“Set in Syracuse in 412BC, in the aftermath of Athens’ failed invasion of Sicily, Glorious Exploits is about two potters who decide to put on a production of Medea in a quarry where Athenian soldiers are held captive, using the prisoners as actors.”
Just when I thought the world had run out of plot ideas for books! 
Too funny about the metaphors!
I was think about how people felt the ending was abrupt and I know what you mean, but what I remember think is about how much time was passing and the two of them weren’t communicating at all even though they were thinking about each other! I think it was important though that they go on dates with other people and relearn how to be normal people before they reunite.
I know why Marnie gave Michael the shirt, was there a scene where she buys it?
There was no scene in the book where she bought THE shirt, but maybe there will be one in the movie or TV.
I agree with both of these statements 100%! Their flaws made them human and relatable.
@jollymama I did an internship in college at Houghton Mifflin and I remember taking a copy editing test! I don’t know if it was the same one, but they let me edit some textbooks so I guess I did okay…or good enough.
I’m guessing there are a variety of such tests! One passage I edited mentioned Charles and Diana’s marriage being consummated in St. Paul’s Cathedral. I suppressed a chuckle as I changed it to “consecrated” 
Comments on the ending from the interview with David Nicholls that @jollymama posted above:
What about the business of plotting?
I did struggle with getting to an ending. The original ending never worked because [one character] had to forgive so much in such a short period of time – it felt degrading. My books are often about fundamentally decent people making mistakes for perfectly understandable reasons. Dealing with the question of how you forgive people when they hurt you became a question of what I needed to do to not leave the reader feeling a character had done something so implausible that they’re going to throw the book across the room.
I enjoyed when they shared their playlists. The conversation was funny and natural. I felt like I was walking alongside them, as some of the songs began playing instantly in my head (“Don’t Speak” by No Doubt, “El Condor Pasa (If I Could)" by Simon & Garfunkel, “Here Comes the Sun” by The Beatles.)
I think Marnie and Michael’s game to pass the time would resonate with many readers. Don’t we all have songs that shed a little light on who we are or represent a piece of our history?
He looked at the screen of her phone. Music. Songs. Shuffle. Play. Female voices, talking to all the girls on the block (p. 311).
I remember about 25 years ago, driving around in the car doing errands with my disinterested teenager. We had just pulled into a parking lot when a song came on the radio and she sat up, stopped me from turning off the car and said, “Mom, you have to listen to this song.” I was so surprised to be invited into her world, and I immediately obeyed. The song was “Smooth” (Santana featuring Rob Thomas, 1999). It rarely plays on the radio anymore, but whenever I hear it, it takes me right back to that moment, that car, that teenage girl…and I never fail to smile.
What songs send your brain reeling back in time?
Snoopy vs The Red Baron takes me back to sixth grade, first boyfriend (barely!) and first dances.
Dar Williams’ “When I was a boy” always makes me think back to my childhood when we had a one room schoolhouse (well 2 room schoolhouse, but the other room was our library). I was the only kid in 5th grade, my best friend was a boy same age, but one grade behind me. We played together all the time, often letting my brother who was a couple of years younger tag along. I don’t remember ever doing anything inside! We made bows and arrows, played at being explorers, collected bones from the local hills and rode horses together. I wish I could be so carefree again!
Waving at everyone contributing to the discussion. I like the book but don’t love it. Pondering how many of you guys slid to that next step of loving it.
Not sure I see Marnie and Michael going the distance relationship-wise.
I’m not sure the new friends have to “go the distance” to make the relationship a positive one that helps them start making connections with other people again. Life is full of many different kinds of relationships—some longer term than others. Even if this is a thawing relationship so they allow themselves to feel and be vulnerable again, I see that as a +.
I started the book by listening to it with my husband during a long road trip. We both loved the humor and the quick movement of the story at the beginning. Later into the book, and our trip, some of the passages between Marnie and Michael felt a little long and wordy. When we got home I put the audio book down and my husband finished it. I thought I would do better to finish it closer to book club time. When he finished, he felt like you. The book was okay, but he didn’t love it. I decided to restart the book from the beginning on my Kindle. When I got to the part that felt long when I was listening to it, I didn’t feel the same way anymore. I really enjoyed the book from beginning to end with my second start. I think reading, rather than listening, to the book gave me a better opportunity to enjoy the humor. I’m not saying you need to start over again, just saying it worked for me.
Totally agree with this.
That’s more or less what I meant. I don’t necessarily see a “couples” relationship but rather a good solid friendship - maybe friends with benefits at the start that morphs into good friends.
Marnie had already started reaching out to old friends and new. Definitely an a+.
A “thawing relationship” – I like that terminology.
I know Marnie is the story’s “heroine,” but let’s be real: Michael has known her all of a week when they fall for each other; whereas he was married to Natasha for 15 years. So the relationships can’t really be compared (at least not yet – maybe later if Michael does “go the distance” with Marnie).
From all appearances, Michael and Natasha seemed to have had a loving, solid marriage – but not solid enough to withstand infertility. I’m guessing that is not an uncommon scenario. Although we don’t really know Natasha, it seems like the overwhelming desire for a baby trumped everything else. After the separation, she gets involved fairly quickly with a co-worker and is soon pregnant. Somehow, I suspect she’ll end up a single parent (and will be fine with that). When Michael asks Natasha, “How is it going with Frank?”, the answer sounds like she’s talking herself into something.
“We’re getting along. We both wanted it, it felt like the right thing. It’s good.”
Followed by:
“If I’m honest about him, about Frank,” she was saying, taking his hand, “we don’t have what you and I had.”
Not exactly high praise for the new love in her life and the father of her child!
As for the second half of the discussion question above, I think Michael absolutely did the right thing by telling Marnie the truth – I only wish he had done it sooner. Keeping Natasha’s visit a secret brought the book perilously close to the silly rom-com trope of the fake misunderstanding – when up to that point they’d had very honest, adult conversations.
There were a couple sets of discussion questions floating around on the internet and I remember one had a question along the lines of, “Why did Cleo encourage Marnie to get back into the dating game with Conrad instead of Michael?” The answer to that seems pretty straightforward: I think Cleo thought Marnie need to test the waters with someone light and low-maintenance.
I think Nicholls scrambled to give them some depth at the end, but it was a little awkward. Conrad’s realization over dinner that he was still in love with his ex-fiancée seemed tacked on; and Neil’s polite, sensible follow-through to Marnie’s money request didn’t sound at all like the Neil she had described throughout the book.
Agree 100%! I wasn’t really expecting those reactions from either Conrad or Neil – especially Neil! Up until that point in the book, he came across as such a huge unreasonable jerk, but suddenly he’s all agreeable and rational? Not really buying it.
Add in the aftermath of vicious attack on Michael: hospitalization, ptsd, depression. It is rough for a good while.
Also, Michael is only separated not divorced.
Oh my, of course. Good point! (Though the still-married thing didn’t slow Natasha down at all. 
)
I enjoyed the book - thanks so much for the suggestion. Read it a few weeks ago - the banter was sharp, realistic, and really funny.
However, I somehow didn’t find it - overall - “a comforting antidote to the grimness of our grim world.” (Guardian reviewer). To me it brought up the inherent loneliness of modern life for many folks - particularly in the work-remotely-digital world.
These characters managed to transcend their isolation to some degree, but the vivid pictures the author painted of their solitude were a bit sad.