En av mina fåfängor jag har lättast att erkänna är att jag starkt ogillar böcker med små cirklar på omslaget som omtalar att författaren vunnit ett pris eller att boken i fråga blivit film. Jag är därför glad att jag köpte Kai Birds och Martin J. Shermans American Prometheus – the triumph and tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer redan innan jag hörde att en film var på gång.

Oppenheimer är nämligen, för en fysiker, speciellt en som arbetar med kärnfysik, en figur att mäta sig själv mot. Inte nödvändigtvis intellektuellt eller akademiskt – trots ett briljant intellekt så saknade han den uthållighet som riktigt framgångsrika forskare har – utan snarare moraliskt. För är det någon fråga som nittonhundratalet fick forskarsamfundet att ställa sig, och där Oppenheimer är central, så är det den om ansvaret för ens resultat.

För den som sett filmen är denna huvudsakligen korrekt: några episoder har komprimerats, någons roll har tilldelats någon annan, men det mesta i filmen finns också i boken: studieåren i Europa (även om det förgiftade äpplet kanske inte var riktigt så allvarligt), åren i Kalifornien då han undervisade, byggde upp USA:s första hemvist för den nya fysiken, vänsterengagemanget, och sedan anpassningar för att få vara med och bygga atombomben. Likaså de förnedrande förhören när hans säkerhetstillstånd skulle omprövas, om möjligt kanske ännu mer intrigant orkestrerade av Lewis Strauss än filmen gav sken av. Strauss eget förhör är långt mindre viktigt, en sorts moralisk seger Oppenheimer inte verkar sökt direkt.

Det filmen i stort sett lämnar ut är Oppenheimers tidiga år (hans far var rik köpman i New York, modern konstintresserad, Robert ett ganska udda och ensamt barn vars intellekt tidigt låg i dagen), samt vad han gjorde mellan Los Alamos och säkerhetsförhören: han försökte verka inom regeringen, yrka för samtal med Sovjet, få makthavarna att inse att ingen egentlig säkerhet kan byggas upp av aldrig så stora lager atomvapen. Ej heller hans tid vid Princeton, där hans jobb var långt mer komplicerat än att bara förvara Einstein och Gödel, utan han försökte bygga upp en kultur där naturvetare och humanister kunde mötas. Och så tiden efter förhöret, då han drog sig tillbaka, gjorde gnomiska yttranden om diverse frågor men i stort sett höll sig undan från politiken.

Oppenheimer (eller »Oppie«, som författarna familjärt ofta kallar honom) var långt ifrån den ende forskaren som ställde upp för sitt land under kriget. Han var inte heller den ende som verkade brottas med hur de bomber de tagit fram användes, eller planerade användas. Hans speciella öde, den tragedi som titeln nämner, berodde delvis på att han tvivlade, men ändå försökte inom systemet. Andra gav sig tidigare, eller försökte snarast gasa på ytterligare (Edward Teller, som löste problemet med vätebomben, kommer osökt till minnes). Att Oppenheimer kunde bete sig arrogant och alienera andra hjälpte inte, ej heller att det faktiskt fanns ett visst mått av indiskretion att gräva fram. Huvudanledningen till att det gick som det gick verkar dock kunna tillskrivas Strauss personliga snarstuckenhet, långsinthet och kontakter.

Biografin ger mycket att tänka på: det grundarbete som gjorts verkar löjligt omfattande och ledde till att boken tog mer än 25 år att skriva. I många fall måste författarna ta ställning till påståenden som endast svårligen går att få ihop. Tiden som krävdes berodde inte enbart på de många intervjuerna, utan även det enorma material som i synnerhet FBI samlade in om honom, liksom de senare tolkningar, omskrivningar, vinklingar och rena lögner som kom fram (en del av dessa stod onekligen Oppenheimer för själv).

Det är farligt och skadligt för båda att försöka likställa liv med saga. Titeln på boken gör det två gånger. Jämförelsen med Prometheus är bara till hälften välfunnen (Oppenheimer straffades av de han gav den nukleära elden till, inte gudarna). Tragedi är då mer korrekt, men den stora tragedin var inte den personliga, utan den politiska: att den makt Oppenheimer varit med att frambesvärja redan från början användes för något helt annat än avsett, och att de varningar han försökte framföra inte togs på allvar. ( )

Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin collaborated on a magnificent book about J. Robert Oppenheimer, ‘The American Prometheus.’ The collaboration resulted in the blockbuster movie “Oppenheimer,” which is a magnificent film.
The story starts with his parents, their marriage, journey to America, and building a fortune in their new home. Fate and genetics are strange, because the parents–with no background in science–gave birth to two physicists, one a theoretical physicist, and the other an experimental physicist.
The authors then trace the arc of his life, from being an introverted genius to a powerful speaker and leader. Most authors glorify their subjects–not Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, as they outline his achievements and limitations. He was never good with the mathematical aspects of his concepts.
The story of the atomic bomb's development can be a book unto itself, with the development moving from concept to execution. In the book, they highlight the almost childlike glee of the scientists when they conceived of the weapon.
During the development, Oppenheimer ignored the warnings and reservations of other scientists: he focused on the job.
They do an excellent job of describing his change of heart after the bombs exploded, his conversion to being an advocate of restraint, the case against him, and his death.
Oppenheimer was not a perfect man, and an imperfect father, leaving two children who struggled after he died. His son downplayed his surname and the connection to the bomb, and his daughter committed suicide. Neither did he have a perfect marriage, with a talented, almost alcoholic wife, and several affairs.
What do the authors leave us with, but a magnificent story of a flawed genius who had the courage to stand by his convictions? All of us are flawed but few have an outsized impact on the world, and fewer still stand by our conviction with Oppenheimer’s courage. ( )

Who looks for some scientific popularisation will be disappointed. There is virtually no physics here, except for a historical take of what brought Oppenheimer where he was - at the head of the atomic bomb project - in the early Fourties. The great achievement of this biography lies rather in the exploration of the implications of Oppenheimer's triumphs and defeats for society at large.

'One scientist had been excommunicated, but all scientists were now on notice that there could be serious consequences for those who challenged State policies' (Chapter 37)

Indeed, a lot of pages and effort are spent in the effort to document Bird's stance on what Oppenheimer's farce Security Clearance confirmation hearing meant for the role of the scientist in Twentieth Century's American society: are people of knowledge supposed to limit their contribution to technical support of the current State policy, or do they have the right - and responsibility - to help determine what uses of their work are legitimate or not? Also, should a Nation only trust politically orthodox experts, or should they welcome contributions from a wide range of points of view, and respect the right of their citizens to hold - or have held in the past - extreme and discordant views and still take part to the active political and intellectual life of their Country? Finally, is strict security or a politic of "candour" with the public and with foreign powers more effective in avoiding war and destruction? Bird concludes that, whatever the answers to these questions, Oppenheimer's ordeal was the final indictment of Roosevelt's liberal America by McCarthist politics of extreme conservatism, and that it brought with it the fall of the 'messianic scientist' from the pedestal where WWII's had put them, largely through Oppenheimer's team achievements at Los Alamos. I am not sure whether Los Alamos was an achievement at all, or whether it was Oppenheimer who quasi-singlehandedly brought all this to life, but the case is made convinvingly. I will need to read more on the subject, and to hear different opinions.
Interestingly enough, the great shift in the image of the Scientist in 1950s' America, largely due to the publication of the conclusions of Oppenheimer's confirmation board (at least this is what the book states), resonates with good ol' Geddafi's Green Book, where he argues that, as members of a profession don't meddle into the way in which other professions go about their business, so journalists and scientists should not be allowed to meddle into the way politicians and the Government go about THEIR business.
I leave the conclusions to y'all, about this one.
The same approach is to be found in the treatment of the Los Alamos project: the focus is on the political power balance, and on the accurately documented shift between the real reasons for the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, and the propaganda. Bird chillingly reminds us of how Japan was actively looking for surrender in the weeks that preceded Hirosima's and Nagasaki's bombings, and of how the new U.S.A. administration was more interested in flexing with the Russians - who were still America's allies - than in pondering the legitimacy of using on Japanese civilians a bomb that had been hurriedly built to stop the Nazis from using it first. The confusion and disarray in which this shift - from stopping the Nazis, to bombing random civilians in a defeated country - threw Los Alamos' scientific community is a sight to behold; not to mention Oppenheimer's ambiguities, contradictions and weaknesses. It is a historical fact that he looked at the bombings with malcelated pride and nostalgia for all the rest of his life, while trying to come to terms with his responsibilities as Father of the Bomb; and we are left wondering how much ambition and vanity, rather than a sense of responsibility and guilt, were involved in shaping Oppenheimer's positions and campaigns for his continued involvement in deciding atomic policy after the war.
Quite transparently, the whole narration of Oppenheimer's life builds up from his very infancy towards the climax of the confirmation hearing, an ominous shadow hanging over a luminous life path. In doing so, Bird manages to highlight at the same time Oppenheimer's personal fragility and strength in both his public and private lives; the way he managed to adapt many of his deep character shortcomings to circumstances, while never really freeing himself of them, or of his deep insecurities and vanity; and his brilliance with its vast reach and similarly vast limits. He paints the portrait of a person who was nearly superhuman and yet endearing, relatable, vaguely deranged and infuriating at the same time - as we all are, when looked at by extremely close. ( )

A behemoth of a biography -- and the backstory of how it was written is almost as compelling of the story itself. One of the few instances where the seeing the film actually helps visualize the action in the book, but there's so so so much more to the tale. A very satisfying read. ( )

I finished this just in time for the Oscars. It’s the basis of the best picture winner “Oppenheimer” & I loved seeing the way the book was adapted to become a film. This is a long in-depth biography, but he was a complicated man. It was also a perfect nonfiction read for New Mexico. The authors did an excellent job diving into the history of the making of the atomic bomb and Oppenheimer’s role in the saga. I wouldn’t read it again but it was good. ( )