Reviews with content warning for Fatphobia - Lessons in Chemistry

Despite a wonderful idea, Garmus's popular novel fails to deliver on every account. Garmus promises a book about the experience of women, but with an unbearable protagonist and little exploration, Garmus never dives into what sexism feels like nor its real causes and reactions. In fact, the main character refuses to demonstrate any real growth in the book at all. Character relationships are always told rather than shown, making the reader hollow when the horrible, melodramatic plot points occur to them. Although Garmus introduces deep topics, she seems to lack the courage or the understanding to explore them with substance, instead having her main character be randomly bothered by instances in her past only to move on a sentence or two later. Plot points are randomly thrown into the novel with no consideration of how they affect the characters or the themes, leaving an unsatisfactory journey. Without this deep exploration and path, Garmus never says anything profound about her themes and certainly never touches real women in their trials and tribulations.

Additionally, Garmus's writing style is subpar at best. She seems to believe her readers are stupid as she tells them absolutely everything in frank detail and covers it over with big "sciency" words, never allowing the writing to breathe. Her sentences are simple and often boringly strung together, never giving vivid detail to her world to allow the reader to experience it. Occasionally, she'll hit gold with a particular line, but overall, she seems to favor hovering over everything just to produce a mess of thoughts. In the end, the novel reads like a string of random ideas never actually explored in depth—the substance of a first draft but not of a good novel.

Content Warnings

ktbelliss's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional hopeful inspiring reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

4.0

I really liked this story! My only complaint was that, as a scientist, I could tell the author wasn't a scientist herself. The scientists in the story struck me as slightly stereotypical. They were more what people think scientists are like, and less like the actual scientists I know. Otherwise it was really interesting to see into the life of a woman in the 60s and made me grateful for how far the world has come!

Content Warnings

daniofthewood's review against another edition

Go to review page

dark emotional tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Plot
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

3.0

Content Warnings

mannieg's review against another edition

Go to review page

adventurous funny inspiring fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

2.0

I enjoyed reading it but once I was out of the flow of the book (and especially once I heard the interview with the author at the end of the audiobook) all of the little, annoying things got more and more significant to the point where even thinking about this book makes me furious. It doesn’t help that I was unable to properly vent my spleen during book club (I’m not good at speaking extemporaneously) where almost everyone adored it. Here are my main gripes:

All of the characters were caricatures – and all of the men were pigs or cowards. Yes, including the “good ones.” The ones that aren’t slobbering sexual predators are utterly spineless
(the TV producer)
or secretly act against Elizabeth’s expressed wishes because they know what’s best for her
(Calvin)
. And fine, if you want to show the how harmful the patriarchy is for men, that’s a valid and worthwhile endeavor but after a few timid passes this book just entirely gave up on that angle in favor of making Elizabeth the ONLY “good” character in the book.
Rewarmed, uncritical second-wave feminism. It is 2024. How can you write a book set in 1950s California and not have a single POC? How can you present the experiences of an absurdly intelligent white woman who is fortunate enough to own a house and have unlimited, unpaid childcare from her abused neighbor as a rugged individualist who successfully beats the system? How come all of these women who consume her show have no agency, are unable to advocate for themselves except through Elizabeth Zott, and never found a way to articulate their dissatisfaction with being housewives until she came along? There is a complete lack of recognition or empathy towards the experiences of literally every other woman – except maybe for the one who became a heart surgeon. Eye roll. And while quite a bit of hay is made about gender traitors
like the secretary (who just so happened to be fat and ugly)
Elizabeth made a living off of these dissatisfied housewives and then dropped them like hot potatoes because that job wasn’t professionally fulfilling for her. A shining example of women supporting women.
Cut the capitalist crap. Why do I get the impression this book is telling me financial earnings and professional accomplishments determine the value of a human life? That gainful employment is the desired end state of every man and woman in the world? I am descended from a long line of what this book would derisively call housewives who lived happy, fulfilled lives and were fully actualized individuals in their own rights. There is no one in this book who represents that reality. A woman who is forced to work a crappy minimum wage job has suffered a loss of agency the same way that one who is forced to stay home and mind the kids has suffered a loss of agency.
Where is the “historical” in “historical fiction”? I hate that this book passes itself off as in any way historical when it’s really a mish-mash of all of the worst stereotypes about the 50s crammed into a single book and then dialed up to 11. Not only that, Elizabeth herself is completely anachronistic – but anachronistic as if her daughter wrote the story. (Oh wait…) Some elements of this book might count as historical but giving it the imprimatur of historical fiction makes it seem like it’s more than a boomer author preaching to the millennials about “how good you have it, now sit down and stop talking about intersectionality.”
Bury the Gays! Perhaps a minor quibble but I really thought we had progressed beyond stories where homosexual characters die tragically just so that readers (or other characters) can discover themselves.
So glad the only non-straight individual in this ENTIRE book offs himself in the first chapter for the sole purpose of Elizabeth’s personal growth. Love that for him.

Things I liked about this book: the dog, the cooking, the audiobook narrator, the fact that it was a quick bubblegum read.

Content Warnings

scoutthehuman's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional inspiring reflective 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? It's complicated

4.5

Wowie! Read this for my work book club and I’m grateful that I was able to finish in time! Super interesting perspectives on gender- they way it’s supposed onto us & a total performance. It had a way of spending a lot of time talking about a whole lot of nothing and then dropping an incredibly traumatic piece to the storyline right as a chapter finishes up. Elizabeth Zott is an icon and I’d love to interact with her as a nonbinary queer person- I honestly think we’d really get along. Definitely got neurodivergent vibes from both her and Cal!! Loved it!

Content Warnings

ruusaer's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging emotional funny hopeful mysterious reflective sad fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

Content Warnings

pixie_d's review against another edition

Go to review page

medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.5

The book seems to be fighting against bigotry towards women, but it unapologetically, and probably unconsciously, exhibits massive bigotry towards Catholicism, which the author treats as nothing more than a cheap way to fill out a melodramatic plot with cartoon villains.
There is also unacknowledged racism and sexism. Like The Collected Regrets of Clover, which I also read this month, this author signaled "bad" characters by their looks. Ladies, describing someone as having a "hooked" or "prominent" nose to indicate bad characters or villainy is racist. I'm sure you weren't even aware you did that, but someone on the editing team should have called it out. In this book, she signals the rapist villain by the looks of his wife (not a typo. He's a rapist. The author is unconsciously racist by how she describes the wife's looks.) In that chapter she also signals the antagonist secretary by her fat hips. That's sexist because women should not internalize and then judge other women by those standards, particularly not to signal bad character. Later the main character gives a speech about how you shouldn't judge women, and incidentally people of color, but to throw that in as just a phrase in your speech doesn't make you not a racist. It was a weak attempt to draw that in, where it wasn't integral to the rest of the book. Bleh.

Content Warnings

More...