Scan barcode
hannah_reads_sometimes's review
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
fast-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? It's complicated
2.25
If this wasn’t a Bookclub book I would have DNF’d this one. It’s written in first person plural which is rough for a whole book (an essay or a poem feels more okay) and it’s all short chapters - which makes everything move quickly but you barely scratch the surface and then you are moving on. The topic is fascinating and I feel like I’m missing out on something cool. Clearly a lot of research had to go into this and I wish it would have been written as a more typical novel or just a nonfiction book.
woolardhe's review
2.0
Two stars may be generous here. I could not get past the first person plural. I picked up this book thinking it would be a historical fiction on the wives of the men who made the atomic bomb - but this format just was hard to read. It was almost impossible to connect to any characters when they were so briefly mentioned.
samstillreading's review against another edition
4.0
Thank you to Bloomsbury and The Reading Room for the copy of this book.
I’ve been fascinated by the story of Los Alamos ever since I saw a documentary on the men that worked there during World War II. (I didn’t even think about their wives, girlfriends or daughters – how narrow minded of me!) When I saw The Wives of Los Alamos, I knew this was a book I wanted to read for the perspective of what it was like to live, not just work on a top secret mission. I thought this was a non-fiction book, but it’s actually a novel that has been really well researched and tells the story of the women stationed there, no part of their lives left uncovered.
Los Alamos was the secret place in New Mexico, USA where scientists were recruited to work on a top secret mission for the government during World War II. Men and their families came from all parts of the US and further afield, such as Europe. For the wives, it was a complete upheaval. They had to leave their jobs (some were well respected academics in their own field) and their families, but couldn’t say where they were going. Heck, they didn’t even know where they were going. They were given new names. Their future address was nothing but a postal box. To get to their new home, they had to cross the country and then ask for directions in a shop. Once they arrived in Los Alamos, they needed passes to leave. They simply had no idea where they were going and what the essence was of all this secrecy. Their husbands were smart men, good men. So why didn’t they know what their new house would be like? The children’s school?
Nesbit captures all these worries and the adjustments the wives of Los Alamos had to make. I found it fascinating how there is no one main character, but the story is told from the collective first person of all the wives of Los Alamos. I imagine that this was not an easy thing to do, as the women were so different – from newlyweds to older wives, no children to many. They came from varying educational and cultural backgrounds, but they all had to make a living for their families in huts without bathrooms, stores that held very little and in complete isolation from their families and friends. It was no wonder that such strong bonds were formed between these women as they made the best out of what little they had. Nesbit’s writing captures this beautifully – the sense of a community thrown together that becomes very close out of shared need.
I did find it took me a little while to get used to the ‘we’ (the wives) of the narrative, but once I hit my stride, I was eager to read more. Even though I knew what the Project was, I was just as shocked as the wives when they found out what their husbands had been up to. Nesbit captured all the differing feelings so well – from shock and horror to jubilation at their role in ending the war. (From visiting Hiroshima and the Peace Museum, I was familiar with the effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but I hadn’t deeply considered the reaction of those who had invented the bomb. It was an eerie, uncomfortable feeling to know the feelings of both sides). Was the use of ‘we’ as the character in the novel to show the bomb was a team effort, or that the responsibility for the outcome could not be laid at the feet of one individual? Was it simply to show the coming together of individuals in the war? Or, to show that women are at heart the same?
If you’re looking for a story about particular named characters, you may not enjoy this book. But if you’re looking for an overall story of the lives of the women in Los Alamos (a place that didn’t really exist to the rest of the world in WWII), written in a unique voice, you’ll love it.
http://samstillreading.wordpress.com
I’ve been fascinated by the story of Los Alamos ever since I saw a documentary on the men that worked there during World War II. (I didn’t even think about their wives, girlfriends or daughters – how narrow minded of me!) When I saw The Wives of Los Alamos, I knew this was a book I wanted to read for the perspective of what it was like to live, not just work on a top secret mission. I thought this was a non-fiction book, but it’s actually a novel that has been really well researched and tells the story of the women stationed there, no part of their lives left uncovered.
Los Alamos was the secret place in New Mexico, USA where scientists were recruited to work on a top secret mission for the government during World War II. Men and their families came from all parts of the US and further afield, such as Europe. For the wives, it was a complete upheaval. They had to leave their jobs (some were well respected academics in their own field) and their families, but couldn’t say where they were going. Heck, they didn’t even know where they were going. They were given new names. Their future address was nothing but a postal box. To get to their new home, they had to cross the country and then ask for directions in a shop. Once they arrived in Los Alamos, they needed passes to leave. They simply had no idea where they were going and what the essence was of all this secrecy. Their husbands were smart men, good men. So why didn’t they know what their new house would be like? The children’s school?
Nesbit captures all these worries and the adjustments the wives of Los Alamos had to make. I found it fascinating how there is no one main character, but the story is told from the collective first person of all the wives of Los Alamos. I imagine that this was not an easy thing to do, as the women were so different – from newlyweds to older wives, no children to many. They came from varying educational and cultural backgrounds, but they all had to make a living for their families in huts without bathrooms, stores that held very little and in complete isolation from their families and friends. It was no wonder that such strong bonds were formed between these women as they made the best out of what little they had. Nesbit’s writing captures this beautifully – the sense of a community thrown together that becomes very close out of shared need.
I did find it took me a little while to get used to the ‘we’ (the wives) of the narrative, but once I hit my stride, I was eager to read more. Even though I knew what the Project was, I was just as shocked as the wives when they found out what their husbands had been up to. Nesbit captured all the differing feelings so well – from shock and horror to jubilation at their role in ending the war. (From visiting Hiroshima and the Peace Museum, I was familiar with the effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but I hadn’t deeply considered the reaction of those who had invented the bomb. It was an eerie, uncomfortable feeling to know the feelings of both sides). Was the use of ‘we’ as the character in the novel to show the bomb was a team effort, or that the responsibility for the outcome could not be laid at the feet of one individual? Was it simply to show the coming together of individuals in the war? Or, to show that women are at heart the same?
If you’re looking for a story about particular named characters, you may not enjoy this book. But if you’re looking for an overall story of the lives of the women in Los Alamos (a place that didn’t really exist to the rest of the world in WWII), written in a unique voice, you’ll love it.
http://samstillreading.wordpress.com
shirleytupperfreeman's review
As you start reading this, you think, 'wait - is this one voice or many voices?' And the answer turns out to be 'yes.' The narrator tells the story of the wives of Los Alamos (most, though not all, of the scientists were men) using no dialogue or character development. The writing style helps to convey the overall sense that while the women were individuals, they knew they were also part of something bigger than themselves. Not until August of 1945, did they realize they were part of the building of the atomic bomb. You kind of feel like you're having coffee with a group of the wives many years later. They're all talking and many of their stories are the same but each have their own uniqueness also. The secrecy, lack of contact with family, harsh living conditions, the normal concerns of running a household and raising children, the strange social atmosphere - all are described by the many/one. The last paragraph of the 1943 section will give you a sense of the style, "We were a group of people connecting both honestly and dishonestly, appearing composed at dusk and bedraggled at daybreak, committed, whether we wanted it or not, to shared conditions of need, agitation, and sometimes joy, which is to say: we were a community."
rpych2's review
1.0
Using the first person plural to set the tone for the story was a fine idea, but writing the whole story like that basically dehumanized everyone in it because all of the wives were more or less treated as the same person having the same thoughts. I really wanted to read a book about the women behind the scientists at Los Alamos, but instead I read about a weird hive mind of women who couldn’t stop talking in the first person plural. By the third chapter it got really old because there were essentially no characters and no detail.
krobart's review
3.0
See my review here:
https://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/day-644-the-wives-of-los-alamos/
https://whatmeread.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/day-644-the-wives-of-los-alamos/
owlymay's review
4.0
What fascinating lives! This book piqued my interest and I hope to read some of the other books mentioned in the acknowledgements and other reviews on the same subject.
This book is told in first person plural, which I had mixed feelings about. Sometimes it really worked, other times it was distracting. If you can get past that, it was a pretty informative read about the lives of these wives. I read it in just over a day, and it went fast I think in part because of its format.
This book is told in first person plural, which I had mixed feelings about. Sometimes it really worked, other times it was distracting. If you can get past that, it was a pretty informative read about the lives of these wives. I read it in just over a day, and it went fast I think in part because of its format.
lgmaxwell722's review
4.0
This book was written more as prose then a novel. It took a while to get used to the style, but then it all made sense. A collective look about families involved in making the atomic bomb and the secrecy surrounding it. This book gives an honest, well developed look into the lives of women who followed their husbands in the name of science. In a stark town they formed friendships as weapons were being built next door.
hopecaldwell's review
2.0
Here’s why I didn’t like this book: first person plural. “We went to Los Alamos. Some of us wanted to go. Some didn’t. Or, our husbands went and we followed along” That is not an exact quote-I made it up, but you get the picture. The entire book is written that way. I find it hard to connect to anyone and tend to roll my eyes through this style of writing.
The only reason I didn’t just quit this book is my current reading project of #50statesinbooks. Still kind of wished I did.
The only reason I didn’t just quit this book is my current reading project of #50statesinbooks. Still kind of wished I did.