Literary Wives is an on-line book group that examines the meaning and role of wife in different books. Four times a year, we post and discuss a book with this question in mind:
What does this book say about wives or about the experience of being a wife?
Don’t forget to check out the other members of Literary Wives to see what they have to say about the book!
- Kay at What Me Read
- Rebecca at Bookish Beck
- Kate at Books Are My Favourite and Best
Goodreads synopsis: Chemist Elizabeth Zott is not your average woman. In fact, Elizabeth Zott would be the first to point out that there is no such thing as an average woman. But it’s the early 1960s and her all-male team at Hastings Research Institute takes a very unscientific view of equality. Except for one: Calvin Evans; the lonely, brilliant, Nobel–prize nominated grudge-holder who falls in love with—of all things—her mind. True chemistry results. But like science, life is unpredictable. Which is why a few years later Elizabeth Zott finds herself not only a single mother, but the reluctant star of America’s most beloved cooking show Supper at Six. Elizabeth’s unusual approach to cooking (“combine one tablespoon acetic acid with a pinch of sodium chloride”) proves revolutionary. But as her following grows, not everyone is happy. Because as it turns out, Elizabeth Zott isn’t just teaching women to cook. She’s daring them to change the status quo.
Warning: Spoilers ahead!
It was hard for me not to like Elizabeth Zott. I liked her open, honest, matter-of-fact approach to life. Not everyone appreciated that about her, though, particularly the men. There were a lot of terrible men in this book. I liked most of the other characters, especially her daughter who is a lot like her mother, her neighbour/nanny/friend, and her loser-ish boss at the Supper at Six show. I liked the way she conducted her cooking show – I wish there had been more of that. If I had been a housewife at the time, I would have been a fan. (Not that she really wanted fans.) And, like everyone else on the planet, I loved the dog. I listened to the audiobook and the narration for each character suited them well, including the dog.
I will take this opportunity to say that, even though everyone seems to love the dog, not everyone loves this book. I had a look at some of the reviews on Goodreads (which I like to do for the Literary Wives posts since I think of them as a book club discussion, so the more opinions the better) and there are some people who really did not like this book. Some of them did not like Elizabeth’s logical way of thinking and speaking – just because she’s smart doesn’t mean she’s a robot. Some also thought it was unrealistic that she would have known so much without really having a PhD. I wouldn’t know about that myself, but the reviewer who brought that up is a chemist. Several wondered why she had to be so effortlessly sexy. Some thought it was unrealistic (and sad) that so many men were awful and that she suffered so much from so many of them. And, on that note, a huge complaint was that the book was marketed as funny, but includes rape and assault and suicide. Decidedly unfunny things. Another interesting complaint is that the author really seems to be pushing atheism and saying that any kind of religion is bad. I’m curious to know if any of you have some of the same complaints. I tend to take books as they are written – these are the characters the author wants to write about and how she wants them to be and what she wants them to do; some readers will like it and others won’t. This book seemed to resonate with most people, though, or at least entertain them.
Whether you like Elizabeth or not, you can’t deny that she has had a hard life. A lot of terrible things have happened to her and yet she is still going. Even the fact that she is so beautiful has made her life worse, not better. I feel as though she deserves to have a bit of good come her way.
What does this book say about wives or about the experience of being a wife?
The married women who watch “Supper at Six” love Elizabeth because she talks to them like they’re smart and valuable and deserving of more, which suggests their experience of being wives is lacking in these areas. And they have had to choose between children or a career – society isn’t set up for them to do both. Elizabeth’s neighbour has wanted out of her marriage for a long time, but hasn’t felt like it’s been possible. Without enough education or job experience, many women feel trapped in their marriages, dependent on their husband, and like they have very few choices in life. Elizabeth wants to avoid all of this by never getting married in the first place. She’s not willing to take the risk that her name might be changed, her work might be attributed to her husband, or that she might lose any of the independence she has worked for.
“Her experience with men can be whittled down to: “They either wanted to control her, touch her, dominate her, silence her, correct her, or tell her what to do.””
Join us in June 2025 for The Constant Wife by W. Somerset Maugham!
Consumed by Ink 
I don’t know why something can’t be funny and still include tragic or sad experiences, or even violent ones. Sometimes I think everyone has lost their senses of humor. (Think about how violent The Sisters Brothers was, and yet lots of people liked it. Not me, though. And it was violence mixed with humor.) I also think that Elizabeth was supposed to be on the spectrum or something; hence her way of speaking and her inability to understand nonverbal cues.
Maybe only some kinds of violence are acceptable these days? Maybe we’re too ready to be offended?
I think that at that time (which I remember), men were pretty awful to women, and worse, didn’t even understand that they were. I remember my mother telling me that my father didn’t want her to work because it would seem like he couldn’t support her (not that, knowing my mother, she actually wanted to work, but that’s another point). He didn’t think that not wanting her to work was a bad thing. I don’t remember any other signs of sexism from him, though, except me and my friends not being allowed to camp out like the boys. (I also remember, while working as a waitress, having a guy slip his hand up my leg while I was putting his plate on the table. And that was in the 70s.)
It’s good to have your perspective on that, Kay – it’s hard to imagine that it could actually have been that bad! And I completely agree with you that of course tragedy and comedy can go together – they’ve always gone together! I admit that I was a little surprised that some readers had such a strong negative reaction to it, which is why I wanted to talk about it in my post. I enjoyed the book!
Generally, I only look at other readers’ reviews if I feel confused about something and want to see if someone mentions it.
I remember I was pretty shocked by the attempted rape scene, just because this had been marketed as such a light, feel-good book.
I could understand why Elizabeth made the decisions that she did. There was something of the fairy tale to the novel, in that she pretty much got to have it all (though she didn’t get to keep her true love).
I was shocked by it, too, for the same reason, but was able to quickly let it go as I kept reading. Some readers might not be able to do that.
It was a little like a fairy tale – especially with Six-Thirty’s character being a little like a side-kick.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion here and on Kate W’s site. My library has the audiobook, so I’ve just borrowed it. I have 14 days.
Being born in the 1950s I’m a bit fussy about how the 60’s are depicted in modern books, and that was an issue in some comments I read. Our family didn’t have television until 1967, but I’ll see how Elizabeth Zott compares in my head with I Love Lucy.
Awesome! I can’t wait to hear your opinion on it! FYI, the author was born in 1957.
Rebecca, a couple of comments above says ‘fairy tale’ and I agree although I was/am going to use the word fable.
As historical fiction the book is nonsense – not just de facto marriage which was a very live issue (in Australia) in the late 60s/early 70s when I was a young man in the midst of just that battle; but DNA, the Big Bang, the public recognition of paedophilia in the Catholic priesthood are all gross anachronisms for the early 1960s. BUT as a fable about the wrongs that women continue to suffer in a patriarchal society it works really well. So, contrary to my expectations going in, I enjoyed it.
I do believe that the main point of the book is about the wrongs suffered by women in a patriarchal society. I didn’t ever really think of it as historical fiction, even though it is. I’m glad you ended up enjoying it! 🙂
But wasn’t DNA discovered in the 1950s?
And by a woman but the guys got the credit. But it would have only been this century that we could tell that humans were 99% same as other animals (I think)
Overall, I liked this when I read it but I do think it was a tricky one to market. It looks like and was advertised as a quirky, rom-com type book but it actually had a lot of heaviness to it.
That’s true. On the other hand, most readers seem perfectly content with what they got from the book!
I’ve been meaning to read this for a while but haven’t got to it yet. Several people have told me how wonderful it is, and I was interested to hear about the various objections some readers have. Now I’m curious to read it (and meet the dog).
I’m all for reading anything that piques your curiosity! And I’d be interested in reaction to it, as well. 🙂
I checked the Goodreads reviews and I was surprised by how many ratings it has – like over 1.5 million and it still has a 4.28 overall rating. That’s really good! I really liked this book.
I did, too! Along with most people. Including my mother – she was the very first person to recommend it to me soon after it came out.
I hated the dog! And the quirky child. But I quite liked the book 🙂
Funny. I liked both the dog and the child! (The child is innocent! Lol) I listened on audio, though… I wonder if hearing their voices made a difference?
It’s a long time since I read this, but I suspect that would have made it even worse for me…
Very possible! Lol
I really enjoyed this book. The complaints you raised from goodreads were interesting, although reading goodreads will always result in many complaints! haha
The person who complained it pushes atheism? (eye roll). Clearly this person doesn’t read very widely, I’d argue that much contemporary fiction does this, and I don’t see a problem with it, but that’s just me LOL
I liked the dog!!!
Another vote for the dog! 🙂
I was particularly interested in reading the negative GR reviews for this one because it has SO MANY 5 star reviews. So, I wondered, for the people who *didn’t* like it, how come? It was fun bringing those people into our little discussion! I might do it again…
yes please do, that was a nice perspective!
I just skip-read your review because I miiiight still read this one (I want to watch the series, too, so I thought I’d like to read the book first, and it’s often out on display in my local library branch). But I did see your comment on the large number of very enthusiastic AND very disparaging reviews on GR. There are groups that organise to target specific books with one-star reviews when books are identified by a member of the group as being “problematic” (books that prioritise science over religion are commonly targeted, and I saw you mention that atheism is a topic…there are other groups that target certain religious communities with one-star reviews too, however, so this happens on “both sides”). If the whole scene seemed really extreme, that might be a factor. Strange to think about, I know.
The scene(s) that mentioned atheism didn’t really stand out to me, but I suppose that’s because it’s not something that would phase or rankle me. But there was only one or two reviews on GR that had a problem with it, out of the ones I read, which weren’t very many. I didn’t spend any more than 15 minutes or so looking at the GR reviews. But it piqued my interest enough to add it into my discussion of the book. The main complaint seemed to be that the book was marketed as “hilarious” when there are so many awful things that happen.