Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.23 AVERAGE
4.23 AVERAGE
emotional
funny
hopeful
sad
medium-paced
The ending left a bit to be desired, but my god did i enjoy this book. the characters were pitch perfect - especially six-thirty. he’s a bestie.
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
emotional
funny
lighthearted
sad
emotional
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
Best book I have read in 2025. At least one that I would remember for a long time and recommend to others. Love the feminism, the tidbits chemistry lessons and the characters. The dialogues and scenes made me laughed out loud. Most entertaining book I’ve come across this year.
Ugh! I thought I was going to love this, but was sorely disappointed. I suppose the white American liberal this book was written for would be drooling all over this, but the tone and thematical exposition of the story were just way off.
The nails in the proverbial coffin:
- Playing up rape for laughs
- The MC's impossible snobbery
- Comparing domestic work to slavery (??????)
- A book claiming to be feminist & "shining light on women's mental health in the 60s" contradicts itself by portraying every other woman in the story as catty, dimwitted, and aimless
- The events in the book are so out of touch with reality, the book's genre may as well be re-categorized as fantasy
- MC from the 60s somehow also has perfect 21st century politics that she preaches to everyone who will listen
- Genuinely irritated by writing science v. religion as the tired caricature that atheism is good and reasonable, and all religious people are morally corrupt liars. Scientists can be religious. The religious who outright deny science are outliers. And don't get it twisted: I'd be equally frustrated if it were the other way around. Intolerance of beliefs/religion (and I'm not limiting this just to Christianity) seems to be an acceptable form of prejudice. The oversimplification of this age-old debate makes me wonder if the author intended this book for children? Although I hope that's not the case since there are several graphic assault descriptions and a suicide motivated by homophobia.
- MC's 4-year old daughter is reading Russian literature and William Faulkner? Memorized the table of elements by age 8? Right. Duh. Why wouldn't she...
- I really just can't get over how inconsistent Elizabeth's beliefs are with the context of 1960s America. For example, all of her feminist rants sound like Alissa Milano's twitter feed in 2015. She brings up issues such as abolitionism/criminal justice reform, which was absolutely not an active political issue in 1960s America. The country was rioting and in flames, schools were like war zones, and black men and women were being lynched and targeted for death penalty sentences in the South (See bottom note for case law references; not intended to prove what the current status quo is, but to demonstrate how privileged it is to project modern political issues onto the canvas of history because they CLASH). You mean to tell me anyone was walking around advocating to defund the police?? Ok. Sure, Jan. Also, MC refers to subsidized child care policies in Sweden that didn't exist until the mid-70s. I learned that from a Google search that took me about 10 seconds, but apparently was too difficult for the author or any of the editors. If you're going to write historical fiction, getting your timeline straight seems like it should be step 1.
It's one thing to say "This wasn't for me," and it's a totally different thing to say "This is objectively bad literature." I don't take that lightly, especially since I feel like the great fallibility in Goodreads reviews is how ratings are based off of personal feelings or preferences rather than legitimate evaluation. I don't like being harsh on books because 1) Writing is HARD and personal, and 2) Art is subjective, so I try to evaluate it on its merits as art, not how it fits my preferences or expectations. I am comfortable calling Lessons in Chemistry as a book not worth reading because it does not accomplish what it set out to do, and in some ways perpetuates some of white liberalism's most hollow and harmful echo chamber talking points, coming across as deep and intellectual without saying anything important. I did however love the dog, he was my favorite.
TLDR: Just read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman.
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
The nails in the proverbial coffin:
- Playing up rape for laughs
- The MC's impossible snobbery
- Comparing domestic work to slavery (??????)
- A book claiming to be feminist & "shining light on women's mental health in the 60s" contradicts itself by portraying every other woman in the story as catty, dimwitted, and aimless
- The events in the book are so out of touch with reality, the book's genre may as well be re-categorized as fantasy
- MC from the 60s somehow also has perfect 21st century politics that she preaches to everyone who will listen
- Genuinely irritated by writing science v. religion as the tired caricature that atheism is good and reasonable, and all religious people are morally corrupt liars. Scientists can be religious. The religious who outright deny science are outliers. And don't get it twisted: I'd be equally frustrated if it were the other way around. Intolerance of beliefs/religion (and I'm not limiting this just to Christianity) seems to be an acceptable form of prejudice. The oversimplification of this age-old debate makes me wonder if the author intended this book for children? Although I hope that's not the case since there are several graphic assault descriptions and a suicide motivated by homophobia.
- MC's 4-year old daughter is reading Russian literature and William Faulkner? Memorized the table of elements by age 8? Right. Duh. Why wouldn't she...
- I really just can't get over how inconsistent Elizabeth's beliefs are with the context of 1960s America. For example, all of her feminist rants sound like Alissa Milano's twitter feed in 2015. She brings up issues such as abolitionism/criminal justice reform, which was absolutely not an active political issue in 1960s America. The country was rioting and in flames, schools were like war zones, and black men and women were being lynched and targeted for death penalty sentences in the South (See bottom note for case law references; not intended to prove what the current status quo is, but to demonstrate how privileged it is to project modern political issues onto the canvas of history because they CLASH). You mean to tell me anyone was walking around advocating to defund the police?? Ok. Sure, Jan. Also, MC refers to subsidized child care policies in Sweden that didn't exist until the mid-70s. I learned that from a Google search that took me about 10 seconds, but apparently was too difficult for the author or any of the editors. If you're going to write historical fiction, getting your timeline straight seems like it should be step 1.
It's one thing to say "This wasn't for me," and it's a totally different thing to say "This is objectively bad literature." I don't take that lightly, especially since I feel like the great fallibility in Goodreads reviews is how ratings are based off of personal feelings or preferences rather than legitimate evaluation. I don't like being harsh on books because 1) Writing is HARD and personal, and 2) Art is subjective, so I try to evaluate it on its merits as art, not how it fits my preferences or expectations. I am comfortable calling Lessons in Chemistry as a book not worth reading because it does not accomplish what it set out to do, and in some ways perpetuates some of white liberalism's most hollow and harmful echo chamber talking points, coming across as deep and intellectual without saying anything important. I did however love the dog, he was my favorite.
TLDR: Just read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedman.
McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
The idea wasn’t necessarily bad but the story didn’t feel very natural and the characters weren’t very endearing. I find it quite disappointing that Elizabeth was so socially awkward, and not relatable, as if women scientists had to be quite weird like that to be in science.
Also, 99% men were misogynistic and perverts, and all religious people are hypocrite a****les and/or perverts, everything felt too much like a good vs bad people story, with very little nuance or depth to the characters.
Also, 99% men were misogynistic and perverts, and all religious people are hypocrite a****les and/or perverts, everything felt too much like a good vs bad people story, with very little nuance or depth to the characters.