ShareThis Page

A conjured Einstein is a godsend to atheist

| Saturday, July 27, 2013, 6:30 p.m.

Near the end of Steven T. Seagle and Teddy Kristiansen's haunting graphic novel “Genius,” the main character, a physicist named Ted, has an epiphany of a kind.

Ted was once a prodigy, a kid so smart he almost couldn't be taught, recruited at 22 to be part of the research team at the prestigious Pasadena Technical Institute. And then? Crickets, a decade or more of journeyman work, a realignment of his priorities.

Ted has two kids and a wife who may be dying; his father-in-law, who lives with them, treats him with a mix of disdain and outright hate. Do we need to say that he feels trapped, that the pressures of a family in disarray and a job he no longer wants have become too much for him?

Still, Ted has one saving grace, which is his love for Einstein, who holds a place in his life akin to God. “I mean, I'm an atheist,” Ted explains, “most thinking people are — but Einstein is the pinnacle of a thinking man.”

As “Genius” progresses, this relationship becomes increasingly prominent, until Einstein himself is animated in these pages, discussing the nature of the universe, the nature of discovery, and the essential notion that our lives are always in constant evolution, just waiting for that one idea, that one revelation, for everything to “start anew.”

That's a risky move, to invoke not just any genius but the genius of geniuses; there are so many ways for it to go wrong. I think of J.D. Salinger, whose late novella “Hapworth 16, 1924” collapses under the weight of Seymour Glass' unlikely extraordinariness, which is much more believable when its written about secondhand.

Here, however, Seagle and Kristiansen (both Eisner Award winners who previously collaborated on Seagle's autobiographical graphic novel “It's a Bird” and the supernatural comic series “House of Secrets”) keep the mystery of genius intact by making it just a little bit elliptical, by keeping the details slightly vague. Late in the book, when Ted's boss asks what he is working on, they illustrate his process with eight pages of abstract images: starbursts, sunspots, squiggles that evoke the elusive texture of his thoughts.

And Einstein? He's a ghost, a cipher, which is only fitting, since it is Ted who has re-dreamed him into being. “A brain is a brain after all,” he says. “It's what you do with it that matters.” It's a truism, to be sure, but that doesn't make it any less real.

Throughout “Genius,” Seagle and Kristiansen play with this, overlapping layers of narrative in the visuals. Past and present blend together, inner and outer lives, while the present is illustrated in a flat, gray wash, its edges muted, as if to highlight the fact that we don't know where it will go.

Ted is adrift, at loose ends, in a state of constant worry.

“I'm terrified ...,” he tells his wife, “of losing my job ... losing the house ... you. I don't know who I am without all that.”

And yet, as his son points out, “You always spit the doom, but then you always save the day.”

This brings us back to that epiphany, which is as earned as it is unexpected — although I don't want to give it away.

The same might be said of the entire book, which becomes a paean to the examined life, the life of the mind and the power of convictions: in other words, to not accepting anybody's version of reality but your own.

David L. Ulin is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.