First person for the purpose of credulity, that was my first thought. I question: Is this narrative written as a biography to mask any literary license taken and\or to make it sound more authoritative, or is it a tricky artful manipulation to allow for the flow and pace of time? I cannot say that I care all too much either way. In the end there just isn't much in the way of substance to take this book to task. The science is vague except in that it is pursued with much passion. The passion is vague except in that it is pursued. The claim that there existed a misogynist taint in WWII America cannot come in anyway a surprise to anyone capable of comprehending the contents of this vacuous meander, so I am just not certain of the intent of the author with the afterword outside an attempt to give meaning to the ending. Though I am certain there are others that will find pleasure and meaningfulness in its' content, for myself, I simply just did not enjoy this random access historical (?!?) romp.