i found "glover's mistake" at the san juan capistrano library. the cover caught my eye, loved the sea foam green and the illustrations. and of course, the chicago tribune's praise had me excited to read it. the tribune claimed that it was "the kind of book jane austen would've written if she'd been male and hipper---and had internet access." sounds amazing right? but it wasn't.
i ran into the same problem that i had with "wuthering heights", i didn't like any of the characters. perhaps a better comparison would be my dislike of the characters in zadie smith's "nw" because smith and laird are married.
"glover's mistake" is the tale of a love triangle: david is in love with this old art teacher ruth but she falls in love with his roommate james glover. initially, i felt bad for david because he tried to date ruth but was unsuccessful. david did not aggressively pursue ruth and as a result their relationship went straight into the friends zone. ruth then meet james through david and is instantly attracted to him. i felt bad for david because it is obvious that he was going to suffer. he lost the woman he loved to his roommate. my sympathies did not last long because it turns out david was a jerk and a little bat shit crazy. david sabotaged their relationship, going so far as creating a fake email to tell
ruth about james' infidelty (james did have a one night stand but in his defense he was a virgin prior to dating ruth so i think he should be forgiven). david also made james insecure about ruth's lesbian past and friendship with an old lover. quick note: i couldn't decide if glover's mistake was the infidelity or his insecurity about ruth being a lesbian.
but even with david's evilness, i couldn't cheer for james and ruth. their relationship did move way too quickly. they got engaged after a couple of months of dating (or was it weeks). there was an age difference which didn't bother me but i was concern about their difference in terms of life experience. it was her second marriage and his first real relationship. i mean ruth had a list of lovers of both sexes and james was virgin. (i would like to add that i think the best kind of guy to fall in love with is the kind like james. the kind that was dorky or fat in high school who then grow up to be handsome. all of these good looks and no conceit). also they didn't seem to have much in common other than sex. i mean if laird gave david and ruth's relationship some depth i would have wanted to see their love win but since he didn't i couldn't decide if i want david or them to win in the end. and that is ultimately the problem with the book, i didn't know whose team i was on. the thing about love triangles is that you should want to choose a side (see: team jacob or team edward) but here both sides sucked so i didn't become invested.
granted i have only read one jane austen book but i totally became invested because i cared about the characters. at first i was on team wickham and then of course team darcy. but the point is that i chose a side. so sorry chicago tribune but this was not like an austen novel.
i must add i am not giving up on laird, just like i didn't give up on smith, i still plan on reading their other works to see what the hype is about.
and one last thing, i did find ruth's art intriguing. i wish the "republic of women" really did exist, it would be an interesting piece. i like the idea of ruth creating "artefacts" for a lost female
only civilization, i especially would have liked to have seen the menstruation headdress. as i read, i was reminded of judy chicago's "dinner party". i should google, maybe laird based is ruth's art on something in real life.
