Read Scotland discussion

This thread is for those who know the book or who have finished it. Write anything about the book, plot twists, endings and all, without worry.

Do not read this thread if you’re reading the book and don’t want the finish spoilt!

This May and June we’re reading: Laidlaw by William McIlvanney

Tell us your thoughts!

I finished Laidlaw. I was pretty excited to read the first "tartan noir" but I have to say I was pretty put off by the writing at first. It was the way he was piling on the metaphors, it seemed that rather than illuminating a character, they made the meaning more obscure. Anyone else feel that way? Anyway, the style grew on me after a while. I loved the setting.

I am struggling to keep up with the dialogue. It's unfamiliar language to me so it's taking me awhile to plod through. The setting is amazing.

I finished Laidlaw last night and had mixed feelings. The language was difficult for me. And it was very much of it's time. It was uncomfortable to read all the poof talk.

Susan wrote: "I finished Laidlaw last night and had mixed feelings. The language was difficult for me. And it was very much of it's time. It was uncomfortable to read all the poof talk."
Same for me. In that respect it feels dated, but probably reflective of prevailing attitudes then.

I agree.

Lorna wrote: "I finished Laidlaw. I was pretty excited to read the first "tartan noir" but I have to say I was pretty put off by the writing at first. It was the way he was piling on the metaphors, it seemed tha..."

Susan wrote: "I finished Laidlaw last night and had mixed feelings. The language was difficult for me. And it was very much of it's time. It was uncomfortable to read all the poof talk."

I can understand why those who came after claim him as a model but it's a bit misleading to talk of McIlvanney as being the first to write Tartan Noir. In "Laidlaw" he wasn't writing a crime novel but literary fiction which happened to feature crime.
And yes it was published over forty years ago in less enlightened times but I suspect any dialogue is pretty reflective of how people spoke then. The past is a different country.

I will be able to (re)read this next week, I hope, so I will be a bit latchie to this. (Latchie - a good Scottish word!)

It was my privilege to meet William Mcilvanney once, many moons ago, at a festival. And I used to know his son, Liam (who is also now an author and worth checking out). He was a lecturer when I was doing my postgrad. Shameful name-dropping, I know, but what can I say? :)

For anyone interested here's a video of a conversation with WM about Laidlaw. For those of a sensitive nature, be warned, there are some wee sweary words :)
https://booksfromscotland.com/2015/10...

Jack wrote: "Lorna wrote: "I finished Laidlaw. I was pretty excited to read the first "tartan noir" but I have to say I was pretty put off by the writing at first. It was the way he was piling on the metaphors,..."

I understand. It's like reading Tom Sawyer or To Kill A Mockingbird. It's good to remember how far we've come.

Thanks for the tip about Liam. I have added him to my TBR pile.

Just finished it earlier today. Really enjoyed it, been years since I last picked up a book by Mcilvanney and I've forgotten how much I like his writing. Probably would have been completely lost if I wasn't used to the vernacular.

Read like a perfect snap shot of the era. Didn't feel as dated as it should have with the sectarian elements.

Thank you about saying that about the vernacular. I really struggled with it.

Susan wrote: "Thank you about saying that about the vernacular. I really struggled with it."

Yeah, it can be difficult to get to grips with if you're unfamiliar with Scots. I know people who have been settled in Scotland for years and still struggle from time to time, so it's understandable.

I'm at about 2/3 now in my re-reading of this. It's been many years since I read it and it's good to be back... It's been fascinating to read the other comments - I can totally see how the Glaswegian/Scots vernacular would be a challenge at times. But it's part of the book and adds to its identity.

What strikes me most are a couple of things:

1. the way McIlvanney sets up dualities or contrasts: Laidlaw vs Milligan, as two very different types of copper - with Harkness caught between the pair of them; normal society vs criminal underworld, with again the veneer of acceptance with gangsters living in posh houses; traditional male-dominated families vs females who are trying to escape them; the good old West coast Catholic vs Protestant; and so on.
Of course, Scotland is the country that gave you Jekyll and Hyde, and this schism in Scottish identity is one that defines us - Highland vs Lowland, Edinburgh vs Glasgow, Scottish vs British...

2. Whilst I love Laidlaw as a character (able to read Latin, quoting TS Eliot, articulate and philosophical, a flaneur or 'traveller'), Glasgow and its people are as much a main character - the architecture, the banter, the weather, the housing schemes. It's a living, breathing entity in the novel.

It is of its time, so yes, it can be very non-PC at times. But it finds an extraordinary balance, for me at least, between the conventions of a crime novel (a murder, an investigation, a hunt) and somehow transcending it, becoming a philosophical musing on society and the individual.

(Btw, I would also recommend Alan Spence's collection of short stories Its Colours They Are Fine which was also published in 1977, the same year as 'Laidlaw', and re-issued last year. It gives an equally good sense of the city of Glasgow at this time.)

"I would also recommend Alan Spence's collection of short stories Its Colours They Are Fine"
That's on my tbr pile. I may bump it up the list now.

Finished this today - just as strong and powerful as I remember from when I first read it years ago.

I love the character descriptions that are so heavily-laden yet so concise: someone described as having a face 'like a war museum', another who 'seemed as derelict as the building', Harkness and Laidlaw in the pub describing the customers as 'Breughel meets Hieronymous Bosch.'

The moments of humour, asides, and observations made me laugh even in the grimness of the story:
'" Ah'm a bobber an' a weaver. Ah bob an' Ah weave, eh? Ah can look after maeself. Ah know the big city."
Eck was a romantic.'

I had a couple of questions coming back to the book:
- what did I think of Laidlaw as a person? Hard cop, intelligent and spouting philosophy, a loving father but who has an affair with Jan from the hotel. Are we just supposed to take that as a character flaw? I think it maybe helps him understand that the world is not black and white and why he is oddly comfortable mixing it with the underbelly of the city.
- the book is called 'Laidlaw' - not Death in Glasgow or something like that, so clearly McIlvanney meant it to be as much about him as the story. I think Harkness gives us, as readers, a different perspective as he himself puzzles what to make of Laidlaw.
- given it was written over 40 years ago how dated does it feel? Especially for those who maybe don't know Glasgow or Scotland, especially from that time.
(I had an interesting conversation with my mother and aunt the other week when they were reminiscing about their father, my granddad. They lived near Glasgow and whilst my granddad was, by all accounts, a decent man he was also staunchly Protestant and repeatedly stated that 'no Catholic will ever set foot in this house.' !!!)

I'd be interested to see what others made of these.

I can't help but quote one my favourite tiny moments from the book, one of the little gems that you could miss but which just give you an impression of the city. As Harkness is waiting for Laidlaw he sees a drunk man leave a pub:
'He foundered in a way that suggested fresh air wasn't his element and at once Harkness saw that he was beyond what his father called the pint of no return.'
:-)

Oh, I forgot possibly the most important question:
We know who did it from page one, we sort of know why, but towards the end Laidlaw suggests there was more than 2 people involved. We don't get the 'ok guv, I did it' confession of a traditional crime novel. We simply end with Laidlaw offering Tommy a cup of tea. What do we think really happened? Is that even important in a book that is more concerned with character, or the city itself, or with Laidlaw himself?

Oh, Alan, what perceptive comments. I did not even catch that pint of no return which I love. That really ties things up doesn't it?

I think Tommy did it himself in a fit of passion but I love the ambiguous ending. It says so much about Laidlaw bringing that tea. I actually thought it was a perfect ending.