Scan barcode
fionab_16's review against another edition
informative
reflective
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? It's complicated
4.5
author_d_r_oestreicher's review against another edition
5.0
The Wives of Los Alamos by TaraShea Nesbit is a beautiful prose-poem written in the first-person plural covering the development of the atomic bomb during the years 1943-1945…from the perspective of the wives. “We married men just like our fathers, or nothing like them, or only the best parts.”
An evocative story of life at Los Alamos during World War II. Not an introduction to the development of the atomic bomb, but a beautiful supplement.
For my expanded notes: https://1book42day.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-wives-of-los-alamos-by-tarashea.html
Check out https://amazon.com/shop/influencer-20171115075 for book recommendations.
An evocative story of life at Los Alamos during World War II. Not an introduction to the development of the atomic bomb, but a beautiful supplement.
For my expanded notes: https://1book42day.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-wives-of-los-alamos-by-tarashea.html
Check out https://amazon.com/shop/influencer-20171115075 for book recommendations.
kbranfield's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars.
The Wives of Los Alamos is an interesting look into the lives of the scientists and families who lived in Los Alamos during the development of the atomic bomb. Using a very unique storytelling technique, TaraShea Nesbit describes the hardships and frustrations the wives experienced while living in seclusion as their husbands carried out their work in secrecy.
The point of view in The Wives of Los Alamos is not from a specific individual. Instead, it is written in first person plural ("we") which makes for a very unusual reading experience. I think I understand why Ms. Nesbit chose this particular viewpoint-the wives were pretty much stripped of their identity upon their arrival, making everyone indistinguishable from the others. But it also makes for a frustrating reading experience when coupled with the attempts to show individuality from a group perspective. Every possibility for every situation is included in the narrative and the delivery is so impersonal it is virtually impossible to connect with any of the characters.
While the POV was frustrating, their overall experience is quite fascinating. The entire project is shrouded in secrecy right from the beginning and the majority of the wives had no idea what their husbands were working on. The living conditions were austere and harsh. Mail was heavily censored and there were no phone calls in or out. No visits from extended family were allowed and in fact, once most families arrived, they did not leave except for the occasional day trip to Santa Fe. Many of the wives are highly educated, but their skills are sadly underutilized. Surprisingly a few of the wives did take jobs, but their wages were practically non-existent.
TaraShea Nesbit's The Wives of Los Alamos provides an intriguing look into the lives of the people who were involved with a huge moment in American history. While the collective "we" takes getting used to, in the end, it is the most effective way to tell this incredible story.
The Wives of Los Alamos is an interesting look into the lives of the scientists and families who lived in Los Alamos during the development of the atomic bomb. Using a very unique storytelling technique, TaraShea Nesbit describes the hardships and frustrations the wives experienced while living in seclusion as their husbands carried out their work in secrecy.
The point of view in The Wives of Los Alamos is not from a specific individual. Instead, it is written in first person plural ("we") which makes for a very unusual reading experience. I think I understand why Ms. Nesbit chose this particular viewpoint-the wives were pretty much stripped of their identity upon their arrival, making everyone indistinguishable from the others. But it also makes for a frustrating reading experience when coupled with the attempts to show individuality from a group perspective. Every possibility for every situation is included in the narrative and the delivery is so impersonal it is virtually impossible to connect with any of the characters.
While the POV was frustrating, their overall experience is quite fascinating. The entire project is shrouded in secrecy right from the beginning and the majority of the wives had no idea what their husbands were working on. The living conditions were austere and harsh. Mail was heavily censored and there were no phone calls in or out. No visits from extended family were allowed and in fact, once most families arrived, they did not leave except for the occasional day trip to Santa Fe. Many of the wives are highly educated, but their skills are sadly underutilized. Surprisingly a few of the wives did take jobs, but their wages were practically non-existent.
TaraShea Nesbit's The Wives of Los Alamos provides an intriguing look into the lives of the people who were involved with a huge moment in American history. While the collective "we" takes getting used to, in the end, it is the most effective way to tell this incredible story.
lornarei's review against another edition
3.0
It was definitely not what I was expecting, the first person plural narrative as opposed to a "story". It took some time, but I grew to enjoy the style. And the style makes the point that just because these women were all thrown together in the same place for a time, they were not all alike or all different. Just like "real life".
yasmine_w's review against another edition
2.0
Well, the first person plural thing is definitely not my cup of tea. If I had known that before I started reading this book, I probably wouldn't have picked it up. I can appreciate what Nesbit was trying to do by writing in that style (making the experience seem more universal and all that jazz). On the other hand, this style made it really hard to connect with any of the characters. Even when she threw in tragic anecdotes, it was hard to care since none of the characters seemed real.
teriboop's review against another edition
1.0
Either this book was a genius piece of work or it was an epic fail. I'm going with the latter. TaraShea Nesbit wrote this book in first person plural which employs writing techniques like "Our husbands did this or they did that". I thought at first that The Wives of Los Alamos was a book about polygamists. I expect the word "or" was used more in this book than the f-bomb was used in The Wolf of Wall Street (569 times, in case you're wondering). This is suppose to be the story of the wives of the men sent to Los Alamos in the 40s to build the a-bomb. You would expect to learn about the lives of the individual women, their families and the heartaches of living in a secretive world during WWII. What you end up with are snippets of the lives of some women, most of whom are unnamed. The reader is offered the different scenarios that happened..."We called our friends from the phone booth and they met us at the train station or at our house with a loaf of bread, or a chicken casserole and a flask." (from the chapter titled "West") These statements are attached to nameless people, giving the reader a chaotic, confused look into their lives. Imagine a scene in a movie where someone's life is flashed before their eyes, you see all these short scenes of their life that are going through their heads. That's what it felt like reading this book, that you were seeing that type of image without any prior knowledge of the people involved.
If the author was out to make you feel as secretive, uncomfortable, and confused at the residents of Los Alamos, then she did her job. However, I never felt connected to or understood anything solid about these people. Names were occasionally dropped but because you never got to know them as individual people, you never knew how anyone felt, how they truly lived and how they were affected by the secret lives they were forced to endure. My feeling toward this book is described in two words: Disconnected rubbish.
If the author was out to make you feel as secretive, uncomfortable, and confused at the residents of Los Alamos, then she did her job. However, I never felt connected to or understood anything solid about these people. Names were occasionally dropped but because you never got to know them as individual people, you never knew how anyone felt, how they truly lived and how they were affected by the secret lives they were forced to endure. My feeling toward this book is described in two words: Disconnected rubbish.
april0686's review against another edition
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
It felt like there were a lot of gaps and the characters were difficult to near impossible to follow and keep track of, likely because there was no continuity in discussing them. While the idea is interesting and the writing developed a backdrop and an overall emotional sense, it left me with the feeling of wanting more information about the characters.
Content Warnings
Moderate: War
bethgiven's review against another edition
2.0
I can't talk about this book without talking about the verb tense: first person plural. The royal we." At a couple of points, I thought it was somewhat lyrical -- but for the most part it felt unnecessarily melodramatic (an individual experience becomes everyone's experience, so it felt like everybody was catty and whiny and adulterous, and I doubt that was true). Other times it felt just plain boring; it was hard to connect with the story just because there are no real characters to speak of -- just this nebulous "we." I did actually appreciate the verb tense toward the end, when dealing with the implications of the dropping of the bombs on Japan -- it was an effective way to demonstrate the varied points of view on a complicated issue -- but it felt like too little too late. I think I would have really liked the novel if the author had alternated the first-person plural with a few traditional chapters, with characters and such.
My other complaint with this book is that I wished there was some way to tell what was fact and what was fiction. I know enough about the Manhattan Project to recognize Feynman and Bohr and Oppenheimer and Groves in the pages, but who are the rest? Which passages are inspired by real stories and what are born of the author's imagination? (The author just throws in a passing reference to a Mormon neighbor -- she can't tease me like that! I want to know the whole story!!) Even a few notes at the end would have been appreciated, but all that she includes is a small bit of bibliography in the "thanks" section.
So I can't say I liked this book or anything (to be honest, I kind of had to drag myself through it in the middle), but it was definitely more interesting toward the end. I'd love to hear what my other Los Alamos friends (including the current "wives of Los Alamos!") think of this one!
My other complaint with this book is that I wished there was some way to tell what was fact and what was fiction. I know enough about the Manhattan Project to recognize Feynman and Bohr and Oppenheimer and Groves in the pages, but who are the rest? Which passages are inspired by real stories and what are born of the author's imagination? (The author just throws in a passing reference to a Mormon neighbor -- she can't tease me like that! I want to know the whole story!!) Even a few notes at the end would have been appreciated, but all that she includes is a small bit of bibliography in the "thanks" section.
So I can't say I liked this book or anything (to be honest, I kind of had to drag myself through it in the middle), but it was definitely more interesting toward the end. I'd love to hear what my other Los Alamos friends (including the current "wives of Los Alamos!") think of this one!
shighley's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting subject, and one that we should know more about. But, as others have said, the writing style got in the way. With seemingly everything in the collective sense, I didn't feel like I got to know any of the characters. So much "we did..." or "we did... the opposite". Guess what-- it's like that for those of us who don't live in Los Alamos, too. I did want to know more about Los Alamos and the events that took place there, and did do further research. Glad the end of the book included the continued fears of the 1950's and '60s.
emmiemarigold's review against another edition
informative
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
0.5
First person plural makes this literally unreadable