Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus might be the worst book I ever read and here are my reasons.
Character Flaws:
Unrealistic and Unrelatable Protagonist: I find Elizabeth Zott, the protagonist, to be unrealistic, unrelatable, and even unlikable. Her excessive arrogance, lack of empathy, and inconsistent personality are major turn-offs.
One-Dimensional Supporting Cast: The supporting characters are often described as stereotypical caricatures lacking depth or nuance. There is a neighbor who happens to be the perfect friend. she takes off her kid, cooks supports her every move, and her whole life evolves around her.
Misrepresentation and Inaccuracy:
Inaccurate Scientific Depiction: Readers with scientific backgrounds, particularly chemists, might suffer from multiple factual errors and inaccuracies in the way science is portrayed. From misusing terminology to showcasing unrealistic laboratory practices, the scientific aspect is deemed uncredible and misleading. As a chemist, I was initially intrigued by the premise of the book, hoping for an engaging story authored by a fellow scientist. However, I found myself increasingly disappointed by the inaccurate portrayal of science and scientists throughout the narrative.
One of my major frustrations stemmed from the protagonist’s unrealistic expertise across various scientific disciplines. It seemed implausible that she could excel in areas like abiogenesis, and food science, and even teach herself complex skills like rowing solely through reading physics textbooks. She didn’t go to school, she just studied in libraries, and somehow ended up the best chemist in California? the same story for his partner. Is it even possible to get 3 Noble Prize nominations before you hit 35?
Instances, where chemical formulas were spoken aloud (calling table salt sodium chloride and vinegar, acetic acid), were particularly jarring.
The portrayal of canned foods as “poison” without any explanation or context was another point of contention for me. As someone familiar with the importance of canned foods in preserving nutrition, especially in areas with limited access to fresh produce (ask people in the army or navy if you can’t access people who rely on food charities in poor areas of the world), this demonization felt irresponsible and ill-informed. Also, what could be more misleading than saying: that this food is poison because it contains chemicals? aren’t all the food and nature made of chemicals? Wasn’t it you calling coffee C₈H₁₀N₄O₂ a few pages ago?
Superficial Historical Context: some people argue that the book’s portrayal of the 1950s and 60s is oversimplified and lacks historical accuracy. for example, subsidized child care didn’t exist in sweden till 70s. while she is talking about it in 60 or 50s.
Heavy-Handed Messaging:
Simplistic and Preachy Tone: The book’s message on feminism and other social issues (although well intended and correct) is often overly simplistic, heavy-handed, and preachy. characters act as mouthpieces for the author’s agenda rather than engaging in nuanced discussions or presenting different perspectives. There is no character arch at all. Why did Elizabeth become who she is and start supporting feminist ideas? What pushed her to move toward the opposite direction of society at that time? These questions are never answered. From the very first page, she walks around and repeats feminist-inspired dialogues like parrots without any depth or understanding of why she reached this point.
For example, a very good example would be: many people thought she was a secretary at the research institute, right? or undermined her work and did not take her seriously.
I wish there were a chapter in which she doubted herself (like almost all the sexism victims would do) A chapter that covered her internal conversations that maybe the path she chose was wrong and maybe those people were right.
But no, not even for a second, these internal conversations and the complexity of human emotions are not covered at all. the book just suddenly jumps to another topic without digging deeper into the characters.
The emotional toll of SA on Elizabeth and other females who experienced it in the book is not covered AT ALL. it just happens and she quickly moves on to another project which is why she is immensely successful again. This simplifaction of such heartbreaking and difficult situations that women are going through, is what makes this book so intolerable for me.
The sexism was way more real and painful than ‘boys wear blue, girls wear pink’ in 50s and 60s. It was (still is) a perpetual silent attempt to undermine you. e.g. it is when your professor takes a boy’s comment more seriously than yours or it is when in the classroom, boys actively participate in discussions while girls shy away and are afraid of making mistakes. The book completely ignores the existence of the latter type of sexism. Based on this book, it is whether in dialogues or SA.
and the ending oh my god, She suddenly jumped to the top of a research institute without working there for years and having tons of very successful publications and conferences.
Not to mention the big role of ‘relationships’ in gaining those positions which she definitely didn’t have.
by _Sattin_