Space, Science, and the Gender of Perfection

{Courting Critique is a post series that takes an analytic and intersectional feminist look at romance texts — not so much to prove that romance is feminist or anti-feminist, but because good criticism can be as fun and escapist as a love story. Spoilers abound!}

Engineer Eugene Parsons demands perfection. It’s the first thing, possibly the only thing, people know about him.

The problem: perfection is unattainable, like a limit in calculus that is never quite reached. The other, less obvious problem: the definition of perfection keeps shifting, especially where gender is involved.

Cover image for Earth Bound. Starry background behind two light-skinned people in a tense embrace. The woman has dark hair, artful makeup, a black dress, and full-length black gloves. The man has a grey suit, intense expression, and his hands on the woman's bare skin.

First, a capsule review: Earth Bound,  the latest entry in Emma Barry and Genevieve Turner’s stellar Fly Me to the Moon series, is an absolute gut-punch of a romance between two difficult, critical, closed-off engineers who put their ambitions and the mission above everything else. Oh, and seedy ’60s motel sex. I could not have possibly loved it more. Full spoilers from here on out.

The most basic definition of perfection is free from factual or mathematical error. Parsons has good reason to pursue this kind of perfection, as the lives of real people depend on the machines and mathematics used by the American Space Department to send men and machines into orbit: “If the capsule wasn’t traveling fast enough, wasn’t flying straight up, the massive hand of gravity would catch it and pull it straight back down. It could crash right into a place filled with houses and families” (Kindle location 63). Not to mention that whole Cold War business, which Parsons at times seems to be fighting as though he’s out to win it single-handed. The urgency of this mission leads him to look for the very best — which is how he meets our heroine, computer and programmer Charlie Eason.

Charlie is a perfect hire for ASD — except that she’s a woman.

To clarify, Parsons has absolutely no issue with hiring women. Many of the computers are women (just like in real life: see the wealth of links at the end of this piece). Parsons does, however, have a problem with how deeply attracted he is to Charlie’s astonishing beauty. With the other computers their gender is a nonvariable, an unimportant detail he can put aside in the interests of getting the best work from the most competent people. But he can’t do that with Charlie — “his body refused to stop noticing hers” (197) — and he loathes himself for this failing, even as he insists on hiring her for her undeniable talents. In the classic romance tradition, this self-loathing adds a potent charge to the characters’ interactions on the page (Parsons happily avoids being creepy or domineering, or at least not any more domineering than he is with his male subordinates).

Charlie doesn’t recognize it’s attraction at first, of course. Parsons is a closed book (and locked, and chained, and encrypted…), and Dr. Eason is used to being undermined and underestimated on account of her gender: “It would never be enough. No matter how many papers she authored, no matter how many projects she successfully completed, deadlines she met, or snafus she navigated, all they’d ever be able to see were the breasts” (879). No matter how objectively skilled a woman is, her femininity is read as a flaw when it appears in spaces and roles designated masculine. She will always be imperfect by default. The same is clearly true about race, though the text only briefly glances at this. (Again, links below!)

No matter how many papers she authored … all they’d ever be able to see were the breasts.

Which is not to say there is no standard for a specifically feminine perfection, because of course there is — rigidly defined and lionized gender roles trouble the course of both hero and heroine. There is an unwritten expectation of purity in the binary gender construct, and a sense that real, flawed humans are constantly falling short of what it means to be a perfect man or a perfect woman. Consider this bit about the astronauts’ wives: “Their wives sat among the spectators, looking cool and polished, and in the case of the new Mrs. Campbell, a little bored. She didn’t yet have Mrs. Reynolds’ expertise in being utterly blank every second of the day” (1508). Blankness is perfectly feminine; polish is perfectly feminine; emotion and thought are to be hidden or erased while attempting to conform to the ideal.

Charlie has the markers of idealized femininity down pat: makeup, polite smiles, skirts and heels, never a sign of anger or hurt. Cool, cool as marble, polished, frozen — these descriptions surface over and over about Charlie and other women. I feel like I’ve seen a lot of romance heroines characterized as ‘naturally’ feminine (contemporaries do this with surprising frequency): in this text high-femme presentation is explicitly a strategy for social leverage, even though it leaves women open for predation (lecherous astronaut Carruthers) and exploitation (shameless magazine photo ops to get good press for ASD): “Yes, she used her looks to gain the advantage in certain situations. But they were her looks and her advantage. She was furious that her face was going to be used to sell ASD to the public. Why couldn’t they discuss the mission, the technology, and the sheer wonder of what they were trying to do? Why did it have to be the surface, the glamour, the stuff that meant nothing?” (2033). Having spent so much time constructing that surface in self-defense, Charlie is nevertheless frustrated by people who choose to treat it as the sum total of who she is. It’s a double-bind that still feels far too familiar to those of us here in 2016.

Expectations of purity also underscore a beautifully ironic conflict between Charlie’s love for computer programming and her parents’ romanticization of physics: “For a long time, the conversation had been about Charlie’s field of study. Why couldn’t you go into physics like Tom? Tom the golden child, who couldn’t get enough of splitting and combining atoms — and whose genitals were the right shape” (290). Charlie’s mother even pronounces the word engineering “like she might pronounce shit” (281): in her parents’ eyes Charlie’s intellectual talents make her too pure for her chosen profession. They believe she is squandering herself on something corrupt and pedestrian: the scorn they heap on her career choices is couched in the language of support and pride in their daughter (why isn’t she living up to her potential?) but Charlie can’t help but read this as scorn for her as a person — especially in comparison to her brother, whose gender is part of what makes him the Platonically Ideal Physicist. All this despite the fact that the pure ‘secrets of the universe physics’ the elder Easons are so enamored with is the actual Manhattan Project. Hardly a landmark of non-applied, non-militarized, above-it-all science.

Meanwhile, Parsons’ family offers a contrasting image of masculine perfection in war hero brother George. He’s smart, handsome, charming, and brave: the town is literally putting up a statue to him to memorialize his death in combat. Like younger siblings the world over, Parsons feels he suffers by comparison: “I felt like I was this weaker, lesser version of him and could never measure up” (1795). This sense of falling short mixes with grief and guilt (Parsons and George had argued before he was killed) and poisons Parsons’ interactions with ex-Nazi rocket scientist Friedrich Gerhardt (clearly a von Braun analogue). Gerhardt’s presence not only reminds Parsons of the masculine standards he feels he fails to meet, but he’s also an indication that the world itself is the furthest thing from perfect: “The fact that George — his wonderful, boisterous, heroic brother — wasn’t here and Gerhardt was was all the evidence Parsons needed to know the universe was fundamentally fucked” (1676).

Defining the universe as unfair, perverse, and cruel is absolutely vital in a historical that addresses sexism and misogyny in such a head-on manner. We know — at least, if we’ve been reading tons of books about the Cold War and the Space Race and the Manhattan Project, have you not? — that Charlie’s contributions are not only neglected by her contemporaries, but also erased from the broad historical narrative. Like Lise Meitner, Margaret Hamilton, Hazel Ying Lee and the WASPthe Mercury 13, the real-life women of NASA, and countless others, Charlie’s battle against discrimination and diminishment will be endless and unrewarded. She’ll be written out of the narrative, and that unwriting will be used to deny women spaces and voices in decades to come.

The fact that George wasn’t here and Gerhardt was was all the evidence Parsons needed to know the universe was fundamentally fucked.

What saves this point of view from being far too harsh to nourish a romance plot is the last and, I think, best definition of perfection: something that is neither too little nor too much, but just right. This is perfection as completion: two satellites meeting in orbit against all odds, the whole becoming greater than the sum of its parts. What makes this kind of life-saving perfection possible? Love, of course.

If you think I wasn’t hearing Origin of Love while rereading this, think again. (Two Plato references in one blog post! It’s a banner Thursday.)

An early passage sees Parsons thinking of himself and Charlie in astrodynamic terms: “She was the capsule here, serenely making her orbits, while he was the rocket casing, jettisoned to burn up in the long fall back to earth” (158). Geeky penis metaphors aside (come on, right?), Parsons continually views himself as secondary to Charlie, as a resource who’s only there to be used and discarded so she can achieve her proper glorious heights. He’s a man who demands perfection, but once he decides she is perfect, his devotion is absolute: “I’ll work to get you whatever you need, Charlie. You know that” (1305). This is undoubtedly part of what makes Parsons work so well as a version of the Demanding Boss hero archetype, which usually makes me grimace: the dedication and generosity he displays toward the mission and toward Charlie more than balance out the barked orders and fraying temper.

Charlie recognizes this devotion and even refers to Parsons once as an “acolyte” (916); she also envisions their relationship in terms that echo his : “She didn’t think she was perfect, but she thought that together, they might be more than they were apart. Together they might be something like it” (2465). The inevitable crisis in the relationship is paralleled by a crisis in a planned orbital rendezvous mission. Charlie and Parsons have to navigate their way back to one another emotionally even as they maneuver two soaring metal ships within kissing distance of one another. Their final reconciliation is as subtle, tense, and minutely managed as any astronaut’s docking procedure.  It’s a sublime and elegant piece of work and as an author I am equal parts delighted and envious.

Charlie and Parsons’ HEA doesn’t make the world perfect — he’s still going to be snappish, and she’ll still be subject to plenty of micro- and macro-aggressions —  but it shows they’ve earned the kind of perfection they find with each other. And what more can a romance possibly offer?

 

___

Barry, Emma, and Turner, Genevieve. Earth Bound. Amazon Digital Services, 2016. Kindle edition.

___

Further Reading:

  • You know about the Hidden Figures book and movie already, right? Taraji P. Henson, Janelle Monáe? I could not possibly be more excited.
  • But since that’s not out until September, here is Rise of the Rocket Girls, a primer on the race to the moon focusing on women’s contributions and participation.
  • Also Amelia Earhart’s Daughters, which expands the years examined and looks at women pilots in WWII and the Cold War.
  • Something from the Russian side of all this: The Night WitchesMost of the prose in this book about Russian women flying bombing runs in WWII comes straight from interviews with survivors, so it’s a little plain prose-wise — but you cannot beat the level of detail and vividness.
  • Girls of Atomic City. Summers spent driving by Hanford on our way to Eastern Washington campsites kicked off my fascination with the Atomic Age. (You might have noticed this is something of a pet topic of mine, huh?) But Hanford was basically a glorified military base — Oak Ridge was a whole damn city, with segregated living spaces and sock hops and I swear to God a rabbit breeding club.
  • Also great: 109 East Palace, about a woman who worked as Oppenheimer’s trusted secretary (and front) during the early days of Los Alamos.

Post to Twitter

One thought on “Space, Science, and the Gender of Perfection

  1. Great review. I loved the book, and thought that some reviewers, who criticised Charlie’s reaction to the out-sourcing debacle as an over-reaction and too harsh, missed the point: they wanted Charlie to exhibit a more traditional “feminine” approach to forgiveness. In fact, she is just as driven as Parsons, just as flawed, and both of them need to learn how to navigate the language of emotion. One of the best books I’ve read in a few years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *