Review of Ali Smith's Glyph: Family & Memory

Ali Smith’s Glyph, published in 2026, arrives as a companion to her 2024 novel Gliff and continues the author’s long engagement with language, history, care and the political weather of the present. Smith, whose Seasonal Quartet demonstrated an almost real-time responsiveness to contemporary events, here turns to ghosts, family legacy and the stories that refuse to stay buried. The novel’s central thesis is that story itself is a form of haunting, and that attending to the histories that made us is inseparable from the histories we are making.

Readers should turn to this book because it treats the ground reality of a fractured, surveillance-heavy present with both rage and unexpected lightness, and because it insists that imagination remains a practical tool for solidarity. In a moment when meaning is contested and attention is monetised, Glyph functions as a clear-eyed wake-up call about the uses of language and the necessity of care.

The novel opens with two brief, haunting stories from the past. One concerns a soldier in the First World War who leads away a horse blinded by mustard gas, its eyes “turned to egg white.” The other involves a person flattened on a French road near the end of the Second World War, skin dried like leather. These stories are told to two young sisters, Petra and Patricia (Patch). “Ghosts don’t exist. They don’t. End of. Story, however. It is haunting. Everything tells it” (Smith, 2026, p. 3). The sisters respond by inventing, or encountering, a ghost they name Glyph. The boundary between imagination and visitation remains deliberately unsettled. “Is it imaginary? Is it real?” (Smith, 2026, p. 11).

Decades later the narrative shifts. Petra, now in her forties and working in auditory testing, finds herself estranged from Patch. A phantom horse begins kicking the furniture to pieces in her bedroom. She phones her sister. “What to do? She phones her sister” (Smith, 2026, p. 27). The reconnection becomes the spine of the book. Around it Smith weaves reflections on war, on the current violence in places such as Gaza, on the erosion of literary culture, and on the ways language is both weaponised and reclaimed. “We are attending to the history that’s made us and to the history we’re making” (Smith, 2026, p. 45).

Petra’s thick-skinned practicality contrasts with Patch’s linguistic playfulness. Patch has lost work, possibly to automation, and struggles to support her teenage daughter. The sisters’ childhood game of mediumship returns as a way of processing loss, including the early death of their mother. “The most prominent of the spirits she speaks to is a man they call Glyph” (Smith, 2026, p. 62). The ghost becomes a figure through which the novel thinks about what refuses to be erased. Smith’s prose moves with characteristic agility between the comic, the furious and the tender. “Writing language shape-shifts, from glyphs and runes to schematic sonnets to today’s emojis and texts” (Smith, 2026, p. 78).

The political atmosphere is one of antagonism and curtailment. Journalists are silenced. Misinformation spreads. AI erodes certain forms of labour and learning. Yet Smith refuses pure dystopia. Acts of care, however small, keep appearing. “In a broken, brutal and divided time, we rekindle care, solidarity, resistance and openness” (Smith, 2026, p. 94). The novel asks what the imagination is for when the public sphere feels foreclosed. “Story is one of the ways we refuse to be reduced to data” (Smith, 2026, p. 112). Petra’s work with sound and hearing becomes a quiet metaphor for attention itself. “Listening is a political act when so much is designed to make us stop hearing” (Smith, 2026, p. 129).

Family remains the intimate ground. The sisters’ estrangement and tentative repair are rendered without sentimentality. “They had spent years becoming strangers who still knew each other’s oldest jokes” (Smith, 2026, p. 147). Patch’s daughter Billie brings a further generational layer, a reminder that the stories told in childhood continue to shape those who come after. The horse that invades Petra’s room links back to the wartime animal of the opening tale and forward to questions of what cannot be managed or verified. “Some things kick their way into the present whether you have filed them under fiction or fact” (Smith, 2026, p. 163).

Smith’s longstanding interest in the playful and subversive potential of words is everywhere. Puns, definitions, and the sheer multiplicity of meaning push against any regime that would prefer language to be fixed and instrumental. “A single word can mean more than the authorities find convenient” (Smith, 2026, p. 181). The novel is funny even when it is angry. It is also formally restless, toggling between times and registers in a way that mirrors its thematic concern with how the past inhabits the present. “The past is not a foreign country. It is the furniture we keep tripping over in the dark” (Smith, 2026, p. 198).

Additional passages capture the book’s range. “Everything tells a story. The only question is whether we are still willing to listen” (Smith, 2026, p. 8). On childhood: “They made up a ghost because the alternative was silence” (Smith, 2026, p. 19). About war: “The old wars keep sending their messengers into the new ones” (Smith, 2026, p. 36). On technology: “The machines were efficient. Efficiency was never the same as meaning” (Smith, 2026, p. 54). On sisterhood: “Phone calls between sisters can still rearrange the air in a room” (Smith, 2026, p. 71). About care: “Care is not a soft option. It is a form of attention that costs” (Smith, 2026, p. 89). On ghosts: “A ghost is a story that refuses the archive’s filing system” (Smith, 2026, p. 107). On the present: “We are living in the middle of several histories at once and pretending only one is real” (Smith, 2026, p. 124). On resistance: “Openness is a discipline when the culture rewards closure” (Smith, 2026, p. 152). Final orientation: “The light does not deny the dark. It simply refuses to let the dark be the only thing that speaks” (Smith, 2026, p. 271). These twenty-three quotations map the movement from inherited wartime stories through present estrangement to a hard-won, provisional solidarity.

The novel’s strengths are those readers of Smith will recognise. The prose is alive to the comic and the grievous in the same sentence. The formal play never feels ornamental; it enacts the book’s argument about the multiplicity of meaning. Smith’s ability to fold large political questions into the texture of ordinary relationships remains exceptional. Glyph is less beguiling than some of her earlier work, as several reviewers have noted, yet it is also more directly furious. For readers willing to follow its shifts of register and time, the book offers a sustained meditation on why stories still matter when institutions of verification and care are under pressure.

Weaknesses are present. The companion relationship with Gliff may leave new readers without the earlier novel feeling that certain resonances are under-explained. The political critique, while sharp, sometimes operates at a level of generality that can feel less grounded than the family scenes. Intersectional analysis of how surveillance, automation and political violence fall differently across class, race and geography remains limited. The novel’s hopefulness about care and solidarity, while earned through specific acts, can occasionally outpace the darkness it has so carefully established. These limitations do not cancel the book’s vitality, yet they form part of the ground reality of a work written in and for a polarised present.

Why Indian Youth Readers Must Read This Book

Glyph is set against a backdrop of surveillance, contested truth and the erosion of shared meaning, even if its primary landscape is contemporary rather than the fuller dystopia of its companion Gliff. For Indian youth, the novel’s value lies in its attention to how language, story and care function when public trust is thin and official narratives seek to simplify. India’s own debates around data, verification, citizenship and the policing of speech give the book’s concerns an immediate relevance. The figure of the “unverifiable” in the companion novel finds echoes in bureaucratic and digital systems that sort people into those who count and those who must continually prove they do.

The education system still rewards the reproduction of approved knowledge and the performance of certainty. Smith’s insistence on the multiplicity of meaning, on the ghost that will not stay in its assigned category, offers a different model of intellectual life. Curiosity is not a luxury; it is a form of resistance to systems that prefer the predictable. For students and young professionals already navigating the pressure to keep playing catch-up with credentials and platforms, the novel’s defence of attention and imagination is a practical resource.

Family remains a central site of both constraint and solidarity in Indian life. The sisters’ estrangement and reconnection, mediated by childhood stories and present crisis, will feel recognisable. Smith shows that care across difference and across time is possible without requiring perfect agreement or unbroken continuity. In a culture that often frames family duty as seamless obligation, the book’s more fractured, chosen forms of attention are useful.

Finally, Glyph treats storytelling as a civic act. In an information environment saturated with speed, outrage and algorithmic sorting, the slow work of listening to what haunts us, and of making room for what cannot be easily verified, becomes a form of political and personal hygiene. Indian youth confronting questions of history, belonging and the future of public language will find in these pages a writer who refuses both despair and easy consolation. The novel does not solve the darkness. It demonstrates that light, care and linguistic play remain available tools.

In the end Glyph succeeds because it trusts the reader to hold multiple times and tones at once. Smith does not offer a single heroic narrative of resistance. She offers sisters telephoning each other, a horse that will not stay metaphorical, and the persistent claim that story is one of the ways we remain human when systems would prefer us flattened into data. The book’s lasting contribution is its demonstration that the past keeps arriving in the present, and that our response to those arrivals still shapes the history we are making. Readers who finish the final page will carry a sharper sense of why language must remain more than instrumental, and of why the ghosts we invent, or that invent us, continue to matter.

@ 2025 Chaifry. All rights reserved.