"Lessons in Chemistry" is a bad book and here are my reasons:
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.
Moreover, the author's handling of scientific concepts felt shallow and misleading. Instances where chemical formulas were spoken( she called table salt sodium chloride, what is even the point of that?) aloud. Additionally, the use of unnecessary jargon further exacerbated the book's shortcomings. Instead of demystifying science for readers, it only served to alienate them and detract from the story's potential to empower individuals interested in STEM subjects. the protagonist's nonchalant attitude towards a misbalanced centrifuge, which could have catastrophic consequences, was 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 navy soldiers or people in deserted areas relying on UN food charities), this demonization felt irresponsible and ill-informed. The main problem was the reasoning behind it. she called it poison because it has chemicals in it. isn't the whole of nature and foods made of chemicals? wtf?
Another issue is how the book handles serious topics like sexual assault and abuse. It's like the book doesn't take them seriously enough. Instead of helping women who have been hurt. the book just jumps from one SA to another. The protagonist is constantly under attack from sexist men and women. while these are the truths of that era, the book doesn't go deep into the emotional toll they had on women back then. Elizabeth is unbreakable. You never see her in the book to doubt herself and her abilities.
The characters in the book also don't feel real. Elizabeth is supposed to be super smart, but she doesn't act like it. She never learns from her mistakes. She is completely tactless yet she achieves the head of a scientific research institute, just through being good at a cooking show! There is no character arch. You know she is different from other women but you don't know why (who for some reason are all depicted as chatty and shallow in this book, neglecting the strong feminist movement in society back then). There is no explanation for why she had become who she is. What life experiences led her to decide to be the breaker of the barriers? ZERO EXPLANATION.
Overall, "Lessons in Chemistry" tries to be about important things like feminism and equality, but it doesn't do a good job. It has a sanctimonious behavior. Instead of taking you on a journey, it stands in front of you and continues preaching its values on every page. As much as I appreciate the message, I hate bad writing. I give it 2/10 just for the message.
by [deleted]
25 Comments
You’ve articulated my issues with this book so clearly. I have nothing more to add. Thank you!
Dnf’d for the annoying language and graphic SA scenes
Lol, you should know better, chemist! Can’t read books too close to home unless the author is an expert. (–a biologist)
OP really has a bone to pick with that book. Third time’s a charm?
The dialogue in this book felt like it was straight from “The Big Bang Theory” at times.
I agree with you except the part where she’s supposed to be really smart, yet doesn’t act like it. Book smart isn’t street smart.
Time to go against the grain, I suppose.
“Lesson in Chemistry” is far from being a bad book. It never claimed to be a scientific paper, nor it claimed to be fully accurate. It is not a non-fiction book, it’s fiction.
Are the characters over the top? Yes, absolutely. Especially the main characters ( Zott, Mad, Evans) they diverge so much away from the norm they cannot be relatable at all. The side characters, on the other end, are regular people who clearly think those three are odd but hey, they’re still great people to have around.
The novel is far from perfect, but find a book that is considered unanimously perfect. It doesn’t exist, because reading is subjective. Yet, this book is an easy, light, and entertaining read, despite the handling of some heavy theme.
We also have the point of view of the dog, so I’m seriously failing to understand why there are complaints about the accuracy of the science in the book when the dog is sentient here.
From my understanding, Elisabeth and Evans seems to also be coded possibly somewhere on the spectrum, which could also explain their oddities and idiosyncrasies.
In conclusion, no, it’s not a bad book just because you didn’t like it. You were looking for something that this book never claimed to be. And you are far the only person who’ve seen their profession completely misinterpreted in books or movies, but you’re the first one I see who’s taking it as a personal affront. Ironically, you have this in common with Zott and Evans.
I have no scientific knowledge, I just thought it was poorly written.
Oh, you forgot to mention the woke propaganda!
Say, you wouldn’t per chance be an alt account of this user who’s been spamming bad reviews of Lessons in Chemistry on the sub that always end up banned? What with the identical points and all…
[https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1b5kzz9/oh_man_i_hate_woke_feminists/](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1b5kzz9/oh_man_i_hate_woke_feminists/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1b5lqwp/lessons_in_chemistry_a_strong_criticism/](https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1b5lqwp/lessons_in_chemistry_a_strong_criticism/)
YUP!!
I’ll also add the dropped plot points, leaps in logic, no character development, and soulless text.
We are TOLD how smart this woman is, but you just never SEE it if you push the jargon down.
We are also told She is a beloved and perfect mother. In reality, she is a crazed, obsessive, self-important, and controlling mother. I would actually have been interested in exploring the relationship of a woman who never wants to be a mother and what forced motherhood can look like… but nah, she’s a “perfect” mother.
Honestly, it felt like a mockery of feminist stories.
I don’t think I’ll ever forget the line “she determined the chemical composition of ballpoint pen ink to forge her birth certificate.”
This is a repost. I already read this exact same review. Either you stole it from someone or made a new account and reposted the same thing.
Still have no idea why someone as super smart – and obsessively health conscious with nutrition as her – chose to bottlefeed her baby with formula instead of breastfeed…
as a Chemistry Ph.D. candidate this book irked me so much!!! i don’t talk like a dork, i’m just a regular girlie who loves cooking food and also cooking in the laboratory so i thought i would like it too, but it was heinous. No idea why people loved it so much.
This review feels familiar 🤦♂️. Do you think it’s too woke by any chance?
A smart character salt sodium chloride instead of salt to show how smart they are is straight out of Jimmy Neutron
…. Maybe you can create a separate sub that bashes the book.. cuz it seems to be a pattern here at this point lol
>Instead of helping women who have been hurt.
Don’t know what you mean here. The book should help them?
I’m not a chemist, although I am in a STEM field and research adjacent job. Let’s just say that while I was reading I was comforted by the fact that a chemist would be rolling their eyes even more and feel more exasperated at this book than I am lol 😂
Having known actual women chemists from that time it’s doubly insulting and felt like a stupid caricature. Don’t even get me started on the flipping dog.
Yes! All of this plus the talking dog. This women cooks but “not like the other girls” cook.
This woman happens to be an exceptional rower with no athletic background, just complete nonsense.
And then there’s the talking dog…
It is frustrating when you’re a woman in Stem looking for a relatable character, and this is what’s offered.
Thank. God.
“Don’t eat this. It’s full of chemicals”
FROM A CHEMIST??????
Wearing your lab coat literally anywhere except the lab????? (not a chemist, so smack me if that’s not insane. In any chemistry lab I’ve been in that’s basic “yeesh… yeah, no”)
Gutting your kitchen to make a lab and then also prepping food for your young child there?? Gutting your kitchen but also being a cooking savant, because, “cooking is just chemistry hehe”???
And maybe the most unbelievable: A chemist who is comfortable with physics and math??? I kid. ^^…Mostly
But ultra cringe to her scanning through a few theories on newtonian mechanics and then suddenly being amazing at rowing. Learning basic shit about lever arms and drag to make small adustments to rowing technique? Sure… But doing fucking lagrangian proofs like……. l o l. That just hurt.
(Edit: Forgot to add, all the chemical names for basic ass things… I know chemists. They don’t go walking around calling salt sodium chloride. Why didn’t she also call water [dihydrogen monoxide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody)? Just… cringey.)
I was stunned to see that the author had spoken to scientists, much less female scientists.
I hated this book so much. There are so many brilliant women scientists out there that this book did zero justice to.
The mc was stereotypical r/iamverysmart style edgy (“DAE hate everyone else and think all people suck” come on, what are we, high schoolers?); somehow stunningly beautiful (so much so that she makes all the women around her jealous to the point of sabotage… *eye roll*); oh, and did I mention that she’s beautiful and makes everyone around her jealous!?; is an uber feminist but also derides women around her half the book for being into “le girly things” and marries and lauds a man who is just kind of a shithead (both points which could be realistic, if they were developed *at all*); is somehow very smart and able to read people but also is the complete opposite and misses basic social cues, even from her beloved (again, with zero motivation); is hyped as this caring and justice driven individual, but then behaves selfishly while she’s on the show; hates cooking but also is magic at it. The list goes on for me.
Then there’s the complete lack of any plot or development and then deus ex machina in the end to make up for it. Like…
AGH
/rant
As a woman in science, thank you for posting this. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills with how many people like this book and think it’s well written. It’s written snappily, but even the issues with the mc as a scientist/what the book knows about science aside, I just feel it lacks any good plot or character development. MC is basically twilight’s Bella. Easy enough to consume for self-inserting catharsis. Maybe a fun enough read, but as good as people are saying? Meh.
Thanks for providing a place to rant. I don’t understand why people think we can’t critique her while also saying “feminism good.” Girl wasn’t a feminist for half the book anyway, so don’t understand why people are sensitive to critique of the book or MC…
**I agree completely! Thanks for this review – you said what I have been thinking. This book is superficial and vapid.**
She is such a witch im.surprised she didn’t find a way to abort the baby
Thank you. This book was so cringey. I have never rolled my eyes so much. Really? She reads a physics textbook for an hour and now is an amazing rower?
Her dog sniffs out a bomb threat by watching the show on tv?
Her 4 yo is picked up at school by the dog?
The 4 yo convinces the priest that there is no god?
I thought this book was so awful, and am stunned by how many people (and how many friends!!) liked it.