The overarching answer to your questions is that this was written as a novel -- a rather intimate novel at that -- about one woman's life. And in many ways, an "ordinary" woman. No Nobel prize, no street named after her. And I did choose to tell it through her eyes and in a way that she could comfortably tell it to a granddaughter. That limits the scope of the story. As a novel, rather than a history, there was no thought of "curriculum." I knew I was leaving out a great deal -- your listed many of the issues and questions raised by writing about this period. My choices were aesthetic.
In reply to <p>From Virginia A. Spatz:</p by Tara M.
The overarching answer to your questions is that this was written as a novel -- a rather intimate novel at that -- about one woman's life. And in many ways, an "ordinary" woman. No Nobel prize, no street named after her. And I did choose to tell it through her eyes and in a way that she could comfortably tell it to a granddaughter. That limits the scope of the story. As a novel, rather than a history, there was no thought of "curriculum." I knew I was leaving out a great deal -- your listed many of the issues and questions raised by writing about this period. My choices were aesthetic.