Scan barcode
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
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
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
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
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
katrinky's review
4.0
beautiful, and the first person plural was poignant and clever. it felt insubstantial, once I was finished, but while I was reading I was completely engrossed. want to read lots more about the town.
gengray47's review
reflective
slow-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
3.0
Ehh i was hoping for a lot more from this book. There wasn't much of a storyline, and the 'we' first person plural was at most time disjointed. Not a fave
weneed_mobrown's review against another edition
3.0
I was wanting to get this as an audiobook and now I realize why it isn't read aloud... it's written in first person plural??!?!? WHY??? Ok, I kind of liked it after it became almost unbearable but again, WHY?! - 3stars.
skigirl1689's review against another edition
2.0
I had high hopes for this book, but I was disappointed. I thought the author could have had a brilliant narrative, but with the impersonal first person, plural point of view, it just fell flat. It seemed to be just a retelling of facts, which didn't appeal to me, and not a novel.
gr8reader's review
4.0
Interesting style that I don't recall reading anything written this way before. Missed having specific characters to become invested in, yet the book kept me reading from start to finish.