Reply to comment

I'm trying to think: would this book be scarier to a scientist or a humanities major?

The physics, at least in the first fourth of the book, seems to be more of a backdrop. The author seems to expect that you know something about physics, because the principles aren't explained in more than a smattering of sentences. But the constant references to Yeats just leave me even more confused. When poetry is tossed out like that, in a book pertaining to physics and the pursuit of scientific theory, I have to consider that the poetry means something more than just a reference to beautiful literature. But for the life of me, beyond the connection to the personal relationships portrayed in the book, I don't get it.

I'm left pretty much with the romance aspects of the book, the personal relationships and bonds. I love it how the Child's family dynamic works; with the triangle of interests, with the connection between science and beauty. I feel that this is one of the most important messages behind the book: that science isn't about equations, but about understanding the meaning of those equations in your bones. Such as on page 102, where Einstein is referenced. "He told me that he also felt the equations inside his muscles, in sensations deeper down than reason."

Through the hardships of the Mallachs, we can see how science is both seen as a moving and yet steadfast (stubborn) field. We can see how physics, not the science itself but the people who run departments, is highly territorial, and biased. At the same time, it's hard for me to really feel that they are as 'savvy' as Justin because of their constant reference to poetry and beauty. This is NOT because they are not. Dana and her father are both smart. However, Justin, I realize, fits more into the stereotype of being a scientist; he graduated early from college, he got honors, is the pride of his departments, etc. I think this is a theme that we can relate to our course.