Scan barcode
A review by lunabean
Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus
funny
hopeful
inspiring
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.75
So many rave reviews and on bestselling bookshelves everywhere I thought it was going to be spectacular and literary, spewing wisdom, but really it felt like a child’s read.
The great part about it is the characters and the way Garmus tells the story. The characters are very loveable, at times funny. I especially loved Six-Thirty (the dog)‘s internal monologues. The writing has no metaphors, no subtlety, just straightforward, direct prose that allows you to devour the book in a couple sittings. I usually have to reread sentences when I read, but hardly did it at all for this one. Most of the prose was back and forth conversation so it feels like reading a movie script. It’s like reading at an easy level, there’s nothing in it really that requires critical thinking, so this one’s for you if you want to relax your brain.
The plot though… cliche after cliche. It’s the 1950s and the protagonist, Elizabeth Zott, is a chemist who struggles to be taken seriously by anyone because people believed women belonged at home. Most of what Zott stands for (writer’s moral voice) is awesome - feminism, the importance of choice and the role of the housewife, education and learning etc, but Garmus conveyed these in a way that came off so so SO cheesy. I get that it’s the 1950s but the good guys and the bad guys were so black and white that it felt like I was reading a children’s book.
And THEN there’s the trauma dumping… topics of rape, sexual harassment, suicide, abuse, littered in between the cliches🥴🥴
I wanted to love this book. I do like the story, it’s fun and cute, but the writing just didn’t hit the mark for me… I can see older women enjoying this one though. Maybe I’m just not the target audience🤷🏻♀️
The great part about it is the characters and the way Garmus tells the story. The characters are very loveable, at times funny. I especially loved Six-Thirty (the dog)‘s internal monologues. The writing has no metaphors, no subtlety, just straightforward, direct prose that allows you to devour the book in a couple sittings. I usually have to reread sentences when I read, but hardly did it at all for this one. Most of the prose was back and forth conversation so it feels like reading a movie script. It’s like reading at an easy level, there’s nothing in it really that requires critical thinking, so this one’s for you if you want to relax your brain.
The plot though… cliche after cliche. It’s the 1950s and the protagonist, Elizabeth Zott, is a chemist who struggles to be taken seriously by anyone because people believed women belonged at home. Most of what Zott stands for (writer’s moral voice) is awesome - feminism, the importance of choice and the role of the housewife, education and learning etc, but Garmus conveyed these in a way that came off so so SO cheesy. I get that it’s the 1950s but the good guys and the bad guys were so black and white that it felt like I was reading a children’s book.
And THEN there’s the trauma dumping… topics of rape, sexual harassment, suicide, abuse, littered in between the cliches🥴🥴
I wanted to love this book. I do like the story, it’s fun and cute, but the writing just didn’t hit the mark for me… I can see older women enjoying this one though. Maybe I’m just not the target audience🤷🏻♀️