The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

Held by Anne Michaels (Bloomsbury)

I just started with the audiobook, and feel like I might regret the choice. May be a book better read...

Anna wrote: "I just started with the audiobook, and feel like I might regret the choice. May be a book better read..."

I would definitely suggest having a physical copy to reference!

Agreed, this didn't work on audio for me either.

I listened to audio and read. Because of the density for your pleasure you will want a written copy. Held is also a poet so there is a rhythm in her work at times that needs to be read aloud.

Agree with Sam, I ended up reading a lot of it aloud because it’s very poetic and the audiobook would normally be perfect for that if it weren’t for the nonlinear structure and the need to go back and reread certain parts.

I have not listened to audio but can’t imagine it working.

It's a different book on audio. I do recommend it for a second read.

While reading this earlier in the year in a group read, we noticed the Held like Cusk in Parade or Smith in Seasonal Quartet, was referencing or alluding to real-life artists, authors, etc. In her novel. Our group only only noticed a few standout examples, but as you read, or if you recall any desciptions of these, it might be nice to share the names you think the author was referencing.

Can you add some you observed to kick us off?

It's been a few months so my memory is hazy but looking back the discussion highlighted Arvo Pärt, Eugène Atget, and of course Marie Curie.

Oh boy I bet you the majority of booktubers are going to hate this book

David wrote: "It's been a few months so my memory is hazy but looking back the discussion highlighted Arvo Pärt, Eugène Atget, and of course Marie Curie."

Was Curie named directly? I can't remember. I wonder if the others were given pseudo-names over IP/legal concerns. Pärt is still living.

Marie Curie and her husband were named directly.

But I think Arvo Part is Paavo

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "But I think Arvo Part is Paavo"

Agreed. With a pseudo-name.

Sam was the one who made the Eugène Atget connection.

And Agtet appears but is anonymous to the person he meets.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Can you add some you observed to kick us off?"

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Can you add some you observed to kick us off?"

Curie and Part were names others in our group identified. I added Eugène Atget, but thought that some characters could be composites. Also somone mentioned a scene that seemed taken from a poem. I don't wish to share any more info than that to allow the group member the opportunity of introducing the thought.

Robert wrote: "Oh boy I bet you the majority of booktubers are going to hate this book"

I hope we don't get the reactions we saw against Bernstein last year.

I am a bit lost with this one. Beautiful prose, but I felt reminded as to why most poems do not stretch for this long. There was just so much heartfelt deep thought and feeling, so much loving remembrance - I feel a bit oversaturated. An interesting book, but at times I felt at sea, and the non-linear structur did not help (especially since I don't quite know why it was introduced?)

At least this one won't be easily forgotten.

As I expected *sigh*

https://youtu.be/A50mE8dCDic?si=BsFve...

I admire the beautiful writing but never felt a deeper connection to the emotional content.

I thought some of the writing was stunning but didn't make all the connections.

I love this book since I'm a poet and now a novelist as well, but I think Michaels's weakness is that she finds it difficult to build emotional connections between her characters and her readers, in part because her characters are just such extraordinary people in such extraordinary ways. I would love to see this book win, but I don't think it will. I'm in doubt as to whether it will even make the shortlist. But I love it. Michaels's always seems to sacrifice character depth for thematic concerns. I think they need to be more balanced.

Kiki (Formerly TheGirlByTheSeaOfCortez) wrote: "I think Michaels's weakness is that she finds it difficult to build emotional connections between her characters and her readers"

I agree with this: I felt the connection with John and Helena in the first two sections but after that the character engagement was lost to me. I still think the writing is wonderful and I like the spiritual vision that the book creates.

Even though the books and their intentions are very different, this is the same weakness I felt in the Messud: once the narrative starts jumping through the years and places, it lost me.

I think I am in agreement with these great comments.

Although the two books are very different in the way they slightly lost me - Held because it becomes too fragmentary with vignettes only loosely connected to the first parts, Strange and Eventful History because it becomes too maximalist (no family reminiscence from Messud’s research allowed to go to waste).

My preference was definitely for Held though - as it’s more artistically written and much easier to revisit. It left me more intrigued and wanting to go back whereas Messud left me slightly exhausted.

Perhaps another way of saying it - I was left wanting to know more about the characters in Held and less about those in S&EH.

I would not rule out its chances either.

I know the judges blurbs are always complementary about each book but this one seemed particularly effusive to me especially with its emphasis on every judge which very much stands out compared to the rest of the list.

Or maybe one judge (Justine at a guess) is trying to gaslight other dissenting judges!!!!

The first few pages of this brief kaleidoscopic novel from the author of Fugitive Pieces may seem forbidding, yet every member of the judging panel was transported by this book. Michaels, a poet, is utterly uncompromising in her vision and execution. She is writing about war, trauma, science, faith and above all love and human connection; her canvas is a century of busy history, but she connects the fragments of her story through theme and image rather than character and chronology, intense moments surrounded by great gaps of space and time. Appropriately for a novel about consciousness, it seems to alter and expand your state of mind. Reading it is a unique experience.

Well, I'm coming in here with an unpopular opinion - I am not a fan.
The first few pages were enjoyable, I was able to find great quotes that spoke to me then around chapter 3 everything just stopped being "for me".
The story itself was too chaotic for me, maybe I'm not in the right headspace for this book but I'm not a fan of multiple POVs and storylines so that might be why it didn't work for me. I had to skim-read a few pages to just get through this book.
Hopefully, I'll like others more.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I think I am in agreement with these great comments.

Although the two books are very different in the way they slightly lost me - Held because it becomes too fragmentary with vignettes only loose..."

As usual, I am in alignment with GY's views on this novel. I was completely captivated for the first parts and was less engaged as the way she told the story became more fragmented. But I thought the writing was gorgeous and I wanted more about these people and their lives, not less. I am very glad this book is on the longlist and may reread it if time permits.

I read this in audio and found myself frequently referring to the table of contents as I would miss the transition. When the book was dealing with John and Helena and their ancestors and progeny, that was enough to keep me straight but when it switched to characters outside that family, I had to do some re-listening. The prose was wonderful. One line jumped out at me - made me abruptly stop my walking. It was John who was asking himself "how much can we lose before we lose ourselves?" That line is similar, if not the same, to what the unnamed, undead, zombie narrator says in It Lasts Forever and Then It's Over. The two books have some commonalities.
It is a tough one to read in audio. I went with the audio over the Kindle version because the author was reading it. She did not do a bad job but I think I'd have been better off with the Kindle edition.

I'm sorry to say that I'm in the minority of people who didn't like this one. I could appreciate what Michaels was doing and though this novel was skilfully structured, but overall I felt that it didn't quite work for me. Aside from a few exceptions, the characterisation felt weak and thus the novel's overall philosophy didn't affect me quite as well as it would have if there was a more insightful delving into the characters.

This novel definitely showcases Michaels' skill as an author and I would understand if it made the shortlist but this wouldn't be one of my picks.

I had trouble with this book. It was one that I just could not connect too. I thought the writing was beautiful - really poetic. And even though I was completely lost with the story, I found that I could just sit and listen to Michaels read the book. It was so soothing and relaxing.

I may go back and do a reread if I get a chance.

I am seeing quite a few comments on Goodreads and Instagram reviews - even those very positive - that they found the first third or so the strongest part of the book

I am wondering if that was because while the writing was very fragmentary the early chapters are clearly anchored in the story of John and his family - whereas later in some of the chapters are very short and less obviously connected.

I was reminded of my rare forays into poetry - I much prefer collections where I can see a clear link between the poems.

I’ve seen those comments too and I think I’m an outlier in that respect. I thought the first two chapters were the least interesting in the book, especially the long second chapter which was essentially standard fare romance and the story of a newly married couple. The book became more interesting to me once we started moving back and forth in time and real historical figures (and/or their doppelgangers) entered the narrative.

Standard - well apart from the ghosts of previous generations appearing in the images of the current generation which I think was a metaphor for the entire book

Haha that's fair. There was more going on in the second chapter but still I was less engaged by that chapter than the rest of the book.

I wonder if this would have been stronger for more people if the later chapters were as fleshed out as the second chapter. Or if that would have been too much.

For me, the later chapters would have been stronger if there had still remained some family tie, no matter how many generations beyond. I enjoyed going back and trying to find how the new chapter’s characters were related to those who came before.

To some extent the book switches from the focus on characters in the first two chapters (with the themes gently weaving through their family story) to the mainly theme-focused vignettes. And the rhythmic structure is uneven in that these two chapters take about one-third of the novel, framing a reader's expectations that could be different from what follows in the remaining 10 chapters/vignettes. I personally didn't mind it and it was immersive for me throughout but it did require a slight shift in the expectations from the narrative focus.

Or would it have worked with a better balance between the two. It felt like one of those short story collections of 10-15 page stories where one of the stories is almost a novella.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Or would it have worked with a better balance between the two. It felt like one of those short story collections of 10-15 page stories where one of the stories is almost a novella."

Good point, GY.

I agree with David's perspective and particularly enjoyed the latter half of the book when the overarching themes connected and became more evident. Like Rachel, I would have enjoyed it more if the family ties were retained throughout allowing for deeper connections between the characters and themes.

I liked this one much more than I expected. I liked the looseness of the storytelling, even though I can appreciate that different styles were in use between the early parts and later.

I am just in a re-read. I really like the opening chapters and David I think it’s only your experience of experimental literature that can make you think of them as pretty conventional.

I had a question though for those who have read it. I have not out in spoilers as I don’t think this is a book where spoilers are a thing.

What did people make of the role/significance/actions of Mr Stanley?

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "What did people make of the role/significance/actions of Mr Stanley?"

I read Stanley as a nod to the fraudulent spirit photographers of the late 1800s/early 1900s. Taking advantage of peoples’ sense, sometimes fleeting, of the existence of something that lies beyond the boundaries of any of our ways of knowing and the desire for concrete proof of it. Michaels writes in the book that such proof cannot be had, not in any scientifically objective way that we know of. Those who claim such proof tend to be unmasked as hoaxers and should be dismissed.

In addition Stanley was some flavor of communist/Marxist and thus presumably an atheist who would have been unsympathetic to the mysteries Michaels is writing about. He would only believe in the physical material world which he could and did manipulate as he wished. Perhaps don’t trust people who operate with that worldview? (I mean, something along the lines of beware of people who leave no room for mystery/uncertainty/doubt, beware the zealot, etc…)

Roman Clodia wrote: "Kiki (Formerly TheGirlByTheSeaOfCortez) wrote: "I think Michaels's weakness is that she finds it difficult to build emotional connections between her characters and her readers"

I agree with this:..."

I don't know if you've read Michaels' previous two books, but I love Fugitive Pieces, and I did feel an emotional connection with the main character, Jakob. Very much so. Her second novel, The Winter Vault, didn't work as well for me, and I didn't feel much connection with the characters at all. For me, Held is as good as Fugitive Pieces and much better than The Winter Vault. I think the writing is always going to be beautiful since Michaels is a poet who likes to concentrate on loss and grief. That really came through In Fugitive Pieces, not so much in The Winter Vault. At first I didn't think Held would make the shortlist, but now, after more reflection, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did, and I hope it does. It's a beautiful book that I want to read again soon.

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "I am just in a re-read. I really like the opening chapters and David I think it’s only your experience of experimental literature that can make you think of them as pretty conventional.

I had a q..."

I think Robert Stanley is there simply to betray John, to add another dimension to what John's doing at the time. And even if Robert doesn't consider what he's doing wrong, John does because Robert is tampering with the truth, he's attempting to peddle a lie, and John feels a great responsibility for that since it's his photo studio. After Robert "doctors" John's photos so it looks like the ghosts or spirits of dead soldiers have been recorded, John feels a great betrayal. Mr. Stanley's betrayal and manipulation of the truth hurt John far more than any of John's physical injuries did. He could have survived those, but he couldn't survive Mr. Stanley's betrayal. I think Michaels is trying to say that the wounds of the spirit are far more lethal than the wounds of the body.

Here is an insightful review with Ms. Michaels: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment...

Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Or would it have worked with a better balance between the two. It felt like one of those short story collections of 10-15 page stories where one of the stories is almost a novella."

I think the fault in this book is that it is unbalanced. The first half, approximately, is a beautiful, poetic narrative, but the second half, I think kind of unravels. I think the diversions, stories, vignettes, whatever you want to call them in the later chapters water down what was so beautifully rendered in the early chapters. And the poetic devices get to be a little overdone for most readers. I write poetry myself, so they weren't overdone for me, but I don't think the majority of readers are going to be poets who appreciate Michaels' elliptical writing.

Thank you for the comments on Stanley.

So in essence the view is that he is a taking advantage of people by faking the photos (the first one possibly/likely in full collusion with the soldier as we know they are seen talking). John who has started to believe against his doubts that the photos are genuine is devastated when he realises the truth - both due to feeling he has also deceived people but also because he has wasted time believe he could hear from his own dead mother … and so walks into the river. Stanley has in the meantime absconded as all his attempts to get John to commercialise the phenomena have failed.

That was my assumption too - not least as when I first read the book I “knew” the photos had to be faked as “scientifically of course” dead people don’t appear on photos.

But as I read the rest of the book and the same excellent interview that Kiki helpfully links I began to think I may be coming at it wrong - as it’s clear the author’s idea is (to express it clumsily): that science took a wrong turn in the 1920s.

Discovering the world of sub atomic particles and non visible rays and radiation and wave/particle duality etc we could have said - “there is so much we now realise we don’t understand just from the world of our senses that perhaps we need to be open to things like ghosts and other “spiritual” phenomena. Instead a firm dividing line was drawn between “scientific” phenomena which even if hard/impossible to observe or understand are “true” and “superstitious” ones that are false.

In that framework it seems odd to have the ghost photos as clearly faked.

So in a second read I felt more unsure.

There is a line later that says “Not mysticism but mystery. “ which is one of the areas that gave me pause second time through.