Lessons in Chemistry is a novel of extremes. It details horrible loss and heartbreak, but it also delivers moments of humor. Its main female character suffers misogyny, abuse, and debasement, but she also finds the courage to fight back tirelessly and valiantly not just for herself but for others. It’s generally an enjoyable read, but my overall impression is that it was rather fantastical. Despite every bad thing in the world happening, somehow our unlikely downtrodden protagonist perseveres. Nothing wrong with that, but given that the action occurs in the early 1960s, it feels kind of weird and maybe not right.
The main character of Lessons in Chemistry is Elizabeth Zott, a research chemist in Commons, California, circa 1960. She is brilliant and beautiful, and both work against her. Because she is a woman in a male dominated world, she is not taken seriously and is denied advancement, but on the sly her male colleagues seem willing to use her help (never giving her due credit, of course). She has also been the object of sexual abuse by a professor, which is why she has not been able to continue with her degree. Stuck at the Hastings Research Institute, she pursues her scientific interests and has a fateful run-in with world renowned scientist Calvin Evans. His work has put Hastings on the map, and given his prickly personality, everyone hates him for it. Everyone hates Elizabeth, too, because she is smart, assertive and beautiful. Calvin and Elizabeth fall in love and are a “power couple” at Hastings. They never marry, but after Calvin’s untimely demise, Elizabeth discovers she is pregnant. Unmarried, pregnant and now without any support at Hastings, Elizabeth is at a loss. She finds friendship and support through an unusual assortment of folks: older neighbor Harriet Sloan who has sympathy for a new mother and is happy to provide daycare; Dr Mason, a friend from rowing who delivers baby Zott (Madeline); Walter Pine, the TV producer father of Madeline’s classmate; Reverend Wakely, who had a connection to Calvin in his younger days; and an amazing dog named Six Thirty who was a washout at bomb sniffing school but has incredible empathy and receptive language skills. There is also a mysterious benefactor who, in Calvin’s youth at an orphanage, provided money for scientific education and who wants to support “Mr” Zott’s work as well.
Over the course of several years, we see Elizabeth struggle to make ends meet, which forces her to return to the Hastings Institute for a menial job. The harassment and misogyny are worse than ever, yet Elizabeth finds one surprising ally there. It is her meeting with Walter Pine, however, that sets big change in motion. Pine sees that Elizabeth is not just stunning but that she has a commanding presence, and he knows for a fact that she is an excellent cook. Cooking is chemistry, after all. Pine arranges for Elizabeth to trial an afternoon cooking show called “Supper at Six,” which becomes a huge hit. Elizabeth runs her kitchen like a lab and never talks down to her audience. She is like the tough teacher in high school whose approval you always valued. Due to her influence, women begin not just cooking her dishes but challenging themselves to take ownership of their lives, to take time for themselves. While I like this message, it is this part of the novel that is problematic. We are to believe that in 1961, in the US, a woman could go on TV and speak unpopular views on sex, religion and race, and her audience would not walk? That there wouldn’t have been political backlash? Freedom Riders were beaten and killed for their actions in 1961. I love the idea of a woman speaking truth to other women, showing them their value and power, but this feels wrong to me and disrespectful to people who really did take action and suffered consequences. By the way, I did not watch the Apple TV series of Lessons in Chemistry, but when I checked the trailer and the cast on IMDb, I saw that Harriet Sloan is played by a black actress (she is a middle aged white woman in the book) and that Reverend Wakely is played by a black actor, so maybe for the TV show they are addressing this concern.
I found this book to be an easy and mostly enjoyable read, but once finished, I couldn’t help but be bothered by what I consider to be this cultural anachronism. I like the way the novel deals head on with all the ways women have suffered due to inherent systemic inequality — jobs, pay, educational opportunity, ability to marry/not marry/divorce as one wished, legal and financial rights. The novel also shows accurately I think the way most people (including other women) just go along to get along rather than stand up to injustice. So I have mixed feelings about this one!