Lessons in Chemistry
Lessons in Chemistry
By: Bonnie Garmus
[Nominee for ‘Best Historical Fiction’ category and Winner of ‘Best Debut Novel’ of the 2022 Goodreads Choice Awards Reading Challenge]
“Chemistry is change. Courage is the root of change— and change is what we’re chemically designed to do.”
Apparently I’m on a ‘women in STEM’ kick. I just finished Love, Theoretically before this which is about a female theoretical physicist. And the book I started after this (An Affair of Spies) has a female chemist main character as well.
Lessons in Chemistry takes place in the 50s and 60s— a time when women in the workplace did not have equality. It’s definitely a different feel of a book than Love, Theoretically.
Elizabeth Zott is a chemist, basically denied a doctorate after abuse, fired from her job for getting pregnant, and ends up depressed, putting on a cooking show for all those housewives who just want to get dinner on the table for their husbands. But her personality is no-nonsense and confrontational and the reaction to her show is unexpected and unconventional.
“[Elizabeth Zott’s 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.”
I found it to be an interesting satirical exploration of the inequalities and stereotypes of women during this time in history. There was humor throughout, but some of it does seem a bit exaggerated or written to make a point.
It was a bit irreverent in its humor. Some of the serious things like rape, death, unwed pregnancy, sexism, and discrimination, seemed to happen abruptly or succinctly so it was a strange tone of writing. It’s hard to describe. The humor expresses the ridiculousness of people’s views but especially in the rape scene, which happened almost immediately in the book, it was a little like whiplash, not knowing how I’m supposed to feel from moment to moment— smiling or frowning or both?
Even though I didn’t agree with some of the views held within the book (see sections below), I still really enjoyed reading it and would definitely recommend it. Elizabeth’s character is very likable (reminded me some of Eleanor Oliphant). I also wish I could have actually watched her cooking show. If there is anything that does NOT happen in my kitchen, it’s intentional chemistry.
Elizabeth is brilliant, quirky, resilient, and courageous. And I loved how she wasn’t going to cower from people in power who tried to intimidate her into maintaining the status quo but was determined to help women in all walks to feel seen, told they were capable, and that what they did was important.
Part of what shaped her personality was her upbringing and the way her family treated her. I do feel like a lot of issues in our society or even discrimination or inequality boils down to matters of identity. And when we feel stripped of our identity or unseen in who we are, we can’t help but try to shape an identity and hold onto it with all our might.
“’Elizabeth has felt this way her entire life. She’d been defined not by what she did, but what others had done. In the past she was either the offspring of an arsonist, the daughter of a serial wife, the sister of a hanged homosexual, or the graduate student of a renowned lecher. Now she was the girlfriend of a famous chemist. But she was never just Elizabeth Zott."‘
I won’t go down this rabbit trail (for too long) since I’ve got a couple others lined up for you below, but our identity really matters, and if we find it in what we do, what we have, our family, our talents, we will always come away let down and disappointed. If we try to create our own identities, it will never be good enough. But if our identity is found in Christ and his unconditional love and grace for us, all the disappointments in the world can’t shake it.
The Tones of Feminism
As other reviewers have pointed out, there are very few positive and women-respecting men in this book. Of course not all men were like that, but to portray what she was trying to portray I can see why she included and focused on the characters she did. [But I wish there was a ‘punch Donatti in the face’ button throughout this book]
To her credit, she could have created our main female character to be completely anti-men, refusing to marry, etc. But Elizabeth did fall in love (even if they didn’t marry yet and she wouldn’t have taken his name). And she also defended women who chose to be homemakers, saying their hard work and intelligence was ignored and belittled. I’ve read other feminist-type novels, and it could have been more ‘man-hating’ than this one.
“Women are at home, making babies and cleaning rugs. It’s legalized slavery. Even the women who wish to be homemakers find their work completely misunderstood. Men seem to think the average mother of five’s biggest decision of the day is what color to paint her nails.”
‘Legalized slavery’ is a term that is a bit… bold… but fits with the satirical feel. I’m a stay-at-home mom and I choose to be. But I have a college degree and I’d like to think I’m a pretty capable and intelligent critical thinker. However, even today there is this idea (from both men and women) that women who stay home are ‘settling’ or not smart enough to have a career. That somehow being a mom and housewife is ‘less than’ other choices. Which couldn’t be further from the truth.
I’ve read a couple books about womanhood that explore the three waves of feminism and affirms women in a lot of ways. In Eve in Exile, Rebekah Merkle talks about the second-wave feminism movement and describes how Betty Friedan wrote the book The Feminine Mystique. I’m surprised it wasn’t mentioned in this book. But Merkle says this:
“In 1963, a woman named Betty Friedan published a book called The Feminine Mystique, in which she took a hatchet to the notion that American women were living in a time of wholesome bliss… The book was basically an articulation of the listlessness and unfulfilled dreariness felt by the women of my grandmother’s generation who were married with children, and were nonetheless still unhappy.”
Though it wasn’t directly talked about, this was the feeling that was portrayed in this book. Housewives just want to talk about appearances and serving food to their people. But here comes Elizabeth Zott, refusing to be ‘eye candy’ or mix cocktails on the show, but instead teaching the actual chemistry of cooking and baking.
Throughout the show she would encourage women at home to change the status quo, telling them that they are more than capable and they should go after their dreams. (And telling their kids to set the table because their mom needs a minute. YES.) I’m very pro-showing-women-how-capable-they-are. But it’s simplistic to think that women in the 50s and 60s would have been overall happier if they could just escape their dreary homes and families and pursue a career.
Merkle also points out that during this time there was a big change in the home. Technological advances made housework and cooking easier. A lot of new gadgets made some of their work less challenging. So it’s interesting to think about how women needed to find things to challenge them in different ways— whether that’s work, school, or learning something new.
[Also worth reading is Radical Womanhood.]
I didn’t agree with all her comments. For example:
“I’ve never understood why when women marry, they’re expected to trade in their old names like used cars, losing their last and sometimes even their first as if their previous identities had just been twenty-odd-year placeholders before they become actual people.”
I never had a problem changing my name. Of course there was some sadness with feeling like I was separating from my family in name. But of course we were still family. By taking my husband’s name I viewed it as a cleaving together. We are one and by taking his name it’s like saying- I’m with you now. We are our own unit— together. It wasn’t a demand of me, but a natural progression of creating a family and showing outward unity.
So yes, this book has feminist tones, but in that time period, most of what was exposed was done rightfully so.
Faith and Science
Something that came up in a lot of dialogue during this book was the relationship between faith/religion and science. That is still an area of tension today. And since she writes about it frequently in this book, I’ve decided to address it here.
I’m not entirely sure why people seem convinced that these two things are mutually exclusive. Especially considering that some of the most influential scientists were Christians— Boyle, Faraday, Mendel, Newton, Dalton, Pascal, Collins, etc.
There is obviously some nuance within Christian scientists as to what they believe (i.e. the origin of the Earth) but science helps us discover and learn more about God’s earth and the laws He’s placed to govern it and give Him glory for the amazing things he has created!
God is not afraid of science and Christians shouldn’t be either.
However, if the characters in this book reflect Garmus’s personal beliefs, she does not agree with this idea. There are some strong statements about faith, several instances of abuse in the church (which does, tragically happen), and the minister character she writes confesses he doesn’t actually believe in God and spends much of his life lying to his parishioners. She seems to present a very specific view of religion (and Christianity specifically).
“‘I wanted to ask: Don’t you think it’s possible to believe in both God AND science?’
’Sure. It’s called intellectual dishonesty.’”
Strong words. Especially because no can truly PROVE that God does or does not exist. Scientists think they are taking the rational approach to deny the existence of God, but it takes just as much (or more) faith to believe what they believe about the origin of everything than it does to believe in a Creator. And believing in God and Jesus and the Bible is not irrational nor biased. Jesus was a real person. And I could go into more about that, or you could read: Confronting Jesus or Confronting Christianity or Surviving Religion 101 or Why Believe? to get a lot more reasons why belief in God is actually the opposite of irrational.
Also try: Why God Makes Sense in a World that Doesn’t or A Biblical Case Against Theistic Evolution.
“Yet this so-called benevolent being smites innocent people left and right, indicating an anger management problem— maybe even manic depression.”
I guess my first question would be- what does it mean to be innocent? Second— is he really smiting people left and right? If we’re honest with ourselves— is there any evidence of God’s love and grace and faithfulness in the world? This statement feels pretty arrogant. And if you read the Bible you will know God’s character and you will know the character of humanity. I mean you don’t even have to read the Bible to see the character of humanity. The fact that there is anything good in this world is evidence of a benevolent Creator.
“I think religion lets us off the hook. I think it teaches us that nothing is really our fault; that something or someone else is pulling the strings; that ultimately, we’re not to blame for the way things are; that to improve things, we should pray. But the truth is, we are very much responsible for the badness in the world. And we have the power to fix it.”
I think there are some people who teach the Bible in this way. And they would be missing some crucial teachings of Scripture. The Bible definitely teaches that we are responsible for our actions, for our sins. We are accountable for the choices we make, the thoughts we have, and the words we speak. Yet it also teaches that God is sovereign. Sovereignty requires an absolute. He can’t just be partly sovereign or He would not be sovereign. So there is some mystery here as to how exactly this works but both teachings are biblical.
In some ways this is right— we have the power to make our own choices and to do good in our world and we are to blame for the badness. Do we have the power to fix the world? No. And we will be ever in despair if we strive to.
Jesus died on the cross for our sin. The consequences for the badness we unleash into the world is death. But Jesus paid that price and by grace we are saved from what we deserve. Is that letting us off the hook? Perhaps in one sense. But there is still justice. And I don’t know about you, but this gives me gratitude and awe, not resentment. Because if we were totally on the hook for what we do, there would be no hope.
[If you’re interested in hearing a discussion on free will and the sovereignty of God, you could check out these videos/sermons by R.C. Sproul]
“‘But you believe those stories. You preach them.’
’I believe in a few things,’ the minister corrected. ‘Mostly the things about not giving up hope, not giving in to darkness. As for the word, ‘preach,’ I prefer ‘relate.’”
This view of the Bible is nonsense. You can’t just pick and choose what you want to believe. That becomes a self-created religion that is irrational. If you don’t believe the entire Bible how can you actually have any hope? How can you actually believe there is light? What would the light be? There is no conviction in just ‘relating.’ Why can we believe the Bible? Well the books I linked above can tell you, and also this one can: Taking God at His Word.
Perhaps the author wrote these things into the book because she’s trying to convince herself that they are true. Maybe she’s still wrestling with how to view science in light of a Creator God. Or maybe she just feels so strongly about it that she wants to teach her readers to agree with her by using an admirable character like Elizabeth. I don’t know. But if she’s going to bring up this topic in a meaningful way, as a reader, I hope you ponder these questions as well— from more than one point of view.
Are science and faith truly at odds?
Things I Loved
I already mentioned that I loved Elizabeth’s character. I also loved her relationship to Calvin— a fellow chemist— and how they cared for each other. I think one of the sweetest things I’ve read in a book was when I saw the engraving she had put on his grave stone: a series of H’s, C’s, O’s and lines depicting a chemical response that resulted in happiness. If that doesn’t show the depth of their love for each other, what could?!
The dog’s name- which was Six-thirty. Fun fact- the author’s dog’s name is 99.
The fact that Calvin grew up in Sioux City, Iowa. (Minus the fact that the boys’ home he was in was abusive.) Sioux City, Iowa was the closest shopping mall and chain restaurants to my home growing up and was a required driving location for driver’s ed. Pretty much any time an author mentions Iowa I raise the roof because mostly Iowa is non-existent to the majority of people.
The title. Lessons in Chemistry. Very fitting. Elizabeth’s knowledge of and journey through chemistry teaches us a lot of tangible and existential lessons. Plus the double meaning with chemistry and love. It’s just the perfect title!
The book cover. It actually kind of threw me off for some reason and didn’t jive with what I thought the book was going to be about. But after finishing the book, I really like the art choice. It’s a woman’s face, reflective sunglasses showing science-y stuff and the oh-so-important No. 2 pencil sticking out of her bun. I’m just going to have to ruin this part of the story for you— while doing her doctorate program, her superior raped her; in her efforts to fight back she found a sharpened no. 2 pencil and shoved the entire pencil into the guy’s stomach. And I applaud that. From then on she always had a sharpened pencil in her hair. This is a defining characteristic for her and it makes for a great cover.
Her pregnancy and early motherhood were very relatable. She finds herself unexpectedly pregnant right after Calvin has passed which throws her into a bit of chaos as she is not prepared to be a mother and had specifically wanted to avoid it. Her doctor tells her:
“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.”
I’ve had 3 deliveries, all different, and this statement resonates with me!
“From across the room baby Madeline announced it was feeding time. ‘But you just ate,’ Elizabeth reminded her. ‘WELL I DON’T REMEMBER,’ Madeline screamed back, formally initiating the least fun game in the world: Guess What I Want Now.
This is basically 90% of motherhood for the first 3 years.
Plus all the comments people said to her while she was pregnant… her irritation is definitely relatable.
And then these two quotes. The first because it’s funny, although we could have an entire conversation about beauty if we had the time. The second because it’s profound (there was a lot of talk about rowing in this book in case you were wondering).
“Stupid people may not know they’re stupid because they’re stupid, surely unattractive people must know they’re unattractive because of mirrors.”
“When you think about it, rowing is almost exactly like raising kids. Both require patience, endurance, strength, and commitment. And neither allow us to see where we’re going— only where we’ve been.”
Things I Didn’t Love
The dog had a cool name. But Garmus made him into a character. We could hear his thoughts, his motives. He apparently learned 900+ English words. I’m not a super dog-lover so I may be the minority on this thought, but this characterization didn’t do much for me. I guess it fits into the quirkiness of the book, but I could have done without it.
Did I say how much I hate Donatti?
Recommendation
Definitely recommend.
It’s a book that covers a lot of things. It had more layers than I was expecting and as I was writing this review I realized all the things I didn’t have space to include.
It’s entertaining. It’s insightful. It’s thought-provoking. It’s sweet. It’s clean. It’s educational. (I learned what denaturing protein is. Just kidding. I didn’t learn that.)
Lessons in Chemistry very much earned its spot as Best Debut and its nomination for Best Historical Fiction.
Even with some potentially controversial views, I think you’ll really enjoy reading this book.
[Content Advisory: not much swearing, the rape scene is short and not graphic, no other sexual content]
Bonus Book to Film Comparison:
(Updated 6.17.24)
I finally got around to watching the book to film adaptation on Apple TV. It’s a limited series of 8 episodes.
I watched it with my husband who did not read the book. He enjoyed the show, although at times he said it felt depressing to watch (because of the way Elizabeth was treated all the time). Also he was very unprepared for Cal getting hit by a bus. It was pretty abrupt. Actually it tracked a little bit with my feelings of the book of not knowing what I was supposed to laugh at or be saddened by because their was a bit of satire. I think it the show successfully matched the vibe of the book!
It had been awhile between reading the book and watching the show so I can’t give you a detailed play-by-play on what was changed from the book. But overall, it felt very in line with what the book portrayed.
A couple of the things that stuck out as different was:
Elizabeth’s neighbor friend Harriet was not an older lady, but was an young African-American family, the wife/mother of which was a lawyer and an advocate for civil rights. I think this was a good change. It helped depict the time period the book was set in, added some depth, and the friendship between them developed throughout the show.
Mad’s storyline needed something more concrete so they had her on a side quest of finding out more about her dad. What she found was a bit different than what the book told us.
There was a Little Miss Pageant at Hastings that wasn’t in the book but shows more of the company’s view of women and what Elizabeth’s attitude toward that was.
Elizabeth finds out she’s pregnant with an elaborate frog experiment.
Elizabeth has visions/hallucinations of Cal at various points that aren’t in the book, but make sense to have in the show to keep Cal’s character visible to the audience and show Elizabeth’s grief and love for him.
One of my least favorite parts of the book was the personification of Six-Thirty. The show does an episode from the POV of the dog and I wasn’t a huge fan of that. I’m sure if you liked that aspect in the book, then you’ll like it in the show. Thankfully it was just a little bit of it.
I definitely think the show is worth watching and feel like they did a great job of capturing the message and voice of the book. And based on my husband’s enjoyment, you don’t even need to have read the book to like it as well.
You can purchase a copy of this book via my affiliate link below.
Share this book review to your social media!