Lessons in chemistry (and cooking, sexism, and religion)

I'd seen the hype about Bonnie Garmus's book, Lessons in chemistry, although I haven't watch the Netflix series of the same name. A female chemist in the 1950s? Awesome. That said, I've honestly found my review quite hard to write, as I have mixed feelings about the book after reading other reviews and mulling over my own thoughts.

Lessons in chemistry | Published March 2022 | Read March 2025

Lessons in chemistry follows the story of Elizabeth Zott, a chemist trying to do her thing at a time when women had to battle for their place in the field. The book spans Elizabeth's struggles in the 1950s to achieve equality in an all-male team at Hastings Research Institute. There she meets Calvin Evans, fellow scientist and abrasive personality, whom she finds an immediate bond with over chemistry.

The second part of the story sees Elizabeth as a single mother in the 1960s, randomly hosting a cooking show. She's a reluctant television star but she eventually leans into it, taking an unusual approach to showcase the chemistry of cooking while also attempting to tackle the inequalities of the time.

The book is all kinds of crazy, but I rolled with the quirkiness and the humour and I found it to be a rather unique read. I loved Elizabeth's supportive, snarky neighbour. I also loved Six-Thirty the dog, who, bizarrely, could understand human language. The cooking show is rather sweet, too, and a clever way to weave science into the story.

Having spent a huge chunk of my career in academia, I related to the parts of the story where Elizabeth has her ideas stolen and passed off as someone's else's (a man's, of course) and where she is treated as if she isn't as clever as the other (male) scientists. I also related to the failure of the sisterhood, as this is something I have also experienced.

Taking Lessons in chemistry at face value is the way to go if you want to enjoy it, but reading its detractors' perspectives has given my pause to think more critically about my view of the book. I now see that it is something of a Love, actually situation. I bloody love that film as I find it funny and heartwarming (and terribly British), but I also acknowledge that it's a giant red flag from a feminist perspective. Can you still love something but know it's bad for you?

I completely understand the book's criticisms. There is a tonne of jaunty humour in it which can seem at odds with the subject matter. Serious issues are tackled but Garmus could have done a better job of using humour to do so. It was a lofty aim of Garmus's to paint Elizabeth as a feminist in the 1950s and 1960s in the STEM field, where she had to fight the status quo. That said, some of the things that happen to her in the book are kind of ridiculous. Perhaps the author should have rolled with pure comedy rather than trying to make serious statements about equality and feminism?

Other reviewers have pointed out that Elizabeth's feminist monologues are anachronistic. I can see that criticism even though I wanted to get on board with the idea of a 1950s feminist. I love quirky characters but I also agree with others who have suggested that making Elizabeth abrasive, robotic and socially awkward makes her seem cliched. I found the male characters true to form in many ways but also somewhat cartoonish.

Summing up the book, I am in alignment with other reviewers who have suggested that the worthy messages of the book are lost amongst the madcap, unrealistic story. These messages are also heavy-handed, as the whole book beats the reader about the head with the author's views on equality, sexism, and religion. One Goodreads reviewer said that "righteous indignation" was more the theme than "authentic equality". That's an on-point observation, I reckon. It was also a very white book, with no characters of colour or commentary on intersectional feminism.

I really struggled to rate this book. I've rethought my rating several times and have landed on three stars. Even this rating feels like I've betrayed the sisterhood! The stars reflect the premise, not the execution of it, and the dog who can understand humans (nuts, but I loved him anyway) and Elizabeth's gifted but kind of annoying daughter.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐