Scan barcode
ropalimpia's review
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
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
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
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
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
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.
deannah's review
3.0
So, I am really conflicted about what to rate this book. At the very least, it was good. And the best, it was very good. And I can't figure out where it falls for me.
The novel is written in first person plural. For me this gives it a feeling of generality and anonymity. I kept wanting to know specifics--who was doing what. I haven't decided if this was a brilliant move or not. In a sense, the wives of Los Alamos were treated as a group. They had very limited/restricted information. They knew practically nothing of what was going on. And, I guess in a sense, the format of this book makes you feel in a similar manner.
Also, because it is kept so general, there were times as a reader I could relate to the feelings expressed since I too have felt too those feelings of isolation, boredom, powerlessness, etc. I may not have identified with those feelings if portrayed more specifically.
This book reminded me of the middle grade book, The Green Glass Sea, written of the same location and time but from the perspective of children. It is ironic perhaps that these books are so similar. That both the women (non-scientists) and the children where living in such close proximity to a life-changing work, yet knew so little of it. In fact there is this huge discrepancy between what is described in the book (the mediocrities of life) vs the work that was actually done there.
The novel is written in first person plural. For me this gives it a feeling of generality and anonymity. I kept wanting to know specifics--who was doing what. I haven't decided if this was a brilliant move or not. In a sense, the wives of Los Alamos were treated as a group. They had very limited/restricted information. They knew practically nothing of what was going on. And, I guess in a sense, the format of this book makes you feel in a similar manner.
Also, because it is kept so general, there were times as a reader I could relate to the feelings expressed since I too have felt too those feelings of isolation, boredom, powerlessness, etc. I may not have identified with those feelings if portrayed more specifically.
This book reminded me of the middle grade book, The Green Glass Sea, written of the same location and time but from the perspective of children. It is ironic perhaps that these books are so similar. That both the women (non-scientists) and the children where living in such close proximity to a life-changing work, yet knew so little of it. In fact there is this huge discrepancy between what is described in the book (the mediocrities of life) vs the work that was actually done there.
laurabrantreads's review
1.0
The writing style was hard to digest. Using the third person plural made the book have an "every woman" voice that range false to me. I enjoyed learning about the origins of Los Alamos in a narrative form but that was where my enjoyment ended.
corrigan's review
1.0
This was nearly unreadable. I thought the "we" thing was gonna just be the introduction and then it'd get into individual stories, but noooope.
rainbowbookworm's review
3.0
I had read Joshua Ferris's Then We Came to the End, novel that uses the first person plural narrator, and loved it. When I picked up this book I did not expect the author's choice of narrator to bother me. However, there were times when it seemed the author was hesitant to commit to events that occurred in Los Alamo's during the building of the atomic bomb. The narrators' "we" seems like a cop out when she was not sure whether this happened or that. Nonetheless, it is an interesting read.