Scan barcode
leahrock's review against another edition
4.0
I read this in one sitting on a flight. It's unlike anything I've read lately, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought the first person plural (for the entire novel) was a unique choice, and although it didn't allow for character development individually, I felt that the development of the chorus as a whole was a more than satisfactory substitute. The language is sparse, beautifully evoking the environment of Los Alamos. Looking forward to reading more from this author.
mg_espi's review against another edition
2.0
Me ha perdido completamente con la voz "de la colmena", me he sentido alejadÃsima de la historia y he perdido todo el interés por el libro.
chelsea_not_chels's review against another edition
2.0
More reviews available at my blog, Beauty and the Bookworm.
This seems to be a contentious book for one reason and one reason only: it's written in first-person plural. Pretty much every review about it begins that way, and if I had read them before I requested the book from the library, I probably wouldn't have picked it up. It doesn't have a solid core narrative. It doesn't have real, distinct characters; different women are mentioned by name at several points, but no one is ever really given the chance to develop because of the amorphous "we" talking about "our" sometimes contradictory experiences. I understand why this device was used; it's supposed to give you a feel for the lives of the women of Los Alamos as a whole, instead of just picking or making up one or two to flesh out more fully and stand in for the rest. It's meant to capture a wider range of experiences. Is it successful? I didn't really think so. Some of the women are so obviously outsiders that they're clearly not contained within the "we," and that means that their experiences are completely left out of the book.
Each chapter has a theme, such as "Children" or "Foreigners," and the snippets that compose each chapter--because each chapter is composed of a series of one-paragraph snippets, instead of a more traditional narrative--adhere to that theme. It's a sort of experimental style, and while some people loved it, I didn't. I didn't hate it. I did hate it to begin with, but as with most writing, I got used to it after a while, and it didn't grate on my nerves so much. But I never really liked it, and was left feeling like Nesbit could have offered a much richer picture of Los Alamos if she had just been fuller in her telling. I guess that's just my preference; I like books with real characters and central narratives, even if those narratives don't move quickly and are more character-driven than anything else. An amorphous, ever-changing central figure who isn't even one figure but a conglomerate of many left me feeling like I was reading about a hive mind, which is kind of demeaning to a group of women who no doubt went through a lot of hardships to support their husbands.
By choosing the narrative style she did, Nesbit avoided a great deal of detail. This probably saves her from being savaged by people who are sticklers for historical accuracy, but I felt it distanced me more than intrigued me, and I felt left out more than anything else. A novel needs to draw readers in and connect them with the characters, and I felt that wasn't accomplished here; looking at other reviews, some people clearly disagree, but hey, that's the nature of personal preferences, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, this was an okay book, with a really good premise--I feel like these women haven't had a lot of historical fiction written about them, and they are truly fascinating subjects--but it just fell flat because of its strange delivery. Experimental styles, I feel, are sometimes better left to subjects that have already been widely explored in more traditional mediums, as then the new style brings a new light to the subject. I'm not sure this particular subject, these women and this place and time, were quite ready for being experimented with before we were better acquainted.
2 stars out of 5.
This seems to be a contentious book for one reason and one reason only: it's written in first-person plural. Pretty much every review about it begins that way, and if I had read them before I requested the book from the library, I probably wouldn't have picked it up. It doesn't have a solid core narrative. It doesn't have real, distinct characters; different women are mentioned by name at several points, but no one is ever really given the chance to develop because of the amorphous "we" talking about "our" sometimes contradictory experiences. I understand why this device was used; it's supposed to give you a feel for the lives of the women of Los Alamos as a whole, instead of just picking or making up one or two to flesh out more fully and stand in for the rest. It's meant to capture a wider range of experiences. Is it successful? I didn't really think so. Some of the women are so obviously outsiders that they're clearly not contained within the "we," and that means that their experiences are completely left out of the book.
Each chapter has a theme, such as "Children" or "Foreigners," and the snippets that compose each chapter--because each chapter is composed of a series of one-paragraph snippets, instead of a more traditional narrative--adhere to that theme. It's a sort of experimental style, and while some people loved it, I didn't. I didn't hate it. I did hate it to begin with, but as with most writing, I got used to it after a while, and it didn't grate on my nerves so much. But I never really liked it, and was left feeling like Nesbit could have offered a much richer picture of Los Alamos if she had just been fuller in her telling. I guess that's just my preference; I like books with real characters and central narratives, even if those narratives don't move quickly and are more character-driven than anything else. An amorphous, ever-changing central figure who isn't even one figure but a conglomerate of many left me feeling like I was reading about a hive mind, which is kind of demeaning to a group of women who no doubt went through a lot of hardships to support their husbands.
By choosing the narrative style she did, Nesbit avoided a great deal of detail. This probably saves her from being savaged by people who are sticklers for historical accuracy, but I felt it distanced me more than intrigued me, and I felt left out more than anything else. A novel needs to draw readers in and connect them with the characters, and I felt that wasn't accomplished here; looking at other reviews, some people clearly disagree, but hey, that's the nature of personal preferences, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, this was an okay book, with a really good premise--I feel like these women haven't had a lot of historical fiction written about them, and they are truly fascinating subjects--but it just fell flat because of its strange delivery. Experimental styles, I feel, are sometimes better left to subjects that have already been widely explored in more traditional mediums, as then the new style brings a new light to the subject. I'm not sure this particular subject, these women and this place and time, were quite ready for being experimented with before we were better acquainted.
2 stars out of 5.
sk888888's review against another edition
1.0
Really hated the POV on this one. I will look for another, non-fiction book about Los Alamos.
ropalimpia's review against another edition
4.75
So I'm not a historical fiction kind of person, but I really enjoyed this. I love Nesbit's style in general. She has a softness and grace to the way she writes while still being direct and powerful with her words. Upon seeing the reviews of this book that complained about her usage of "us" and "we" and "or," I was a bit worried that it would get tedious, but after the first few pages, I completely forgot that this style wasn't one that's usually employed and got through it without even noticing the unorthodox pov. I loved the "or"s especially, actually. I think it created a realm of possibility that I would have found myself asking about if she hadn't covered it. I was never left wanting.
The most accurate way I can describe this book is that it's a painting. It doesn't paint, but rather, it's the actual painting itself. It feels like visiting an art museum and fixating on that one painting with many tiny figures going about their lives in different ways, but all responding to the same circumstances. It tells the story of a community through naive but apprehensive eyes, and there's a comfortable emotional distance that makes it feel slightly scientific, but then the gossip and wariness gave it the humanity necessary to keep me wanting to continue to read.
I wholeheartedly enjoyed this book, and I'm glad I found it.
The most accurate way I can describe this book is that it's a painting. It doesn't paint, but rather, it's the actual painting itself. It feels like visiting an art museum and fixating on that one painting with many tiny figures going about their lives in different ways, but all responding to the same circumstances. It tells the story of a community through naive but apprehensive eyes, and there's a comfortable emotional distance that makes it feel slightly scientific, but then the gossip and wariness gave it the humanity necessary to keep me wanting to continue to read.
I wholeheartedly enjoyed this book, and I'm glad I found it.
glaaronson's review against another edition
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
jjmcdade's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting book. It's not written in traditional novel fashion. I think Nesbit tries to create a literary version of the what was unknown by the families of the scientists at Los Alamos from 1943-1945. I liked it well enough. But, it left me wishing for a more detailed telling. I'd like a more complete story of what happened there.
thefictionaddictionblog's review against another edition
4.0
TaraShea Nesbit's novel The Wives of Los Alamos is told in first-person plural, and yet it never seems like an experiment in a creative writing workshop. By describing how we came to Los Alamos by train, and car, and airplane, or how the water shortage left us unable to wash our hair, the narration is simultaneously small and large. It's a chorus of individual experiences, telling one story. Throughout the book, she blends details of daily life, like a husband tired and cranky after a long day at work, with the work going on all around, creating the bombs that killed millions.
Read the rest
Read the rest
saramschacht's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
subie23's review against another edition
4.0
One of the few books I have read that gives voice to the multiplicity of women's experiences without being preachy or PC. A truly thoughtful and lovely read.