Richard Feynman’s Letter to His Departed Wife: “You, Dead, Are So Much Better Than Anyone Else Alive” (1946)

feynman letter to wife

In June 1945, the 27-year-old physi­cist Richard Feyn­man lost his wife, Arline Feyn­man, to tuber­cu­lo­sis. Only 25 years old, she was Richard’s high-school sweet­heart. And yet she was much more. As Lawrence Krauss writes in 2012 biog­ra­phy on Feyn­man:

Richard and Arline were soul mates. They were not clones of each oth­er, but sym­bi­ot­ic oppo­sites — each com­plet­ed the oth­er. Arline admired Richard’s obvi­ous sci­en­tif­ic bril­liance, and Richard clear­ly adored the fact that she loved and under­stood things he could bare­ly appre­ci­ate at the time. But what they shared, most of all, was a love of life and a spir­it of adven­ture.

Dur­ing their years togeth­er, Richard and Arline exchanged fre­quent let­ters, many now col­lect­ed in the vol­ume, Per­fect­ly Rea­son­able Devi­a­tions from the Beat­en Track. But none is more poignant than the one writ­ten to Arline six­teen months after her death. Still despair­ing, still lost, Feyn­man wrote a cathar­tic let­ter that was sealed and nev­er opened until his own death in 1988. Deeply touch­ing, it reads as fol­lows:

Octo­ber 17, 1946

D’Arline,

I adore you, sweet­heart.

I know how much you like to hear that — but I don’t only write it because you like it — I write it because it makes me warm all over inside to write it to you.

It is such a ter­ri­bly long time since I last wrote to you — almost two years but I know you’ll excuse me because you under­stand how I am, stub­born and real­is­tic; and I thought there was no sense to writ­ing.

But now I know my dar­ling wife that it is right to do what I have delayed in doing, and that I have done so much in the past. I want to tell you I love you. I want to love you. I always will love you.

I find it hard to under­stand in my mind what it means to love you after you are dead — but I still want to com­fort and take care of you — and I want you to love me and care for me. I want to have prob­lems to dis­cuss with you — I want to do lit­tle projects with you. I nev­er thought until just now that we can do that. What should we do. We start­ed to learn to make clothes togeth­er — or learn Chi­nese — or get­ting a movie pro­jec­tor. Can’t I do some­thing now? No. I am alone with­out you and you were the “idea-woman” and gen­er­al insti­ga­tor of all our wild adven­tures.

When you were sick you wor­ried because you could not give me some­thing that you want­ed to and thought I need­ed. You needn’t have wor­ried. Just as I told you then there was no real need because I loved you in so many ways so much. And now it is clear­ly even more true — you can give me noth­ing now yet I love you so that you stand in my way of lov­ing any­one else — but I want you to stand there. You, dead, are so much bet­ter than any­one else alive.

I know you will assure me that I am fool­ish and that you want me to have full hap­pi­ness and don’t want to be in my way. I’ll bet you are sur­prised that I don’t even have a girl­friend (except you, sweet­heart) after two years. But you can’t help it, dar­ling, nor can I — I don’t under­stand it, for I have met many girls and very nice ones and I don’t want to remain alone — but in two or three meet­ings they all seem ash­es. You only are left to me. You are real.

My dar­ling wife, I do adore you.

I love my wife. My wife is dead.

Rich.

PS Please excuse my not mail­ing this — but I don’t know your new address.

via the always great Let­ters of Note

Relate Con­tent:

‘The Char­ac­ter of Phys­i­cal Law’: Richard Feynman’s Leg­endary Lec­ture Series at Cor­nell, 1964

Richard Feyn­man Presents Quan­tum Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics for the Non­Sci­en­tist

Leonard Susskind, Father of String The­o­ry, Warm­ly Remem­bers His Friend, Richard Feyn­man

Free Online Physics Cours­es

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 21 ) |

George Saunders Extols the Virtues of Kindness in 2013 Speech to Syracuse University Grads

George_Saunders_by_David_Shankbone

Full dis­clo­sure: I love George Saun­ders. Can I say that? Can I say that George Saun­ders rekin­dled my faith in con­tem­po­rary fic­tion? Is that too fawn­ing? Obse­quious, but true! Oh, how bored I had become with fourth-hand deriv­a­tive Carv­er, cheap­ened Cheev­er, some­times the sad approx­i­ma­tions of Chuck Palah­niuk. So bor­ing. It had got­ten so all I could read was Philip K. Dick, over and over and over. And Alice Walk­er. And Wuther­ing Heights. And Thomas Hardy. Do you see the pass I’d come to? Then Saun­ders. In a writ­ing class I took, with one of Gor­don Lish’s acolytes (no names), I read Saun­ders. I read Wells Tow­ers, Pad­gett Pow­ell, Aimee Bender—a host of mod­ern writ­ers who were doing some­thing new, in short, some­times very short, forms, but explo­sive!

What is it about George Saun­ders that grips? He has mas­tered friv­o­li­ty, turned it into an art of dia­mond-like com­pres­sion. And for this, he gets a MacArthur Fel­low­ship? Well, yes. Because what he does is bril­liant, in its shock­ing­ly unaf­fect­ed obser­va­tions of human­i­ty. George Saun­ders is an accom­plished writer who puts lit­tle store in his accom­plish­ments. Instead, he val­ues kind­ness most of all, and gen­eros­i­ty. These are the qual­i­ties he extols, in his typ­i­cal­ly droll man­ner, in a grad­u­a­tion speech he deliv­ered to the 2013 grad­u­at­ing class at Syra­cuse Uni­ver­si­ty. Kind­ness: a lit­tle virtue, you might say. The New York Times has pub­lished his speech, and I urge you to read it in full. I’m going to give you half, below, and chal­lenge you to find George Saun­ders want­i­ng.

Down through the ages, a tra­di­tion­al form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dread­ful mis­takes (that would be me), gives heart­felt advice to a group of shin­ing, ener­getic young peo­ple, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).

And I intend to respect that tra­di­tion.

Now, one use­ful thing you can do with an old per­son, in addi­tion to bor­row­ing mon­ey from them, or ask­ing them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laugh­ing, is ask: “Look­ing back, what do you regret?”  And they’ll tell you.  Some­times, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked.  Some­times, even when you’ve specif­i­cal­ly request­ed they not tell you, they’ll tell you.

So: What do I regret?  Being poor from time to time?  Not real­ly.  Work­ing ter­ri­ble jobs, like “knuck­le-puller in a slaugh­ter­house?”  (And don’t even ASK what that entails.)  No.  I don’t regret that.  Skin­ny-dip­ping in a riv­er in Suma­tra, a lit­tle buzzed, and look­ing up and see­ing like 300 mon­keys sit­ting on a pipeline, poop­ing down into the riv­er, the riv­er in which I was swim­ming, with my mouth open, naked?  And get­ting death­ly ill after­wards, and stay­ing sick for the next sev­en months?  Not so much.  Do I regret the occa­sion­al humil­i­a­tion?  Like once, play­ing hock­ey in front of a big crowd, includ­ing this girl I real­ly liked, I some­how man­aged, while falling and emit­ting this weird whoop­ing noise, to score on my own goalie, while also send­ing my stick fly­ing into the crowd, near­ly hit­ting that girl?  No.  I don’t even regret that.

But here’s some­thing I do regret:

In sev­enth grade, this new kid joined our class.  In the inter­est of con­fi­den­tial­i­ty, her Con­vo­ca­tion Speech name will be “ELLEN.”  ELLEN was small, shy.  She wore these blue cat’s‑eye glass­es that, at the time, only old ladies wore.  When ner­vous, which was pret­ty much always, she had a habit of tak­ing a strand of hair into her mouth and chew­ing on it.

So she came to our school and our neigh­bor­hood, and was most­ly ignored, occa­sion­al­ly teased (“Your hair taste good?” – that sort of thing).  I could see this hurt her.  I still remem­ber the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a lit­tle gut-kicked, as if, hav­ing just been remind­ed of her place in things, she was try­ing, as much as pos­si­ble, to dis­ap­pear.  After awhile she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth.  At home, I imag­ined, after school, her moth­er would say, you know: “How was your day, sweet­ie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.”  And her moth­er would say, “Mak­ing any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”

Some­times I’d see her hang­ing around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.

And then – they moved.  That was it.  No tragedy, no big final haz­ing.

One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.

End of sto­ry.

Now, why do I regret that?  Why, forty-two years lat­er, am I still think­ing about it?  Rel­a­tive to most of the oth­er kids, I was actu­al­ly pret­ty nice to her.  I nev­er said an unkind word to her.  In fact, I some­times even (mild­ly) defend­ed her.

But still.  It both­ers me.

So here’s some­thing I know to be true, although it’s a lit­tle corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:

What I regret most in my life are fail­ures of kind­ness. 

Those moments when anoth­er human being was there, in front of me, suf­fer­ing, and I responded…sensibly.  Reserved­ly.  Mild­ly.

Or, to look at it from the oth­er end of the tele­scope:  Who, in your life, do you remem­ber most fond­ly, with the most unde­ni­able feel­ings of warmth?

Those who were kind­est to you, I bet.

It’s a lit­tle facile, maybe, and cer­tain­ly hard to imple­ment, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.

Read the rest of Saun­ders’ speech here, and be moved. Try not to be.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

10 Free Sto­ries by George Saun­ders, Author of Tenth of Decem­ber, “The Best Book You’ll Read This Year”

Oprah Winfrey’s Har­vard Com­mence­ment Speech: Fail­ure is Just Part of Mov­ing Through Life

David Byrne’s Grad­u­a­tion Speech Offers Trou­bling and Encour­ag­ing Advice for Stu­dents in the Arts

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Alan Turing, Brilliant Mathematician and Code Breaker, Will Be Finally Pardoned by British Government

turing pardon“Alan Tur­ing, the Enig­ma code­break­er who took his own life after being con­vict­ed of gross inde­cen­cy under anti-homo­sex­u­al­i­ty leg­is­la­tion, is to be giv­en a posthu­mous par­don,” writes The Guardian today. One of the great math­e­mati­cians of the last cen­tu­ry, Tur­ing laid the foun­da­tions for com­put­er sci­ence and played a key role in break­ing the Nazi Enig­ma code dur­ing World War II. Despite his con­tri­bu­tions to defend­ing Britain, Tur­ing was pros­e­cut­ed in 1952 for engag­ing in homo­sex­u­al acts under an 1885 law that led to the con­vic­tions of 49,000 gay men, includ­ing Oscar Wilde. It’s a sad tale that gets recount­ed by anoth­er com­put­er pio­neer Jaron Lanier here:

For years, sup­port­ers have called upon the British gov­ern­ment to issue a posthu­mous par­don. And while British Prime Min­is­ter Gor­don Brown apol­o­gized in 2010 for “the appalling way [Tur­ing] was treat­ed,” mem­bers of the House of Lords resist­ed issu­ing an actu­al par­don as recent­ly as last year. But, accord­ing to The Guardian, leg­is­la­tors are pre­pared to pass a new bill as ear­ly as this Octo­ber. As many of our read­ers will be quick to point out, the con­cept  of a par­don is a bit strange, see­ing that Tur­ing did noth­ing wrong. But the will­ing­ness of the gov­ern­ment to effec­tive­ly nul­li­fy the con­vic­tion and reject an archa­ic law is a wel­comed piece of news.

via @phi­los­o­phy­bites

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch the 1996 Film, Break­ing the Code, Star­ring Derek Jaco­bi

The Enig­ma Machine: How Alan Tur­ing Helped Break the Unbreak­able Nazi Code

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 6 ) |

Have I Told You Lately That I Love You?: A 1958 Look at How Modern Gadgets & Conveniences Lead to Existential Hell

Think grow­ing feel­ings of iso­la­tion in a world of mod­ern con­ve­niences is a new phe­nom­e­non? Slap a dial on that smart­phone, shove a col­lectible rock­et in your kid’s cere­al box, hop in a Cad­dy with fins and think again, pal!

Have I Told You Late­ly That I Love You, a cau­tion­ary tale cre­at­ed by Uni­ver­si­ty of South­ern Cal­i­for­nia stu­dents in 1958, is a far-from-silent film marked by a near-total absence of human speech. The lit­tle boy char­ac­ter seems hap­py enough with his pop­si­cle and tele­vi­sion West­erns, but his white-col­lar dad and house­wife mom are marooned in their indi­vid­ual exis­ten­tial hells, unable to con­nect. Could the new­fan­gled, labor sav­ing devices with which their home and dad’s work­place abound be to blame?

The newsy radio report play­ing inter­mit­tent­ly in the back­ground would cer­tain­ly have it so. Sto­ries of hair loss, headaches and a kid shoot­ing his father over a TV-relat­ed dis­pute sug­gest none too sub­tly that progress has long been a source of anx­i­ety.

I might sug­gest that the moth­er is suf­fer­ing more from the rigid gen­der roles of her era than the tyran­ny of an auto­mat­ic dish­wash­er. Per­haps the sub­urbs weren’t offer­ing them much in the way of com­mu­ni­ty. Isn’t it pos­si­ble that the rela­tion­ship has gone cold due to the father’s pen­chant for hop­ping in bed with the girls from the steno pool?

That’s pret­ty stan­dard behav­ior on Mad Men, no?

While this short film offers none of the afore­men­tioned’s sexy, booze-soaked highs, there’s quite a bit of black-and-white design porn on dis­play. Dic­ta­phones, gleam­ing kitchen appli­ances,  a music box that dis­pens­es cig­a­rettes…

Oth­er­wise it’s a vision of an aver­age Amer­i­can 1950’s fam­i­ly as con­ceived of by Ing­mar Bergman.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Before Mad Men: Famil­iar and For­got­ten Ads from 1950s to 1980s Now Online

How a Clean, Tidy Home Can Help You Sur­vive the Atom­ic Bomb: A Cold War Film from 1954

How the CIA Secret­ly Fund­ed Abstract Expres­sion­ism Dur­ing the Cold War

Ayun Hal­l­i­day has always pre­ferred the Roar­ing Twen­ties. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

The Real Value of a Guitar

True sto­ry — back in 2010 I bought a Mar­tin D‑28 from (gulp) Gui­tar Cen­ter. The sales­man rushed me out of the store and did­n’t both­er to tune the gui­tar, let alone set it up prop­er­ly. When I got home, I felt imme­di­ate buy­er’s remorse — remorse not that I had bought the Mar­tin, but that I had­n’t bought it from the best lit­tle gui­tar shop in the San Fran­cis­co Bay area, Gryphon Strings. The next day, I did the right thing. I returned the Mar­tin to GC and re-bought the same gui­tar from Gryphon. I lost a few bucks in the process. But the gui­tar was set up just right. And I felt unbur­dened. Les­son learned.

Nowa­days, I stop by Gryphon week­ly for lessons and occa­sion­al sali­va­tion ses­sions, and I get to see first­hand what this video by Cin­e­ma Mer­can­tile lets you see all too briefly. The care, craft and emo­tion (note the poignant chin quiver at the 2:22 mark) that goes into work­ing with gui­tars … if you’re doing it for the right rea­sons. In Sil­i­con Val­ley, there are very few places where busi­ness isn’t the main rea­son for being. Gryphon offers a good escape from that some­times soul-dead­en­ing real­i­ty. That’s why I will be head­ing back there tomor­row.

You can find two more short films by Cin­e­ma Mer­can­tile here.

via The Atlantic

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Sto­ry of the Gui­tar: The Com­plete Three-Part Doc­u­men­tary

The Art of Mak­ing a Fla­men­co Gui­tar: 299 Hours of Blood, Sweat & Tears Expe­ri­enced in 3 Min­utes

Mak­ing Fend­er Gui­tars, Then (1959) and Now (2012)

The Joy of Mak­ing Artis­tic Home­made Gui­tars

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 5 ) |

Mark Twain Drafts the Ultimate Letter of Complaint (1905)

TwainComplaint

Click above for a larg­er ver­sion of page one and click here to see page two. 

I recent­ly made the mis­take of craft­ing a let­ter of com­plaint that sound­ed much more tem­per­ate than I felt. On the advice of my hus­band, I delet­ed any­thing smack­ing of emo­tion, lim­it­ing my griev­ances to incon­tro­vert­ible fact. A month lat­er and I am still wait­ing for a reply.

Wish that I had let it all hang out, as Mark Twain did in the above 1905 let­ter to J. H. Todd, a snake oil sales­man whose “Elixir of Life” was alleged to cure even the most ter­mi­nal of med­ical con­di­tions. How sat­is­fy­ing it would have been to indulge in phras­es like “idiot of the 33rd degree” and “scion of an ances­tral pro­ces­sion of idiots stretch­ing back to the Miss­ing Link”!

Hav­ing answered phones in cus­tomer ser­vice, I can attest that there are times when such phras­es are mis­di­rect­ed. This was not one of them. Sub­ject your­self to a thor­ough read­ing of the Elixir’s claims (a typog­ra­phy chal­lenge on order of a Dr. Bron­ner’s label) and you will share the author’s out­rage.

Char­la­tans could be dealt with light­ly in lit­er­a­ture—wit­ness Huck­le­ber­ry Finn’s self-pro­claimed Duke—but hav­ing lost chil­dren to two of the dis­eases Tod­d’s potion pur­port­ed to cure, Twain refused to let Todd off the hook in real life. His “unkind state of mind” is as brac­ing as it is war­rant­ed.

Though I doubt he got a reply either.

Tran­scrip­tion:

Nov. 20. 1905

J. H. Todd

1212 Web­ster St.

San Fran­cis­co, Cal.

Dear Sir,

Your let­ter is an insol­u­ble puz­zle to me. The hand­writ­ing is good and exhibits con­sid­er­able char­ac­ter, and there are even traces of intel­li­gence in what you say, yet the let­ter and the accom­pa­ny­ing adver­tise­ments pro­fess to be the work of the same hand. The per­son who wrote the adver­tise­ments is with­out doubt the most igno­rant per­son now alive on the plan­et; also with­out doubt he is an idiot, an idiot of the 33rd degree, and scion of an ances­tral pro­ces­sion of idiots stretch­ing back to the Miss­ing Link. It puz­zles me to make out how the same hand could have con­struct­ed your let­ter and your adver­tise­ments. Puz­zles fret me, puz­zles annoy me, puz­zles exas­per­ate me; and always, for a moment, they arouse in me an unkind state of mind toward the per­son who has puz­zled me. A few moments from now my resent­ment will have fad­ed and passed and I shall prob­a­bly even be pray­ing for you; but while there is yet time I has­ten to wish that you may take a dose of your own poi­son by mis­take, and enter swift­ly into the damna­tion which you and all oth­er patent med­i­cine assas­sins have so remorse­less­ly earned and do so rich­ly deserve.

Adieu, adieu, adieu!

Mark Twain

via Let­ters of Note

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mark Twain Wrote the First Book Ever Writ­ten With a Type­writer

Mark Twain Shirt­less in 1883 Pho­to

Mark Twain Cap­tured on Film by Thomas Edi­son in 1909. It’s the Only Known Footage of the Author.

Ayun Hal­l­i­day sus­pects Mum­my Pow­der is not an effec­tive treat­ment for epilep­sy. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

New Yorker Cartoon Editor Bob Mankoff Reveals the Secret of a Successful New Yorker Cartoon

A friend of mine rails against the New York­er’s week­ly car­toon cap­tion con­test, insist­ing that while the read­er-sub­mit­ted entries are uni­ver­sal­ly bad, the win­ner is always the weak­est of the lot.

I dis­agree, agog at peo­ple’s clev­er­ness. Any line I come up with feels too obvi­ous or too obscure. Unlike my friend, I nev­er feel I could do bet­ter.

Car­toon edi­tor Bob Mankof­f’s recent TED Talk offers some key insights into what the mag­a­zine is look­ing for (incon­gruity, dis­po­si­tion­al humor, cog­ni­tive mash ups), as well as what it’s not inter­est­ed in (gross-out jokes, mild child-cen­tered can­ni­bal­ism) He also cites for­mer con­trib­u­tor and author of my father’s favorite New York­er car­toon, E.B. White on the futil­i­ty of ana­lyz­ing humor.

Fre­quent con­trib­u­tor Matthew Dif­fee’s short  satir­i­cal film Being Bob sug­gests Mankoff edi­to­r­i­al selec­tions owe much to gut response (and a jerk­ing knee). Such intu­ition is hard won. Mankoff glee­ful­ly alludes to the 2000 rejec­tion let­ters he him­self received between 1974 and 1977, fol­low­ing an uncer­e­mo­ni­ous dis­missal from psy­chol­o­gy school. Then, final­ly, he got his first accep­tance.

That accep­tance let­ter is some­thing to see.

Ayun Hal­l­i­day used Charles Bar­sotti’s New York­er car­toon of a danc­ing bird as her high­school year­book’s senior say­ing. Fol­low her @AyunHalliday

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The New Yorker’s Fic­tion Pod­cast: Where Great Writ­ers Read Sto­ries by Great Writ­ers

Improv with New York­er Car­toon­ists

Einstein’s Rel­a­tiv­i­ty: An Ani­mat­ed New York­er Car­toon

In “The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows,” Artist John Koenig Names Feelings that Leave Us Speechless

It may be a mis­con­cep­tion, it may be a cliché: I’m not a Ger­man speaker—but read­ing translator’s intro­duc­tions to, say, Kant, Hegel or Goethe has con­vinced me that their lan­guage does a much bet­ter job than Eng­lish at cap­tur­ing those odd­ly spe­cif­ic twi­light moods and com­pound feel­ings that so often escape def­i­n­i­tion. Then again, Eng­lish absorbs, can­ni­bal­izes, appro­pri­ates, steals, and bas­tardizes words wher­ev­er it can find them, dri­ving lex­i­cog­ra­phers and gram­mar purists mad.

Graph­ic design­er and film­mak­er John Koenig does all of these things in his “Dic­tio­nary of Obscure Sor­rows,” a blog project in which he names emo­tions that oth­er­wise leave us speech­less. In his short video above, he illus­trates one of his words, “Son­der,” or “the real­iza­tion that each ran­dom passer­by is liv­ing a life as vivid and com­plex as your own…”—something like the shock of sud­den empa­thy that shakes us out of navel-gaz­ing. It’s an emo­tion I’ve expe­ri­enced, with­out know­ing what to call it.

This being an “obscure sor­row,” there’s more to it than empathy—in Koenig’s poet­ic video, “son­der” relates to the infi­nite num­ber of over­lap­ping sto­ries, in which each of us feels we are the hero, oth­ers sup­port­ing cast or extras. In a state of “son­der,” we sud­den­ly occu­py all of those roles at once, our screen time dimin­ish­ing as oth­ers take the lead. After watch­ing Koenig’s film, I’m think­ing “son­der” is a port­man­teau of “sub­lime” and “won­der.” It’s a mys­ti­cal phi­los­o­phy con­tained with­in a sin­gle made-up word.

Some oth­er Koenig coinages: “Ruck­kehrun­ruhe,” “nodus tol­lens,” “adroni­tis,” “rig­or sam­sa”.…. I leave it to you to vis­it Koenig’s Dic­tio­nary and learn what these words mean. It’s an expe­ri­ence well worth your time.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

 

The Atlas of True Names Restores Mod­ern Cities to Their Mid­dle Earth-ish Roots

The His­to­ry of the Eng­lish Lan­guage in Ten Ani­mat­ed Min­utes

Oxford Schol­ars Name Top Ten Irri­tat­ing Phras­es

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast