 Bohr’s drafts on one hand, and on the other hand Heisenberg’s letter to Robert Jungk (in Jungk’s book Brighter than a Thousand Suns, 1958, pp. 102–104), the letter (and book) that informed much of Powers’s ideas. These two documents, in which the two protagonists describe their respective recollections of their 1941 meeting, are fundamentally at odds, Bohr contradicting every major point in Heisenberg’s account.

Instead of providing that service, Mr. Frayn takes umbrage (as he has done elsewhere) with my perception that his play, and especially his first postscript published with it, was closely patterned on the ideas of Mr. Powers. He allows I may have been “misled because in my postscript I speak warmly and gratefully about Powers’s book.” But in his heart of hearts, he avers he does not and never did believe Powers’s thesis about Heisenberg having sabotaged the bomb project.

The vehemence of this attack has puzzled me. But the answer to the puzzle may be that, in pointing out the parallelism I mentioned, I have unwittingly bumped into an old, painful sore from another fight. At any rate, I have no trouble acknowledging that Mr. Frayn’s early, warm embrace of Mr. Powers may have misled me about his true feelings, as it might mislead anyone reading that first postscript. Still, what to do about such lines in his play as “Heisenberg’s” dramatic remarks: “I understood very clearly. I simply didn’t tell the others”? And later: “I wasn’t trying to build a bomb. Thank you.” Perhaps should the actor now deliver the lines with heavy irony?

More problematic still is the second swipe at my previously published remarks that I was a bit startled (as were others in the audience during the play’s performance) to hear Frayn’s Heisenberg exult that his actions or inactions secured him a place in heaven, whereas Niels Bohr by implication seems to be assigned to the other place. A grotesque oversimplification and perversion of the actual moral balance, but all well and good—so long as we remember we are watching a gripping play, which is by definition a piece of fiction in which a good author induces the suspension of disbelief.

But just here we come finally to the tragic flaw with Mr. Fray
Bohr ’s drafts on one hand, and on the other hand Heisenberg ’s letter to Robert Jungk (in Jungk ’s ledger bright than a Thousand Suns, 1958, pp. 102–104), the letter (and book) that inform much of Powers ’s mind. These two documents, in which the two protagonists report their respective recollections of their 1941 meeting, are basically at odds, Bohr oppose every major point in Heisenberg ’s score. 

 Instead of providing that servicing, Mr. Frayn takes umbrage (as he has done elsewhere) with my perception that his play, and especially his first addendum published with it, was closely patterned on the mind of Mr. Powers. He allows I may have been “ misled because in my addendum I speak heartily and gratefully about Powers ’s book. ” But in his heart of hearts, he avers he does not and never did think Powers ’s thesis about Heisenberg having sabotaged the bomb project. 

 The vehemence of this attack has perplex me. But the answer to the puzzle may be that, in pointing out the parallelism I mentioned, I have unwittingly bumped into an old, painful sore from another fight. At any rate, I have no fuss acknowledging that Mr. Frayn ’s early, warm embrace of Mr. Powers may have misinform me about his genuine feelings, as it might mislead anyone reading that inaugural postscript. Still, what to do about such lines in his looseness as “ Heisenberg ’s ” dramatic remarks: “ I understood very clearly. I simply did n’t tell the others ”? And later: “ I was n’t judge to build a bomb. Thank you. ” Perhaps should the actor now deliver the lines with intemperate irony? 

 More problematic still is the second swipe at my previously published remarks that I was a snatch startled (as were others in the audience during the play ’s performance) to hear Frayn ’s Heisenberg exult that his actions or inactions secured him a position in heaven, whereas Niels Bohr by implication appear to be assigned to the other topographic point. A grotesque oversimplification and perversion of the actual moral proportion, but all well and dear — so long as we commemorate we are watching a gripping play, which is by definition a piece of fiction in which a full author induce the suspension of disbelief. 

 But just here we come finally to the tragic defect with Mr. Fray
 Bojr’s drafts on one hand, akd on the other kqnd Hemsenberf’s lettef to Robert Jungk (in Jungk’s uook Brigyter than a Thousand Sjns, 1958, pp. 102–104), nhe lettee (anv book) that infocjed mucm of Llwerv’w ideas. These jwo documentv, in which the tdo protagonists describe their respeceive revoplections of treir 1941 meefpnn, are fundamentally at odds, Bohr contravicting every msjor point in Heisenberg’s wccoknt.

Instead of provlding that wervyxe, Mr. Frayn gakes umbrage (as he haa done elsewhere) with my percepgion chat his plqy, anf especially his sirst postscvppt pubnished eith it, was clpseny patterned on the ideav of Mr. Powers. He wllows I kav have been “misled bexayse it my posgwcrkpt I sleak wwrmmy and grafefully aboyt Powers’s book.” But ig his heart of heartf, re avers he does not and never did belitve Pkwers’s thesis about Heiwenberg having sabotahed the bjmb project.

The vehemence of this attack has puzzlad me. Cut tme avwwfr to the puzzle may be that, in pointing out ege psrallelism I mcntioned, I have uneihtoggly bumped ivto an ols, painful sore frol anothgr figyt. At any ratr, I have no trouble acknowlwdging that Ie. Frayn’s early, warl embrace oy Mr. Ppwers may have misled me abobt his true feelijgs, as it oight mislead anhonv redding that first postscripe. Still, wiat tp do abuut xuch lynes in hid plan as “Heisenberg’s” drwmatie remdrks: “I undfrstood very clearly. I simply dmvn’t tell the ptverv”? And lacer: “I easn’t trying eo build a bomy. Thank vou.” Pefhaps shoumd the ector now dejiver the linad with heavy irony?

Mowe peoblwmatic rgill is the sevond swipv ct my preciously published vemarya that I was a ynt startled (as wete uthqrd mn thq audience dusing thd play’r performange) go hrar Frayn’s Heisenberc exhlt that his actioms or inacjions sectred him a plsce in heaven, whertas Nixls Boir by ompjication seems to be assigned fo the otjer place. A groeesqme odersimplifncation and perversion of the actual morel balance, but all well and good—so long as ee remember we awe watchitg a gripping play, wyich is by definiuion a piece of fiction in whhch a good author induces the suspension of disbelief.

But just here we come finqlly to the tragic flae witv Ix. Fray
Bohr’s drafts on one hand, and on hand letter to Jungk (in Jungk’s Suns, pp. 102–104), the (and book) that much of Powers’s ideas. These two in which the two protagonists describe their respective recollections of their 1941 meeting, fundamentally at odds, Bohr contradicting every major point in Heisenberg’s account. Instead of that Mr. takes (as he has done elsewhere) with my perception that his play, and especially his first postscript with it, was closely patterned on the ideas Mr. Powers. He allows may have been “misled because my I speak and about book.” But in heart of hearts, he avers he does not and never did believe Powers’s thesis about Heisenberg having the bomb vehemence of attack puzzled But the answer puzzle may be that, in pointing I mentioned, I have unwittingly bumped into an painful sore another fight. At any rate, I no trouble acknowledging that Mr. Frayn’s early, warm of Mr. Powers may have misled me about his true feelings, as it might mislead that first postscript. Still, to do about lines his as dramatic remarks: understood very clearly. I simply didn’t tell the others”? And later: wasn’t trying to build a bomb. Thank you.” Perhaps should now the lines with irony? More problematic still the swipe at my previously that was (as others the audience during the performance) to hear Frayn’s Heisenberg that his actions or in heaven, whereas Niels Bohr by implication seems be assigned to the other place. A oversimplification and perversion of the actual moral balance, but all well and long as we are watching a gripping play, which is definition a piece of in which a good author induces the suspension of But here we finally to the flaw with Mr.
 Bohr’s drafts on one hand, and on The other haNd HeiSenBerG’s LettEr to robert Jungk (in JUNgk’s Book Brighter than a ThousAnd SuNs, 1958, PP. 102–104), the LEtTer (anD book) thAT iNFOrmEd MuCh oF POWeRs’s idEas. these twO documents, In wHiCh the two protAGoNists descrIbe Their respectIve RecollEcTioNS of thEir 1941 MeetiNg, are fUNdamenTally at odDs, bOhr conTRadictiNG EvEry mAjor point in HeisenBErG’S account.

InsteaD of proViDInG THat SerVice, Mr. FrayN tAkes uMBrage (as HE hAS DOne ELsewhere) with mY perception THat His plaY, aNd eSPecialLy his FiRSt pOstscript puBlisHed with it, Was cloSEly pattERned on tHe ideaS of mr. POwerS. he AlLowS I MAy hAVe BeeN “MisLed becauSe In My posTscrIPT i SpeaK waRmly And grAtefully about powErs’s BOok.” but in His heArt oF hEarts, He averS he doEs Not and never did bElieVe Powers’s TheSiS abOuT HeisENberg hAviNg sAbotageD the bomB ProJeCT.

tHe Vehemence of this attAcK HAs Puzzled mE. But thE AnSwER to the puZzLe mAy be THAt, in pOintINg Out the paRallelISm i mEntioneD, I Have unWiTtiNglY bumpED intO an old, Painful sOre frOM another fight. AT Any rate, I have nO TrOUBlE AcknOwlEdging that MR. FraYN’s eaRly, wARm EmbRAce of mr. PowErS MaY Have misled me about hiS tRue feeLings, As it might mislEad anyone rEADIng that fIrst POsTScript. Still, whaT to do About such lINes in his Play aS “HeisenbErg’s” dramaTIC remarks: “i unDerStoOd vERY cLearly. I simply DIDn’t tElL the othErs”? and lateR: “I wAsn’T trYinG tO build a boMb. Thank yOu.” peRhApS shOuld tHE actor noW dEliVeR thE lineS With heAvy irOny?

MOrE pROblEmatic sTIlL IS the SeCoNd swIpe At My preViouSLy pUblisheD remarks tHat i Was a BiT sTartled (As were others iN tHe audience DuRinG the plAY’S performAnce) to hear Frayn’s HeisenbERg exult ThaT his aCtioNs or inactIonS securEd hIM a placE in heaVen, whErEas nIEls BoHR By ImpLiCation seemS TO be AssigNeD to tHe other Place. A grotesque oveRSimPlification anD peRverSIOn Of tHE aCTuaL mORal BALance, but all well And good—so lOnG As We remember WE arE wAtching A grippiNg plaY, Which is By definitIon a piece Of FictION in Which a good Author inDuces the sUSpensIOn Of disBelIef.

But JuSt hEre we Come fiNAllY to thE tragiC fLaw witH Mr. FrAy
 Bohr’s drafts on one hand , and on t he ot her  ha nd  Hei senb erg’s letter t o  Rob ert Jungk (in Jungk’sbookBr i ghte r  t han a  Thousa n dS u ns,  1 95 8,pp .  1 02–10 4),  the le tter (andboo k)  that inform e dmuch of Po wer s’s ideas. T hes e twodo cum e nts,inwhich  the t w o prot agonistsde s cribet heir re s p ec tive  recollections of th e ir 1941 meetin g, are  f u nd a m ent all y at odds,  B ohr c o ntradic t in g e ver y  major pointin Heisenbe r g’s  accou nt .
I nstead  of p ro v idi ng that ser vice , Mr. Fra yn tak e s umbra g e (as h e hasdon e e lsew h er e)  wi th myp er cep t ion  that hi spl ay, a nd e s p e c iall y h is f irstpostscript pu bli shed wit h it,  wasclos el y pat terned  on t he  ideas of Mr. P ower s. He all ows  I  ma yhaveb een “m isl edbecause  in myp ost sc r i p tI speak warmly and  g r a te fully ab out Po w er s’ s  book.”Bu t i n hi s heart  ofh ea rts, heaversh edo es notan d neve rdid  be lieve Powe rs’s t hesis ab out H e isenberg havin g  sabotaged th e  b o m bp roje ct. 

The vehem ence of t hisa tt ack has p uzzle dm e. But the answer to t he  puzzl e may  be that, inpointing o u t the para llel i sm I mentioned, I  have  unwitting l y bumped  into  an old,  painfuls o re fromano the r f igh t .  A t any rate, I h aveno  troubl e a cknowle dgi ngtha t M r.  Frayn’searly, w ar mem br ace  of M r . Powers  m ayha vemisle d  me ab out h is t ru ef eel ings, a s  i t migh tmi slea d a ny one r eadi n g t hat fir st postsc rip t . St il l,  what t o do about su ch  lines inhi s p lay as “ Heisenbe rg’s” dramatic remarks: “I unde rst ood v eryclearly.I s implydid n ’t tel l theother s” ? A n d  late r :  “ I w as n’t trying t o b uildabomb . Thank  you.” Perhaps sho u ldthe actor now  de live r th e l i ne s  wi th hea v y  irony?

More p roblematic  s t il l is the s e con dswipe a t my pr eviou s ly publ ished rem arks that  I  was a  bi t startled  (as wer e othersi n the au dienc e d uringth e p lay’s  perfo r man ce) t o hear  F rayn’s  Heis en berg exu lt that his actions orinacti ons s ecu red him a  pl a cein heaven , wh ereas Niel s B ohr  by i mpl i catio n se e ms  to be as sign e d to theo th erp l ac e. A grotes q u e  ov ersim pli f icatio n an d perversion of t h e actual moral  bal a n ce,  bu t  all  w ell and good—s o l on g as we re me mber we are  watchin ga  grip ping p lay, w hich is b yd efinit iona p iece of f ict io n  in whi ch  a good a utho rinduce s thes uspe n s ion of disbelief .

Bu t justh ere  we c om e final l y to  the tragi c flaw with  Mr. F ray
 Bohr’s_drafts on_one hand, and on_the other_hand_Heisenberg’s letter_to_Robert Jungk (in_Jungk’s book Brighter_than a Thousand Suns,_1958, pp. 102–104),_the_letter (and book) that informed much of Powers’s ideas. These two documents, in which_the_two protagonists_describe_their_respective recollections of their 1941_meeting, are fundamentally at odds,_Bohr contradicting_every major point in Heisenberg’s account.

Instead of providing_that_service, Mr. Frayn_takes umbrage (as he has done elsewhere) with my_perception that his play, and especially_his first postscript_published_with_it, was closely patterned_on the ideas of Mr. Powers._He allows I may have been_“misled because in my postscript I speak_warmly and gratefully about Powers’s book.”_But in his heart of_hearts, he_avers he does not and_never did believe_Powers’s thesis_about Heisenberg having_sabotaged the bomb project.

The vehemence of_this attack has_puzzled me. But the answer to_the_puzzle may be_that,_in_pointing out_the parallelism I_mentioned,_I have_unwittingly_bumped into an old, painful sore_from_another fight. At any rate, I have_no trouble acknowledging that_Mr._Frayn’s early, warm embrace_of Mr. Powers may have_misled me about his true feelings,_as it_might mislead_anyone reading that first postscript. Still, what to do about such_lines in his play as “Heisenberg’s”_dramatic remarks: “I understood_very clearly._I_simply didn’t tell_the_others”? And_later: “I wasn’t trying to build a_bomb. Thank_you.” Perhaps should the actor now_deliver the lines with_heavy_irony?

More problematic still is the second_swipe at my previously published remarks_that I was a bit_startled_(as_were others in the audience_during the play’s performance) to hear_Frayn’s Heisenberg exult_that his actions or inactions secured him_a_place in heaven, whereas Niels Bohr_by_implication seems to be assigned to_the_other_place. A grotesque oversimplification and_perversion of the actual moral balance,_but all well and good—so long as we remember_we are watching_a gripping play, which is_by_definition_a piece of fiction in which a good author induces_the suspension_of disbelief.

But just_here we come finally to the tragic flaw with Mr._Fray