I feel the same way, I didn't like the last two books for my club and I was hoping I would like this one and now I am afraid I will be the wet blanket yet again.
I thought I was going to love this book but I am around 3/4 of the way through and am quite bored. I don't find it funny at all and the super intelligent daughter really gets on my nerves.
Thank you for saving me from wasting 10 more hours of my life. I am just over 2 hours into listening to this book and am already slogged down with the trauma heaped on trauma and the modern-day social justice checklist you described; I have also yet to see any of the supposed humor in this book. I generally try not to quit a book, but I was starting to see the writing on the wall and your review helped confirm that I am justified in returning this one early.
Calling vinegar "acetic acid" is like calling light beer "ethanol" Yeah both of those contain like 4% of the compound you named but your conflating things i.e. most non-iodized table salt is 99.99% pure so calling it NaCl is pretty much true; but just saying "acetic acid" as if you could assume she means vinegar is just stupid/ignorant. Glacial acetic acid is essentially pure and we dilute that down to everyday lab use. This was written by someone with an afternoon Googling's grasp of chemistry.
This passage in the book is absolutely idiotic 😂 No adequate chemist would use in everyday contexts CH3COOH, NaCl, CH3C(O)OCH2CH3 (nail polish remover), -[CH2]n- (let it be a polyethylene bag 😂) just because we can. Maybe only with other fellow chemists during the first year of school PS. You are absolutely right, the word « vinegar » contains more information such as concentration rather than just « acetic acid » or « CH3COOH » This supposedly intelligent character's bragging is killing me
I've used a 3% or something acidic acid in a (geochem) lab which was basically vinegar but you have to add the percentage or the Mol of the solution if you leave it out saying "acidic acid" instead of vinegar makes no sense
I could hardly stomach the overly exaggerated stereotypes that tried to pass as humans. Nothing about this book is good. I truly don’t understand the hype. Poor character development. Poor story development that uses cheap plot devices. Amateur writing. Like.. what did this have to offer?
I hate this book. I’m in medical school so I was so excited to see a STEM, feminist story…this fell sooooo flat. The writing was awful, the “feminism” felt like veiled misogyny, and the plot was allllll over the place. I think the “not like other girls” thing you mentioned made her so insanely unlikeable. Thank you for making me feel seen because all the women in my family loved it and told me I’d love it too…
I just finished this book, and I 100% agree with your assessment of it. To start, I was recommended this book by a B&N Associate because it was their Book of the Year. I originally declined to purchase, but gave in on a second haul later that week. With that being said, my expectations were HIGH. I knew the plot did not seem like something I would typically interested in, but BOOK OF YEAR. It was not bad. Generally warm feelings while reading, but it is severely overhyped. I think you summed it up perfectly, it’s a 2022 take on feminism being portrayed as if it could realistically happen in the 50s and 60s. I don’t know how, realistically, we can have the men so abhorrently bad with sexual assault, domestic violence, misogyny, etc etc etc while also having a woman as bold as E.Zott. That was the first disconnect. Either society is at the point where this male behavior is acceptable or it’s at the point where an E.Zott can exist as the strong feminist that she is. Which is it? So, for most of the book I was confused as the book bordered on the line of just fiction to fantasy. The talking dog as you mentioned but also the insane level of intelligence of the daughter. Another point that seem totally implausible. Wakely the priest being an obvious non-believer was another point that I believe took on a 2022 approach for a setting that was supposedly from the 50’s Overall, great review!
Aha. Yup. Cover illustration IS "Where'd you Go B...?" I hafta read it for a book club but indeed this book is hugely oversold... Garmus is a 6ft. blonde athletic charmer. She sells!
I kinda liked this book but I'm very easy to please. What bugged me is that I've worked in a lab (geochemistry not pure chemistry) and scientists don't talk like that! They talk like normal people. They are very aware that most people don't understand the lab lingo and if you're calling salt "sodium chloride" or vinegar "acedic acid" outside of the lab you are pretentious AF. Scientists know how to talk outside of a lab setting. Also her thing with loving abiogenese and the chemistry in cooking are two fastly different fields of study and you can't just extrapolate your knowledge of one onto the other and just know it and be fine. It's sooo different
The bit where you said, "her thing with loving abiogenese and the chemistry in cooking are two fastly different fields" also fits in with the rowing. I don't think I said it in this video because it wasn't something I picked up on, but I read it in other reviews, that just because she's an expert in abiogenese wouldn't make her a sudden expert in physics/rowing and then you know actually good at it.
@@bookishpixiereads yeah this so much and like, I like and am good at (geo)chemistry but I suck and really dislike physics. I did get it in my studies so I would be better at it then someone not in STEM but still... Not comparable at all
Thanks you. One of the worst books I've ever read in my life. Incredibly shallow and as if it was written on a spread sheet of box-ticking fake-feminism. Chat GPT would be ashamed to have produced something so hackney and cliched.
I found your review ‘cause I haven’t yet read the book but I am watching the show based on it (my sister said I’d LOVE it) and I’m haaaaaaaaaaating it - I was hoping the book would be better but I’m guessing not.
Thank you so much for watching! I have not watched the show, so I can't speak on it super specifically, but... I will say this, from the trailer I can see that the show made Harriet, the neighbor, black. I don't know if you watched my whole video, but I mentioned that there are no black people in this book, and Elizabeth randomly decides to make a statement about race on air. It comes off as really out of place, because she never once before or after this scene, makes a mention of race. It doesn't seem to fit the character, its really more about manipulating the action for a future scene. But I wonder if the show is planning to do more with that scene and the context, by making Harriet black. But then I wonder how they would be neighbors because of redlining and racism.
I'm not a chemist, but a close friend is. I need to ask her whether somebody in Organic Chem (seems to be the case with main character) would be able to rattle off the molecular structure of Nylon. Because, from what I gather from my friend, (very much *not* involved in organic), there is very little overlap. But, I could be wrong. She's a horrible MC anyway.
I'm a biochemist but I had to take 4 years of Orgo so take this with a grain of salt. Being able to rattle off the structure of nylon isn't that impressive but moreover it's pretty useless. What makes a good organic chemist is their ability to predict and push chemical reactions in order to produce a desired product at high yield. So knowing something you could take 5 seconds to look up in a book isn't really desirable.
Ha ha ha, thanks so much for this analysis!! I really disliked this book, for all the reasons you discussed and then some. The inconsistencies/lack of fact checking started on page 2 with the ridiculous statement that the So Cal air "was clean, because air just was back then" and piled up nonstop from there. (Pollution in LA was actually at its *worst* in the mid 20th century, before chemists figured out what caused smog and passed emissions laws in the 60s; LA air quality today is a success story.) A lot of the rowing stuff was wrong, too, especially the idea that the Harvard crew would've shown up drunk to a regatta with Cambridge--absolutely ludicrous. That was a snorting with laughter moment for me, but not for the reasons the author intended. The dog is what finally caused me to abandon ship. Any dog I've ever met would have *immediately* gone to its dying owner's side to comfort and protect him, not sulked ten feet away having decided his owner was a lost cause and choosing to watch him die from afar. Either 6:30 is like every other dog and would've been glued to his owner's side in that moment, or he has some fantastical human ability to ruminate on life and death, in which case he made a totally heartless choice to withhold comfort from a dying man who was calling his name. As you said, pick a lane!
I prefer reviewer like you who said "didn't like it" and "the book isn't very good". There are tons of "hate this book/Zott" isn't rational reviewers. I think this book is a good easy read but not outstanding as it was marketed. Some reviewers mentioned this book is a satire in "transporting a modern woman" in the 1930s-1960s. The elements that are interesting in the book is the insights that lays in the background of the story. I wish more reviewers focus on the insights (e.g., you mentioned no black character) and more character analysis than the obvious topics/scenarios/Zott you mentioned. For examples these topics are 1) Sponsors in religion, science institutes, and TV station Vs their belief or ideals they hold. 2) Privilege of beautiful women and white women. That is irony and the reality in the story. In fact, being pretty is an asset to women, and most women know it. Irony that white women talked about race in that time period but not proactive in doing anything except just talk. 3) Sexism is nuance because it isn't black or white, regardless of men and women. In fact, the male protagonist isn't different from any other non-science men in the society. 4) The concept of faith and religion aren't defined in just the religion context only. 5) The perspectives of a child, dog, men, women, protagonists, etc. Every character has their worldview and perspectives. 6) Elements in the books could be the actual author's and her friends' lived experience. etc ...
i tried to watch the miniseries. could not get through the first episode. checked off all the tropes. indulged in both girl power and perfect victim. It would have been more impressive if she had stoically laughed off some of the idiotic mysogyny that didnt even make sense. And had that stupid Mary Tyler Moore thing that its cool not to ever want children.
I’m going to disagree with you. Not everyone is going to like the same book. Also perhaps women who are middle will appreciate more than younger women. I’m just taking a guess. To me it was about women empowerment. I think you may took the book too seriously.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion. I just want to bring up that the book seems to take itself pretty seriously (e.g., the rape scene near the beginning, gay brother who killed himself, etc.)
Agreed. I kept thinking « what am I missing » dull, feminist and lacking. I gave up 3/4 of the way through. I’m sad to write a review like this but why on earth was it hyped so much when it is clearly very average ?
completely agree - I have my book club in a week and feel as if I am going to be the solo one that feels this way.......I was happy to see your review. thank you. very unbalanced
I laughed out loud more in your rant than I did with the book! (Full disclosure: I *struggled* to make it through even a quarter of the book before giving up. TRULY terrible). Thank you so much for this video!
