Copenhagen By Michael Fayn Sparknotes

Michael Frayn’s drama, Copenhagen, attempts to tell what happened when Werner Heisenberg visited Neils Bohr and his wife in Copenhagen during the height of World War II. His play characterizes Bohr and Heisenberg as opposing sides of a spectrum. Bohr is on the more conservative side while Heisenberg tends to dive head first into all that he does. Bohr tends to have more honorable intentions, but Heisenberg intentions stem from egotism. Holding back can prevent someone from experiencing one’s knowledge. That knowledge has the ability to make a significant change in someone’s life. On the other end, acting before thinking prevents someone from making a logical decision and considering all the consequences. This idea of varying ends of a spectrum can be applied to motivations, also. Frayn is using the characterization of Bohr and Heisenberg to communicate that existing in one of these ends shows selfishness. Stagnation hinders the ability for one to use his or her knowledge to make an important impact on someone. Recklessness does not allow one to consider fully every option and that decision will affect others. Life is dependent on decision-making and when making a decision, a balance is necessary between thinking about decision and acting on the decision.

He is portrayed as timid in his approach to science. Heisenberg comments, “Your skiing is like your science. What are you waiting for?” (Frayn 24). His cautiousness allows him to keep his thoughts to himself. Bohr made the decision to keep his knowledge that could help someone else in his mind. In the mind of Heisenberg, if he built the bomb and used it on another country, then it could prevent that country from dropping a bomb on Heisenberg’s family. Bohr would take into consideration all of these possibilities while someone else makes the decision to create the