I really enjoyed it. I’ve heard a lot of people say they think Elizabeth is on the spectrum, which would explain the taking things literally and very specific chemical names for things. I personally relate to her character in a lot of ways, and I’m a science nerd, so that’s probably why!
I did not like this book as well - but apart from the first reason (traumadumping) for entirely different reasons: no emotional depth, onedimensional characters, setting in the Sixties gave pseudo-progressive vibes (no progressive content today but it would have been progressive back then and felt like it wanted applause for that?) What ground my gears as well was the misinformed comment the mc made about electroshock therapy, weird choice to make that of all things era-appropriate when everything else she said was very 21st century. For me the magical realism touch was a redeeming quality but that‘s a matter of taste I guess… Your review contained some misinformation though that makes some of your negative points kinda… pointless because what you complained about was simply not in the book. For example, the love interest is described as distinctly unattractive SEVERAL times so I‘m not sure how you could have missed that (skim-read?), the priest was not „converted“ to atheism by the mc but didn‘t believe in God before he met her which is pretty obvious from the beginning, and childcare subsidies in Sweden started in 1943 so the author did NOT invent that. Quick Google search could‘ve helped you out. I‘m all here for negative reviews as I didn‘t like the book as well - that’s why I clicked on your video - but I’m slightly annoyed with the inaccuracies. :-/
I feel like you skimmed the book honestly- I’m a very conservative person and I really just think you’re reaching. She never wore stilettos , her love interest was not “hot” the book states often the opposite. Everyone did not love her, most people found her extremely annoying because as you’ve said she didn’t fit what was expected from women in the time period. And I can see a child of high IQ reading above their level, they probably won’t fully understand because their life experience hasn’t gotten there yet but I really do think if you go in expecting a book to be bad the book will not disappoint you. I didn’t live the feminist push through out and I also hated the antiGod viewpoint it’s written in but there’s enough in the book that stays with you after you read it to just dismiss the book entirely. (The priest was already struggling with his religion btw that’s why he had such a longstanding relationship with the love interest through the letter writing).
You said “but there’s enough in the book that it stays with you after you read it to just dismiss the book entirely” Assuming you made a typo somewhere. Bc this sentence completely contradicts yourself and kinda makes no logical sense. Also, I’m calling grammar police on you for your run on sentence 🤓
@@ryuk5673 pretty sure it's a typo, I think they meant "to not dismiss it entirely", the meaning behind their statement was pretty clear even with the mistake. It seems like you're reaching, you know what they implied lmao
@@Breeski1 reaching lol? That’s literally why I said “Assuming it’s a typo”. Did you miss that part or just trolling. Please don’t waste my time with your nonsense.
@livharris7776 I agree with you. Regardless of whether or not you enjoyed the book, a lot of this review is inaccurate. It is repeatedly said that the love interest is not attractive - even the MC adds the caveat "when he smiles" when talking about his attractiveness. The in-universe show is called Supper at Six, not Lessons in Chemistry. It was meant to be about cooking, not chemistry at all, and this is a huge tension point between the MC and the TV producer. She meets the producer when she goes to his office to address an issue with his kid, because he didn't return her calls. Again, a pretty big part of the plot. The priest was questioning his faith at university, he wasn't converted by the MC. He took chemistry classes and that's when he met the love interest and started a years long penpal relationship. And as for the MC's attractiveness being unrealistic or a contradiction... I mean, the "not slutty" is really projecting. She is portrayed as being pretty sex positive, if anything I would say she's coded as being neurodivergent. She presents herself in a way that was considered appropriate for the time, with the exception of the trousers she tries out. She wears heels, has an updo, wears brick red lipstick. It's never said that she doesn't care about her appearance. Her issue with the tight dresses was mainly that she couldn't breathe and wouldn't be taken seriously as a scientist (which was kind of the point because the network wanted her to be a housewife, not a scientist). It wasn't anything about sexuality or slut shaming. Again, fair enough if someone didn't like the book or found it unrealistic. Especially if you're not a fiction reader usually. But there is plenty of stuff to criticise that actually did happen in the book, you know?
I connected to the book because I am a mom and I did leave my career to take care of my kids, yet life pushes you in other directions. I think you missed that in your review, the many aspects and complexities of professional women and motherhood.
At least for me, it really offered a voice I had not read in other works on women with post-graduate degrees that end up leaving their field of study to do something completely different--in her case, from lab chemistry to food chemistry. That is that part on motherhood that resonated with me. @@sylviamaike6866
I'm currenlty reading it, I think it's cringe. I wanted to know where the book goes from there, to know if the first 100 pages are setting up to something worth tolerating the book. this was very helpful. thanks
Wow, so many inaccuracies in your review. One example, she did not turn a priest into an atheist. He started questioning his faith after going to a talk that included Calvin many years before EZ met him. He was already conflicted (faith vs science). Another, never did it depict her as being better than then men at rowing. Did you really read the book?
I dont care that someone is an athiest or not, but Calvin and Elizabeths arguments for being atheist are weak, and the author acts like they're revolutionary. Many scientists do believe in God and are church going.
I also hated this book so much! As well as the things you mentioned, the way the main character talked was so irritating - as a woman in STEM, nobody I know speaks like that! It’s not ‘smart’ to take everything literally or refer to common objects by their chemical formulae. It’s socially stunted and obnoxious, and misrepresents people who are real scientists.
@@down2this754 I know a lot of neurodivergent engineers, I have never heard someone unironically refer to table salt as sodium chloride. Notably, if you want precise and accurate language, this still isn't for you because the author seems to have done next to no research before deploying science word salad all over the book
I loved this book!!!!! It was entertaining and different. I didn't over analysis it, I just enjoyed it. Elizabeth was quirky and intelligent. The dog was hilarious. I am looking forward to the TV series.
I have not read the book, but the TV show makes it seem as though Elizabeth might be on the Autism spectrum. I don’t think she is intended to be representative of typical scientists or typical female scientists. Just as Calvin was not representative of typical male scientists. That neither of them speak or behave as typical people might seems to be integral to their personalities. That’s like the whole point.
Historical fiction typically has fantasy elements. Outlander has fantasy elements. That’s also historical fiction. Um, yeah, fiction inherently means there will be elements that are not true.
1. The book say’s multiple times that Calvin is unattractive to most. The reason Elizabeth liked her is because he respected her. 2. When does it say Madeline reads Russian literature? 3. The name of the cooking show is “Supper at six”, not “lessons in chemistry”. 4. When does Elizabeth say anything bad about religion? There is a section where Elizabeth says people have the right to believe in religions and be tolerated in doing so every bit as much she has in not being religious, she does not disrespect religion at all nor does she force her beliefs on others. The priest was converted because he had listened to a speech of Calvin’s and began thinking about it himself and lead himself to the conclusion of god not being real. Elizabeth didn’t convert him and not even Calvin did. Calvin simply gave his beliefs and didn’t attempt to sway the priest’s beliefs. The message is never sent that it isn’t ok to be religious, the protagonists simply are not religious.
I was looking for rational book review and saw a few readers that hate this book. Makes me wonder why the word hate, in intense emotion is used? We readers can disagree with some scenarios in the book but hate is a different revelation in the readers' self reflection. There is deeper things that evoke that kind of strong emotion from the book or the female protagonist. Side note: There are lots of insights about the society in the 1930s-1960s that authors included in the story such as the sponsors have more say in religion, scientific institutes, and TV company, even a mother who is rich couldn't use money as her free will without a man's approval, etc. I expect readers to look beyond the glaring religion and feminism and take notice of insignificant things that are harmful .
It does say that the daughter reads Russian literature. EZ may not specifically say being religious is bad, but there are so many examples of why religion is bad. It's pretty easy to assume the author does not like religion.
You perfectly summed up my feelings about this book. It felt like someone wrote their own fantasy of being a woman based on a very early 2000s concept of what being an "ideal woman" is: modest-not putting too much effort into her appearance, but wildly attractive, more intelligent than everyone else, etc. Also for a book that had an extremely feminist focus I don't think it said anything interesting or nuanced about feminism. All of the sexism she deals with is generally extremely overt and is conquered fairly easily. I'd be much more interested if it explored her internalized sexism, the difficulty of dealing with people who want to fit her into a specific role, which is almost inevitable in the 1960s. Instead it felt like the character "won" by being unbelievably smart and somehow fitting the impossible and conflicting standards society places on women.
I had to search for reviews, because my feelings about the book is the same. Read about half of the book yesterday (so I could not watch the whole reviews - spoilers). After putting it down I was dissappointed because instead of staying and elaborating on the issues of life after everything goes down the drain, the author so quickly want to get back to success and happiness. It almost felt like it was written to be a Netflix series, with certain actors in mind, fast-paced and unnatural.
I’m like 5 pages in and reconsidering reading it. So far Elizabeth reminds me of the woman from Atlas Shrugged - a beautiful no-nonsense genius lady. I assume that’s just how it’s gonna be? Is she gonna have any flaws apart from being too smart for the peasants to like?
The reviewer is complaining about "plot manipulations" as if she would rather have a book in which NOTHING happens. The reviewer fails to realize that Zott represents a brand of feminist in the 1960s who did not even think about feminism. No. She simply tried to follow her passion. These people existed and were thwarted in a hundred different ways. My own aunt was a math genius and had to fight like hell to become an extremely successful computer programmer. As for the religion aspect, Zott does not "proselytize" for atheism. She truthfully answers a question about her "grace" before dinner. She expresses her opinions about religion when appropriate. She is clearly disturbed by the irrationality of religion, and justifiably so. Zott is a scientist who relies on evidence. One person's "plot manipulation" is another person's drama. The emotional payoff of this book's ending is well earned. I respect the reviewer's opinion, but strongly disagree.
I am adopting your phrase "hate read." I truly hated this book. The author's tone was odd.She didn't seem to sort out if she was writing something comedic, tragic, or a super hero novel. Her depiction of rape and sexual harassment were offensive. Beyond that, the plotting was ridiculous- so many silly, improbable twists and turns made in the most ham-handed ways. And, IMPORTANT POINTS of a feminist nature read as though the author had written them in CAPS. There was a complete lack of nuance or subtlety.And, the characters were unlikable. I resented having to read this book for the book club to which I belong. This was a trashy, shallow book through and through. This is as polite as I can be in reviewing this book.
Well, you are correct. It was a great book. The reviewer is complaining about "plot manipulations" as if she would rather have a book in which NOTHING happens.
My god I hated this book so much! We're discussing it tomorrow in the book club. Can't wait to rip it apart. I have a feeling I'll be the only one not liking it.
Yes, I also hated it and after I finished it was astonished to find out about all the hype it received. I agree with you about the plot stretches and anachronisms, but my number one complaint is the writing itself. I think an author with a more skilled satirical tone could have make the heightened elements work, but the book didn't read like satire or hyperbole to me: it read like the author wanted to be taken seriously, like Elizabeth Zott. It may have worked for Zott, but in my opinion it doesn't work for this author. My other complaint about the writing is that we spend far, far too much time inside the character's heads - nearly the whole novel takes place there. Rarely could I see, hear, smell, or feel anything from the writing, which gave the whole novel a disembodied feeling. I also would like to give it negative stars.
I didn’t like this book, and when I finished I was googling the reviews and they were all so good that I started to question myself. But no, I’m 100% with you on your review. The characters were boring and the author didn’t develop their thoughts/feelings in a way that it seems they all lack a soul, a human aspect. Even the child is boring and stereotyped as the genius kid of the genius parents - they are all to smart, too intelligent, too beautiful, too athletic, too much and at the same time incredibly boring. The dog is intelligent as well (what a surprise!).
I think its fine to have fiction books but this book is very much grounded in reality. A 4 year old reading depressing Russian literature, a world where EVERY marriage is bad and in shambles, a book where the main character is always correct and everyone who works above her is wrong. I dont buy it.
Omg. I am like 30 pages in, and I absolutely hate it. I feel so vindicated right now. Everything you said from current feminism portrayed in that time, to so sexy every man wants to do her but she doesn't even care about her looks, to reading progeny child, and all the cheap tragedies being thrown at us, every man is an absolute fiend, and all women who aren't in stem are pointless aka I'm not like other girls.
I agree with you about the plot manipulation. This wasn't my favorite book that I've read in recent years but it was still an interesting read. I felt that none of the characters were appealing to me and that the relationship between Madeline and Elizabeth could have been amplified some. It was lacking there. The dog as a character is total malarky. Amusing but still not interesting and how Calvin dies is also total b.s. When I read this book, I thought to myself this is a made for TV show and not that great a concept. I am tired of the woe is me feminine literary trope. That should have died with the French Lieutenant's Woman. I think what I felt was interesting and kept me reading was that you want her villains to get their comeuppance... and it was reasonably well written so it had that going for it.
just watched the show, didn't realize it was a book. i stopped waching immediately after they killed the love interest. i almost lost it when they showed a black man as a lifeguard IN THE 1950s. i was like, oh this is an alternate reality... we're in the multiverse obviously lol
I am glad that I found your review. I too bought this book because so many people recommended it and then by chapter 6 the manipulative narrative opatterns were clear to me. I sometimes think am I the only one who can see through the delusion and manipulation? So, it's always a pleasure to find those with some common sense left in them.
Elizabeth Zott was not vain. She did dress plainly, as you stated. I pictured her to look like (my impression of) Maris Crane, so Elizabeth Zott did not wear stilettos. Also, her parents were charlatans, religious phonies, not serious religious folk. They milked innocents for their money. The father was serving time in jail for these crimes. I recommend to you the book, "Elmer Gantry." Elizabeth, a scientist, studied the physics of rowing, to connect with her partner who loved the sport. A lot of this book doesn't make sense to me, but it is fiction.
When she was saying that Zott wore stilettos and that she was vain ... I was like "WHERE and WHO???" nowhere is that to be found in this book lol so out of pocket / just preconceived ideas. did she think she was the smartest person in the room..? probably because usually it was true lol I also agree where you talk about her connecting to her partner in his love of rowing. The Reviewer also says Elizabeth cooking show was called Lessons in Chemistry like the book title, again she isn't correct here either. Same with what she said about Elizabeth's parents, they were religious crooks in it for the money and not good people, the father like you said was later thrown in jail (for murdering 3 people). Like listening to this WHOLE review made me wonder if she even read the book or not. It just feels like she very poorly skimmed the chapters, missed all the nuance within the story (Elizabeth struggling in her whole academic career as a scientist and as a woman back then) and decided to give a hate review of this book. TBH I saw another reviewer who uploaded a similar video earlier than this one that said the same thing (almost all the same stupid points) but at least it was worded slightly better. It kind of made me wonder if thats where she got her idea for a review... hmmmm. for now Ill give the benefit of the doubt.
I didn't love this book but i also didn't hate it. I'd comprise and say i liked it. And I came here to see if the reason i felt it lurking are the reason you hated it. One thing was clear, you didn't read the book, you either skimmed it, got snippets from other people or the internet then proceeded to make a review. This is very disappointing. I mean, you didn't even know the name of her cooking show yet you claimed you made notes because of how much the book annoyed you. Tsk tsk tsk if you're going to make a review of something commit all the way and actually READ the book and WRITE notes so that people who haven't read the book don't just blindly believe you when they come to videos like this for a review
I went looking for others who hated this book. I liked the neighbor and the dog. But thought both were put as an after thought. The other part was the mother who is sending money throughout the book, taking over the company and giving Elizabeth her dream job. I saw that with the first mention of a letter tossed aside.
childcare subsidies in Sweden started in 1943 you can check the history of universal childcare it was not a parental leave per se but a help and in 1948 a child allowance till 16 years old. Some kids are called geniuses who can do things out of the ordinary Mozart started to play the Piano at 3 years old and wrote Minuet in G major KV 1 at 5, so if it is rare yes, can you consider it strange yes but it is not fantasy. I think her personality aligns more with the 21st century but does not rule out that there were some women in the 50s 60s 70s with the same mindset and personality and would fight like she does like how women were treated in STEAM deal with all kinds of abuse and still are in some countries. The religious aspect I don't think is correct because her "disdain" comes first because she is a scientist so she believes in evidence and facts, second religious made her brother kill himself Lastly, the show was not Lessons in Chemistry but Supper at Six I think some points of your review can be valid how you feel about Dog POV and emotional manipulation but others should have been more careful checked because are not correct
Instant subscribe. Thank you so much for your review: I no longer feel like I'm taking crazy pills. This book was awful. The moment I put the book down (for good) is when the dog *literally* hitchhikes to Zott's studio and then plays dead in front of a security guard to gain entry. No. I'm just fucking done at this point. Elizabeth and her kid, Mad, are among the most unlikeable people I've ever had the displeasure of meeting in book form. Holy shit. Calvin, too. I'm sick of this trope of characters being presented as "Im so smart and everyone else around me is stupid." I implore modern authors to throw this trope in the trash. I cannot root for a genuis protagonist that is also an asshole to any and everyone that she comes into contact with. What are we doing? "Supper at Six" I imagined to be a send up of Julia Childs mixed in with some Carl Sagan. Instead it just seems like a show where the following happens: 1.) Zott says something inappropriate and anachronistic that should 100% get her fired, 2) Walter throws a fit, 3) Zott comes back to work as if nothing happened. Rinse, repeat about half a dozen times. This book was nonsensical, and I'm upset that I even spent time reading it.
THANK you. Actually haven’t read the book; watching the show based on it on a recommendation from my sister and absolutely haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaating it; I thought maybe the book would be better, but I think I’ll give it a miss. The whole thing feels so ding-dang contrived.
Thank you for this review, i gave up on fiction books a while ago but thought i would give it a try but im not for fake feminisim or wokeness. I thought it was about a real woman who did real things so im sad to know its not.
Thank you for this! I thought I was the only one and found you because I'm looking for validation that I'm not crazy! The modern day perspective, the anachronisms, the over-the-top non-nuanced characters, the dog, the slam you over the head messaging...oh I hated it. So glad I found your channel!
Great. I had my suspicions about this book, but now I know I’m going to hate it and it’s a pick for our book group in October. They better have it at the library because I’m definitely not going to buy it.
My mom gave my wife this book to read because she loved it. I saw it on the kitchen table so picked it up and read a few pages from the middle of the book just to see what the style was like. I instantly thought it just seemed like 21st century feminist quasi propaganda and just way over the top and one-dimensional. (I also ended up on a page with the dog learning words and with no context I was very, very confused). I honestly wasn’t sure what my wife was going to think so I tried not to spoil anything or appear down on the book. She just read 20 pages, couldn’t continue and then we searched for reviews and found your video and had some good laughs! Couldn’t agree more with what you say here even after only reading a few pages ourselves. The plot manipulations are like sledgehammers. The dialogue is unreadable.
Instant subscriber!! I hated this book as well and thought I was the crazy one. Has all the marketing on the book influence the book popularity? I also “hate read” this book!! Thank you for posting this!
Thanks for your review! 56-y/o guy here who was so enamored by the RU-vid ad for the series & its appeal that I was determined to start the bk this morning (by buying it at a used bkstore near me instead of paying $20 for it!). I'm glad I found your review. I'm not sure what it's appeal is tho. After seeing "Where Crawdads Sing" I was going to read the bk b/c the theatre was packed & all the girls/women were gushing about it & the bk -- but Sis said it wasn't that great (she reads 3 bks a wk, btw), so I bailed. It pays to get a 2nd opinion! Thanks again! 🙂
Ok. A Finnish friend liked it. She is a mother of 2 adult unmarried working young women. Argh. I am 80. My mom was a WW2 war widow. All women in my family worked in professions: bookkeeping and medicine. This book seems to cheerfully fantasize the victimization of author's parental generation. WW2 did create a different America. This appears to be a cute unreal view for contemporary females. Arrgh. I have to buy it because of my Finn friend and a book group. Arrgh.
I hated this book so much. It was insulting on so many levels. The treatment of sexual assault was WEIRD. The disdain for all religions was WEIRD. The way it portrayed things like academia, history, sports, etc. just didn’t make sense.
Hard disagree. I grew up in an area that has clung to many of those attitudes and all I could think is how unrealistic plunking this character into the 60s was and how easily some characters' issues went away compared to how it would have actually been.
I agree with all of this, this book is not good, very preachy and clearly anti religion and rather than explore these themes in a mature way the author just uses negative stereotypes of religious people to show religion is bad and so science is therefore superior to religion. This is so annoying. I also hate the trope of a child being so intelligent it is unbelievable.
I myself am a high school a-level chemistry teacher in this specific course. AND I HAD BOTH EXTREME LIKEABLE AND HATEABLE FEELINGS TO THE FILM!!! 😱😱😱 Where did the hate feelings come from??? Well, once, when I was living in Thailand, I happened to personally have hostel relations with a girl from Sweden!! 😁😁 To this day, I could speak with her on Facebook!! 😁😁
Ok, I´m back, I read it, total waste of time, doesn´t have any literaty quality, it had an agenda, many historical innacuracies, don´t read it. Not sure why the hype, obviously the subject is on trend, but not well done, why I definitely learned is that many influencers and lists are not to trust.
Disagree. The things that you didn't like about this book, actually give it pace and make it unputdownable for me. One must remember the era of the book to avoid going super woke on it.
How can you comment on this book if you only read 38 pages Your comments are so inaccurate you should not be in a position to review it. If you want to be a believable reviewer read the book carefully and comment accurately.
@@sophiareadsbooksyou most clearly did not. I know I'm giving you views with this comment, but fear not, I will not be after this. And not because you didn't like the book. I enjoyed it as a fluff piece with a bit of touching on some serious topics. You are a garbage reviewer, and much like your feelings on this book, not worth the time.
Wuhu, another challenged writer, there's a lot of them 🤭 When you yourself write, it takes a few minutes to determine, if a story is written in the zone or not. The latter floods the market and libraries, so strange, they are incapable of discerning this themselves
I agree with your review! Modern movies have also become 'modern feminist' diatribes like this book. Every woman is naturally better than all the 'boys' at everything. Humble yet fantastic. Pretty but no makeup or even trying. Always overcoming terrible tragedies with the style and grace of the wisest gurus. 100% Independent and no man is ever needed because they're weak and creepy. She can beat up any man without training. It's ridiculous feel-good writing and movie scripting, rather than anything realistic. The "You Go, Girl!" motif is slathered across the screen from start to finish, even if it ruins the original story that Hollywood is resurrecting because no one appears to be creative anymore. I hope this flavor of movie-making (and book writing) finally runs its course like the fever dream it is and we can return to some sanity and balance between the genders. We each have natural abilities because of our biology -- and ignoring this fact (and worse, trying to actively DENY it) just wastes all of our time, energy and emotions arguing against traits that evolution took millions of years to instill in our predecessors. As a species, we can (and SHOULD) recognize and try to rise above the 'nastier' traits we each possess by birthright. But that should be a conscious effort coming from a full admission that we are, in cold fact, naughty, bloody, violent, tribal, angry, hypocritical (but sometimes wonderful, loving and creative) primates, rather than trying to deny the lowly stamp of our origins with bad movies and books portraying us all as cultural agendas rather than human beings. It's the 21st century. Time for all of us to grow up and finally EARN the grandiose title of 'intelligent' that we arrogantly bestow upon ourselves without much merit. If we don't, then I won't blame AI when it takes over, enslaves us, and sends us to bed without our supper. BTW: I have also recognized this same style of writing and movies elsewhere and your take on it is accurate. You're not alone in your treason against the mindless 'woke' zeitgeist! 🙂 Here is The Critical Drinker with some like-minded movie reviews. He's sarcastic and launches into a good rant that you might enjoy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-F2ngB-zjVmM.html
It’s sad that the female character in Gone Girl, a raging psychopath and a calculating cold-blooded murderer (of an overall innocent man) is portrayed almost as an icon of rebellion or something that’s boarder-line admirable. It’s like, whaaat?
It’s sad that the female character in Gone Girl, a raging psychopath and a calculating cold-blooded murderer (of an overall innocent man) is portrayed almost as an icon of rebellion or something that’s boarder-line admirable. It’s like, whaaat?
It’s sad that the female character in Gone Girl, a raging psychopath and a calculating cold-blooded murderer (of an overall innocent man) is portrayed almost as an icon of rebellion or something that’s boarder-line admirable. It’s like, whaaat?
I really didn't care too much for it. I found it a bit too preachy. The "message" was overblown. Lacked all subtlety. When she turns her kitchen into a full-blown chemistry lab, I was like WHAT?!? (And then we are supposed to marvel at the fact that she made coffee with a flask and bunsen burner?) I also found the whole story of Cavin's family background completely unnecessary and boringly convoluted. This book is overrated.
Thank you! I also absolutely hated it! It has absolute no depth in the various themes (or hashtags) it tries to kind of click bait you in. It tries poorly to talk about every theme out there in a very irresponsible way. Zott is blunt and unreal as a character with no development ark at all, she starts and ends at the same place and every single male character is depicted as bad or stupid or not interesting. Let me sum it up for yall: Beautiful_gorgeous_sexy_super_intelligent_woman_mother_self_taught_rowing yay, men boooo. Dog knows a thousand words, churches evil. That´s it. Cheers from Brazil
I totally agree. This book was so smug, and so merciless in its hammering on feminism and relentless abuse of both the protagonist and we readers. It was the most unkind and unrealistic diatribe I have ever read. The story was, as the reviewer says, just totally stupid silly unrealistic. And deeply depressing. Skip it, by all means.
Sounds like you just wanted to dislike it. All the things you disliked didn’t see weird in a book. What I find interesting is your confuse talking about religion and why it’s unimportant with attacking religion by not allowing their religion to some extent. All of the negatives seemed personal. It’s odd. Some men like myself might say you just sound jealous of the main character and is why you demand all main female roles to be negative stereotypes that men find disgusting.
