A review by floatinthevoid
Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus

Did not finish book. Stopped at 75%.
DNF-ED at 75%. 

Warning! Rant review incoming.

"Wait. is that rare?" Madeline piped up. "Is not believing in God one of those rare things?"

The subtlety... is that of an actual elephant in the room. This is why I avoid hyped books like a plague btw. I've heard so many positive reviews from people I usually shared a taste in books with. But man, like okay, I get it Elizabeth Zott is Woman In Science. She calls out misogynistic bullshit all the time. She dared to fight injustices. I get it she's smart and quirky and very attractive to everyone except herself. And of course her child is a Genius too. Reading Nabokov and Norman Mailer at four. Understand politics and human rights at six. Oh, they also have a dog that can understand 200 words or something. Nothing is too impossible for the Zotts, apparently. Okayyy I get it, really. So then, the story?

The actual plot minus all the quirkiness and force-fed morality messages from the author? so dragging and borderline boring. The comedy? Okay. You can make fun out of something very serious. I believe that. But you also need to execute it well. Meanwhile in this book, the author to me feels like she doesn't know how to go about it. And I imagine she said "Fuck it, we ball!" then she balled and not giving it another glance. There's some heavy topics discussed and described in the early chapters, so I got the impression that this is the kind of "serious book" layered with dark humor. Well I was promised "sparks joy with every page" but I got none. With all the exaggeration integrated in a lot of aspects in this book: the characters, plots, dialogues, etc this would do so well as a satire. Make it over the top since the start, so over the top people can't miss it's a satire. But alas this book is not a satire.

Instead of exploring nuances about women in science's struggle or women's struggle in general during the 1950s, the author instead took the girlboss archetype marketed by corporates and mainstream media path. Why is it that Elizabeth so two dimensional anyway? there's a potential to shape her into Woman In Science character with depth, if the author allows her to have vulnerabilities. There are some moments where distressing situations can cause her emotional or moral dilemma, which will be very interesting by the way. But no, nuh-uh. Only logical thinking is allowed. She seemed to always got it handled perfectly in the end. 

The other characters were also put as some kind of measurement to show how much better Elizabeth is regarding to social issues, as if she's a social person herself. I only loved the part where Elizabeth and Calvin met, knowing each other then get together. Just two snobs being a couple.

The dog... doesn't necessarily give me any kind of joy. It's just not something I usually wanted to read willingly. So I don't have much to say about it. 

The other men characters on the other hand, have no redeeming qualities. Either they're straight up a SA perpetrator or they're an active complicit that ends up not getting their views challenged/confronted at all.

You know, if anything I'm more interested in whatever's going on between Calvin and Wakely...

Point is, this is so disappointing and annoying.
Expand filter menu Content Warnings