Anne Michaels' "Held" is described as a novel about the fragile, ephemeral nature of memory and the profound effects of grief. The book attempts to weave together a montage of loosely connected storylines; each centred on characters grappling with loss and the elusive nature of remembering. But here's the thing: it's more of a philosophical exploration than a narrative in the traditional sense. There's no concrete plot to follow, which might appeal to some readers, but I found myself yearning for a more grounded, cohesive storyline.

While Michaels clearly endeavours to explore the deep and resonant themes of memory and grief, the execution felt more like a meandering river than a compelling current. The philosophical musings on loss, the ephemerality of moments, and the attempt to grasp the ungraspable could have been thought-provoking - if only they weren't so abstract. The book feels like it's trying too hard to be profound, leaving the reader lost in a sea of overwrought reflections rather than engaged with a meaningful narrative.

The characters in "Held" are more like ethereal wisps than fully formed beings. Michaels gives us glimpses into their lives and minds, but these glimpses are fleeting and lack substance. They float in and out of the narrative like ghosts, leaving behind more questions than answers. There's an emotional distance here that makes it difficult to truly connect with any of them, which is a significant drawback for a book so rooted in the exploration of human experience.

Michaels' writing is undeniably poetic, with an emphasis on atmospheric description and philosophical introspection. At times, it feels like she's channelling Paulo Coelho - a dangerous comparison because I *hate* Coelho. Her prose is beautiful in its way, but it's also abstract in the extreme, making the book feel more like a collection of literary vignettes than a cohesive story. The narrative style is heavy and over-intrusive, constantly reminding the reader of the author's presence rather than allowing the story (such as it is) to speak for itself. It's very much a case of style over substance—an artistic choice, perhaps, but not one that worked for me.

To be blunt, I struggled with "Held". It was slow and dull, a book that felt more like a chore than a journey. I found it hard to keep my focus, my mind wandering as I tried to grasp at the elusive threads of narrative that kept slipping through my fingers. It's not often that I find a book so incomprehensible, and I couldn't help but feel frustrated by its lack of direction and clarity. The emphasis on philosophical rumination over plot and character development left me cold, and I found myself skimming through the pages, desperate to find some anchor to hold on to.

"Held" is not a book I would recommend unless you're in the mood for a slow, meditative read that doesn't require (or even offer) much in the way of narrative satisfaction. It's a journey into the fog and one I won't be making again.

⭐