I do not know if anyone is gonna read this, but for context, this and the next 5 reviews were all written on the same day. So apologies if the quality of any of the reviews feels low (me pretending like all the reviews are earth shattering masterpiece essays). I still haven't zeroed in on what I do exactly. I don't review this stuff, because I need to review for someone, writing all this for myself doesn't indicated a review, more like a thought journal. Yea, they're jus thoughts. So what did I think of Lessons in Chemistry?
My fingers have an urge to type out "Eh", but the truth is, it's more like "Ew". Let's start with the book, because that's what I picked up first. I saw Lessons in Chemistry being reviewed by my local library. In that review written by Mary I., she says "This story is rich and complex, the characters witty (the good ones) and sometimes unbearable (the bad ones,) and it is guaranteed you will not stop turning the pages until the end. Hilarious, heart-breaking, and definitely worth a read!". Now, I don't wanna pick fights with my local library, but I disagree so much with this review. I feel like I would be in the minority with this take, but some people on the internet do sympathize with me and my opinions, so let's break down one by one why this was the worst book I have read in a long time.
Book
Bonnie Garmus is this 60 year old author. Her biography on the internet says she has held many important positions especially in her prime. Her career is one to marvel at, and I read somewhere her experience of what it was like to be a career centric lady during the mid 20th century. She recounts memories of working hard and having a man take all the credit. I do not have opinions on any of this, I fully respect her success and her experiences. And am not blind to the fact that that time period was tough on any American who wasn't a white male. And I do believe putting this all in the form of a fictional story would be a good setting and a great representation. I would bet that is probably what got it a spot on the NYT best of 21st century list. But again, I hate it.
Bonnie Garmus's writing is nothing special. I read the Kite Runner prior to this and was so engrossed, in part due to an engaging storyline, but also because it was written with purpose and skill. Every emotional jab is set up with the rhythm of the sentences preceding it. Lessons in Chemistry has none of this. It vibes more of a book written by a teenager with limited vocabulary, most of which is stolen from their classroom lectures.
The plot has potential, one that is utilized in a significantly better way in the TV show but that's later in this article. A plot is only as strong as it's characters. This book has very weak characters. Elizabeth Zott, the prodigy has no personality, other than the fact that she is a woman, who is good at chemistry. She is portrayed as being inconsistently dull in social interactions, and especially careless when it comes to other people. Unfortunately, I needed her to be powerful on her own, but her power only comes by demeaning others. The main message of several paragraphs in this book is that Elizabeth is a genius, but more often than not, the actual message is that everyone around her is an idiot, and that makes her a genius. That they are men, just adds to their stupidity. In all honesty, I am a dude, but I am also a feminist. I have female friends who know that I am a feminist and I know women who can be unbearable in their pursuit to prove women can be a force to be reckoned with. Elizabeth is not that kind of woman. She is annoying, hardly diplomatic, and clueless. Not a strong female character is all I am saying. She is amplified early in the story when a man comes, Calvin Evans, who again, sucks. And these two annoying prodigies together, are an annoying couple. I should refer to my librarian's review where she points towards bad people that are unbearable to have in the book. Is that how villains are supposed to be written in books now? A villain should make you feel angry yes, but it shouldn't make you despise their presence. Without a good antagonist, your protagonist ends up being an aimless hero. Elizabeth's enemy is the world, it is her job, her school, her colleagues, all things she pursues with a fire of passion. I remember reading this self help book, "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life" by Scott Adams, and I found it so appalling that he blamed so many of his shortcomings on diversity hiring. Elizabeth has a similar problem, her obstacles are the world, and it never feels like she is successfully circumventing or overcoming anything.
Another major complaint is that any new character introduced has some reason for us to dislike them. Husbands who are obviously cheating, neighbors who help but because they have personal reasons that are super sucky, men who are likeable in one chapter and then reveal something negative in another. This is especially annoying when it happens the other way around, why introduce a character negatively and then have them do nice things. Nothing is done to redeem them, instead Elizabeth is just clueless and just goes with the flow of everything.
I dropped the book midway by the way and just watched the show instead. I hope you find my opinion to still be valid despite my lack of patience with this book.
TV Show
I hope it's obvious that as this article goes deeper, the chances of a spoiler increase. I will be comparing certain scenes here to the book and elaborate on why I feel the show is far superior to the book. So yea, beware of spoilers now.
One major motivation to watch the show was because Brie Larson would be heading it. And also, Apple tv plus but I am not betting on that. Brie Larson is the perfect casting for Elizabeth Zott. She definitely doesn't play her by the book, she has her own spin on it. The script takes some liberties as well, and it's obvious that all the weak parts are direct adaptations of the book. Lewis Pullman plays Calvin Evans and to be honest, I don't understand his appeal. He is casted in Thunderbolts too and I find him to be a very stiff emotionless actor. Multiple times in the show, he is just... there. There are moments when he is a lot more active, but he didn't make an impact on me.
I love 2 characters. The doctor, who is seen as being sympathetic to women... because he is a gynecologist? Yea, that sounds weird. And Walter Pine is an absolute delight, both in book and in show. Brie Larson is great as Elizabeth too by the way, but only in the show.
The show takes a little extra effort and makes Elizabeth human. She cries, she panics, thinks, and generally has a personality, which is great. It makes a major change by adding the civil rights movement when it comes to their neighbors. I love that element and I love Harriet and Charles Sloane in the show, and I hate them in the book. There is a scene in the show and the book where Elizabeth writes down vinegar as CH3COOH. No chemist in their right mind does that. I have personally published 2 research papers, and I can tell you with confidence, no scientist ever talks like that to normal people. My guide's main focus was on making it easily understandable, and Elizabeth fails at this tremendously. I love Rainn Wilson as the misogynistic station owner. Fantastic depiction, and completely believable. Madeline in the book is born an alien. In the show, she is a cute girl who is genuinely curious and behaves like a normal child.
As I write this I realize, I knew my problem was the weak characters, but that's my sole problem. I love the idea of a chemist running a cooking show. A hero inspiring people through regular afternoon TV. I can see why people loved it so much because while Elizabeth is garbage as a character, her story isn't. It's important work what she is doing, what she says. Who she inspires.
The talking dog can die. I hate the talking dog.
There's a whole arc towards the end where Calvin's mom finds him. And it turns out all mails from his 'mom' were real. I thought that was so unnecessary. I never felt like I needed closure regarding that. Elizabeth's parents story made sense, and it was so interesting. Honestly, I was fine with knowing that Calvin hated his parents, that was absolutely fine. Such a hollow ending for the parent to find them and not be able to reconcile.
Conclusion
I don't usually do this, but since I have a ton of insight from the book and the show combined. I would like to wrap it up in some nice little bullet points that illustrate what I like and what I do not like. IGN style yknow.
- Terrible characters in the book. But all those characters are significantly uplifted in the show.
- Great premise, 1960s America and all things in their universe seem to be consistent enough to be engrossing, except for all the times when the protagonist stops being human
- There is a talking dog in both the book and the show that is an abomination of mankind.
- Would recommend watching the show, because it's leagues better than the book.
Comments
Post a Comment