What do you think?
Rate this book
Glover's Mistake
From a rising British novelist, an artful meditation on love and life in contemporary London
When David Pinner introduces his former teacher, the American artist Ruth Marks, to his friend and flatmate James Glover, he unwittingly sets in place a love triangle loaded with tension, guilt, and heartbreak. As David plays reluctant witness (and more) to James and Ruth's escalating love affair, he must come to terms with his own blighted emotional life. Set in the London art scene awash with new money and intellectual pretension, in the sleek galleries and posh restaurants of a Britannia resurgent with cultural and economic power, Nick Laird's insightful and drolly satirical novel vividly portrays three people whose world gradually fractures along the ineluctable fault lines of desire, truth, deceit, and jealousy. With wit, compassion, and acuity, Laird explores the very nature of contemporary romance-"The Death of Love in Modern Culture," as David puts it in one of his dyspeptic blog posts-among damaged souls whose hearts and heads never quite line up long enough for them to achieve true happiness.
When David Pinner introduces his former teacher, the American artist Ruth Marks, to his friend and flatmate James Glover, he unwittingly sets in place a love triangle loaded with tension, guilt, and heartbreak. As David plays reluctant witness (and more) to James and Ruth's escalating love affair, he must come to terms with his own blighted emotional life. Set in the London art scene awash with new money and intellectual pretension, in the sleek galleries and posh restaurants of a Britannia resurgent with cultural and economic power, Nick Laird's insightful and drolly satirical novel vividly portrays three people whose world gradually fractures along the ineluctable fault lines of desire, truth, deceit, and jealousy. With wit, compassion, and acuity, Laird explores the very nature of contemporary romance-"The Death of Love in Modern Culture," as David puts it in one of his dyspeptic blog posts-among damaged souls whose hearts and heads never quite line up long enough for them to achieve true happiness.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published April 2, 2009
12 people are currently reading
652 people want to read
About the author
Nick Laird
32 books110 followersNick Laird was born in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland in 1975. He read English Literature at Cambridge University, and then worked for several years as a lawyer specializing in international litigation.
He is the author of two novels, Utterly Monkey and Glover's Mistake, and two collections of poetry, To A Fault and On Purpose. A new volume of poetry, Go Giants, is forthcoming from Faber in January 2013.
Laird has won many awards for his fiction and poetry, including the Rooney Prize for Irish Literature, the Jerwood Aldeburgh Prize, the Betty Trask Prize, the Rupert and Eithne Strong award, a Somerset Maugham award, and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize. He has published poetry and essays in many journals including the New Yorker, the London Review of Books and the New York Review of Books, and wrote a column on poetry for two years for the Guardian newspaper.
He has taught at Columbia University, Manchester University and Barnard College.
He is the author of two novels, Utterly Monkey and Glover's Mistake, and two collections of poetry, To A Fault and On Purpose. A new volume of poetry, Go Giants, is forthcoming from Faber in January 2013.
Laird has won many awards for his fiction and poetry, including the Rooney Prize for Irish Literature, the Jerwood Aldeburgh Prize, the Betty Trask Prize, the Rupert and Eithne Strong award, a Somerset Maugham award, and the Geoffrey Faber Memorial Prize. He has published poetry and essays in many journals including the New Yorker, the London Review of Books and the New York Review of Books, and wrote a column on poetry for two years for the Guardian newspaper.
He has taught at Columbia University, Manchester University and Barnard College.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
December 13, 2013
By the time you realize just what a dangerous writer Nick Laird is, it's too late to break away. This new novel from Zadie Smith's husband comes on all wit and chumminess, a buddy story about two London roommates in love with the same woman. But in the familiar surroundings of romantic comedy, Laird is busy plotting something far more unsettling. "Glover's Mistake" turns imperceptibly toward the poisonous effects of bitterness, and it'll leave you feeling wary all day, as though you'd lain down with Nick Hornby and woken up beside Muriel Spark.
The story opens at a posh art show, a multimedia exhibition of style and pretension that makes a ripe target for Laird's exquisite satire. With a few graceful lines, he sketches out a privileged world where "money grants its owners a kind of armour." The gallery's central piece is a giant sheet of black paper called "Night Sky (Ambiguous Heaven)," which sells for $950,000. But the real object of Laird's attention is a self-conscious young man from the opposite end of this social scale: David Pinner, a disaffected English teacher who feels intimidated even while seething with scorn. He's come to the gallery in hopes of reintroducing himself to Ruth Marks, a famous feminist artist "acclimatized to prosperity at an early age." She was a professor of his a dozen years ago, and the moment he sees her again, "he could imagine how she might unmoor a man's existence." With a bit of expertly tailored flattery, David manages to persuade Ruth to consider a collaborative art project, and during their subsequent meetings he fancies he might have a shot at a more romantic relationship.
As alluring as Ruth is to David, David is equally seductive to us, though in a completely different way. Whereas she simmers with class (her charcoal scarf used to belong to Audrey Hepburn), he's a cynical curmudgeon who knows he's "growing old and odd . . . falling prey to calcified and strange routines." An overweight misanthrope, unlucky in love, he pounds out his disappointments with films, television, restaurants and books on his blog, the Damp Review. He's the kind of underdog snob who appeals to our own buried resentments and unrecognized superiority with his deflating critiques of everything and everyone -- particularly himself.
His roommate, James Glover, couldn't be more different, and part of the fascination of this novel is how well Laird makes this odd couple work. At 23, Glover is arrestingly handsome, devoutly Christian and unabashedly optimistic. "While Glover wired plugs, changed fuses, replumbed the leaky washing machine, David made cups of tea and hovered." Nevertheless, "from the very start," Laird writes, "David felt they fitted; that they lived in the same collective noun. He wanted good things to happen to him. He wanted good things to happen to them both." Their friendship sparks with all the inside jokes and tolerated foibles of two guys who shouldn't get along but do.
Neil Simon played with this situation 40 years ago, and though Laird is relying on some of the same comic tensions, he's updated the plot with more psychological acuity and given the relationship a darker tint. "A friendship," Laird writes, "is a kind of romance," and what follows is a sensitive look at the way straight men who enjoy each other's company nonetheless are torn by envy and wounded affection.
At the very moment when David is about to make his move on Ruth, when "she gifted him the rare belief that he was special," she confesses an attraction to his roommate, Glover, and so begins a love triangle that moves from comedy to tragedy as subtly as twilight fades to night. We see all this from David's smoldering point of view, while he's consigned over the next six months to the role of a eunuch facilitating his roommate's relationship with a woman he imagined might be his own lover. "An aura of despair had settled over him like a pungent eau de cologne," Laird writes. With the kind of frantic bitterness that's both funny and a little scary, David realizes that he's been cast as Glover's "liege, his understudy, his ballboy and his footnote, his Sancho Panza, his Mercutio, there for service, nothing more." But despite this humiliation, David remains fixed at the center of their increasingly tense relationship, and he goes about sabotaging his best friend's happiness with a thousand tiny doses of suspicion and doubt, trying to be supportive and corrosive at the same time.
Laird's attention to the pettiness of the wounded heart will make you wince. This is an asymmetrical battle between modern sophistication and old-fashioned faith, a conflict that inspires a rising sense of dread as David's ironic quips curdle into spite. Spying his friend's well-worn Bible next to the bed, David thinks, "There was something desperate and saddening about Glover sitting in here among his cricket almanacs and National Geographics, underlining mad and ancient rules to live by." But his own life, no matter how cerebral and worldly, makes a chilly counterpoint to Glover's simple faith.
Laird's first two books were collections of poetry, and his lad-lit novels -- this is his second, after "Utterly Monkey" (2006) -- glide along with the language of a writer who can make every line work elegantly. Under his gaze, the quotidian events of domestic life seem irradiated with wit. But when the story starts racing to its wicked conclusion, Laird isn't kidding. He's posing a thoroughly modern moral challenge that can't be laughed off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
The story opens at a posh art show, a multimedia exhibition of style and pretension that makes a ripe target for Laird's exquisite satire. With a few graceful lines, he sketches out a privileged world where "money grants its owners a kind of armour." The gallery's central piece is a giant sheet of black paper called "Night Sky (Ambiguous Heaven)," which sells for $950,000. But the real object of Laird's attention is a self-conscious young man from the opposite end of this social scale: David Pinner, a disaffected English teacher who feels intimidated even while seething with scorn. He's come to the gallery in hopes of reintroducing himself to Ruth Marks, a famous feminist artist "acclimatized to prosperity at an early age." She was a professor of his a dozen years ago, and the moment he sees her again, "he could imagine how she might unmoor a man's existence." With a bit of expertly tailored flattery, David manages to persuade Ruth to consider a collaborative art project, and during their subsequent meetings he fancies he might have a shot at a more romantic relationship.
As alluring as Ruth is to David, David is equally seductive to us, though in a completely different way. Whereas she simmers with class (her charcoal scarf used to belong to Audrey Hepburn), he's a cynical curmudgeon who knows he's "growing old and odd . . . falling prey to calcified and strange routines." An overweight misanthrope, unlucky in love, he pounds out his disappointments with films, television, restaurants and books on his blog, the Damp Review. He's the kind of underdog snob who appeals to our own buried resentments and unrecognized superiority with his deflating critiques of everything and everyone -- particularly himself.
His roommate, James Glover, couldn't be more different, and part of the fascination of this novel is how well Laird makes this odd couple work. At 23, Glover is arrestingly handsome, devoutly Christian and unabashedly optimistic. "While Glover wired plugs, changed fuses, replumbed the leaky washing machine, David made cups of tea and hovered." Nevertheless, "from the very start," Laird writes, "David felt they fitted; that they lived in the same collective noun. He wanted good things to happen to him. He wanted good things to happen to them both." Their friendship sparks with all the inside jokes and tolerated foibles of two guys who shouldn't get along but do.
Neil Simon played with this situation 40 years ago, and though Laird is relying on some of the same comic tensions, he's updated the plot with more psychological acuity and given the relationship a darker tint. "A friendship," Laird writes, "is a kind of romance," and what follows is a sensitive look at the way straight men who enjoy each other's company nonetheless are torn by envy and wounded affection.
At the very moment when David is about to make his move on Ruth, when "she gifted him the rare belief that he was special," she confesses an attraction to his roommate, Glover, and so begins a love triangle that moves from comedy to tragedy as subtly as twilight fades to night. We see all this from David's smoldering point of view, while he's consigned over the next six months to the role of a eunuch facilitating his roommate's relationship with a woman he imagined might be his own lover. "An aura of despair had settled over him like a pungent eau de cologne," Laird writes. With the kind of frantic bitterness that's both funny and a little scary, David realizes that he's been cast as Glover's "liege, his understudy, his ballboy and his footnote, his Sancho Panza, his Mercutio, there for service, nothing more." But despite this humiliation, David remains fixed at the center of their increasingly tense relationship, and he goes about sabotaging his best friend's happiness with a thousand tiny doses of suspicion and doubt, trying to be supportive and corrosive at the same time.
Laird's attention to the pettiness of the wounded heart will make you wince. This is an asymmetrical battle between modern sophistication and old-fashioned faith, a conflict that inspires a rising sense of dread as David's ironic quips curdle into spite. Spying his friend's well-worn Bible next to the bed, David thinks, "There was something desperate and saddening about Glover sitting in here among his cricket almanacs and National Geographics, underlining mad and ancient rules to live by." But his own life, no matter how cerebral and worldly, makes a chilly counterpoint to Glover's simple faith.
Laird's first two books were collections of poetry, and his lad-lit novels -- this is his second, after "Utterly Monkey" (2006) -- glide along with the language of a writer who can make every line work elegantly. Under his gaze, the quotidian events of domestic life seem irradiated with wit. But when the story starts racing to its wicked conclusion, Laird isn't kidding. He's posing a thoroughly modern moral challenge that can't be laughed off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
August 31, 2009
I took some time to look at pictures of Nick Laird on the Internet so just in case I ever run into him in New York I can give him a piece of my mind. What a load of garbage this book is. Things like this make me hate the publishing/reviewing complex for feeding us hot new authors who really can't write. Laird's incompetent fumblings at character development suggest he should stick to poetry. His satire is weak an unoriginal and even my internet rantings are better than the ones he writes in the voice of David.
A few things
* It's amazing that this kind of nonsense passes for literary fiction. Here is a good sample sentence "The rain fanaticized." Really Mr Laird? You are full of it.
* you did not discover the "funky caucasian" dancing face.
* you hate your characters and b/c you do, i do too.
A few things
* It's amazing that this kind of nonsense passes for literary fiction. Here is a good sample sentence "The rain fanaticized." Really Mr Laird? You are full of it.
* you did not discover the "funky caucasian" dancing face.
* you hate your characters and b/c you do, i do too.
October 18, 2010
I suspect this book is more accurately a 3-star, but sometimes it's a case of the right book at the right time. Fall is pretty, but it's a difficult time to be a lonely city boy (or girl): winter -- that awful season of good cheer, camaraderie, and romance -- looms ominously over all singletons, just as inclement weather and the vagaries of city life start to truly grate, and the carefree postcoital haze of summer seems to have dissipated completely. Then lo, at your most vulnerable moment, along comes this cruelly insightful chronicle of urban love, friendship, class, and jealousy, to really articulate all the horrible things you want to say to all the happy couples and laughing friends fumbling ruddy-cheeked through the autumnal streets. Namely, IT'S NOT WORTH IT! Sure, the plot is random, the ideas are all over the place, and the 3 main characters (and David Pinner especially) are all so casually horrible to themselves and to each other it makes you almost physically sick -- but I guarantee any modern human will feel (with mounting unease) how much they identify with the brutality the characters seem to throttle each other, and the world, with. It's a quick but not particularly fun read, yet I feel thankful to have read it now and exorcised all my curmudgeonly feelings in the privacy of my own reading chair (rather than on the L train, say, or on the high-stakes playing field of a first -- or worse, second -- date). The book and the experience of reading it left me feeling messy, unresolved, and sad, but sort of punchy in an exhilarating way -- which I guess is exactly how urban love and life make you feel.
PS. Whoops, I pretty much just said everything the Guardian review already said, but I said it not as well. IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
PS. Whoops, I pretty much just said everything the Guardian review already said, but I said it not as well. IT'S NOT WORTH IT!
Read
April 12, 2011I like Nick Laird, but I enjoy his wife's novels more than his.
I really liked the ending here. But until the ending, the pace is quite slow. It's difficult to stick with such a dismal man as David-so many layers of discontent. Throughout the entire novel David seeks to sabatage his best friend's relationship. He deletes reparatory text messages, lies, and tells Glover things he shouldn't. But there's a missing piece somewhere. David tells us love is antiquated. Love is unsatisfactory; it's a hopelessly juvenile concept. But what i'm not clear on is if this thesis is supposed to be the motive behind David's relentless destruction. David likes Ruth in the beginning. But I don't know if he really cares for her. He seems to like the concept of her (creative, successful, mature) more than the actual person (flighty, egotistical, stiff). Maybe I should believe that a friend could destroy love on principle alone-but I just don't. Is David simply consumed by jealousy? David could love Glover-but that's been done before. As with "Utterly Monkey," I'm simply missing something, which is a shame. However, I'm disinclined to believe it's my intellectual inferiority that's limiting me, though it is probable.
I really liked the ending here. But until the ending, the pace is quite slow. It's difficult to stick with such a dismal man as David-so many layers of discontent. Throughout the entire novel David seeks to sabatage his best friend's relationship. He deletes reparatory text messages, lies, and tells Glover things he shouldn't. But there's a missing piece somewhere. David tells us love is antiquated. Love is unsatisfactory; it's a hopelessly juvenile concept. But what i'm not clear on is if this thesis is supposed to be the motive behind David's relentless destruction. David likes Ruth in the beginning. But I don't know if he really cares for her. He seems to like the concept of her (creative, successful, mature) more than the actual person (flighty, egotistical, stiff). Maybe I should believe that a friend could destroy love on principle alone-but I just don't. Is David simply consumed by jealousy? David could love Glover-but that's been done before. As with "Utterly Monkey," I'm simply missing something, which is a shame. However, I'm disinclined to believe it's my intellectual inferiority that's limiting me, though it is probable.
December 7, 2009
What I remember loving about Nick Laird's first novel, "Utterly Monkey," was just how funny it was. Don't ask me what it was about...I just remember it was seriously hilarious. So I had high expectations of "Glover's Mistake," Nick Laird's second novel (and also because he's Zadie Smith's husband...the guy has good taste in authors). "Glover's Mistake" follows a year in the life of always miserable, neurotic David--and his flatmate (roommate) James (Glover). Enter stage left...Ruth, the artist with whom both roommates becomes obsessed and enchanted to differing degrees. Laird sets up an interesting love triangle, and one can't help but be buoyed by James' devotion to Ruth. But the cynicism of the other characters, including David and Ruth, is just plain depressing...and, after a while, a little wearing. In part, that's the point of Laird's novel, but as a reader, I found it somewhat hard-going at times. I was relieved when the story came to an end and I was finally shot of the bunch of them.
November 4, 2010
Nick Laird is a brilliant Irish writer, this novel is super current, about modern art in London and a warped love triangle. The three characters are British pudgy introverted David Pinner (overweight, introverted, mid-30s depressed single college teacher), David's 23 yr old roommate James Grover who tends bar and isn't quite through with his personal metamorphosis (freshman year of mechanical engineering school he was fat and religious, over the summer he took up exercise with zeal and by the time he quit school his sophomore year he was buff and cut and gorgeous), and celebrated 45 year old American artist Ruth Marks (David had a crush on her when she taught him at Goldsmiths, and she's aged beautifully since then).
I love the clever chapter headings throughout the book.
There are a million moving parts and everything is fast and witty all over the place, and yet at the end somehow all is tied together perfectly. I loved every character, even the unlikeable ones made me laugh. I'll look for Laird's first book Utterly Monkey next.
I love the clever chapter headings throughout the book.
There are a million moving parts and everything is fast and witty all over the place, and yet at the end somehow all is tied together perfectly. I loved every character, even the unlikeable ones made me laugh. I'll look for Laird's first book Utterly Monkey next.
March 5, 2009
Much better than I thought it would be.
A very readable novel though it wouldn’t have been my first choice – the cover blurb; ‘London art scene… new money… intellectual pretension… Contemporary London romance...’ didn’t inspire me with confidence and I was expecting the usual Young London nonsense.
What I found was an absorbing, readable novel in which the a lazy, jealous and entirely amoral protagonist undertakes a quietly selfish agenda with extraordinary ruthlessness. The writing is superb, full of exciting, original metaphor that sometimes misses the mark, but rarely.
An entertaining read that I recommend to anyone who enjoys a well-written, slow burning tale rich in detail – but nowhere near as important a novel as its publishers seem to think it is.
A very readable novel though it wouldn’t have been my first choice – the cover blurb; ‘London art scene… new money… intellectual pretension… Contemporary London romance...’ didn’t inspire me with confidence and I was expecting the usual Young London nonsense.
What I found was an absorbing, readable novel in which the a lazy, jealous and entirely amoral protagonist undertakes a quietly selfish agenda with extraordinary ruthlessness. The writing is superb, full of exciting, original metaphor that sometimes misses the mark, but rarely.
An entertaining read that I recommend to anyone who enjoys a well-written, slow burning tale rich in detail – but nowhere near as important a novel as its publishers seem to think it is.
Read
October 8, 2012I was pleasantly surprised by his last book, Utterly Monkey, so if I find a cheap copy of this someplace, I expect I'd be pleasantly surprised by it too.
**
Oh ha, look at what I wrote up there like three years ago! Even though I totally forgot all about that & Nick Laird too, I totally took my own advice & scored this at a book swap for free, and now I will love it.
**
Oh ha, look at what I wrote up there like three years ago! Even though I totally forgot all about that & Nick Laird too, I totally took my own advice & scored this at a book swap for free, and now I will love it.
May 3, 2021
Things we didn't need to know and things no one cares about are in this book. Characters are confusing and not developed. Either make it simpler and shorter or make it longer and written properly. Waste of my three days, sorry Nick.
May 4, 2009
This book grew on me. It's kind of icky, but I am glad I stuck with it.
June 29, 2021
I expected a lot more from this book. But it was beautifully written. The descriptive and narrative styles were so on point and way too engaging. I just wish it was a little more creative.
March 18, 2021
In this somewhat jaded view of love and relationships today Nick Laird creates a less than admirable hero in the form of thirty two year old David Pinner, one time art student who changed course and now teaches English and aspires to be a writer. He shares his flat with James Glover, a twenty three year old church going bar-tender; and whereas James is fit and handsome David is beginning to got to seed. The two men enjoy an amicable relationship, that is until David introduces James to Ruth, an internationally successful artist and his former art tutor. While David harbours hopes of romance with Ruth, she takes an interest in James, and despite the twenty four year age gap, James and Ruth are soon dating, much to David's disgust. However, all is not lost as far as David is concerned; he has plans.
Beautifully written this a surprisingly amusing and alluring tale, surprisingly because the characters Laird expertly creates are riddle with personality faults. David is scheming and hypocritical, and displays no loyalty to his flat mate; Ruth is self-centred and while prepared to make a commitment she sees such as only temporary. Of the three James' probably fares best in the personality stakes, at least his failings can be put down to immaturity and inexperience, he is very much a victim of circumstances. But in this cynical insight into human nature whom one sympathises with will depend very much on one's own values. Glover's Mistake is a very entertaining read, even though it may be a rather depressing indictment of the nature of human relationships.
(pre-publication review copy)
Beautifully written this a surprisingly amusing and alluring tale, surprisingly because the characters Laird expertly creates are riddle with personality faults. David is scheming and hypocritical, and displays no loyalty to his flat mate; Ruth is self-centred and while prepared to make a commitment she sees such as only temporary. Of the three James' probably fares best in the personality stakes, at least his failings can be put down to immaturity and inexperience, he is very much a victim of circumstances. But in this cynical insight into human nature whom one sympathises with will depend very much on one's own values. Glover's Mistake is a very entertaining read, even though it may be a rather depressing indictment of the nature of human relationships.
(pre-publication review copy)
January 31, 2026
No idea why Nick Laird's GLOVER'S MISTAKE got such low reviews from the Goodread population. It's a terrifically written novel about two roommates who find themselves at odds over an exotic female actor and the games they play to curry her favor. Sounds, I know, like the oldest plot in the world, but Laird is a writer from Northern Ireland who truly understands the politics of adult roommates, and how easily affection between men can slip into jealousy and competition. All three characters upon whom he focuses are fascinatingly different, and the push pull between them over a much older paramour keeps you guessing, often embarrassed, and terribly worried, in all the best ways. I highly recommend GLOVER'S MISTAKE, and can't wait to read Laird's earlier novel.
July 4, 2023
Would that this were a better novel, Martin Amis selected Laird and Zadie Smith as novelist he still bothered to read when he realised his time on earth was not limitless. So I tried, but the bitter characters in their tiny worlds do not effect anything in the reader. Is this really what men think and feel? If so, I am really really sorry it must be awful. Jealousy, bitterness, self-loathing, hatred. There really wasn’t a jolly moment to be had.
July 22, 2023
Didn't finish because the writing was so horrible. Randomly picked this book because it had a cute cover, probably the best part of the book. Undeveloped characters with no redeeming qualities or anything that would make a reader connect with them. Bad plot that is more of a downward spiral than a rollercoaster, and not an enticing or intriguing spiral either. Very very clearly written by a man with a man's shallow view of the world and women.
February 9, 2016
There is a particular brand of black humor and jaded view of life that seems to accompany life in contemporary London. It’s very compelling, even enjoyable, despite its somewhat bleaker view of life. Nick Laird has captured it perfectly and infused it into his novel, “Glover’s Mistake,” a book that engages even when it makes readers slightly uncomfortable.
“Glover’s Mistake” is a novel about contemporary manners as much as Jane Austen’s writings were in the 19th century, and parallel the misguided love affairs and angst of the unloved. Where Austen’s characters resolve their failings at the tale’s end, however, Laird leaves readers wondering if anyone has learned anything from the traumas love has inflicted in “Glover’s Mistake.”
The book centers on David Pinner, who notices in the local paper that a former art school teacher (an American, no less) has returned to London. He decides to follow his longing and looks her up, although she barely remembers him. Alone in London, she is open to his dinner invitation, where she collides with his flat mate, James Glover. While Pinner pines for the American artist (Ruth Marks), Ruth becomes smitten with the much younger roommate Glover.
To say David is distraught over the situation is an understatement, and eventually his demons get the best of him, as he sets on a course to break up the relationship and position himself in the role of friend to the broken-hearted. What he underestimates, however, is the relationship between Glover and Ruth, as well as his own capacity to destroy Glover (underestimated and misunderstood by Glover). It’s a sad torment as the scenarios begin to play themselves out.
Laird also takes quite a few stabs at the pretension of the London art scene, Ruth’s self-centered artwork and attitude (including her feminist backdrop and previous relationships), the hypocrisy of the Church and family life (via his own and James’s parents), and the overall futility of love in the modern age. To truly enjoy the book, one must have a slightly cynical take on life or it may all seem crushingly depressing. Those of us who tend to view the glass as half-empty will likely embrace this writing.
Laird is witty, intelligent, and lyrical in his descriptions and characterization in “Glover’s Mistake.” He’s a fresh voice, with a keen eye for the lies and the liars. He can sniff out a pretender at a hundred paces. The story is rich with dilemma, and readers who love the book will find endless topics for consideration, even after they’ve put the novel down. It’s a thoughtful, well written, interesting look at love, at London, and (perhaps) at our own failings. Don’t miss it!
Merged review:
There is a particular brand of black humor and jaded view of life that seems to accompany life in contemporary London. It’s very compelling, even enjoyable, despite its somewhat bleaker view of life. Nick Laird has captured it perfectly and infused it into his novel, “Glover’s Mistake,” a book that engages even when it makes readers slightly uncomfortable.
“Glover’s Mistake” is a novel about contemporary manners as much as Jane Austen’s writings were in the 19th century, and parallel the misguided love affairs and angst of the unloved. Where Austen’s characters resolve their failings at the tale’s end, however, Laird leaves readers wondering if anyone has learned anything from the traumas love has inflicted in “Glover’s Mistake.”
The book centers on David Pinner, who notices in the local paper that a former art school teacher (an American, no less) has returned to London. He decides to follow his longing and looks her up, although she barely remembers him. Alone in London, she is open to his dinner invitation, where she collides with his flat mate, James Glover. While Pinner pines for the American artist (Ruth Marks), Ruth becomes smitten with the much younger roommate Glover.
To say David is distraught over the situation is an understatement, and eventually his demons get the best of him, as he sets on a course to break up the relationship and position himself in the role of friend to the broken-hearted. What he underestimates, however, is the relationship between Glover and Ruth, as well as his own capacity to destroy Glover (underestimated and misunderstood by Glover). It’s a sad torment as the scenarios begin to play themselves out.
Laird also takes quite a few stabs at the pretension of the London art scene, Ruth’s self-centered artwork and attitude (including her feminist backdrop and previous relationships), the hypocrisy of the Church and family life (via his own and James’s parents), and the overall futility of love in the modern age. To truly enjoy the book, one must have a slightly cynical take on life or it may all seem crushingly depressing. Those of us who tend to view the glass as half-empty will likely embrace this writing.
Laird is witty, intelligent, and lyrical in his descriptions and characterization in “Glover’s Mistake.” He’s a fresh voice, with a keen eye for the lies and the liars. He can sniff out a pretender at a hundred paces. The story is rich with dilemma, and readers who love the book will find endless topics for consideration, even after they’ve put the novel down. It’s a thoughtful, well written, interesting look at love, at London, and (perhaps) at our own failings. Don’t miss it!
“Glover’s Mistake” is a novel about contemporary manners as much as Jane Austen’s writings were in the 19th century, and parallel the misguided love affairs and angst of the unloved. Where Austen’s characters resolve their failings at the tale’s end, however, Laird leaves readers wondering if anyone has learned anything from the traumas love has inflicted in “Glover’s Mistake.”
The book centers on David Pinner, who notices in the local paper that a former art school teacher (an American, no less) has returned to London. He decides to follow his longing and looks her up, although she barely remembers him. Alone in London, she is open to his dinner invitation, where she collides with his flat mate, James Glover. While Pinner pines for the American artist (Ruth Marks), Ruth becomes smitten with the much younger roommate Glover.
To say David is distraught over the situation is an understatement, and eventually his demons get the best of him, as he sets on a course to break up the relationship and position himself in the role of friend to the broken-hearted. What he underestimates, however, is the relationship between Glover and Ruth, as well as his own capacity to destroy Glover (underestimated and misunderstood by Glover). It’s a sad torment as the scenarios begin to play themselves out.
Laird also takes quite a few stabs at the pretension of the London art scene, Ruth’s self-centered artwork and attitude (including her feminist backdrop and previous relationships), the hypocrisy of the Church and family life (via his own and James’s parents), and the overall futility of love in the modern age. To truly enjoy the book, one must have a slightly cynical take on life or it may all seem crushingly depressing. Those of us who tend to view the glass as half-empty will likely embrace this writing.
Laird is witty, intelligent, and lyrical in his descriptions and characterization in “Glover’s Mistake.” He’s a fresh voice, with a keen eye for the lies and the liars. He can sniff out a pretender at a hundred paces. The story is rich with dilemma, and readers who love the book will find endless topics for consideration, even after they’ve put the novel down. It’s a thoughtful, well written, interesting look at love, at London, and (perhaps) at our own failings. Don’t miss it!
Merged review:
There is a particular brand of black humor and jaded view of life that seems to accompany life in contemporary London. It’s very compelling, even enjoyable, despite its somewhat bleaker view of life. Nick Laird has captured it perfectly and infused it into his novel, “Glover’s Mistake,” a book that engages even when it makes readers slightly uncomfortable.
“Glover’s Mistake” is a novel about contemporary manners as much as Jane Austen’s writings were in the 19th century, and parallel the misguided love affairs and angst of the unloved. Where Austen’s characters resolve their failings at the tale’s end, however, Laird leaves readers wondering if anyone has learned anything from the traumas love has inflicted in “Glover’s Mistake.”
The book centers on David Pinner, who notices in the local paper that a former art school teacher (an American, no less) has returned to London. He decides to follow his longing and looks her up, although she barely remembers him. Alone in London, she is open to his dinner invitation, where she collides with his flat mate, James Glover. While Pinner pines for the American artist (Ruth Marks), Ruth becomes smitten with the much younger roommate Glover.
To say David is distraught over the situation is an understatement, and eventually his demons get the best of him, as he sets on a course to break up the relationship and position himself in the role of friend to the broken-hearted. What he underestimates, however, is the relationship between Glover and Ruth, as well as his own capacity to destroy Glover (underestimated and misunderstood by Glover). It’s a sad torment as the scenarios begin to play themselves out.
Laird also takes quite a few stabs at the pretension of the London art scene, Ruth’s self-centered artwork and attitude (including her feminist backdrop and previous relationships), the hypocrisy of the Church and family life (via his own and James’s parents), and the overall futility of love in the modern age. To truly enjoy the book, one must have a slightly cynical take on life or it may all seem crushingly depressing. Those of us who tend to view the glass as half-empty will likely embrace this writing.
Laird is witty, intelligent, and lyrical in his descriptions and characterization in “Glover’s Mistake.” He’s a fresh voice, with a keen eye for the lies and the liars. He can sniff out a pretender at a hundred paces. The story is rich with dilemma, and readers who love the book will find endless topics for consideration, even after they’ve put the novel down. It’s a thoughtful, well written, interesting look at love, at London, and (perhaps) at our own failings. Don’t miss it!
January 10, 2023
As soon as I pictured the David character as David Mitchell in ‘Peep Show’, the story became more amusing than cynical. But I suspect that I won’t remember this book, nor will I want to read it again.
It would be unkind to compare Laird’s writing to his wife’s. So I’ll just note that it was amusing to find them on sale together. And interesting to read their books in succession.
It would be unkind to compare Laird’s writing to his wife’s. So I’ll just note that it was amusing to find them on sale together. And interesting to read their books in succession.
September 24, 2018
A fun book with appreciable substance, although there's a bothersome pretentiousness to it that never gets reconciled or dealt with in any critical or meaningful way. The ending is mostly underwhelming. It felt like a literary beach read without any real sexiness.
April 20, 2024
well written i thought. not as captivating as it could be. the characters were complex and made you think. 3 stars bc i dont love reading a man’s pov and it could’ve had more drama. too many big words and british slang too lol
October 2, 2017
An isosceles love triangle
with a revolving short side.
with a revolving short side.
November 25, 2017
The four stars are for the beautiful writing on a three star plot.
December 13, 2021
Life is too short to waste anymore time on this book. I really didn’t like the characters and didn’t care who each ended up with. My mistake was picking up this book.
January 18, 2023
The author's writing felt incomplete
August 21, 2009
Books and stories have always sparked debate but the most perplexing “argument” to me is that one where “plot” is pitted against “character development”. Now I wouldn’t put it in exactly those words; character development, to me, is something along the lines of Charles Dickens characters making their forlorn way through muddy, rainy streets, learning a thing or two every now and then.The opposite of action to me, is more like the writer’s personal philosophy regarding his or her subject.
Satire is my cup of tea, be it a book full of flashy, hilarious one liners a la Pynchon or a rolling, farcical set up with a subtler punch line as was the style of Wilde or Swift. That said, I understand that it’s not the thing everyone comes to the table for but I don’t think that idea-driven books are any less attention worthy than something that is straight fiction.
Why the wind up? Well, I’ve just finished this fantastic little book by Nick Laird. His short take on love and loneliness, faith and friendship is sparse in sparkly prose but certainly not lacking in those questions that drive plot-less books. There is a plot but it’s a fairly simple one. Not-so-hipster professor David is not a terribly attractive character but he represents the part of us that so longingly needs to belong, to love and be loved. While he is not likable, he is lovable, despite or perhaps due to his flaws hitting so close to home. After bumping along as just another city bottom-feeder for many years, he runs in to (or tracks down, depending on who is telling the story) Ruth, a former art teacher from his school days. She is the embodiment of chic New York abroad in London and whatever mild, school boy crush David harbored before, turns into an obsessive devotion. Set on connecting in any way possible, David approaches Ruth at an art show and proposes a collaboration between picture and word, setting in motion a tentative friendship between the two. Of course neither life nor art imitating it works out as planned and Ruth is inevitably fixated on David’s younger, more dashing counterpart and roommate, Glover. Hilarity and heartbreak follow.
Obviously, this is not a ground breaking model for disaster but it isn’t in the physical or dramatic adventure that the real action takes place and herein lies my point above. Right off the bat, we play witness to an art opening during which a blank black canvas, only mildly altered and dubbed Night Sky (Ambiguous Heavens) is sold for $950k. Through echos of this snip-it, explorations of pretention, elitism, and art, with an uppercase A, are bounced off of each member of the story.
All of these discussions serve to flesh out the book where the plot is absent. The action is in the study; the adventure in the self-discovery. Now, while I have made a case against the plot-driven reader picking this up, I think that I’ll put in one small plea for said readers to disregard that recommendation. Glover’s Mistake, while waxing philosophical, bordering on entering into that very world of Art that is poking fun of, is about the average. It is about the mundane, the banal and the commonplace. Because of this, every reader, plot driven or thought driven, should pick up the book for in its radical expose, it is an expose of the everyman.
Satire is my cup of tea, be it a book full of flashy, hilarious one liners a la Pynchon or a rolling, farcical set up with a subtler punch line as was the style of Wilde or Swift. That said, I understand that it’s not the thing everyone comes to the table for but I don’t think that idea-driven books are any less attention worthy than something that is straight fiction.
Why the wind up? Well, I’ve just finished this fantastic little book by Nick Laird. His short take on love and loneliness, faith and friendship is sparse in sparkly prose but certainly not lacking in those questions that drive plot-less books. There is a plot but it’s a fairly simple one. Not-so-hipster professor David is not a terribly attractive character but he represents the part of us that so longingly needs to belong, to love and be loved. While he is not likable, he is lovable, despite or perhaps due to his flaws hitting so close to home. After bumping along as just another city bottom-feeder for many years, he runs in to (or tracks down, depending on who is telling the story) Ruth, a former art teacher from his school days. She is the embodiment of chic New York abroad in London and whatever mild, school boy crush David harbored before, turns into an obsessive devotion. Set on connecting in any way possible, David approaches Ruth at an art show and proposes a collaboration between picture and word, setting in motion a tentative friendship between the two. Of course neither life nor art imitating it works out as planned and Ruth is inevitably fixated on David’s younger, more dashing counterpart and roommate, Glover. Hilarity and heartbreak follow.
Obviously, this is not a ground breaking model for disaster but it isn’t in the physical or dramatic adventure that the real action takes place and herein lies my point above. Right off the bat, we play witness to an art opening during which a blank black canvas, only mildly altered and dubbed Night Sky (Ambiguous Heavens) is sold for $950k. Through echos of this snip-it, explorations of pretention, elitism, and art, with an uppercase A, are bounced off of each member of the story.
All of these discussions serve to flesh out the book where the plot is absent. The action is in the study; the adventure in the self-discovery. Now, while I have made a case against the plot-driven reader picking this up, I think that I’ll put in one small plea for said readers to disregard that recommendation. Glover’s Mistake, while waxing philosophical, bordering on entering into that very world of Art that is poking fun of, is about the average. It is about the mundane, the banal and the commonplace. Because of this, every reader, plot driven or thought driven, should pick up the book for in its radical expose, it is an expose of the everyman.
August 8, 2015
An intimate (insular?) story of the relationship among two young British men and an older, successful, beautiful artist set in modern-day London.
This book fits into the camp of writing that is often considered (by mostly male critics) "feminine," the small but not insignificant realm of the individual. It is about finding love in the 21st century. Told in the third person, the story is primarily told from David Pinner's perspective, a slighty overweight, balding 35-yr old loner who teaches English lit and clandestinely blogs. His physically beautiful 23 yr-old roommate James Glover falls in love w/ David's secret crush, one of his old art teachers, who is 47-yrs old.
Laird is a gifted writer; there were sections where the inner workings of the three characters, their flaws/imperfections/inner beauty, were almost painful in their accuracy. You have moments where you think, "Oh no, this is me, I get this, I know that person." Somehow, though, the overall emotion conveyed is emptiness, and on some level the reader is relieved to get away from these characters, as a mimicing of shallowness of life in lit can be too much of a wet blanket.
"He thought of the symbolism of the act, touching the hem of her garment. He had a terrible tendency to think in symbols. He knew it made him unrealistic."
"She was privileged enough to...equate a certain squalor with an authenticity she lacked."
"David like the fact that Glover knew, that someone knew , how everything functioned. It was reassuring."
"She...blew her nose loudly. This depressed him. He disliked hearing a nose being blown; he always attended to his in private. A little of her mystique disappeared into that piece of kitchen roll, and it annoyed him that she didn't care."
"Ruth tended to talk...to one person. When you were chosen you become her solace, her intimate confrere in some subtle plot against the whole thick-witted world. she watched you and read you, responded only to you. Such was the exclusive nature of her consciousness, operating in daily life through a series of mini-love affairs."
"[W]hat passes for love is imperfect knowledge. Not knowing, initially, allows faithlessness to dress up as its opposite; casts the inarticulate as enigmatic, the selfish as forgetful, the angry as impassioned. Everyone you meet is wearing some disguise, and the lover is the best liar of the lot."
This book fits into the camp of writing that is often considered (by mostly male critics) "feminine," the small but not insignificant realm of the individual. It is about finding love in the 21st century. Told in the third person, the story is primarily told from David Pinner's perspective, a slighty overweight, balding 35-yr old loner who teaches English lit and clandestinely blogs. His physically beautiful 23 yr-old roommate James Glover falls in love w/ David's secret crush, one of his old art teachers, who is 47-yrs old.
Laird is a gifted writer; there were sections where the inner workings of the three characters, their flaws/imperfections/inner beauty, were almost painful in their accuracy. You have moments where you think, "Oh no, this is me, I get this, I know that person." Somehow, though, the overall emotion conveyed is emptiness, and on some level the reader is relieved to get away from these characters, as a mimicing of shallowness of life in lit can be too much of a wet blanket.
"He thought of the symbolism of the act, touching the hem of her garment. He had a terrible tendency to think in symbols. He knew it made him unrealistic."
"She was privileged enough to...equate a certain squalor with an authenticity she lacked."
"David like the fact that Glover knew, that someone knew , how everything functioned. It was reassuring."
"She...blew her nose loudly. This depressed him. He disliked hearing a nose being blown; he always attended to his in private. A little of her mystique disappeared into that piece of kitchen roll, and it annoyed him that she didn't care."
"Ruth tended to talk...to one person. When you were chosen you become her solace, her intimate confrere in some subtle plot against the whole thick-witted world. she watched you and read you, responded only to you. Such was the exclusive nature of her consciousness, operating in daily life through a series of mini-love affairs."
"[W]hat passes for love is imperfect knowledge. Not knowing, initially, allows faithlessness to dress up as its opposite; casts the inarticulate as enigmatic, the selfish as forgetful, the angry as impassioned. Everyone you meet is wearing some disguise, and the lover is the best liar of the lot."
September 1, 2011
I cannot believe I got as hooked to this disaster of a book as I did. By disaster, I mean the characters were all absolute wrecks, and then a reserved, love triangle, soap opera-type of story is added in. Almost pure trash, but I indulged myself on it.
So, David is a professor in his late-30's in love with Ruth, an artist in her late-40's who was his art professor; Ruth falls for David's roommate James Glover, an early-20's bartender. Glover falls in love with her. David has a jealous personality so he embarks on a campaign to do anything to break the two of them up. He lies to both of them, he writes trash about Ruth's work on his blog, he makes snide comments about them. He invites himself along with them, he spies on them in intimate situations, and attempts to embed himself with their friends, so as to recruit them to his cause. Most of the book is seen from David's point-of-view, with the exception of the last chapter, in which the reader is let inside Glover's head.
I found myself feeling sympathy for David, although I can't explain why. I think if I was let into Glover's mind sooner, I would've been more sympathetic towards him. It was hard to understand the relationship between Ruth and Glover because it was demeaned by David throughout the book. There have been many books written on the theme of jealousy, and this is yet another one. It is in a modern setting, with many more technological devices at hand to set traps for others: deleted texts, ascerbic blogs, etc. It was all a sick muddle with a surprising ending. Maybe persistence does pay...?
So, David is a professor in his late-30's in love with Ruth, an artist in her late-40's who was his art professor; Ruth falls for David's roommate James Glover, an early-20's bartender. Glover falls in love with her. David has a jealous personality so he embarks on a campaign to do anything to break the two of them up. He lies to both of them, he writes trash about Ruth's work on his blog, he makes snide comments about them. He invites himself along with them, he spies on them in intimate situations, and attempts to embed himself with their friends, so as to recruit them to his cause. Most of the book is seen from David's point-of-view, with the exception of the last chapter, in which the reader is let inside Glover's head.
I found myself feeling sympathy for David, although I can't explain why. I think if I was let into Glover's mind sooner, I would've been more sympathetic towards him. It was hard to understand the relationship between Ruth and Glover because it was demeaned by David throughout the book. There have been many books written on the theme of jealousy, and this is yet another one. It is in a modern setting, with many more technological devices at hand to set traps for others: deleted texts, ascerbic blogs, etc. It was all a sick muddle with a surprising ending. Maybe persistence does pay...?
May 2, 2015
This book drove me crazy! Nick is one of those people, everyone knows one, that only sees the negative and ugly side of things. He is one of those dreadful "why me" kind of people. Ruth is his art teacher in college, who he meets up with again a bit later in life. She is an artist, outgoing, somewhat egocentric and beautiful. Nick "rescues" her at a party, and reads more into their relationship than he should. While he is starting to think of them as a couple, Ruth becomes interested in his flatmate James Glover. James is Nick's polar opposite...good looking, happy, religious. Nick stands on the sidelines as Glover and Ruth fall in love and get engaged. Glover gets drunk one night and has a one night stand with a girl. Nick finds out, and decides to use the information to win Ruth back. My frustration came from the fact that Nick never understands that she doesn't love him. He drives people away with his negativity. Glover is a good friend to him until he finds out what lengths Nick has gone to, to undermine his relationship with Ruth. There are so many different relationships going on in this book, that cause no one to trust anyone. In the end, Nick gets what he wants. Ruth and Glover break up, he is there to pick up the pieces for Ruth and everyone is pretty much miserable. Negative people are very draining in real life and on the printed page! So many times I caught myself thinking awful thoughts about Nick and wanting to shake the others to make them realize what he was doing!
April 27, 2014
An engaging read, this novel tells the story of Ruth Marks, James Glover and David Pinner who through circumstances end up in a bizarre love triangle.
Ruth is David's old college lecturer who he has secretly had a crush on for many years so when a chance meeting leads them to renew their acquaintance, David thinks he might have a chance with her and that she may remember him as one of her students.
Unfortunately, though Ruth is happy to be friends with David, her romantic inclinations run towards David's flatmate James.
Through David Ruth tries to get access to James and finally David wises up to the fact he is being used as a pawn in her game to ensnare James.
David spirals into a sort of obsessive but silent third wheel and never misses any chance to discredit James or cause trouble between the pair, this is comparatively easy to do as Ruth has a colourful past including dalliances with women, one of whom is still in her life as a "friend" at the time of her relationship with James, not overlooking the fact that there is a big age gap between Ruth and James which sometimes rears its head as James having ugly, jealous tantrums.
Can their relationship survive or is it doomed to failure due to situations and the looming presence of the devious David in the background.
A clever idea for a novel and shows how jealousy and obsession can sour anything in life.
Well worth reading.
Ruth is David's old college lecturer who he has secretly had a crush on for many years so when a chance meeting leads them to renew their acquaintance, David thinks he might have a chance with her and that she may remember him as one of her students.
Unfortunately, though Ruth is happy to be friends with David, her romantic inclinations run towards David's flatmate James.
Through David Ruth tries to get access to James and finally David wises up to the fact he is being used as a pawn in her game to ensnare James.
David spirals into a sort of obsessive but silent third wheel and never misses any chance to discredit James or cause trouble between the pair, this is comparatively easy to do as Ruth has a colourful past including dalliances with women, one of whom is still in her life as a "friend" at the time of her relationship with James, not overlooking the fact that there is a big age gap between Ruth and James which sometimes rears its head as James having ugly, jealous tantrums.
Can their relationship survive or is it doomed to failure due to situations and the looming presence of the devious David in the background.
A clever idea for a novel and shows how jealousy and obsession can sour anything in life.
Well worth reading.
April 6, 2015
A quick read, with some thought-provoking lines or paragraphs, but a little too much telling rather than showing. As a result, I didn't really get involved with any of the characters or build up my own picture of them.
I did like the London-art-scene setting, it wasn't pretentious like I thought it was going to be. I also liked a line from near the end of the book: "He couldn't stay with him now, not since he'd seen what he was capable of doing." for it's ambiguity. It could refer to either David and Glover, as they both screw up and would probably want to move away from the other. Other than that, Glover's homophobia and David's two-faced-ness were interesting.
However, it was a perfect example of the blurb giving too much away - it tells you straight away which characters get together, so you're just waiting for the "surprise". The relationship with Gayle never goes anywhere or adds anything to the book. Then the ending was quite abrupt, but this might just be because there wasn't much to wrap up character-wise.
I did like the London-art-scene setting, it wasn't pretentious like I thought it was going to be. I also liked a line from near the end of the book: "He couldn't stay with him now, not since he'd seen what he was capable of doing." for it's ambiguity. It could refer to either David and Glover, as they both screw up and would probably want to move away from the other. Other than that, Glover's homophobia and David's two-faced-ness were interesting.
However, it was a perfect example of the blurb giving too much away - it tells you straight away which characters get together, so you're just waiting for the "surprise". The relationship with Gayle never goes anywhere or adds anything to the book. Then the ending was quite abrupt, but this might just be because there wasn't much to wrap up character-wise.
October 3, 2009
Laird's witty romantic comedy quickly evolves into something darker, "as though you'd lain down with Nick Hornby and woken up beside Muriel Spark" (Washington Post). Surprisingly -- and dangerously, warns the New York Times Book Review -- Laird rests this multilayered, character-driven novel on two unlikable protagonists: the bitter, unapologetic David and the thoughtless, self-absorbed Ruth. However, the believable relationship between David and James, a more sinister version of The Odd Couple, is possibly the most fascinating aspect of the novel. Laird's prose, considered elegant and incisive by most critics, vexed the Telegraph, which labeled him "a slightly fussy, clenched writer." Despite a few complaints, Glover's Mistake is a sincere, if creepy, meditation on friendship and loyalty. This is an excerpt of a review published in Bookmarks magazine.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews