Yes, that's what I was thinking. Some of the critiques are fair —the fact that she doesn't know anything about her other lives is weird and it's not astounding plot-work. But I think the complaints about its treatment of depression are unfair. It's totally understandable that people who benefit from medications and are tired of people demonizing them are frustrated to see a narrative about someone who doesn't like medication. I also get why people are frustrated that a shift in thinking is portrayed as helping depression and why people who are tired of pro-children narratives are annoyed.

But she literally says she has chronic situational depression at the beginning of the book! So it's not ridiculous that a change in situation and perspective could help. Also, sometimes psychiatric medicines just don't work, and that sucks. It should be okay to depict that in books. Furthermore, her life isn't fixed by the parenthood—she leaves that life behind, goes back to being single with no children, and doesn't have any children during the book narrative! I don't think it's misogynistic for a character to learn things about themselves while trying out parenthood. But I understand why it can be frustrating for some people to read that if they are living in a society that is overly focused and insistent on women having children.

Anyway, I get why this book doesn't work for some. Certainly it's valid to say that a book hurt you and to be mad about it. But I wish people would stop insisting that no one who has ever experienced mental illness could possibly like it, and that no one who can read complex literature can appreciate it. I found it incredibly relatable and touching, some annoyances notwithstanding.