Lessons in Chemistry Book Review
This is the WORST book I have ever read. Bonnie Garmus injects her 2022 form of feminism into a woman from the 1960s and calls it “historical fiction”. I'm briefly discussing two major themes in the Lessons in Chemistry book review: feminism and religion. I will say this twice in this review: this book is not a story, it’s a piece of propaganda.
Disclaimer: This post may include affiliate links. If you purchase through my link, I will receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. See my full disclosure policy, here.
Summary:
Elizabeth Zott is a scientist at Hastings Research Institute in the early 1960 who feels unseen and overlooked by her peers. She walks around guarded towards her male-dominated workplace until she meets a famous genius, Calvin, who is socially awkward, but he sees Elizabeth for her mind. But life is unpredictable, and she finds herself a single mother and the star of a cooking show. Combining the rules of chemistry with cooking, she seeks to teach women recipes while helping them stand up for themselves if they feel stuck in their families and careers.
Feminism
Every cliche you could imagine for feminism and religion is in this book. Nearly every man is either sexist or a rapist. (I’m not kidding). Even the man she “loves” assumes she’s a secretary but then chooses to love her because she's so smart. Yet, he just agrees with every single thing she rants about regarding the patriarchy.
As she put it,
“Elizabeth Zott held grudges too. Her grudges were mainly reserved for a patriarchal society founded on the idea that women were less. Less capable. Less intelligent. Less inventive. A society that believed men went to work and did important things—discovered planets, developed products, created laws—and women stayed at home and raised children.”
Lessons in Chemistry, Bonnie Garmus
I was flabbergasted when she called mothers “legalized slaves.” Throughout the book, the author either described or told us through character dialogue why the patriarchy was oppressive for women. It was exhaustive to read and not at all storytelling.
The author made almost every man a villain. There were men in this era that were obviously not sexist, rapists, or misogynistic. This was horrible storytelling because she described these major themes as black and white.
It's a historical fact that women were oppressed for generations, but she infected the story with present-day politics. The main character assumed that every man was misogynistic, and the males reflected that as if it were a reality.
Life is full of sacrifice and suffering. Parents make decisions for the betterment of their families. Raising children is the hardest job there is, and some women love keeping and running a home. Bonnie Garmus assumes every woman feels the same way she does about motherhood and the patriarchy.
“It’s just that we tend to treat pregnancy as the most common condition in the world—as ordinary as stubbing a toe—when the truth is, it’s like getting hit by a truck. Although obviously, a truck causes less damage.”
Lessons in Chemistry, Bonnie Garmus
This statement is so blasphemous; I could both laugh and scream! People have given birth since the dawn of humanity; for the author to call it a “condition” like it’s a disease is insulting. Pregnancy is one of the hardest things women endure; women are a vessels for creation. Comparing a truck accident to birth is insulting to women and the people who have been hit by trucks. I’ll tell you from witnessing both - it’s not the same thing.
Religion
Another surface-level theme with no deep humanity throughline is religion. I knew where this story was going as soon as we learned Elizabeth's parents were religious fundamentalists. Her brother’s suicide was a predictable, generic, and unoriginal plot device. Not all religious people are fundamentalists, and not all gay people with religious backgrounds attempt suicide. And since this was the plot, she doesn’t humanize the reality of it. Again, speaking from life experience, it’s challenging, but never as black and white as she describes it.
Bonnie Garmus doesn't understand people of faith, therefore, poorly writes them as caricatures without humanity.
As she so callously says,
“People will always yearn for a simple solution to their complicated problems. It’s a lot easier to have faith in something you can’t see, can’t touch, can’t explain, and can’t change, rather than to have faith in something you actually can.”
Lessons in Chemistry, Bonnie Garmus
This statement is completely backward. Wouldn’t you say that it’s easier to have faith in something you can see than something you can’t? That’s literally why it’s called faith. And for her to express that having/finding faith is an “easy solution” has never actually tried. The definition of faith is to have a belief in something or someone, especially the unknown. It's one of the hardest things we are asked to do as humans. Suffice it to say, the publication of this book and its author's perspective appalls me and is yet another example of the kind of stories told these days that disenchant audiences.
