes of thought, what enabled him to re-envision various problems in physics, to question the constants that physicists had built upon?  And how difficult this is, accepted thought being so foundational that most of us don’t realize we’ve confused it with truth.

Time, for instance.  It took Einstein to suggest it’s not the universal constant.  (And in the past year, some physicists are theorizing that the speed of light is also not constant, a discovery which, if proven, might lead to the unified field theory Einstein sought.)

Zytglogge Clock Tower, Bern

 

Posted in Einstein, genius | Leave a comment

Time Out for History

Is it alright, I ask myself, to take a day off writing historical fiction to experience history unfolding?   The fact that I ask that question gives you a clue to how OC I can be about writing.  Today, the day after Obama’s announcement that Bin Ladin is dead, I find myself glued to two different televisions, tuned to different cable channels, as I do housework between two rooms–telling myself that if I’m not writing, at least I can do the things that prevent me writing on other days; i.e., laundry and 52 pickup.  My puppy, Mia, the one-year-old mini-dachshund, is confused.  She’s not used to mornings away from my writing chair.

Usama Bin Ladin is dead, and the facts at the moment, are a moving target, depending on the cable channel, each of which is trying to outgun the others with exclusive information and footage.  For me, ten years are collapsing in images, familiar faces turning up, now ten years older, thinner, grayer, more wrinkled.  Some, like Rumsfeld, are giving measured responses as if they believe every word still has the capacity for political fallout.  I appreciate most those that are genuinely moved in one way or another, understanding that there are moments that transcend politics.

I’m revisited with flashbacks of various days along this road.  I was writing at my computer on 9/11 when the phone rang and my husband told me to turn the TV on.  The first plane had hit the WTC but there was still speculation that it was a bizarre accident.  Then the second plane hit.

Later that afternoon, after the planes had been grounded all over the nation, a sonic boom sounded overhead.  We all thought the terrorists had come to Dayton.  (Later we learned it was the presidential jet flying back to Washington from the “secure location.”)  It didn’t help that the Veteran’s Hospital caught fire, and we saw smoke on the horizon.  We were a jumpy city, thanks to the presence of Wright Patterson Air Force Base, which hitherto had made me feel safer.

For whatever reason, I remember Laura Bush going on the television to explain to the children–the ones now out celebrating in the streets–that the buildings they saw falling, hour after hour, day after day, were replays of the same 9/11 event.  Apparently some children thought buildings were falling everywhere, day after day.  I didn’t think that, of course.  Still, I was comforted.  My own elderly mother was living close by, but in her typical response to tragedy, wanted only to turn off the television and shut it all out.

It was a long time before I turned the television off.  I saw George W. Bush’s bullhorn moment live.  His first speech to Congress and the nation was how I picture (likely due to movies) a Franklin Roosevelt radio address during WW II:  The whole nation tuned in.  I picture us all leaning forward in our seats, like those actors in films, their ears inclined toward their radios.

It wasn’t just 9/11.  There was anthrax in the US mail.

When the campaign in Afghanistan was launched, I was seated on the parent deck awaiting my son’s soccer game at Centre College.  My relief was a bodily experience, a release of all the energy I had put to wrestling with my own willingness should I be called upon to give my sons to the battle.  It was a long month, waiting.  At one point I had watched the buildings fall so many times and was becoming so depressed, my husband and I declared a moratorium on television viewing and watched only Agatha Christie mysteries on video tape.  Funny that it should be murder mysteries that provided relief.  It also makes sense.  The crimes were solved, the perpetrators punished.

Then came Iraq.  I remember Colin Powell’s testimony before the United Nations, particularly the text of cell phone conversations.  Mohammad ElBaradei was conducting inspections of WMD facilities and turning up nothing.  Tariq Aziz repeatedly said, “There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”  At the time I thought, “No, you moved them to Syria while you delayed the inspectors.”  Who knows what really happened?  It’s hard to imagine Saddam was doing nothing in weapons development all those years.  But I’m not a conspiracy theorist.  The facts are what they are.  Nothing has been found in Iraq.  Perhaps the error was in the leadership’s underestimating Saddam’s megalomania.

But back to us.  My husband and I courted in New York City when I was going to Barnard College, and, corny as it sounds, the twin towers had become symbols of almost thirty years of marriage.  So, in December of 2001, we went to New York City, by car.  I wasn’t ready to get on a plane, (remember that feeling?), but I needed to see it in person.  We took our two sons, one 23, the other 21.  From the top of the Empire State Building the first night, we saw the twin lights beamed into the sky.   The next day we saw the pit full of debris–one day before the observation deck was opened to the public.  Firefighters were wending their way around stacks of rubble, searching for their dead.  The iconic metal frame rose from the heap and the flag flew from the line suspended from that crane.  The fences surrounding the houses and church adjacent to the site were covered in sheets on which were pinned photos of the lost along with shrines and flowers and stuffed animals.  Campus Crusade volunteers passed out permanent markers to all the visitors so we might write on that sheet.  Messages were scribbled around all the pictures, letters from children to their missing fathers beside the commitments of strangers, people who had lost no one, promising never to forget.  I’ve never known it to be quiet in NYC, but a hush lay over entire blocks, relieved by shoes on sidewalks–the sound of people walking.  Traffic was detoured around the perimeter.   The people who spoke, spoke in whispers.  We walked up and down, up and down that fence.  It felt wrong to leave.  We went into the Episcopal church on that block, and, in one of those amazing moments of unforgettable irony, heard the church calendar’s annual service commemorating the Slaughter of the Innocents (by Herod, two years after the birth of Christ).

Where from there?  An Irish pub.   We all needed a drink.

Last night, while I was watching a recap of the Royal Wedding, up came a notice that the president would address the nation at 10:30.  I wasn’t the only one that thought this unusual.  I flipped from one channel to the next, each anchor speculating on Libya, trying not to say what I feared–some sort of biological or chemical attack–and also seeming to have insider information they couldn’t announce, in cooperation with the White House.  I considered going to bed, thinking I couldn’t do anything about whatever it was, anyway, so if something had dreadful had happened, at least that way, I’d be rested to deal with it.

Like that was going to happen.

And then the news broke.  After ten years, finding UBL was no longer on my radar.   I texted my boys, knowing they’d be watching sports.  We’re a few miles apart, but don’t often talk by phone.  “Is this for real?” one son texted back, though he knows I don’t joke about unfunny things.   “Turn to news,” I typed.  The other son reported that even the sports stations could talk about nothing else.  At Mets stadium, the crowd learned by tweet.  The players found out when the crowd spontaneously began chanting, “USA! USA!”

While I’m watching the reports, trying to get my emotions to catch up to the news, there’s jubilation in Washington, celebration in New York.  Release for me.  Release for America.

At last.

God bless America

Posted in 9/11, anthrax, Colin Powell, death, George W. Bush, historical fiction, Laura Bush, Mohammad ElBaradei, reading, Saddam Hussein, Tariq Aziz, Usama Bin Ladin, Weapons of Mass Destruction, World Trade Center, writing | 3 Comments

My Reading of Fictional Biographies

One of the ways writers make decisions is to read similar work by other authors.  I have recently begun to check out fictional biographies from Dayton’s three library systems, to see how other writers have handled some of the problems.  For example, how does the writer address the reader’s question, But how do I know what’s true here? 

Historical fiction and its subset, fictional biography, is a strange hybrid, and writers deal with it differently, usually by means of an author’s note, sometimes placed at the beginning, other times at the end.  I favor the beginning, but that’s likely my preference for being upfront about things in general.  In Max Phillips’ fictional biography of Alma Mahler, The Artist’s Wife, the note appears at the end.  In it, he confesses that he has strayed from the record at will, to his own ends.  The subject of the novel, and its point-of-view character–the profligate wife of Gustav Mahler whose particular passion was the conquest of geniuses–was merely the suggestion that set him off on a fictional journey?   I find myself unsettled by this confession, as if the only value in reading anything is to get at historical fact.

But I wouldn’t be a novelist if I believed that.  Truth, for me, is larger than fact, and fiction is particularly good at delivering the emotional truths that transcend facts.

That said, I’m not comfortable with borrowing an historical figure, then distorting known facts.  It’s a personal bias, I guess.  I’m delighted to discover that Jim Shepard–one of my mentors in the craft, though I’ve never met him–agrees.  In an essay called “Generating Fiction from History and/or Fact” contained in The Writer’s Notebook:  Craft Essays from Tin House, he says this:  “Literature that deals with history the most effectively, in my mind, . . . understands two things:  (A) that fiction about real events needs to respect the facts and (B), as our politicians have taught us, facts are malleable things.  The trick, it seems, is to do everything possible to honor A, as you understand it, while taking full advantage of B to shape your material into something aesthetically beautiful.” (p. 244)

What kind of distortion, then, might shaping the material bring?

Shaping might be best understood by looking at a painting such as Diego Rivera’s Flower Festival:  Feast of Santa Anita.   The central figure in this painting bears a heavy burden, a basket of calla lillies.  The shape of the figure, and particularly Rivera’s choice of white for his robe, makes it reminiscent of the cross of Christ.  The lilies themselves are shaped like hearts–and the stamen is exaggerated in a phallic way–a distortion introduced.  The children kneeling in the forefront, suggestive of worship, wear blouses with yokes that are also shaped like hearts.  Even the strands of hair in their braids are shaped like hearts, the braid image repeated in the binding on the basket.   The red flowers, poppies, look like mouths–or vaginas.  This painting, then, obstensibly about a figure at a flower festival, is really about love–both eros, and agape.

In literature, shape is delivered with a similar kind of repetition of an image.  In my novel about Darwin, the Sandwalk, a circular path on a bit of land rented from a neighbor, appears repeatedly in the novel as does the image of walking in circles, in general.  In the novel’s opening scene, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta is walking the fairy ring that has appeared in the lawn outside Darwin’s study window.  Now–here’s where the distortion comes in.  Yes, there really was a Sandwalk and Darwin walked it almost daily, assuming he was healthy enough. He called it his thinking path. But was there a fairy ring in the lawn outside his study window?  Who knows?  The fairy ring introduces an important concept in the novel–the relationship between what we can know (that a mushroom-like fungus causes the grass to darken in ring-like patterns) and the realm of the intangible–in this case, cavorting fairies who draw the unsuspecting into the ring to dance to their deaths.  It’s a metaphor for everything the book will tackle.  Is it a device?  Yes.  A useful one.  Is it fiction?  Yes.  Does it tamper with truth?  I don’t think so.

I don’t yet know what image will shape the Einstein novel, though it seems that a departing person–on a street or in a train station–keeps turning up in the text so far.   The working title of the novel is Quanta, because I’m writing in bursts/part(icles) that are not necessarily chronological.  Perhaps Departures would be a better title, suggesting all the personal abandonments that characterized his life and also his departure from current thought.

Time and many pages of writing must pass before I will know.

Flower Festival:  Feast at Santa Anita by Diego Rivera   a calla lily


Posted in Darwin, Diego Rivera, Einstein, Fictional biography, fictional truth, Flower Festival: Feast of Santa Anita, historical fiction, Jim Shepard, Max Phillips, reading, The Artist's Wife, The Writer's Notebook: Craft Essays from Tin House, writing | 2 Comments

Einstein’s violin

I’m working on a scene where Albert Einstein is playing a largo movement of a Handel sonata for violin and piano. (He was quite an accomplished violinist, and some biographers guess that through his violin he expressed the intimate emotions that he otherwise suppressed in favor of his work in physics.)  I chose the piece after hearing and being transported by it on NPR.  The choice, however, is arbitrary, though Einstein was known to play Handel.  He liked the baroque (Bach, Vivaldi) and classical composers (Mozart, Handel), finding the romantics (Beethoven, Wagner) too sentimental.

Einstein’s mother, Pauline, was an accomplished pianist and introduced Albert to the violin at age 5.  It was not until his pre-teen years, however, when he discovered Mozart, that practicing was anything but another necessary chore, like doing his schoolwork before he was allowed to go outside to play.  Mozart opened another world to him and Albert was grateful to his mother for insisting he learn. The violin opened many doors to him in Zurich, playing music in small groups being a popular evening entertainment among the student group.  Albert found in his violin an alternate absorption which gave him the time off his mind needed to make the intellectual leaps known as the “eureka” experience.

Posted in Einstein, genius, Pauline Einstein, Violin | Leave a comment

Einstein’s violin

I’m working on a scene where Albert Einstein is playing a largo movement of a Handel sonata for violin and piano. (He was quite an accomplished violinist, and some biographers guess that through his violin he expressed the intimate emotions that he otherwise suppressed in favor of his work in physics.)  I chose the piece after hearing and being transported by it on NPR.  The choice, however, is arbitrary, though Einstein was known to play Handel.  He liked the baroque (Bach, Vivaldi) and classical composers (Mozart, Handel), finding the romantics (Beethoven, Wagner) too sentimental.

Einstein’s mother, Pauline, was an accomplished pianist and introduced Albert to the violin at age 5.  It was not until his pre-teen years, however, when he discovered Mozart, that practicing was anything but another necessary chore, like doing his schoolwork before he was allowed to go outside to play.  Mozart opened another world to him and Albert was grateful to his mother for insisting he learn. The violin opened many doors to him in Zurich, playing music in small groups being a popular evening entertainment among the student group.  Albert found in his violin an alternate absorption which gave him the time off his mind needed to make the intellectual leaps known as the “eureka” experience.

Posted in Einstein, genius, Pauline Einstein, Violin | Leave a comment

The Wonders of Google Maps

I’ve written before about what a handicap it is to write about a setting I’ve never visited.  I can read descriptions in books–and in the case of Albert Einstein, some of the biographers are fine writers who provide me with details–but there is just no substitute for knowing how the air smells in a given location.  That said, and a trip to Switzerland is planned for next September, in trying to draft a scene that takes place in Mettmenstetten, Switzerland, where Albert stayed with his mother, his sister, and the women of his extended family in August, 1901, I read that the family stayed at the Hotel Paradies.  I search the internet, but this pension/hotel is no longer listed.  This is not a surprise after 110 years, but it is a frustration.  I search the internet for nearby hotels that look old, hoping for pictures.  I’m trying to describe the drawing room of this place where the family joined together to play music in the evenings, Albert on his violin, accompanied by one of his many female cousins (one of whom, Elsa, became his second wife). But I have little idea what this room would look like.

I decide to look on Google Maps at Mettmenstetten–satellite view–to see what the terrain looks like.  As I zoom in, I switch on the names of the roads.  My goodness.  At the edge of town, there is a road named Paradiesli. I zoom in farther, and what do I see but the roof of a building that would be large enough to house an extended family.  I switch on photos.  Oh, my goodness.  It seems someone has photographed that very building!  I compare the roof lines in the satellite view and the photo, which is not difficult considering the distinctive gables and an arch in the middle.  Indeed it is the same!   My gratitude overflows from Florida where I sit in my writing chair in winter, to the photographer, griphus3, whoever and wherever you are.  This is likely the place–or one very like it–and I have made good faith effort.  Now, I still have to imagine the interior, but that’s suddenly easier.  Here it is.

the likely location of Albert Einstein’s summer holiday in Mettmenstetten

Posted in Einstein, family members, Google Maps, Mettmenstetten, reading, Research methods, Switzerland, writing | Leave a comment

German Jewish Family Values

Additional research–my thanks to Marion Kaplan for her book The Making of the Jewish Middle Class–reveals that as laws in Germany allowed Jews freedom to join the professions and become upwardly mobile, the German ideals of cleanliness entered the Jewish household.  They accepted the need for the clutterless household, regularly picked up and polished, as a way to bring security into an insecure existence.  Jewish housewives, it happens, came to be trend setters in terms of furnishings, as, thanks to having more relatives living in cities, they brought city styles and furniture arrangements to the outlying areas.

But here is a most revealing fact in terms of why Pauline Einstein, sight unseen, opposed Albert’s marriage to a Serb:

“Both Gentiles and Jews believed that dirt could lead to decadence, but for Jews it could also lead to the dreaded identification with their proletarian, Eastern, nonacculturated brothers and sisters living in the ghettos of Berlin and other major cities.  German Jews focused on eliminating dirt and smell—class symbols—from their lives.” (Kaplan, 33)

Anyone Eastern European threatened to bring down the standards of the household, those countries being associated with dirt and odor.  German households had a horror of garlic, that being the odor associated with Eastern European, nonacculturated Jews.   Imagine Albert’s mother, having a son who couldn’t be bothered to wash, comb his hair, or tie his shoes, now wanting to bring a Serb into the family!  (Land of gypsies and brigands, Serbia.  And Mileva’s father was proud of it.)  For a persecuted people group like the Jews, entering the middle class, acculturating with German Gentiles, was a way to avoid anti-Semitism.  

 And, I’m learning about my own family–that German grandmother, whose bedsheets were passed down to me, each with a little red thread in the exact center, so that when making the bed, one could center the sheets perfectly.  She was my mother’s mother, and so now I understand my mother’s horror of clutter–the need for bare kitchen counters, all appliances put away–and her dislike of garlic or any foods containing it.  Needless to say, she never made pasta–which we then called spaghetti.  (My dad loved it, but he had to eat it in a restaurant.)  I understand why cooking was no fun to mother–so much work, if one had to get out all the appliances, do the cooking, then expunge the evidence of the labor as soon as it was accomplished.  My mother was a bright, funny woman who couldn’t tolerate a mess.  I always felt this intolerance extinguished her creativity, not just in the kitchen, but in other aspects of her life, too.  Creativity is messy.  I can’t imagine being able to write a novel if I couldn’t stand the mess of structurelessness that  precedes a meaningful assemblage of pieces.

391109.jpg

 

Posted in Marion Kaplan, Mileva Maric, Pauline Einstein, reading, Research methods, Serbia, writing | Leave a comment

Why did Einstein’s mother hate his wife?

In an effort to understand Pauline Einstein’s (Albert’s mother) outright rejection of  her son’s love for Mileva Maric, I did some research on Jewish family values in Germany from 1870 -1900. The obvious answer might be that Mileva was raised as an Eastern Orthodox Christian.   But despite Hermann Einstein (Albert’s father) listing himself as Israelitic on Albert’s birth certificate, the family was decidedly non-religious, a point of pride with his father, so Mileva’s not being Jewish would not explain his mother’s outrage.  In fact, the family had sent Albert to a Catholic school in Munich for his elementary education and his mother had no objection when he fell in love with Marie Winteler while he attended the Cantonal school in Aarau.  Marie was not Jewish, and still, Marie and Pauline carried on a fond correspondence.

It happens that between 1870 and 1900 Jews were enjoying a heyday in Germany and, far from isolating themselves in ghettos, were doing what they could to erase distinctions between themselves and their Gentile neighbors. The bourgeois culture to which Hermann and Pauline aspired, to distinguish themselves from the habits of the laboring classes, assigned status to households where women did not work outside the home.  Instead, the wife and mother was the mediator between the intimate space of the household and society at large.  It was her task to raise children that maintained both the family’s religious observances and adopted the mores of her middle class German neighbors.  She was to maintain Germanic standards of cleanliness and orderliness thought essential to cultivating hardworking, upright citizens.

I’m reminded of the values that governed my mother’s life in American culture of the 1950’s and 60’s.  My family was not Jewish, but my maternal grandmother’s maiden name was Gumprecht.  Despite having a BA in speech from Ohio Wesleyan University, my mother devoted herself to laundry, cleaning, and her one creative outlet–gardening.  What about cooking?  She was singularly uninspired as a cook.  The few recipes she made, such as the Betty Crocker red binder meatloaf, she followed to the letter, even measuring out breadcrumbs.  Anytime she made anything without specific measurements–such as sloppy joes the Girl Scout campfire way–she required myself or my father to taste and tell her what to add.  That said, we ate at home, around a dinner table, nearly every night–food she had prepared.  Not working enabled her to do all kinds of volunteer work.  She was my Girl Scout leader for years and drove myself and my brother to our piano and dance lessons.  She taught adult Sunday school at our church and volunteered as a docent at the Dayton Art Institute.  When I danced with the Dayton Ballet Company, she was the founding president of the support organization, The Friends of the Dayton Ballet.   All this said, and given the skills she brought to those extra-household contributions, she didn’t foresee women moving out of the household.  If I complained about a school assignment (I particularly hated any rote memory work) as in “Why do I have to memorize Portia’s “quality of mercy” speech?”–her answer was invariably, “So you have something to think about when you’re ironing.”

It’s thereby not hard for me to understand Pauline Einstein’s priorities.  Enter Albert, intent on living and thinking outside any box his mother might build.  He called her bourgeois values “philistine” and flaunted them at every opportunity, dropping Marie Winteler for being too much like his mother.  Instead, he loved a Serbian woman–a backward culture of gypsies, to his mother’s mind–one who aspired to work as a physics teacher.

So, without meeting Mileva, Pauline could object to Albert’s undermining all she had done to ensure the family was upwardly mobile.   Ideally, his spouse would be one of his cousins, and to that end, she invited relatives to visit them at Mettmenstetten each summer during their stay at the Hotel Paradies in the Alps.  Albert was happy enough to play his violin for the ladies assembled, even playing duets with the cousins she paraded past him, but he was determined to marry Mileva.  Was it love?  Or the need to upend his mother?

Einstein’s wife, Mileva Maric   Pauline Koch Einstein

Posted in Einstein, family members, Mileva Maric, Pauline Einstein, reading, Research methods | Leave a comment