The Mookse and the Gripes discussion
This topic is about
Held
Booker Prize for Fiction
>
2024 Booker Shortlist - Held
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Anna
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Aug 14, 2024 06:03AM
I felt reasonably certain that the novel tells us about the photos being faked, and ties John's despair to the loss of the spiritual. But in my interpretation, the book then goes on, not calling into question if they were faked, but rather arguing that just because they were faked, it doesn't mean that they were wrong. I feel Held is connected to Enlightenment in this idea that - badly paraphrased - at the end of scientific Enlightenment we find god/the spiritual.
reply
|
flag
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 meant to say the story being told in the first two chapters is fairly conventional. I agree the way it is told is refreshingly different.
Great comments Anna. Thank you.
“He saw now what he had missed. That, in the young man’s photograph, the longing in the mother’s face was beautiful. That it was the image of something true even in its corruption, despite its corruption. How could he have so misunderstood? Nothing, no desecration, no foulness and deception, could deny or erase that beauty, that longing.”
Thanks - great quote. When I first reviewed this book I said I really hope it was prize nominated as it’s the sort of book ideal for a discussion of its more enigmatic elements with a group of wider readers …. And this thread proves that.
I am also finding that it’s ideal for a re-read - I can easily imagine a third read probing very fruitful.
That bodes well for its shortlist (of more) chances to me.
Held and Orbital are the two novels on the longlist I am most likely to reread. I think both would benefit from a second pass.
Lee wrote: "“He saw now what he had missed. That, in the young man’s photograph, the longing in the mother’s face was beautiful. That it was the image of something true even in its corruption, despite its corr..."Beautiful quote and perfect for our discussion.
Maybe Mr. Stanley did not fake the photos but finally realized John was never going to charge for them, so left with the contents of the till. It is hard to believe Stanley was able to fake all those photos. But to John, who it had taken quite a bit to get over not believing it was possible, Stanley's theft was proof the photos were fake and it broke him to believe he was not going to see his mother and father in a photo.
message 59:
by
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer
(last edited Aug 14, 2024 01:05PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Do we know who the mathematician is in chapter 9 - the one who attends the party at the Curie’s? I know (or think) she is the mother of Peter’s friends Sandor and Marcus but is she inspired by an IRL mathematician.
And the Eugene she meets there, I assume married and is addressing the chapter to post his death … is not Eugene Agtet is it (despite the latter appearing anonymously in an earlier chapter as cleverly spotted by Sam) but instead someone Polish (as Marcus - her son - nearly tells Marie Curie in the pharmacy in the next chapter).
LindaJ^ wrote: "Maybe Mr. Stanley did not fake the photos but finally realized John was never going to charge for them, so left with the contents of the till. It is hard to believe Stanley was able to fake all tho..."Nice theory.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Do we know who the mathematician is in chapter 9 - the one who attends the party at the Curie’s? I know (or think) she is the mother of Peter’s friends Sandor and Marcus but is she inspired by an..."
Hertha Ayrton was the mathematician and engineer, GY.
No that’s the person in chapter 10 whose house Curie flees. Chapter 9 is narrated by the mother of Marcus and Sandor and wife of a Eugene who remarks that Marie Curie possibly confided in her “perhaps because I was a woman mathematician and I reminded her of her dear British friend Hertha Ayrton”
Thank you for the clarification. I don't know the name. I only remember Ernest Rutherford being mentioned in chapter 9, but he's a male and a physicist. I remember the psychic being discussed, but I don't remember a female mathematician being named other than Ayerton.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...Held is Anne Michaels’ long-awaited new novel – following on from the 1996 classic Fugitive Pieces and 2009’s The Winter Vault – exploring, in the words of Margaret Atwood, ‘war and its damages, passed through generations over a century’.
Michaels shared an extended reading from Held with actor Stephen Dillane, who played Jakob Beer in the 2007 film adaptation of Fugitive Pieces, and was joined in conversation by the evening's host, Gareth Evans.
Mod
I suspect that I am an outlier in that I enjoy chaotic and fractured storytelling, and also the lack of neat resolutions. I do agree that a couple of the later chapters were too short to leave much of an impression, but that might change on a reread.
It also has me wanting to reread Fugitive Pieces, which I read once, over 20 years ago - the reread of The Winter Vault for a discussion in 21st Century Literature was very rewarding.
Anna wrote: "I felt reasonably certain that the novel tells us about the photos being faked, and ties John's despair to the loss of the spiritual. But in my interpretation, the book then goes on, not calling in..."I think if photos are faked, they are wrong. It's always wrong, in my opinion, to lead someone down the garden path with a lie. We don't know what happens to our soul, spirit after death. In my opinion, it was terribly wrong to give these people what could be very false hope that their loved ones were still inhabiting this world as spirits. Maybe they were, maybe not. We all have our beliefs, but none of us knows.
Hugh wrote: "I have just finished this one. Not sure I have anything significant to add to the debate, but I loved it, and can imagine rereading it multiple times, which is not something I would say of any of t..."I loved Fugitive Pieces, one of my top five books. I didn't care for the long discussions of engineering, etc., in The Winter Vault. I've read your review, though, and know you liked all that detail. I did find all of Lucjan's remembrances of the Warsaw Ghetto interesting, but I thought Jean was too passive in that section, and we didn't hear enough from Avery. A sentence or two is all. I did like the overall story, though, but not as much as Held. For me, Held is a more balanced book than The Winter Vault. Don't know if I like Held as much as Fugitive Pieces, though. That book was spectacular to me.
I re-read chapter 2. There was a lot more nuance than I remembered. The book definitely benefits from a second read.
Held ranks first on my very list of finished Booker novels but as I happened to read the author's interviews that recently were posted on the Booker site I was very engaged with Anne Michaels responses. Feel I have to quote the first line of her answer to the question, "What Booker book eveyone should read?" since it is so well thought out and the choice of books so interesting from her perspective. Despite their great differences, Sybille Bedford’s Jigsaw, Kazuo Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day, and, perhaps surprisingly, Benjamin Labatut’s When We Cease to Understand the World can be said to call to each other across the decades. These novels masterfully express the wilderness of seismic historic change; they witness history rarely articulated in this way - a witnessing that is simultaneously passionate and dispassionate – in order to create a space for the reader to confront shifting and agitated borders, hierarchies, values – political, economic, philosophical – that are the consequences of war.
I expect my rankings will change as I read more of the list but my respect for Anne continues to grow.
That made me smile David - I spent most of my re read of chapter 2 wondering how it was “standard fare romance” !
I enjoyed reading this a lot more than I expected to, after a failed attempt with the audiobook. I would be somewhat reluctant to pick it up - lots of other good books going at the same time - but then find myself sucked right in. I agree that the last few chapters didn't add a lot to the narrative arc, but I thought they were well-connected thematically. I wonder, though, if this is going to be like Orbital for me - a book I found moving and well-written but was ultimately quite forgettable. I suspect this will be the case.
It’s a definite danger with some thing so fragmentary but tbh I forget almost all books - it’s the reason I started writing book reviews (for something like 15 years before I ever posted them to Goodreads).
Kiki (Formerly TheGirlByTheSeaOfCortez) wrote: "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."I came to a similar conclusion. I loved the first half but couldn't quite get my hooks into the 2nd half. I found it a little hard to follow and the characters seemed increasingly fragmentary. In my review I described them as the nameless, indistinct characters that pop up in dreams. I think a lot of that is on purpose but made it harder for me to connect like I did during the first half.
This does seem like a book that only improves on a re-read. If it makes the shortlist I'll probably give it another read.
I thought of Orbital a few times while reading Held. The philosophical musings in Orbital often seemed kind of shallow and silly to me. Orbital felt to me like a book that was trying to seem deep. Held felt deep to me.
Mat wrote: "Kiki (Formerly TheGirlByTheSeaOfCortez) wrote: "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 dow..."I especially agree with your last paragraph, something I failed to address in my post. HELD is a very philosophical or, if you prefer, a metaphysical book. Whatever one chooses to call it, it tackles very deep subject matter, asks very deep questions.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "It’s a definite danger with some thing so fragmentary but tbh I forget almost all books - it’s the reason I started writing book reviews (for something like 15 years before I ever posted them to Go..."I forget most of the books I read, too, until I'm reminded of a name or a plot point, etc. I think that's partly why I don't have a clear all time favorite book. I can just remember that I loved or felt awed by some books. Anne Michaels' FUGITIVE PIECES is one. HELD didn't grab me quite as much, but I thought it was better than THE WINTER VAULT. I thought THE WINTER VAULT got bogged down in detail about engineering, the Warsaw Ghetto, etc. I'll give it another go when I have time. I think it was Hugh who gave it five stars and loved the detail.
I've made it further in my re-read. I have mixed feelings about Chapter 2. It's much more nuanced than I remember but there's a lot of sentimentality and hazy spirituality that doesn't work for me.The scene I remember most vividly from my original read (back in January) was the second half of Chapter 6, with Peter, Alan, Sandor, and Marcus around the fire. That scene stood up on a re-read. In fact, I think the themes explored there might be the heartbeat of the book.
A lot of the discussion is around 1920 John/Helena or the later chapters (Marie Curie, etc.). But the 1984 story is the highlight for me.
message 77:
by
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer
(last edited Aug 17, 2024 04:18PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
That was my favourite passage too on a re-readBut I also note it’s the exact place where the narrative remains based around the core family - the next chapter starts the fragmentation.
On the main thread the question was asked who was Lia. Lia is Peter’s mother
Thank you, GY. Now that you've told me, it's very clear.
I’ve just finished the 1984 section (the fireside chat), and I’m liking the book thus far but not loving it. As others have said, the fragmentation, while beautiful and unique, is a disruptive force that makes it difficult for a reader to connect emotionally with these characters. I did love the last line of this section: “The Anglepoise leaned over him, like a surgeon, like a nurse, like a mother, and held him in a pool of light.” This line makes me think this book would make a great play. That light shining on a sleeping Peter would make for a dramatic and satisfying end to a scene right before an intermission. I’m with David on the early chapters…a bit sentimental. The alleged perfection of John and Helena’s relationship reminded me of the same thing in Strange Eventful History (the relationship between Gaston and Lucienne).
In Held isn’t the strength of their relationship something like an origin myth which sustains him through that long night in the battlefield when he may otherwise have succumbed to injuries/wounds and died And then post war it is the anchor which he uses to try and deal with the shell shock (what we would now call PTSD) both from the shell in the first chapter and the Zeppelin bombing of his mother (which clearly still traumatises him). His ability to use words is also something he uses to try to reassure himself he “still intact”.
Later though he cannot tell her at first of the ghost photos and that forms a barrier between them - both in bed and at the breakfast table (in two different scenes).
And ultimately the revelation that comes to him about his photographic assistant is something which even the marriage cannot help him with and pushes him over the edge into his terrible final action.
I like the book's imagistic structure. I wouldn't want every book to be structured that way, of course, but it works for Michaels' writing and the stories she tells. I like it in The Winter Vault and Fugitive Pieces as well, though in those books, especially The Winter Vault, there seemed to be less fragmentation, though in no way could either book be said to be a conventional novel. I still think Fugitive Pieces is her masterpiece, so far. This is probably my second favorite book on the longlist. Or at least, it and Playground are tied for first place for me. I don't think Held will win,though. It's too unconventional. Even if it does win, I don't think it'll see a big surge in sales like most Booker winners do. It's just too different and written for a limited audience.
I didn't see the early chapters as sentimental because their love was still so new and that's how many "new" lovers and newly-married couples feel. Not all, of course, but many. I can see where some wold find them sentimental, though.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "In Held isn’t the strength of their relationship something like an origin myth which sustains him through that long night in the battlefield when he may otherwise have succumbed to injuries/wounds ..."GY, I like your suggestion of John/Helena’s love as being a type of “origin myth.” It grows in perfection in John’s mind as he’s struggling not to die. That makes it seem less cloying.
And, Kiki, yes, you are right about the marriage being a relatively new one, so that also explains some of the sentimentality of it. We do see some cracks opening up as time goes on (when John starts to hide things from Helena, in particular, as GY notes).
I still haven’t moved beyond the end of the 1984 section (the end of Chapter 6). At some point, I need to forge ahead into the part of the book that starts bringing in unrelated characters, but I’m not quite ready for that. I actually think the book could end well right here—2/3’s of the way in.
Gwendolyn wrote: "Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "In Held isn’t the strength of their relationship something like an origin myth which sustains him through that long night in the battlefield when he may othe..."This is my favorite book of the thirteen, and I love almost anything that's poetic, so I have to take that into consideration. I was just gobsmacked by the beauty of her first novel, Fugitive Pieces.
I think, when people are in the kind of situation John was in on the battlefield, they tend to romanticize their love. I think because John was afraid of dying and never seeing Helena again, he was romanticizing both her and the love they shared. Some people even tend to do that after a break-up. They forget the difficult parts. Some even forget why they broke up in the first place.
As much as I love this book, I can only give it 4.5 stars because of the chaos of the second half. I wish she hadn't concentrated on something multigenerational in such a short, intimate book. I would have loved it had she kept the focus on John and Helena.
Not just the multigenerational but a number of chapters where the link to the family is very tenuous and rather forced.
Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer wrote: "Not just the multigenerational but a number of chapters where the link to the family is very tenuous and rather forced."It's my favorite book, by far, but I would have preferred fewer characters. At times, it was hard to keep them straight, and I don't think a reader should have to write things down.
Edit: I just read this book for the third time. It's no secret that I'd love to see it win, but should we have to read a book three times to be really clear on things? Shouldn't the clarity come from the writing the first time through? I know I'm not the only person who needed to reread; the comments show me otherwise. I would have loved it more if Michaels' had kept the focus on John and Helena. As GY stated, the links sometimes get to be too tenuous. So, as much as I love this book, I'm not sure it should win, though it's still my favorite. I originally wanted Playground, and I still think it's the best book, but the judges didn't consult me, of course.
Just won the Giller Prize
Sounds a good choice and nice to see after missing the Booker that she takes one of the two big Canadian prizes (Empty Spaces by Jordan Abel won the Governor General’s Award also this week)The prize itself seems to attract controversy still - Madeleine Thein seems to have asked to be removed from any association with the prize as a past winner.
As Paul has just told me my brief defence of this book (which drew on the insights from this very chat) was published in the letter column of The Literary Review this month.
Congrats. It sounds like multiple reads were beneficial.
I also saw this letter from someone who shares my surname:
The Mookse and the Gripes
Books mentioned in this topic
It Lasts Forever and Then It's Over (other topics)Held (other topics)
