Lessons in Chemistry: A Strong Criticism

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. The exaggerated portrayal of sexism through these characters feels unrealistic and undermines the book’s message.

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.

Superficial Historical Context: some people argue that the book’s portrayal of the 1950s and 60s is oversimplified and lacks historical accuracy. The exaggerated focus on sexism is seen as neglecting the complexities of the era and potentially hindering historical understanding.

Heavy-Handed Messaging:

Simplistic and Preachy Tone: The book’s message on feminism and other social issues 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.

Misandry Concerns: As a feminist, my concern is that the book’s portrayal of men borders on misandry, depicting them almost exclusively as sexist, abusive, or incompetent. This one-sidedness is seen as hindering the book’s overall message and potentially harmful.

Additional Criticisms:

Offensive Content: I find the book’s portrayal of sexual assault and other sensitive topics is gratuitous and disturbing, especially given the lack of content warnings.

Unenjoyable Writing Style: the writing style is unengaging, tedious, or even condescending, hindering their overall reading experience.

Let me give an example of each now you are asking for it. Unfortunately, I had to read it thoroughly for my book club.

scietific inaccuracies: 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, 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 best chemist in california? the same story for his partner. Is it even possible to get 3 noble prize nomination 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 army or navy if you can’t access people that 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: 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 few pages ago?

Dull and over-simplified sexism:

Let me give you quotes to judge for yourself

\*\*Teacher:\*\* Elizabeth, we need to talk about your daughter. She seems to have an interest in playing with boys and cars. not playing with dolls like other girls.

\*\*Elizabeth:\*\* What’s wrong with that?

\*\*Teacher:\*\* Well, it’s not very appropriate. Girls should be playing with dolls, not cars and definitely not with boys.

\*\*Elizabeth:\*\* My daughter enjoys playing with cars and there’s nothing wrong with that.

\*\*Teacher:\*\* But boys are meant to protect girls, not the other way around. They’re bigger and stronger.

\*\*Elizabeth:\*\* But my daughter is the biggest and tallest person in the class

\*\*Teacher:\*\* Well, that is another problem I have with her. Some boys are finding it intimidating.

The book described perpetuates harmful stereotypes through its portrayal of characters and themes. Firstly, it presents women as catty and simple-minded, except for the main character who is depicted as different for rejecting traditional gender roles. (But some how it describes more than 10 times that she is very very very beautiful and does not sweat at all!!!) This portrayal not only undermines the complexity of women’s experiences but also reinforces narrow and outdated stereotypes. Additionally, the use of racially insensitive comparisons, such as equating being a housewife to slavery and referencing Congo cannibals, further contribute to the problematic nature of the storytelling. These elements not only perpetuate racism but also fail to represent the diversity of human experiences and perspectives.

The sexism is way more real and painful than ‘boys wear blue, girls wear pink’ it is a perpetual silence attempt to undermine you. it is when your professor taking a boy comment more seriously that yours. it is when in classroom, boys actively participate in discussions while girls shy away and are afraid of making mistakes.

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 she is immensly successfull again. These simplifaction of such hear breaking and difficult situation that women are going through, is what make this book so untolerable for me.

by _Sattin_