There is quite a lot to like about this script. Certainly, Émilie du Châtelet is a historical figure who deserves to receive more attention. I really like the way she writes all over the set as if it were a chalkboard. (She writes formulas and keeps a tally of "philosophy" versus "love".) I do not actually know whether that would have seemed natural to a mathematician in the 18th century, but today writing formulas all over everything is a part of the culture of mathematics and so I liked seeing it represented here. The dialogue is often witty and the development of the relationships of Émilie to her husband and to her lover, Voltaire, seem both believable and interesting. (I do not know whether the author based this on reliable evidence or whether it merely "seemed right", but that works.) Finally, I appreciate that the play does not seem to make use of the usual "genius" stereotypes.

I am not sure about some of the artistic staging. The use of different actors for the same parts and the same actors for different parts was rather confusing to me,especially when two actresses were playing the part of Émilie on stage simultaneously and saying the same lines. Moreover, I'm not sure I appreciate that Émilie's ghost cannot touch anyone on stage without causing some sort of cosmic blackout. But, all of these things might make more sense to me if I had seen a production of the play rather than simply reading the script, as I have done. I do look forward to having a chance to see it performed someday!

However, as you might guess, I am often more critical about the portrayal of math than about these other things, and I am concerned that it is grossly misrepresented here. Let me explain. The impression one receives from this play is as follows:

This formulation works very well from an artistic point of view. On the one hand, the contrast between "living" and "dead" makes for a wonderful metaphor considering that the play involves the spirit of a dead woman remembering her life. Moreover, there is this tremendous sense of triumph as she wins the longstanding logical debate. Unfortunately, it seems to me that much of this is wrong and misleading. I would be happy to be corrected if anyone knows the history better than I and can say that I am mistaken, but to the best of my knowledge the truth is:

Now, it may be debatable whether it is within artistic license for the author to have altered things quite that much. I would have to say "no", from my own perspective. Not only does she really mess up the math, but she also gives a false impression that this is a story of the triumph of a woman who was right over the stodgy and conservative men who were defending a falsehood. The true story is more nuanced, and I think a bit more interesting as well. It seems a shame to have to exaggerate the accomplishments of this amazing person in order to make her story interesting to a modern audience.

Along the same lines, I would like to say something about a bit near the end of the play where Émilie takes the formula F=mv² that appears on the board and adds an extra line to turn the "F" into an "E", remarking that the audience knows better what that means then she does. In fact, I like the formula better in this way, since mv² is not a force, but I think that the author means more than just that it should be thought of as "energy". Rather, this is probably a hint that (as many popular descriptions of her work suggest) du Châtelet's work in mathematical physics led directly to Einstein's formula E=mc². In fact, it is not unreasonable to see it as a step towards that formula. This notion of vis viva definitely was a precursor to the notion of energy. However, despite the visual similarity between the two formulas, it would be a mistake to think that du Châtelet essentially had Einstein's formula worked out in the 18th century. In fact, they represent quite different things (the kinetic energy of an object moving at velocity v versus the nuclear energy contained in an object at rest). Once again, my opinion is that it is a shame that we feel we have to exaggerate the achievements of great scientists of history.

Gunderson, a playwright based in Atlanta, GA, is certainly practiced at the difficult art of combining theater with science and math. In this case, she does so with a particularly fascinating true story. However, either because she did not understand the scientific details or because she felt she had to "spice them up", the end result is a bit disappointing to a person like me. I guess I'm the kind of person who wishes that works of fiction "based on a true story" tended to have a bit more "true" and a bit less "story".