This book, it strikes me, is everything wrong with children's literature. As an adult book it would be a four-star book, but as a children's book it's a 2-star book.
OPINION-FILLED REVIEW BELOW:
Summary: two awkward girls meet at the army base in Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project and eventually become friends.
That's the whole plot, right there. ^^ The characters are good, but children who are reading stories aren't really in it for the lush landscape descriptions or the deep introspections on what adults might be thinking. The book survives at all because of the glancing references to things adults would know but children, the target audience, would not. Richard Feynmann shows up, and he's a nice guy. Do kids know who he is? Well maybe if they're reading this book as a companion to a unit on World War II. But otherwise, no, it falls flat. He shows up on the train in the beginning, is nice, and then never shows up again.
Without that kind of nudge-nudge-wink-wink at the adult reader, the book would have no reason to exist. Moreover, the author is working hard to create an idealized childhood in the confines of what we consider to be hellish and nonidealized (a good idea) but that's not something a nine year old reader is going to care much about. Nine year old readers want adventures, not a theoretical construct of idealized childhood. They want a clear ending, not the story kind of petering out to a stop because we've finally reached the location where the title takes place.
Who enjoys that? Adults do. Adults will say, "Wow, in the shadow of the bomb, these children are free and create something of their own paradise." And adults will say, "Oh, we know the horrors of the A-bomb" and "we get all these references." And when people are sitting around deciding literary awards for children's fiction, who's on the panel? A group of nine year olds and ten year olds who had to read this book as part of their unit on WWII? No, it's a group of editors, literary agents, and literary authors who discuss the consciousness-raising aspects of the work without saying, "If Grandma Julia wraps this up and gives it to Susie for Christmas under the tree, is Susie going to like it?"
And that's the kicker: an adult looking for a Christmas gift might pick out this book because it's award-winning etc etc, and then if the kid attempts to read it, the kid feels meh about it. Nothing really happens in the story as far as the kid is concerned because the real work is taking place in the subtext, the context, the themes, and the tone.
The main characters are eleven. I've been told repeatedy by editors that kids read upward (sigh) meaning they must think the ideal audience is nine or ten years old...?
Books like this kill children's love of reading. This is the reason people will come to me unprovoked and say, "I don't read, but I know I should." This is the reason people stare at me in line at the Post Office if I'm reading while waiting. Reading is a chore; it's something you do because it's good for you; it's like flossing or doing sit-ups. There are no hobby flossists, and they find it equally weird that there are hobby readers.
(BTW, the easy comparison here is The Book Thief, which is a great book. Also with a child protagonist; also set during WWII; also with adult themes etc etc etc; but not directly aimed at children even though I know children who've read it multiple times. The Book Thief also had more going on plotwise. That's a great book, so go read The Book Thief instead. The other potential comparison would be Lord of the Flies, except the childhood society the kids construct isn't developed enough to make it a sociological study of human nature. In fact, after Suze confronts the bully, nothing happens as a result of it. But I was forced to read Lord of the Flies in grammar school AND middle school, and I hated every minute of it both times. Hah.)
I read this as an adult and found it interesting; I will not pass it along to any of my kids even though they're readers.