"Lieserl" by Karen Joy Fowler

First appeared in her collection, Peripheral Vision.  It was up for the Nebula and Locus Awards and reprinted in a few major retrospectives by Ellen Datlow, Terri Windling, James Morrow, James Patrick Kelly, John Kessel.

Background:

Fowler will depart from true history, so before reading the story, it would be useful to know a little background about Albert Einstein, his first wife Mileva Marić, and what was probably their first child, Lieserl (I have edited the text only to show the things that Fowler refers to) [from Wikipedia]:

"Einstein's future wife, Mileva Marić, also enrolled at the Polytechnic that same year, the only woman among the six students in the mathematics and physics section of the teaching diploma course. Over the next few years, Einstein and Marić's friendship developed into romance, and they read books together on extra-curricular physics in which Einstein was taking an increasing interest. In 1900, Einstein was awarded the Zürich Polytechnic teaching diploma, but Marić failed the examination with a poor grade in the mathematics component, theory of functions.... 

"With the discovery and publication in 1987 of an early correspondence between Einstein and Marić it became known that they had a daughter they called "Lieserl" in their letters, born in early 1902 in Novi Sad where Marić was staying with her parents. Marić returned to Switzerland without the child, whose real name and fate are unknown. Einstein probably never saw his daughter, and the contents of a letter he wrote to Marić in September 1903 suggest that she was either adopted or died of scarlet fever in infancy. 

"Einstein and Marić married in January 1903. In May 1904, the couple's first son, Hans Albert Einstein, was born in Bern, Switzerland. Their second son, Eduard, was born in Zurich in July 1910. In 1914, Einstein moved to Berlin, while his wife remained in Zurich with their sons. They divorced on 14 February 1919, having lived apart for five years."

Summary and Commentary (the story cannot be spoiled, but I do discuss the whole story, so caveat lector):

Where Fowler departs from the above supposed facts is Einstein's mother suggests that their relationship would not be a good and not get involved with Mileva.  She "plays tricks."  Whatever tricks these are, if any, Fowler does not directly suggest.  Perhaps there is no trick and Einstein tricks himself for believing there is a trick.  Or perhaps the existence of Lieserl is a trick.  Perhaps she never existed; or if she did, maybe she was given away as the above text suggests.  However, in terms of the story's greatest impact (even if it did not occur this way in real life), we should probably assume that there is no trick.

Mileva is an infinitely patient lover/wife.  She understands Einstein is a busy, important scientist and leaves him to his studies in an apartment away from Mileva and Lieserl.  She mails letters on schedule, talking about their daughter, Lieserl, and about how she grows up.  The letters are the best part of the story.  They are heartbreakingly cute, detailing how the daughter loves her papa:

"Papa, papa, papa, she say.  It is her favorite word.  Yes, I tell her. Papa is coming....

"I am not interested in boys, she answered.  Nowhere is there a boy I could love like I love my papa.

"Have I kept her too sheltered? What does she know of men? If only you had been here to advise me."

And so forth.  By now, you know the heartbreak.  Fowler's Einstein never visits his daughter.  He misses everything, from holding his daughter as a child to helping her choose a man.  Einstein passages about himself are comparatively (and probably designedly) boring. Oh, Einstein! the reader says sadly.

I used to have problems with writers using real people as characters, especially if it has something negative to say, but now I now I look at these as creations. This is not the Einstein of reality although there may be men like Fowler's fictive Einstein, and that's the point.

What's So Funny about Secret Hate, Love, and Understanding, X-Men (review / discussion)

Friend and fellow writer, Susan Linville, I believe, was the first to break down the magazines by gender.  I remember us discussing it with Karen Joy Fowler.  My pulled-from-the-butt theory was that boys liked to read about a boy's adventure.  

When I was poetry editor at Abyss & Apex, however, I consistently surprised myself by sometimes selecting more poems from women than men.  I never thought about it consciously but would look at the contents in retrospect.  My theory became that maybe I was biased in favor of women.  I do enjoy--favor?--discussions with females.

Overall, though, the contents were about 50-50 while I was editor.  It wasn't something I'd planned.  I never counted up the slush-pile contributors, though I suspect they were equal numbers. When I tried to edit an experimental anthology, the slush-pile contents were overwhelmingly male and the female contributions weren't very interesting.  Maybe it sounded like a boy's game, so the girls decided not to play.

In John ONeill's "An Open Letter to Dave Truesdale", he lists why he thinks he and Truesdale were sexist.  I don't buy Truesdale's assertion that “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.”  The statement has no flexibility for human error for one thing.  Also, SF has often favored one creature over another.  Some people prefer women in charge, some men.  The world is full of bias. True, though, is that SF has always been at the forefront against such racism and sexism, including positive portrayals of the other. Maybe that is what Truesdale meant to say.

My problem is mind-reading other people and saying that so-and-so's racist or sexist, without evidence or with secret evidence that may or may not be valid evidence.  Feel free to speak of your experience, not other people.

Often, when people do deconstruction, they don't do it properly.  It requires an understanding of the work before analysis, and then using that analysis to inform the deconstruction.  But most people have good intentions, trying to end hate.

X-Men Spoilers:

Charles Coleman Finlay analyzes X-Men but performs deconstruction before analyzing the movie, which boils down to not necessarily killing all of your enemies (which seems pertinent to this discussion in more ways than one).  Finlay writes, "[T]he whole premise of the movie is that Mystique is so awesome and effective at identifying her targets and following through on her plans that she literally changes the course of human history. Of course, it's a terrible future. Because she created it and she's a woman."

I watched a different movie it would seem.  First, we have three central characters in the past--Charles, Magneto, and Mystique.  All three are problematic, but Mystique may be the least problematic, the least psychologically damaged.  Not only is one of the writers (at least appears to be) a woman, Jane Goldman, but also Mystique is rather more powerfully portrayed than in any of the other movies.  With the other leaders incapacitated, she alone is saving mutants from experimentation.  Her DNA holds the technological key to destroying all mutants.  Living in the past, she does not know this--just as none of us know the future.  She holds the key to saving everyone in the end.  She is flawed, but that only serves to make her human.  Wolverine, really, is little more than a messenger--albeit a necessary one.

In fact, one might make a case that to go against this movie where a female is so pivotal to the story is to be sexist.  After all, she's the most interesting, least flat character in the movie.  But this, again, is problematic mind-reading.  Finlay means well.

I'll just address Finlay's further comments (his in quotes):

"And hey, Mystique talks to him the next day and forgives him, so why can't we?"

Does she?  Does shooting him in the neck and putting him in the hands of Charles so she can do what she wants represent forgiveness?

"when his chance comes he goes inside her head and physically controls her, at least long enough to make a speech about how important it is for her to make up her own mind."

But of course he controls other people as well.  Don't forget she's been moved by what's happened to the mutants.  It would take anyone a lot of convincing... plus revenge stories are tiresome.  I'd rather we didn't champion the destruction of others, even if we disagree with them. (We could also couch this in terms of handicapped vs. non-handicapped and have a very different sort of discussion.)

"So the world is a better place because Mystique grows and changes as a person. And when we snap back to the future, we'll get to see a glimpse of her and how she's changed. Hahaha! Sorry. Just like Mystique only functions earlier in the story as a foil for Charles' man-pain vs. Magneto's man-pain, she's completely absent from the denouement. Because her growth as a character is irrelevant to the rewards that the men-folks get for a job well done."

Again, we have to follow story logic.  Mystique isn't a part of Xavier Academy, which is where Wolverine ends up.  This is the team we've been following, not Magneto and Mystique.  Besides the denouement isn't about any one person but about how the Academy is back and history has changed somehow.  The end.  And again, no one is more interesting than Mystique--the supposed bad guy, helping others.  Her pain is far more fascinating than Charles' or Magneto's.  Besides, look where she stands in the poster:  ahead of all guys except our POV.  Although she is not fully informed about the future, who is?  


Three cheers for Finlay sticking up for underdogs.  Three cheers for X-Men--a fine movie in terms of speculation and large ensemble cast, which is always difficult to tackle and not make all characters look flat.  Three cheers for Truesdale and O'Neill.  Even if we don't agree, who says we have to?  Share a beer, clink your mugs.  As Elvis Costello told us, "What's so funny about peace, love and understanding?" (BTW, isn't Elvis better looking now than as a lad?)