Reviews with content warning for Religious bigotry - Lekcje chemii

Reviews tagging 'Religious bigotry'

Lekcje chemii by Bonnie Garmus

143 reviews

freul's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional funny hopeful informative inspiring lighthearted mysterious reflective relaxing fast-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

5.0

Content Warnings

queen_melliott's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? It's complicated
Loveable characters? No
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

1.5

I had really high hopes for this but ended up absolutely despising it. I did however, very much enjoy the ending because I love when everybody gets what they deserve. It was the only redeeming thing about this disaster of a book.

First of all, I have no idea why in the world anyone would describe this as comedy and compare it to Mrs Maisel when the holy story revolved around discrimination, prejudice, bullying, rape, suicide and death in general. It had zero funny moments.

The story felt so unrealistic for the time. Yes, there absolutely were women who were highly intelligent, who wanted to work, to be scientists or doctors, who didn’t believe in God, who supported or at least accepted gay people, who didn’t believe in marriage, who didn’t want children, who were not warm and nurturing but more unemotional and matter-of-fact, and who had highly intelligent children whom they brought up with a more liberal mindset. Elizabeth, however, combined all of these traits and felt so incredibly unrealistic to me. The reason why I couldn’t stand her was a different one, though. She always felt the need to fight, to be mean and make enemies wherever she went. She was so uncooperative and defensive, she didn’t see when people were trying to help her and be good to her (Calvin, Mason, Avery). She felt downright hostile to me.

Talking about unrealistic, DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON MAD AND THE DOG. Madeline is 5 YEARS OLD. Even for a gifted child, it just seemed ridiculous to me, the way she talked, speaking about taxes and faith having nothing to do with religion, get out of here.
And then the friggin’ dog. Learning English. Analyzing human behavior like a psychologist. Reading the clock. Speaking to dead and unborn people. Walking 9 miles by himself to visit Elizabeth at work. Picking up Mad from school. Having an inner monologue about the dissonance between people thinking they’re so smart and voluntarily consuming carcinogens. Then of course he was trained in bomb detection, too. I swear the only thing that dog couldn’t do was go rowing with Elizabeth.
Also, maybe three people would watch that cooking show. It would NOT be a hit in that time. Today, yes. Back then, hell no.

Needless to say, I skim-read most of the book because I hated it so much but still wanted to know where the story was going to go, what all the fuss was about.
Then came the point I would have DNFed this, hadn’t I been in 76% already: Elizabeth, a SCIENTIST, someone who always stuck to the SCIENTIFIC FACTS, telling a woman on her show that it is OK TO EAT MEAT BECAUSE PLANTS ARE ALIVE, TOO, just like animals!!! LADY, PLANTS DO NOT HAVE A CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, THEREFORE, THEY DO NOT FEEL PAIN. Also, they do not feel emotions and have no families, they don’t feel frightened before we dice them, they do not release stress hormones, they don’t feel pain, they don’t miss their family members when separated from them. EATING MEAT AND EATING PLANTS ABSOLUTELY DO NOT COMPARE. Meat is murder, full stop. So is dairy and eggs. Educate yourself, Bonnie Garmus. The only slightly redeeming part about this was that, later, Elizabeth teaches her audience that plants do in fact have protein. So at least, Bonnie Garmus knows nutritional facts, even if she has no clue about the anatomy of plants or ethical questions.

Lastly, the whole point of the story was to fight discrimination and be accepting of people no matter their sex or sexual orientation - with the exception of people who believe in God, of course, and all Christian churches in the world. They are pure evil! There is only a single good priest and that is the one who doesn’t believe in God in the first place (Wakely). What a way to undermine the books whole point. Accept people for who they are, unless they have a different point of view or different beliefs from yours. Well done, Bonnie Garmus.

Content Warnings

lasunflower's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional hopeful reflective medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

4.0

4 stars because I liked the happy ending. Otherwise it would be 3.

The blurb and reviews on the cover dont really accurately explain what the book was about. I got the impression that its a funny book about a quirky scientist turned TV host in the 50/60s. It is hard to describe (it is literary fiction after all). I'd say somewhere between a dysfunctional found family story and a fictional idiosyncratic feminist biography.

It is written in a witty way, but I wouldn't say funny. The cooking show doesn't form much content of the book: it doesn't become a thing until halfway through and even then isn't much of the content. Be aware that the book from the beginning dives into dark themes: ca page 20 is a rape scene and not much later is a conversation hitting on themes of suicide, child rape, abandonment, death of parents etc. I understand why Garmus did this (as it occurred at the beginning of Zott's career) but it was too jarring, especially considering what I was expecting the book to be about.

Overall, I liked how it was written, though some scenes were a bit strange. Like the cafeteria scene was a bit strange to hear from the perspectives of people not otherwise on the book (and happening early on, nearly put me off the book) or the chapters from the dog's perspective too. I think if these chapters were cut, the book would have flowed a lot better. Sometimes they felt like Garmus was just trying to be quirky instead of give new perspectives.

This book has given me lots of food for thought.

Just so others are aware, this book focuses on the white straight woman experience only. I commend Garmus for not doing too many themes in the book, but just for readers to be aware, as it is a recent feminist book, but isn't reflective of third wave intersectional feminism.

Content Warnings

helfire124's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional hopeful inspiring reflective sad tense medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

Content Warnings

annabarnardwright's review against another edition

Go to review page

challenging dark emotional hopeful informative inspiring reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

5.0

My favourite read in ages, this book is unlike anything I’ve read before and I raced through it. I loved the characters, the plot, the writing style, the social commentary, the humour, everything. Even the narration from the dog’s perspective felt somehow completely believable. I didn’t see what was coming at any point but looking back afterwards it all tied in very cleverly. I’d highly recommend this to anyone.

Content Warnings