a mixed meandering, 09 Jun 2008
No,not an autobiography but the thoughts on parents,grandparents and photograph of never to be known person in ravaged photograph were fascinating. His brother features greatly in his meanderings althought I sensed a degree of frustration that brother's thoughts did not tally with his at most times.
Thoughts of pre death anticipation and death itself,along with a possible afterlife and existence,or non existence of God were approached from many angles,leaving the reader to make up his/her mind on the subject. Also one or two unique views on the perception of a God..thought provoking.
Not an easy book to read,and you could easily give up in trying to follow his thoughts......"what the hell is he trying to say now?" You may even find your mind is only picking out the fairly straitforward sections and skimming the convolutions,of which there are many.
At the end of the book I found myself thinking that I had been used as Julian's psychiatrist and sat through many hours of expensive consultations.

Style Battles Content, 21 Apr 2008
In NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OF, Julian Barnes uses the history of his immediate family and the comments of many writers--who he considers his "true bloodline"--to examine death, as well as its connection to God. Rest assured that this book, like A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS, is a primarily an essayist's intellectual journey. The book is never morbid or creepy.

For me, NtbFo was best when Barnes was writing about his biological family. When writing about the death of his parents, for example, he conveyed the weakness and humiliation and rage of the dying, as well as the complex feelings of anger, pity, and responsibility in survivors. Likewise, the book was strong when Barnes wrote about his grandfather. Then, he pondered how little a person leaves after death, with mystery and a few random artifacts all that's left after, say, 50 years pass. These family-based musings are thoughtful and tender. And Barnes's brother, a philosopher who does not allow slack thinking, adds rigor to Julian's thoughts.

On the other hand, the results are mixed when Barnes uses the comments of numerous writers to explore his subjects. Here, the ideas and anecdotes he presents are always interesting, ranging from consoling to depressed, from accepting death to dread. And, his work with this material is a pleasure to read when an essay--few are longer than five pages--starts with the adroit presentation of a concept, moves to a supporting or contrasting idea, and then finishes with revelation or connection.

But occasionally, his short essays develop in an inscrutable and arbitrary fashion, with this reviewer finishing an essay in confusion, not insight. (How the heck did I get here?, was my not infrequent reaction.) Even after rereading, these particular essays struck me as brilliant babbling, not the achievement of sparkling or new connections. This has unfortunate consequences for NtbFo, since Barnes frequently circles back to ideas he has already explored, returning to them to layer or enrich meaning. But, this strategy doesn't work when an idea's original presentation, or new context, lacks clarity.

Nonetheless, Barnes has a very interesting mind. He writes fine prose and this book renewed my interest in his work. Next: ARTHUR & GEORGE.


Barnes sheds light on Death, 07 Apr 2008
"I may be dead by the time you are reading this sentence."

Julian Barnes gets all his thoughts on death down on paper before his doctor gets to him in the future to deliver the, Mr Barnes - I'm afraid it's not good news.

So the book is like a will drawn up in preparation for his inevitable death, by whatever form it takes. Although by all accounts Barnes is in good health and has many more years before him, he's written this book now as insurance against a rushed job as his draws his final breath.

So instead of a thinned narrative of a dying man, we get the literary genius of Barnes saying in full health ...

"Let's get this death thing straight."

And for us this is good news.
The book is thought provoking and demonstrates the ability of Barnes to intelligently consider a taboo subject. And far from being macabre, you feel like you are being invited to chat with Julian over an after dinner cigar. It's all very english:

"My fear of death is low-level, reasonable, practical."

Some would run around screaming, "We are all going to die!" in the face of death. Julian in effect says, calm down stop running around like a headless chicken, or worse still sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and let's talk about it calmly over port and cheese.
He brings death out into the light, where it is less frightening.
Leaving it in the dark, is never a good idea - it's far scary. Julian flicks the light on for us and attempts to dispel the lurking beast from under the bed.

Julian also brings a good dose of humour in to wash down the bitter pill.

"Sometimes (I) find life an overrated way of passing the time."

Into the mix then are thrown God, Barnes' brother, French writer Jules Renard and some Barnes family memoir ( although he says "this is not my autobiography." )
So, for example, we get Barnes giving account as to how he let go of a possibility of religion as an adolescent,

"hunched over some book or magazine in the family bathroom, I used to tell myself that God couldn't possibly exist because the notion that He might be watching me while I masturbated was absurd."

and

"I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

Hmm - so God was there in the bathroom, until Julian couldn't bear the thought and banished him?!

Barnes' stance now? An agnostic -

"How can we be sure that we know enough to know?"

One of Barnes' recent books was called The lemon Table - a collection of short stories - The lemon being the Chinese symbol for death.
What Barnes does in Nothing to be Frightened of, is invite us in around his own lemon table and opens the discussion.

It feels like he really hopes he won't have the last word.

Superbly constructed discourse on life and death, 31 Mar 2008
I have long been a fan of Julian Barnes and purchased this new volume without reading reviews, as I now tend to do with favourite authors. I took it for granted that the writing would be excellent and it was. However, I was amazed at the feat that he has brought off here. The discourse on life and death, interwoven with autobiographical detail, passages about Jules Renard [and you don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the writing - to me he was only a name],combine to produce a stunning and thought-provoking book. It is one of the best he has written, for sheer content and style. Although death figures large, the result is never morbid. To me it is a celebration of life by one of the most literary of all writers. Where another author might have written separate chapters or disappeared down cul de sacs, Barnes has produced a masterpiece of constrained, fluid writing, integrating all the elements brilliantly.

a mixed meandering, 09 Jun 2008
No,not an autobiography but the thoughts on parents,grandparents and photograph of never to be known person in ravaged photograph were fascinating. His brother features greatly in his meanderings althought I sensed a degree of frustration that brother's thoughts did not tally with his at most times.
Thoughts of pre death anticipation and death itself,along with a possible afterlife and existence,or non existence of God were approached from many angles,leaving the reader to make up his/her mind on the subject. Also one or two unique views on the perception of a God..thought provoking.
Not an easy book to read,and you could easily give up in trying to follow his thoughts......"what the hell is he trying to say now?" You may even find your mind is only picking out the fairly straitforward sections and skimming the convolutions,of which there are many.
At the end of the book I found myself thinking that I had been used as Julian's psychiatrist and sat through many hours of expensive consultations.

Style Battles Content, 21 Apr 2008
In NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OF, Julian Barnes uses the history of his immediate family and the comments of many writers--who he considers his "true bloodline"--to examine death, as well as its connection to God. Rest assured that this book, like A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS, is a primarily an essayist's intellectual journey. The book is never morbid or creepy.

For me, NtbFo was best when Barnes was writing about his biological family. When writing about the death of his parents, for example, he conveyed the weakness and humiliation and rage of the dying, as well as the complex feelings of anger, pity, and responsibility in survivors. Likewise, the book was strong when Barnes wrote about his grandfather. Then, he pondered how little a person leaves after death, with mystery and a few random artifacts all that's left after, say, 50 years pass. These family-based musings are thoughtful and tender. And Barnes's brother, a philosopher who does not allow slack thinking, adds rigor to Julian's thoughts.

On the other hand, the results are mixed when Barnes uses the comments of numerous writers to explore his subjects. Here, the ideas and anecdotes he presents are always interesting, ranging from consoling to depressed, from accepting death to dread. And, his work with this material is a pleasure to read when an essay--few are longer than five pages--starts with the adroit presentation of a concept, moves to a supporting or contrasting idea, and then finishes with revelation or connection.

But occasionally, his short essays develop in an inscrutable and arbitrary fashion, with this reviewer finishing an essay in confusion, not insight. (How the heck did I get here?, was my not infrequent reaction.) Even after rereading, these particular essays struck me as brilliant babbling, not the achievement of sparkling or new connections. This has unfortunate consequences for NtbFo, since Barnes frequently circles back to ideas he has already explored, returning to them to layer or enrich meaning. But, this strategy doesn't work when an idea's original presentation, or new context, lacks clarity.

Nonetheless, Barnes has a very interesting mind. He writes fine prose and this book renewed my interest in his work. Next: ARTHUR & GEORGE.


Barnes sheds light on Death, 07 Apr 2008
"I may be dead by the time you are reading this sentence."

Julian Barnes gets all his thoughts on death down on paper before his doctor gets to him in the future to deliver the, Mr Barnes - I'm afraid it's not good news.

So the book is like a will drawn up in preparation for his inevitable death, by whatever form it takes. Although by all accounts Barnes is in good health and has many more years before him, he's written this book now as insurance against a rushed job as his draws his final breath.

So instead of a thinned narrative of a dying man, we get the literary genius of Barnes saying in full health ...

"Let's get this death thing straight."

And for us this is good news.
The book is thought provoking and demonstrates the ability of Barnes to intelligently consider a taboo subject. And far from being macabre, you feel like you are being invited to chat with Julian over an after dinner cigar. It's all very english:

"My fear of death is low-level, reasonable, practical."

Some would run around screaming, "We are all going to die!" in the face of death. Julian in effect says, calm down stop running around like a headless chicken, or worse still sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and let's talk about it calmly over port and cheese.
He brings death out into the light, where it is less frightening.
Leaving it in the dark, is never a good idea - it's far scary. Julian flicks the light on for us and attempts to dispel the lurking beast from under the bed.

Julian also brings a good dose of humour in to wash down the bitter pill.

"Sometimes (I) find life an overrated way of passing the time."

Into the mix then are thrown God, Barnes' brother, French writer Jules Renard and some Barnes family memoir ( although he says "this is not my autobiography." )
So, for example, we get Barnes giving account as to how he let go of a possibility of religion as an adolescent,

"hunched over some book or magazine in the family bathroom, I used to tell myself that God couldn't possibly exist because the notion that He might be watching me while I masturbated was absurd."

and

"I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

Hmm - so God was there in the bathroom, until Julian couldn't bear the thought and banished him?!

Barnes' stance now? An agnostic -

"How can we be sure that we know enough to know?"

One of Barnes' recent books was called The lemon Table - a collection of short stories - The lemon being the Chinese symbol for death.
What Barnes does in Nothing to be Frightened of, is invite us in around his own lemon table and opens the discussion.

It feels like he really hopes he won't have the last word.

Superbly constructed discourse on life and death, 31 Mar 2008
I have long been a fan of Julian Barnes and purchased this new volume without reading reviews, as I now tend to do with favourite authors. I took it for granted that the writing would be excellent and it was. However, I was amazed at the feat that he has brought off here. The discourse on life and death, interwoven with autobiographical detail, passages about Jules Renard [and you don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the writing - to me he was only a name],combine to produce a stunning and thought-provoking book. It is one of the best he has written, for sheer content and style. Although death figures large, the result is never morbid. To me it is a celebration of life by one of the most literary of all writers. Where another author might have written separate chapters or disappeared down cul de sacs, Barnes has produced a masterpiece of constrained, fluid writing, integrating all the elements brilliantly.

Elegant Writing, Bold Structure, Deliberately Diffuse, 27 May 2008
Julian Barnes is an elegant writer with an interesting mind. From paragraph to paragraph, these qualities are fully apparent in ARTHUR & GEORGE, especially as Barnes examines the issues his characters face. Here is George Edalji at 54, roughly 25 years after he was wrongly incarcerated and a cause célèbre.

"...But most nowadays had never heard of him. At times he resented this, and felt ashamed of his resentment. He knew that in all his years of suffering, there had been nothing he longed for more than anonymity. The Chaplain at Lewes had asked him what he missed, and he had replied that he missed his life. Now, he had it back; he had work, enough money, people to nod to in the street. But he was occasionally nudged by the thought that he deserved more; that his ordeal should have led to more reward. From villain to martyr to nobody very much--was not this unfair...."

Barnes has divided A&G into four sections. These are BEGINNINGS, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, ENDING WITH A BEGINNING, AND ENDINGS. Within each, Barnes has tucked appropriate narrative material.

For example, BEGINNINGS, shows the young Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji establishing themselves in life. It also shows the start of an ugly and threatening letter writing campaign against the Edalji family and the first glimmer of hostility toward the Edaljis from the police.

Meanwhile, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, provides, among other things, a disturbing picture of the police, who begin an investigation of animal mutiliations with the ending--that is George Edalji is the perp--and then create evidence to fit their theory. What I'm saying, in other words, is that Barnes has created a narrative that fits, on reflection, into four buckets.

This description makes ARTHUR & GEORGE sound like a tightly organized book. But for this reader, the structure suggested by these section titles doesn't really capture the reading experience. Indeed, this novel actually seems to progress from a slightly stiff examination of young male lives in an imperfect Victorian world, to a long police procedural and courtroom drama, to a biographical tale of a manic gentleman as he fights injustice and his tendency to depression, to a slightly sad summing up. While always elegant and interesting, A&G reads like a hodgepodge with Barnes unwilling to settle on a single narrative perspective to tell his story.

Here, I say "unwilling" because this hodgepodge-like quality struck me as a deliberate narrative strategy. Proof for me exists in Barnes's frequent mention of the disappearance and then unsolved murder of Dr. Sophie Hickman, a crime concurrent with the mutilations. It's just a small story point. But through this loose end, Barnes seems to be saying that facts in life don't really fit into an easy narrative structure.

So, in the final analysis, I'd call this a bold novel, organized in concept but deliberately messy in the execution. In a way, A&G is the opposite of an Arthur Conan Doyle mystery, where every messy fact narrows the case and leads the ingenious Holmes to a neat and inevitable solution.


A Wonderful Dramatisation of a Tragic Story, 29 Apr 2008
What you don't discover from the back cover of Arthur and George is that the novel is in fact based on true events. It revolves around Arthur Conan-Doyle's investigation of the `Wyrley outrages' and the gross miscarriage of justice that resulted from it. Although embellished and dramatised, all the quotes and letters are original and the book is all the more potent for its foundation in historical fact.

Despite these roots it is written entirely in the style of a fictional novel. For the first half of its 360 pages the book alternates between the lives of its two principal characters, Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji, and regards the backgrounds and life-stories of the two men. About 200 pages in, the two characters finally meet and it is here that the real quest for justice and intensity of the story begins.

The quality of the writing makes reading a pleasure at all times, however some parts, such as Arthur's early life, are a little prolonged and ponderous, as is the ending. Indeed in terms of pace and intensity the book would benefit from being perhaps 70-odd pages shorter. This would be my one criticism and denies it the full five stars.

`Arthur and George' is a beautifully written book and provides a moving insight into the lives of two very complicated men, their emotions, trials & tribulations, and above all their courage in retaining their honour and dignity in the most trying circumstances. This is a book that must be read.

Separate lives entwine ..., 13 Apr 2008
A curious hybrid of a book - the fictionalised biography of two men whose lives briefly entwined. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle becomes interested in a miscarriage of justice when a solicitor is convicted for a series of hate letters and animal mutilations; he decides to apply the mind that created Sherlock Holmes to the case.
Told at first in alternating chapters, we compare and contrast the lives of Arthur, the young doctor and dashing sportsman who becomes a megastar writer, and George the meek son of a Scottish mother and a Parsi vicar father, who doesn't really fit in but manages to do well and become a solicitor. We see Arthur set up as an enthusiast who gets serially obsessed in his work and pasttimes, whereas George likes structure to his life and is happy with his daily commute into work.
Eventually things start to happen - George and his father are the targets of hatemail, and then the animal mutilations start happening, and George gets the crime pinned on him by the police who are increasing keen to make an arrest and is sent to jail. Arthur having killed off Holmes, applies himself to the case to get George reinstated after his release with mixed success - achieving a pardon, but no compensation - the government and police force can't admit to being proved wrong by an amateur after all. And apart from inviting George to Arthur's second wedding, that's that essentially.
An easy read once you got through the initial character building and a rather low-key finish, but a great middle.

Just fantastic, 29 Nov 2007
One of the most satisfying and oddly moving books I have ever read. From horse-mutilation to spiritulaism via racism in Victorian Staffordshire! Fantastically solid characters, a pantomime villain and plenty of reasonable doubt in unexpetected places. This is a tremendous novel that could actually be characterised as crime writing.



A review by Philip Spires, 07 Aug 2007
George Edalji (that's Ay-dal-ji, by the way, since Parsee names are always stressed on the first syllable) is the son of a Staffordshire vicar of Indian origin and his Scottish wife. George is thus a half-caste, to use the language of his late-Victorian and Edwardian age. He's a diligent, if not too distinguished a scholar. He is uninterested in sport, is of small stature and doesn't see too well. He sleeps with his father behind a locked door, is in bed by 9:30, becomes a small town solicitor who develops an interest in train timetables and, by way of outlandish diversion, publishes a traveller's guide to railway law.

Arthur Conan Doyle (later Sir Arthur) is born in Edinburgh, completes medical school and generally accomplishes whatever task he sets himself, including becoming a world famous writer. Despite the fact that he kills off his creation, the detective Sherlock Holmes, ostensibly to devote time to tasks of greater gravity, popular demand insists that he raise the character from the dead. He does this and proceeds to generate even greater success than before. He marries happily twice and pursues and interest in spiritualism, amongst other good causes.

Perhaps because of who they are, the Edalji family become the butt of the campaign of poison pen letters. When they complain, all they accomplish is the focusing of further unwanted attentions on themselves. When a series of ripping attacks on animals remains unsolved, George, somehow, becomes the prime suspect. Convinced of his villainy, police, judicial system, expert witnesses, jury and press see him convicted of the crime and sent down for seven years. Good conduct sees him released after three.

Sir Arthur wishes to do good and takes up George Edalji's case. He researches the facts, analyses the possibilities, tracks down neighbours and officials who have been involved. He creates an alternative explanation of events and presents it to officialdom, seeking a pardon and compensation for George, who by this time has transferred to London to start a new life. The two men meet and the incongruity of their assumed expectations of life are as irreconcilable as they are irrelevant to their joint focus on George's case. After official review, however, the Home Office Committee eventually concludes in an ambiguous manner. Edalji was convicted of the crime and the conviction is declared unsound; but crucially he is not declared innocent. He is therefore found not guilty but then not innocent either and so not worthy of compensation. When, years later, Sir Arthur dies and his associates stage a spiritualist gathering in his honour in the Royal Albert Hall, George is invited and attends, complete with binoculars lest he miss a detail of the proceedings. The illusion of the event draws him in and at one stage he feels himself to be the centre of attention, only to find that it is a near miss. Most of the detail refers to himself and his father, but the reality then points to another who is immediately identified.

But, paradoxically, the quiet George Edalji and his Parsee (not Hindoo) father, Shapurji, were always the centre of attention simply by being who they were. Even Sir Arthur, the son's eventual champion, states this in one of his letters when he writes that it was perhaps inevitable that a dark-skinned clergyman taking a station in central England would attracts other's attention of a kind that would seek to undermine him, vilify him and attempt to oust him. The message is clear, that to be different from an assumed norm is to invite hatred, envy, discrimination and eventually ignominy. It is presented as a universal assumption, an unwritten element of universal common sense. Thus, as an intruder, the usual rules of justice will never pertain, a reality alluded to late in the book when George, scanning the Albert Memorial with his binoculars, discovers a statuesque embodiment of the concept of justice that is not wearing a blindfold.

What is eventually so disturbing about Arthur and George, however, is the realisation that both characters are outsiders. George is set apart from his Staffordshire peers by his skin colour and perceived race. Arthur, however, lives no humdrum life. He attends private schools, qualifies as a doctor and then becomes an international celebrity by virtue of his writing. He takes up minority causes and identifies with them but, despite his obvious separateness from mainstream society, in his case his position is never interpreted as a threat or a handicap, obviously because the separateness of privilege has a different currency from the separateness of even relative poverty.

Now an enduring memory of my own school history lessons was a textbook reproduction of a mid-Victorian cartoon of the universal pyramid of creation. It had God at the apex, immediately in touch via the saints with the Empress of India and then, layered beneath in widening courses were the gentry and aristocracy, the members of government and civil service, the professional classes and merchants. The working classes could perhaps temporarily ignore their poverty in the solace offered by knowing that they are a cut above members of all other races who, themselves, were just one up from the apes. It was not many more layers down to the low animals, most of which slithered or crawled. Arthur and George ostensibly tells us much about racism and racial discrimination in a society that was portrayed as the apex of a worldwide empire, a heavenly focus for aspiration. It also tells us about the power of presumption and has much to say very quietly and by suggestion about social class and its ability, especially in Britain, to legitimise difference as originality or eccentricity in some areas, differences which elsewhere would be threats.

Philip Spires
Author of "Mission"

a mixed meandering, 09 Jun 2008
No,not an autobiography but the thoughts on parents,grandparents and photograph of never to be known person in ravaged photograph were fascinating. His brother features greatly in his meanderings althought I sensed a degree of frustration that brother's thoughts did not tally with his at most times.
Thoughts of pre death anticipation and death itself,along with a possible afterlife and existence,or non existence of God were approached from many angles,leaving the reader to make up his/her mind on the subject. Also one or two unique views on the perception of a God..thought provoking.
Not an easy book to read,and you could easily give up in trying to follow his thoughts......"what the hell is he trying to say now?" You may even find your mind is only picking out the fairly straitforward sections and skimming the convolutions,of which there are many.
At the end of the book I found myself thinking that I had been used as Julian's psychiatrist and sat through many hours of expensive consultations.

Style Battles Content, 21 Apr 2008
In NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OF, Julian Barnes uses the history of his immediate family and the comments of many writers--who he considers his "true bloodline"--to examine death, as well as its connection to God. Rest assured that this book, like A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS, is a primarily an essayist's intellectual journey. The book is never morbid or creepy.

For me, NtbFo was best when Barnes was writing about his biological family. When writing about the death of his parents, for example, he conveyed the weakness and humiliation and rage of the dying, as well as the complex feelings of anger, pity, and responsibility in survivors. Likewise, the book was strong when Barnes wrote about his grandfather. Then, he pondered how little a person leaves after death, with mystery and a few random artifacts all that's left after, say, 50 years pass. These family-based musings are thoughtful and tender. And Barnes's brother, a philosopher who does not allow slack thinking, adds rigor to Julian's thoughts.

On the other hand, the results are mixed when Barnes uses the comments of numerous writers to explore his subjects. Here, the ideas and anecdotes he presents are always interesting, ranging from consoling to depressed, from accepting death to dread. And, his work with this material is a pleasure to read when an essay--few are longer than five pages--starts with the adroit presentation of a concept, moves to a supporting or contrasting idea, and then finishes with revelation or connection.

But occasionally, his short essays develop in an inscrutable and arbitrary fashion, with this reviewer finishing an essay in confusion, not insight. (How the heck did I get here?, was my not infrequent reaction.) Even after rereading, these particular essays struck me as brilliant babbling, not the achievement of sparkling or new connections. This has unfortunate consequences for NtbFo, since Barnes frequently circles back to ideas he has already explored, returning to them to layer or enrich meaning. But, this strategy doesn't work when an idea's original presentation, or new context, lacks clarity.

Nonetheless, Barnes has a very interesting mind. He writes fine prose and this book renewed my interest in his work. Next: ARTHUR & GEORGE.


Barnes sheds light on Death, 07 Apr 2008
"I may be dead by the time you are reading this sentence."

Julian Barnes gets all his thoughts on death down on paper before his doctor gets to him in the future to deliver the, Mr Barnes - I'm afraid it's not good news.

So the book is like a will drawn up in preparation for his inevitable death, by whatever form it takes. Although by all accounts Barnes is in good health and has many more years before him, he's written this book now as insurance against a rushed job as his draws his final breath.

So instead of a thinned narrative of a dying man, we get the literary genius of Barnes saying in full health ...

"Let's get this death thing straight."

And for us this is good news.
The book is thought provoking and demonstrates the ability of Barnes to intelligently consider a taboo subject. And far from being macabre, you feel like you are being invited to chat with Julian over an after dinner cigar. It's all very english:

"My fear of death is low-level, reasonable, practical."

Some would run around screaming, "We are all going to die!" in the face of death. Julian in effect says, calm down stop running around like a headless chicken, or worse still sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and let's talk about it calmly over port and cheese.
He brings death out into the light, where it is less frightening.
Leaving it in the dark, is never a good idea - it's far scary. Julian flicks the light on for us and attempts to dispel the lurking beast from under the bed.

Julian also brings a good dose of humour in to wash down the bitter pill.

"Sometimes (I) find life an overrated way of passing the time."

Into the mix then are thrown God, Barnes' brother, French writer Jules Renard and some Barnes family memoir ( although he says "this is not my autobiography." )
So, for example, we get Barnes giving account as to how he let go of a possibility of religion as an adolescent,

"hunched over some book or magazine in the family bathroom, I used to tell myself that God couldn't possibly exist because the notion that He might be watching me while I masturbated was absurd."

and

"I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

Hmm - so God was there in the bathroom, until Julian couldn't bear the thought and banished him?!

Barnes' stance now? An agnostic -

"How can we be sure that we know enough to know?"

One of Barnes' recent books was called The lemon Table - a collection of short stories - The lemon being the Chinese symbol for death.
What Barnes does in Nothing to be Frightened of, is invite us in around his own lemon table and opens the discussion.

It feels like he really hopes he won't have the last word.

Superbly constructed discourse on life and death, 31 Mar 2008
I have long been a fan of Julian Barnes and purchased this new volume without reading reviews, as I now tend to do with favourite authors. I took it for granted that the writing would be excellent and it was. However, I was amazed at the feat that he has brought off here. The discourse on life and death, interwoven with autobiographical detail, passages about Jules Renard [and you don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the writing - to me he was only a name],combine to produce a stunning and thought-provoking book. It is one of the best he has written, for sheer content and style. Although death figures large, the result is never morbid. To me it is a celebration of life by one of the most literary of all writers. Where another author might have written separate chapters or disappeared down cul de sacs, Barnes has produced a masterpiece of constrained, fluid writing, integrating all the elements brilliantly.

Elegant Writing, Bold Structure, Deliberately Diffuse, 27 May 2008
Julian Barnes is an elegant writer with an interesting mind. From paragraph to paragraph, these qualities are fully apparent in ARTHUR & GEORGE, especially as Barnes examines the issues his characters face. Here is George Edalji at 54, roughly 25 years after he was wrongly incarcerated and a cause célèbre.

"...But most nowadays had never heard of him. At times he resented this, and felt ashamed of his resentment. He knew that in all his years of suffering, there had been nothing he longed for more than anonymity. The Chaplain at Lewes had asked him what he missed, and he had replied that he missed his life. Now, he had it back; he had work, enough money, people to nod to in the street. But he was occasionally nudged by the thought that he deserved more; that his ordeal should have led to more reward. From villain to martyr to nobody very much--was not this unfair...."

Barnes has divided A&G into four sections. These are BEGINNINGS, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, ENDING WITH A BEGINNING, AND ENDINGS. Within each, Barnes has tucked appropriate narrative material.

For example, BEGINNINGS, shows the young Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji establishing themselves in life. It also shows the start of an ugly and threatening letter writing campaign against the Edalji family and the first glimmer of hostility toward the Edaljis from the police.

Meanwhile, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, provides, among other things, a disturbing picture of the police, who begin an investigation of animal mutiliations with the ending--that is George Edalji is the perp--and then create evidence to fit their theory. What I'm saying, in other words, is that Barnes has created a narrative that fits, on reflection, into four buckets.

This description makes ARTHUR & GEORGE sound like a tightly organized book. But for this reader, the structure suggested by these section titles doesn't really capture the reading experience. Indeed, this novel actually seems to progress from a slightly stiff examination of young male lives in an imperfect Victorian world, to a long police procedural and courtroom drama, to a biographical tale of a manic gentleman as he fights injustice and his tendency to depression, to a slightly sad summing up. While always elegant and interesting, A&G reads like a hodgepodge with Barnes unwilling to settle on a single narrative perspective to tell his story.

Here, I say "unwilling" because this hodgepodge-like quality struck me as a deliberate narrative strategy. Proof for me exists in Barnes's frequent mention of the disappearance and then unsolved murder of Dr. Sophie Hickman, a crime concurrent with the mutilations. It's just a small story point. But through this loose end, Barnes seems to be saying that facts in life don't really fit into an easy narrative structure.

So, in the final analysis, I'd call this a bold novel, organized in concept but deliberately messy in the execution. In a way, A&G is the opposite of an Arthur Conan Doyle mystery, where every messy fact narrows the case and leads the ingenious Holmes to a neat and inevitable solution.


A Wonderful Dramatisation of a Tragic Story, 29 Apr 2008
What you don't discover from the back cover of Arthur and George is that the novel is in fact based on true events. It revolves around Arthur Conan-Doyle's investigation of the `Wyrley outrages' and the gross miscarriage of justice that resulted from it. Although embellished and dramatised, all the quotes and letters are original and the book is all the more potent for its foundation in historical fact.

Despite these roots it is written entirely in the style of a fictional novel. For the first half of its 360 pages the book alternates between the lives of its two principal characters, Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji, and regards the backgrounds and life-stories of the two men. About 200 pages in, the two characters finally meet and it is here that the real quest for justice and intensity of the story begins.

The quality of the writing makes reading a pleasure at all times, however some parts, such as Arthur's early life, are a little prolonged and ponderous, as is the ending. Indeed in terms of pace and intensity the book would benefit from being perhaps 70-odd pages shorter. This would be my one criticism and denies it the full five stars.

`Arthur and George' is a beautifully written book and provides a moving insight into the lives of two very complicated men, their emotions, trials & tribulations, and above all their courage in retaining their honour and dignity in the most trying circumstances. This is a book that must be read.

Separate lives entwine ..., 13 Apr 2008
A curious hybrid of a book - the fictionalised biography of two men whose lives briefly entwined. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle becomes interested in a miscarriage of justice when a solicitor is convicted for a series of hate letters and animal mutilations; he decides to apply the mind that created Sherlock Holmes to the case.
Told at first in alternating chapters, we compare and contrast the lives of Arthur, the young doctor and dashing sportsman who becomes a megastar writer, and George the meek son of a Scottish mother and a Parsi vicar father, who doesn't really fit in but manages to do well and become a solicitor. We see Arthur set up as an enthusiast who gets serially obsessed in his work and pasttimes, whereas George likes structure to his life and is happy with his daily commute into work.
Eventually things start to happen - George and his father are the targets of hatemail, and then the animal mutilations start happening, and George gets the crime pinned on him by the police who are increasing keen to make an arrest and is sent to jail. Arthur having killed off Holmes, applies himself to the case to get George reinstated after his release with mixed success - achieving a pardon, but no compensation - the government and police force can't admit to being proved wrong by an amateur after all. And apart from inviting George to Arthur's second wedding, that's that essentially.
An easy read once you got through the initial character building and a rather low-key finish, but a great middle.

Just fantastic, 29 Nov 2007
One of the most satisfying and oddly moving books I have ever read. From horse-mutilation to spiritulaism via racism in Victorian Staffordshire! Fantastically solid characters, a pantomime villain and plenty of reasonable doubt in unexpetected places. This is a tremendous novel that could actually be characterised as crime writing.



A review by Philip Spires, 07 Aug 2007
George Edalji (that's Ay-dal-ji, by the way, since Parsee names are always stressed on the first syllable) is the son of a Staffordshire vicar of Indian origin and his Scottish wife. George is thus a half-caste, to use the language of his late-Victorian and Edwardian age. He's a diligent, if not too distinguished a scholar. He is uninterested in sport, is of small stature and doesn't see too well. He sleeps with his father behind a locked door, is in bed by 9:30, becomes a small town solicitor who develops an interest in train timetables and, by way of outlandish diversion, publishes a traveller's guide to railway law.

Arthur Conan Doyle (later Sir Arthur) is born in Edinburgh, completes medical school and generally accomplishes whatever task he sets himself, including becoming a world famous writer. Despite the fact that he kills off his creation, the detective Sherlock Holmes, ostensibly to devote time to tasks of greater gravity, popular demand insists that he raise the character from the dead. He does this and proceeds to generate even greater success than before. He marries happily twice and pursues and interest in spiritualism, amongst other good causes.

Perhaps because of who they are, the Edalji family become the butt of the campaign of poison pen letters. When they complain, all they accomplish is the focusing of further unwanted attentions on themselves. When a series of ripping attacks on animals remains unsolved, George, somehow, becomes the prime suspect. Convinced of his villainy, police, judicial system, expert witnesses, jury and press see him convicted of the crime and sent down for seven years. Good conduct sees him released after three.

Sir Arthur wishes to do good and takes up George Edalji's case. He researches the facts, analyses the possibilities, tracks down neighbours and officials who have been involved. He creates an alternative explanation of events and presents it to officialdom, seeking a pardon and compensation for George, who by this time has transferred to London to start a new life. The two men meet and the incongruity of their assumed expectations of life are as irreconcilable as they are irrelevant to their joint focus on George's case. After official review, however, the Home Office Committee eventually concludes in an ambiguous manner. Edalji was convicted of the crime and the conviction is declared unsound; but crucially he is not declared innocent. He is therefore found not guilty but then not innocent either and so not worthy of compensation. When, years later, Sir Arthur dies and his associates stage a spiritualist gathering in his honour in the Royal Albert Hall, George is invited and attends, complete with binoculars lest he miss a detail of the proceedings. The illusion of the event draws him in and at one stage he feels himself to be the centre of attention, only to find that it is a near miss. Most of the detail refers to himself and his father, but the reality then points to another who is immediately identified.

But, paradoxically, the quiet George Edalji and his Parsee (not Hindoo) father, Shapurji, were always the centre of attention simply by being who they were. Even Sir Arthur, the son's eventual champion, states this in one of his letters when he writes that it was perhaps inevitable that a dark-skinned clergyman taking a station in central England would attracts other's attention of a kind that would seek to undermine him, vilify him and attempt to oust him. The message is clear, that to be different from an assumed norm is to invite hatred, envy, discrimination and eventually ignominy. It is presented as a universal assumption, an unwritten element of universal common sense. Thus, as an intruder, the usual rules of justice will never pertain, a reality alluded to late in the book when George, scanning the Albert Memorial with his binoculars, discovers a statuesque embodiment of the concept of justice that is not wearing a blindfold.

What is eventually so disturbing about Arthur and George, however, is the realisation that both characters are outsiders. George is set apart from his Staffordshire peers by his skin colour and perceived race. Arthur, however, lives no humdrum life. He attends private schools, qualifies as a doctor and then becomes an international celebrity by virtue of his writing. He takes up minority causes and identifies with them but, despite his obvious separateness from mainstream society, in his case his position is never interpreted as a threat or a handicap, obviously because the separateness of privilege has a different currency from the separateness of even relative poverty.

Now an enduring memory of my own school history lessons was a textbook reproduction of a mid-Victorian cartoon of the universal pyramid of creation. It had God at the apex, immediately in touch via the saints with the Empress of India and then, layered beneath in widening courses were the gentry and aristocracy, the members of government and civil service, the professional classes and merchants. The working classes could perhaps temporarily ignore their poverty in the solace offered by knowing that they are a cut above members of all other races who, themselves, were just one up from the apes. It was not many more layers down to the low animals, most of which slithered or crawled. Arthur and George ostensibly tells us much about racism and racial discrimination in a society that was portrayed as the apex of a worldwide empire, a heavenly focus for aspiration. It also tells us about the power of presumption and has much to say very quietly and by suggestion about social class and its ability, especially in Britain, to legitimise difference as originality or eccentricity in some areas, differences which elsewhere would be threats.

Philip Spires
Author of "Mission"


about Love, 13 Oct 2008
I found Barnes` take on Love very interesting. it`s changed the way I approach love...

100% recommend reading this book. its absolutely terrific!!!

Yup., 30 Sep 2007
An honestly brilliant book. There's a section toward the end where the author slips into a first person narrative and talks about his wife subconsciously 'baring the nape of her neck for him'. It very nearly brought me to tears on the train whilst I read it. Utterly human, empthatic and masterly. This fictional biography of the earth is somehow completely ridiculous at the same time as being very believable. I don't read as much as I used to but I'm delighted that I picked this up last year.

Believe the hype, this book is fabulous, 14 Mar 2007
Subverting history should not be this much fun. But somewhere in the midst of stowaways aboard Noah's Ark, an absurd trial in Medieval France, and a visit to heaven, we come to realise just what a ridiculous species Human Beings are. Absolutely ridiculous. Even the Earthworms think so. 10 ½ stories, 10 ½ narrative voices covering the entire scope of humanity. This is a secular history more divine and inspirational than any dogmatic text could ever be. I believe in Julian Barnes, he has earned my praise.

A really interesting take on history, 02 Aug 2006
We all take history to be factual; well, I did anyway! Then I grew up a bit, and realised that there are two sides to every story. Julian Barnes cleverly presents a third viewpoint - one that might have happened, set in a brilliantly quirky and yet astonishingly believable perspective. I was so taken with the chapter on the Wreck of the Medusa, I went to visit the actual painting in the Louve, Paris, and marvelled at how Barnes had come up with his version of events. Well worth a read. In fact, read it two or three times!

Original perspective on "history", 20 Jan 2006
What a great read! Original and quirky without the irritation of pretension. This novel manages to make you think about history and how it is presented apparently without effort (though I'm not at all sure it is without intention)yet avoids becoming too heavy or bogged down simply by changing the subject every chapter. Starting with story of Noah as never before seen and working his forward gives the author ample scope for choice which he deftly uses to gives us tales of a biblical, historical and personal nature apparently as the whim took him, their only connecting feature being repeated references to the ark, and curiously, to woodworm.
This said, I feel the author is trying to make us think about the way history is told, percieved and perhaps created.
If you fancy somehting engaging and different, you could do a lot worse than this book.

a mixed meandering, 09 Jun 2008
No,not an autobiography but the thoughts on parents,grandparents and photograph of never to be known person in ravaged photograph were fascinating. His brother features greatly in his meanderings althought I sensed a degree of frustration that brother's thoughts did not tally with his at most times.
Thoughts of pre death anticipation and death itself,along with a possible afterlife and existence,or non existence of God were approached from many angles,leaving the reader to make up his/her mind on the subject. Also one or two unique views on the perception of a God..thought provoking.
Not an easy book to read,and you could easily give up in trying to follow his thoughts......"what the hell is he trying to say now?" You may even find your mind is only picking out the fairly straitforward sections and skimming the convolutions,of which there are many.
At the end of the book I found myself thinking that I had been used as Julian's psychiatrist and sat through many hours of expensive consultations.

Style Battles Content, 21 Apr 2008
In NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OF, Julian Barnes uses the history of his immediate family and the comments of many writers--who he considers his "true bloodline"--to examine death, as well as its connection to God. Rest assured that this book, like A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS, is a primarily an essayist's intellectual journey. The book is never morbid or creepy.

For me, NtbFo was best when Barnes was writing about his biological family. When writing about the death of his parents, for example, he conveyed the weakness and humiliation and rage of the dying, as well as the complex feelings of anger, pity, and responsibility in survivors. Likewise, the book was strong when Barnes wrote about his grandfather. Then, he pondered how little a person leaves after death, with mystery and a few random artifacts all that's left after, say, 50 years pass. These family-based musings are thoughtful and tender. And Barnes's brother, a philosopher who does not allow slack thinking, adds rigor to Julian's thoughts.

On the other hand, the results are mixed when Barnes uses the comments of numerous writers to explore his subjects. Here, the ideas and anecdotes he presents are always interesting, ranging from consoling to depressed, from accepting death to dread. And, his work with this material is a pleasure to read when an essay--few are longer than five pages--starts with the adroit presentation of a concept, moves to a supporting or contrasting idea, and then finishes with revelation or connection.

But occasionally, his short essays develop in an inscrutable and arbitrary fashion, with this reviewer finishing an essay in confusion, not insight. (How the heck did I get here?, was my not infrequent reaction.) Even after rereading, these particular essays struck me as brilliant babbling, not the achievement of sparkling or new connections. This has unfortunate consequences for NtbFo, since Barnes frequently circles back to ideas he has already explored, returning to them to layer or enrich meaning. But, this strategy doesn't work when an idea's original presentation, or new context, lacks clarity.

Nonetheless, Barnes has a very interesting mind. He writes fine prose and this book renewed my interest in his work. Next: ARTHUR & GEORGE.


Barnes sheds light on Death, 07 Apr 2008
"I may be dead by the time you are reading this sentence."

Julian Barnes gets all his thoughts on death down on paper before his doctor gets to him in the future to deliver the, Mr Barnes - I'm afraid it's not good news.

So the book is like a will drawn up in preparation for his inevitable death, by whatever form it takes. Although by all accounts Barnes is in good health and has many more years before him, he's written this book now as insurance against a rushed job as his draws his final breath.

So instead of a thinned narrative of a dying man, we get the literary genius of Barnes saying in full health ...

"Let's get this death thing straight."

And for us this is good news.
The book is thought provoking and demonstrates the ability of Barnes to intelligently consider a taboo subject. And far from being macabre, you feel like you are being invited to chat with Julian over an after dinner cigar. It's all very english:

"My fear of death is low-level, reasonable, practical."

Some would run around screaming, "We are all going to die!" in the face of death. Julian in effect says, calm down stop running around like a headless chicken, or worse still sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and let's talk about it calmly over port and cheese.
He brings death out into the light, where it is less frightening.
Leaving it in the dark, is never a good idea - it's far scary. Julian flicks the light on for us and attempts to dispel the lurking beast from under the bed.

Julian also brings a good dose of humour in to wash down the bitter pill.

"Sometimes (I) find life an overrated way of passing the time."

Into the mix then are thrown God, Barnes' brother, French writer Jules Renard and some Barnes family memoir ( although he says "this is not my autobiography." )
So, for example, we get Barnes giving account as to how he let go of a possibility of religion as an adolescent,

"hunched over some book or magazine in the family bathroom, I used to tell myself that God couldn't possibly exist because the notion that He might be watching me while I masturbated was absurd."

and

"I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

Hmm - so God was there in the bathroom, until Julian couldn't bear the thought and banished him?!

Barnes' stance now? An agnostic -

"How can we be sure that we know enough to know?"

One of Barnes' recent books was called The lemon Table - a collection of short stories - The lemon being the Chinese symbol for death.
What Barnes does in Nothing to be Frightened of, is invite us in around his own lemon table and opens the discussion.

It feels like he really hopes he won't have the last word.

Superbly constructed discourse on life and death, 31 Mar 2008
I have long been a fan of Julian Barnes and purchased this new volume without reading reviews, as I now tend to do with favourite authors. I took it for granted that the writing would be excellent and it was. However, I was amazed at the feat that he has brought off here. The discourse on life and death, interwoven with autobiographical detail, passages about Jules Renard [and you don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the writing - to me he was only a name],combine to produce a stunning and thought-provoking book. It is one of the best he has written, for sheer content and style. Although death figures large, the result is never morbid. To me it is a celebration of life by one of the most literary of all writers. Where another author might have written separate chapters or disappeared down cul de sacs, Barnes has produced a masterpiece of constrained, fluid writing, integrating all the elements brilliantly.

Elegant Writing, Bold Structure, Deliberately Diffuse, 27 May 2008
Julian Barnes is an elegant writer with an interesting mind. From paragraph to paragraph, these qualities are fully apparent in ARTHUR & GEORGE, especially as Barnes examines the issues his characters face. Here is George Edalji at 54, roughly 25 years after he was wrongly incarcerated and a cause célèbre.

"...But most nowadays had never heard of him. At times he resented this, and felt ashamed of his resentment. He knew that in all his years of suffering, there had been nothing he longed for more than anonymity. The Chaplain at Lewes had asked him what he missed, and he had replied that he missed his life. Now, he had it back; he had work, enough money, people to nod to in the street. But he was occasionally nudged by the thought that he deserved more; that his ordeal should have led to more reward. From villain to martyr to nobody very much--was not this unfair...."

Barnes has divided A&G into four sections. These are BEGINNINGS, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, ENDING WITH A BEGINNING, AND ENDINGS. Within each, Barnes has tucked appropriate narrative material.

For example, BEGINNINGS, shows the young Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji establishing themselves in life. It also shows the start of an ugly and threatening letter writing campaign against the Edalji family and the first glimmer of hostility toward the Edaljis from the police.

Meanwhile, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, provides, among other things, a disturbing picture of the police, who begin an investigation of animal mutiliations with the ending--that is George Edalji is the perp--and then create evidence to fit their theory. What I'm saying, in other words, is that Barnes has created a narrative that fits, on reflection, into four buckets.

This description makes ARTHUR & GEORGE sound like a tightly organized book. But for this reader, the structure suggested by these section titles doesn't really capture the reading experience. Indeed, this novel actually seems to progress from a slightly stiff examination of young male lives in an imperfect Victorian world, to a long police procedural and courtroom drama, to a biographical tale of a manic gentleman as he fights injustice and his tendency to depression, to a slightly sad summing up. While always elegant and interesting, A&G reads like a hodgepodge with Barnes unwilling to settle on a single narrative perspective to tell his story.

Here, I say "unwilling" because this hodgepodge-like quality struck me as a deliberate narrative strategy. Proof for me exists in Barnes's frequent mention of the disappearance and then unsolved murder of Dr. Sophie Hickman, a crime concurrent with the mutilations. It's just a small story point. But through this loose end, Barnes seems to be saying that facts in life don't really fit into an easy narrative structure.

So, in the final analysis, I'd call this a bold novel, organized in concept but deliberately messy in the execution. In a way, A&G is the opposite of an Arthur Conan Doyle mystery, where every messy fact narrows the case and leads the ingenious Holmes to a neat and inevitable solution.


A Wonderful Dramatisation of a Tragic Story, 29 Apr 2008
What you don't discover from the back cover of Arthur and George is that the novel is in fact based on true events. It revolves around Arthur Conan-Doyle's investigation of the `Wyrley outrages' and the gross miscarriage of justice that resulted from it. Although embellished and dramatised, all the quotes and letters are original and the book is all the more potent for its foundation in historical fact.

Despite these roots it is written entirely in the style of a fictional novel. For the first half of its 360 pages the book alternates between the lives of its two principal characters, Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji, and regards the backgrounds and life-stories of the two men. About 200 pages in, the two characters finally meet and it is here that the real quest for justice and intensity of the story begins.

The quality of the writing makes reading a pleasure at all times, however some parts, such as Arthur's early life, are a little prolonged and ponderous, as is the ending. Indeed in terms of pace and intensity the book would benefit from being perhaps 70-odd pages shorter. This would be my one criticism and denies it the full five stars.

`Arthur and George' is a beautifully written book and provides a moving insight into the lives of two very complicated men, their emotions, trials & tribulations, and above all their courage in retaining their honour and dignity in the most trying circumstances. This is a book that must be read.

Separate lives entwine ..., 13 Apr 2008
A curious hybrid of a book - the fictionalised biography of two men whose lives briefly entwined. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle becomes interested in a miscarriage of justice when a solicitor is convicted for a series of hate letters and animal mutilations; he decides to apply the mind that created Sherlock Holmes to the case.
Told at first in alternating chapters, we compare and contrast the lives of Arthur, the young doctor and dashing sportsman who becomes a megastar writer, and George the meek son of a Scottish mother and a Parsi vicar father, who doesn't really fit in but manages to do well and become a solicitor. We see Arthur set up as an enthusiast who gets serially obsessed in his work and pasttimes, whereas George likes structure to his life and is happy with his daily commute into work.
Eventually things start to happen - George and his father are the targets of hatemail, and then the animal mutilations start happening, and George gets the crime pinned on him by the police who are increasing keen to make an arrest and is sent to jail. Arthur having killed off Holmes, applies himself to the case to get George reinstated after his release with mixed success - achieving a pardon, but no compensation - the government and police force can't admit to being proved wrong by an amateur after all. And apart from inviting George to Arthur's second wedding, that's that essentially.
An easy read once you got through the initial character building and a rather low-key finish, but a great middle.

Just fantastic, 29 Nov 2007
One of the most satisfying and oddly moving books I have ever read. From horse-mutilation to spiritulaism via racism in Victorian Staffordshire! Fantastically solid characters, a pantomime villain and plenty of reasonable doubt in unexpetected places. This is a tremendous novel that could actually be characterised as crime writing.



A review by Philip Spires, 07 Aug 2007
George Edalji (that's Ay-dal-ji, by the way, since Parsee names are always stressed on the first syllable) is the son of a Staffordshire vicar of Indian origin and his Scottish wife. George is thus a half-caste, to use the language of his late-Victorian and Edwardian age. He's a diligent, if not too distinguished a scholar. He is uninterested in sport, is of small stature and doesn't see too well. He sleeps with his father behind a locked door, is in bed by 9:30, becomes a small town solicitor who develops an interest in train timetables and, by way of outlandish diversion, publishes a traveller's guide to railway law.

Arthur Conan Doyle (later Sir Arthur) is born in Edinburgh, completes medical school and generally accomplishes whatever task he sets himself, including becoming a world famous writer. Despite the fact that he kills off his creation, the detective Sherlock Holmes, ostensibly to devote time to tasks of greater gravity, popular demand insists that he raise the character from the dead. He does this and proceeds to generate even greater success than before. He marries happily twice and pursues and interest in spiritualism, amongst other good causes.

Perhaps because of who they are, the Edalji family become the butt of the campaign of poison pen letters. When they complain, all they accomplish is the focusing of further unwanted attentions on themselves. When a series of ripping attacks on animals remains unsolved, George, somehow, becomes the prime suspect. Convinced of his villainy, police, judicial system, expert witnesses, jury and press see him convicted of the crime and sent down for seven years. Good conduct sees him released after three.

Sir Arthur wishes to do good and takes up George Edalji's case. He researches the facts, analyses the possibilities, tracks down neighbours and officials who have been involved. He creates an alternative explanation of events and presents it to officialdom, seeking a pardon and compensation for George, who by this time has transferred to London to start a new life. The two men meet and the incongruity of their assumed expectations of life are as irreconcilable as they are irrelevant to their joint focus on George's case. After official review, however, the Home Office Committee eventually concludes in an ambiguous manner. Edalji was convicted of the crime and the conviction is declared unsound; but crucially he is not declared innocent. He is therefore found not guilty but then not innocent either and so not worthy of compensation. When, years later, Sir Arthur dies and his associates stage a spiritualist gathering in his honour in the Royal Albert Hall, George is invited and attends, complete with binoculars lest he miss a detail of the proceedings. The illusion of the event draws him in and at one stage he feels himself to be the centre of attention, only to find that it is a near miss. Most of the detail refers to himself and his father, but the reality then points to another who is immediately identified.

But, paradoxically, the quiet George Edalji and his Parsee (not Hindoo) father, Shapurji, were always the centre of attention simply by being who they were. Even Sir Arthur, the son's eventual champion, states this in one of his letters when he writes that it was perhaps inevitable that a dark-skinned clergyman taking a station in central England would attracts other's attention of a kind that would seek to undermine him, vilify him and attempt to oust him. The message is clear, that to be different from an assumed norm is to invite hatred, envy, discrimination and eventually ignominy. It is presented as a universal assumption, an unwritten element of universal common sense. Thus, as an intruder, the usual rules of justice will never pertain, a reality alluded to late in the book when George, scanning the Albert Memorial with his binoculars, discovers a statuesque embodiment of the concept of justice that is not wearing a blindfold.

What is eventually so disturbing about Arthur and George, however, is the realisation that both characters are outsiders. George is set apart from his Staffordshire peers by his skin colour and perceived race. Arthur, however, lives no humdrum life. He attends private schools, qualifies as a doctor and then becomes an international celebrity by virtue of his writing. He takes up minority causes and identifies with them but, despite his obvious separateness from mainstream society, in his case his position is never interpreted as a threat or a handicap, obviously because the separateness of privilege has a different currency from the separateness of even relative poverty.

Now an enduring memory of my own school history lessons was a textbook reproduction of a mid-Victorian cartoon of the universal pyramid of creation. It had God at the apex, immediately in touch via the saints with the Empress of India and then, layered beneath in widening courses were the gentry and aristocracy, the members of government and civil service, the professional classes and merchants. The working classes could perhaps temporarily ignore their poverty in the solace offered by knowing that they are a cut above members of all other races who, themselves, were just one up from the apes. It was not many more layers down to the low animals, most of which slithered or crawled. Arthur and George ostensibly tells us much about racism and racial discrimination in a society that was portrayed as the apex of a worldwide empire, a heavenly focus for aspiration. It also tells us about the power of presumption and has much to say very quietly and by suggestion about social class and its ability, especially in Britain, to legitimise difference as originality or eccentricity in some areas, differences which elsewhere would be threats.

Philip Spires
Author of "Mission"


about Love, 13 Oct 2008
I found Barnes` take on Love very interesting. it`s changed the way I approach love...

100% recommend reading this book. its absolutely terrific!!!

Yup., 30 Sep 2007
An honestly brilliant book. There's a section toward the end where the author slips into a first person narrative and talks about his wife subconsciously 'baring the nape of her neck for him'. It very nearly brought me to tears on the train whilst I read it. Utterly human, empthatic and masterly. This fictional biography of the earth is somehow completely ridiculous at the same time as being very believable. I don't read as much as I used to but I'm delighted that I picked this up last year.

Believe the hype, this book is fabulous, 14 Mar 2007
Subverting history should not be this much fun. But somewhere in the midst of stowaways aboard Noah's Ark, an absurd trial in Medieval France, and a visit to heaven, we come to realise just what a ridiculous species Human Beings are. Absolutely ridiculous. Even the Earthworms think so. 10 ½ stories, 10 ½ narrative voices covering the entire scope of humanity. This is a secular history more divine and inspirational than any dogmatic text could ever be. I believe in Julian Barnes, he has earned my praise.

A really interesting take on history, 02 Aug 2006
We all take history to be factual; well, I did anyway! Then I grew up a bit, and realised that there are two sides to every story. Julian Barnes cleverly presents a third viewpoint - one that might have happened, set in a brilliantly quirky and yet astonishingly believable perspective. I was so taken with the chapter on the Wreck of the Medusa, I went to visit the actual painting in the Louve, Paris, and marvelled at how Barnes had come up with his version of events. Well worth a read. In fact, read it two or three times!

Original perspective on "history", 20 Jan 2006
What a great read! Original and quirky without the irritation of pretension. This novel manages to make you think about history and how it is presented apparently without effort (though I'm not at all sure it is without intention)yet avoids becoming too heavy or bogged down simply by changing the subject every chapter. Starting with story of Noah as never before seen and working his forward gives the author ample scope for choice which he deftly uses to gives us tales of a biblical, historical and personal nature apparently as the whim took him, their only connecting feature being repeated references to the ark, and curiously, to woodworm.
This said, I feel the author is trying to make us think about the way history is told, percieved and perhaps created.
If you fancy somehting engaging and different, you could do a lot worse than this book.

NO, I DON'T WANNA CRACKER, 23 Apr 2008
In 1876, writing his last completed novel, Flaubert borrows a stuffed parrot from the Museum of Rouen to grace his desk. The parrot figures in "A Simple Heart," but its glowering presence soon irritates him and he sends it back. Today, there are two stuffed parrots in Rouen, each claimed to be the one. So begins Julian Barnes' extended riff on his favorite French author. The very promising spine of this narrative is a detective story about undiscovered letters between Flaubert and his English mistress, involving a Pnin-like academic worthy of Nabokov. But Barnes drops this ball after only two brief segments, and for the rest of his book offers a miscellany for Flaubert buffs: trivia, chronologies, riffs on obscure text points--the content of any famous-author website. In the end, as with the parrot, this reader said: so what? The result is anemic and precious, not compelling or illuminating, and has been greatly over-praised.

For a better sense of Barnes' caliber within this new collage genre, compare it with "Was" by Geoff Ryman, a lesser-known masterpiece from 1992. Like Barnes, Ryman riffs on a famous author and his work (Frank Baum and the Oz books) but instead of Barnes' lazy doodling, Ryman offers a stunning multi-strand tapestry filled with cinematic drama and complex characters, a book that really takes off, not once but repeatedly. In Barnes, a wan little smoke signal rises above Oxbridge; in Ryman, a fictive tornado sweeps us away.

A review of Flaubert's Parrot by Julian Barnes, 23 Nov 2007
Flaubert's Parrot by Julian Barnes is a book I have had queuing up to read for some time. I don't know why I have never got round to reading it. Perhaps it's because of the overtly "literary" tag that was attached to it when it was short-listed for the Booker Prize. I am not against "literary" fiction. Far from it: indeed I aspire to write it, after a fashion. My avoidance of Flaubert's Parrot was never conscious, but was probably a result of thinking that I knew what to expect - word play, experimentation with form, biography, dissection of the writer's role, relationship between art and life, in fact all the mundane things that your average novelist has for breakfast. The less than average ones, by the way, always have corn flakes. It is their convention. Having just finished the book, I can declare that I found all I expected and much, much, much more.

Julian Barnes has his character, a doctor called Geoffrey Braithwaite, consider various literary ideas. One, which only really applies to writing prose fiction, is the relation between form and content. Most novels, certainly most pulp fiction, never address this, since the authors usually present apparently literal material merely literally or, perhaps even more commonly, fantastical material literally. Generally within some recognisable genre, these offerings tend to preoccupy themselves with simple narration. In effect, most novels are presented in pictorial form, like a comic strip running a frame at a time through the author's mind, with only minimally extended commentary. Their presentation is invariably linear, with the writer's aim to spoon-feed the reader with bite-sized chinks of easily digestible plot in a context aimed at simplifying the experience.

Flaubert's Parrot is the polar opposite of this. The only plot is Flaubert's life, both physical and intellectual, alongside that of his enthusiastic intended biographer, the doctor, Geoffrey. Geoffrey's research, notes, speculations and musings provide the book's utterly original form. Since the adultery of Flaubert's fictional Madam Bovary provided the scandal that created his fame, evidence of his attitudes towards women and sex in his own life provides a fascinating backdrop against which we can assess the author's motives and desires. The death and revealed adultery of the narrator's own wife provides motive for his obsession with Flaubert and his femme fatale, and, quite unexpectedly, this culminates in a truly moving moment of emotional empathy that the author, Barnes, not Flaubert, not the narrator, evokes in his reader.

This emotional intensity developed as a real surprise towards the end of the book. Through it, Julian Barnes achieves a perfect marriage of form and content, the finest I have ever encountered. No matter how much we analyse the creative process, it is our emotional lives that provide the stuff of art. The writer moulds it, contextualises it, formalises it, but eventually the rawness of the experience, the chasm of bereavement, the hollow of betrayal, the consonance of love that makes us laugh or weep as we read, and Julian Barnes provokes both responses in this beautiful book.

There are some stunning moments of virtuosity. There are, for instance, three concatenated chronologies of Flaubert's life - an encyclopedia of success, a record of failure and a personal diary. This is a masterstroke, effectively answering the rhetorical question of why we remain interested in the author, even when we consider a work as iconic as Madame Bovary. The narrator's dissection of "correctness" in fiction is utterly poignant, especially so when we cannot even agree on the detail of reality. And so what if the writer decides to change things around? Isn't it supposed to be fiction?

But the enduring memory of Flaubert's Parrot is that masterstroke of marrying motives via Falubert's real life, whatever that was, the imagined world of his femme fatale and the apparently real life of Geoffrey Braithwaite, with its own experience of adultery and bereavement. And then, of course, we have Geoffrey's obsession with Flaubert, through which we reflect on the ideas of the self and its selfishness. Stunningly beautiful.

And the parrot? Probably a fake. Or perhaps just faked. Or then again....


Brilliant! My J Barnes Fav!, 25 Oct 2007
I wish I had enough of that literary critic vocabulary and style to convey how wonderfully rich FLAUBERT'S PARROT is. Then again, given how critics are taken to task in FP perhaps I'll simply say BRAVO! LOVE IT! And, of course, WOW! TOTALLY AWESOME!

I recently read MY NAME IS RED (Orhan Pamuk), fabulously fun from the "multiple point of view" perspective. Well I gotta tell ya, FP goes even further. Breathtaking.

If I had more time I'd "review" FP by selecting quote after quote. Alas, too busy. Suffice it to say, the writing is DELICIOUS!

Oh, haven't mentioned: FP is a great belly laugh too. Side splitting. Wet your pants. (Wear DEPENDS.)

Now... gotta see if this is on CD... would love to HEAR it too...

Kirtland Peterson

A great novel, or a great piece of lit crit?, 11 Oct 2007
Barne's 'Flaubert's Parrot' does not strike one immediately as a conventional piece of literature. It seems to be more a fascinating work of literary criticism, held together by the journey of Barnes' narrator, who delves deeply into the life and works of his idol Flaubert. There are even several chapters that support this idea, such as the various chronologies of Flaubert's life, and, especially, the mock examination questions near the end of the book.

Yet, despite this analytical emphasis on Flaubert's works, it is really the French writer's personality that is analysed and interpreted here. It is this suggestive, fictive element that I found most fascinating - the way that Barnes tries to work out the essence of this complicated, brilliant man through his own character. It is as if, despite all the facts that one can gain from his books and letters, the truth is that all efforts to work out a writer's life is just like creating a work of fiction.

And that is exactly what Barnes does in this novel. A clever, witty, really enjoyable read.

flaubert's parrot, 26 Jul 2007
I embarked on Flaubert's Parrot not having read any Flaubert. The back cover hinted that the narrator's own life is as much the topic of the book as the famous French writer, but until the end, there was very little about the narrator. We learn early on that he's a retired doctor called Geoffrey Braithwaite whose wife is dead, and that he has grown-up children. His obsession with Gustave Flaubert is evident, and the book is a trawl through Flaubert's life, with the narrator visiting Flaubert's home town,exploring Flaubert's family life (privileged, surgeon father, overbearing over-protective mother, beloved sister, many dead sibs), seeking out the stuffed parrot that Flaubert borrowed from a museum and that perched on his desk during the writing of one of his books(in fact, there are two parrots claiming that honour) and even staying in the hotel where Flaubert used to meet his lover, the poetess Louise Colet. Braithewaite's homage to his idol is interspersed with facts about Flaubert and extracts from his writing, mostly pithy aphorisms and sardonic comments. Many of these are irreverent, refreshing and witty enough to be of interest even to readers unfamiliar with Flaubert.
The reader gains real insight into Flaubert's personality - his refusal to compromise his independence by marrying or even living with his lover, his disregard for convention, his casual infidelity with men and women, his loyalty to friends, and even his playfulness, the latter depicted in an anecdote about how he marched a five-legged sheep through his ill friend's apartment to cheer him up (he failed - the sheep left little mirth and copious droppings in its wake).
It is only at the end that we find out more about Braithewaite and how, despite his admiration for Flaubert, his own emotional life could not have been more different from his hero's flamboyant promiscuity and inability to commit.
Although the facts about Flaubert are interesting and his cynical, witty condemnations of the bourgeois fun to read, I found myself wanting to hear more of Braithewaite's life - after all, I had chosen to read a novel by Julian Barnes, not a biography of Gustave Flaubert. The parts of the novel dealing with Braithewaite show such potential for Barnes's sparkling wit and trenchant ability to tell a tale that I felt disappointed that they were so few. One of the most entertaining scenes is the one where Braithewaite receives notification from an acquaintance, Ed Winterton, that Winterton has some material that might interest Braithewaite about a woman called Juliet Herbert, who acted as governess for Flaubert's beloved neice. There is some discussion in academic circles about whether Flaubert and Herbert were lovers, and Braithewaite is almost apopoleptic with excitement, planning the papers he can write on Flaubert's relationship with Herbert. The lunch over which Winterton and Braithewaite meet to discuss Winterton's findings - a cache of letters between the two - is an understated comic masterpiece. Braithewaite's quiet seething through gnashing teeth is a wonderful study of the riled Englishman, as sharply droll a caricature of a repressed, neurotic, unreasonably furious Englishman as William Boyd's loveable protagonists in A Good Man in Africa and Stars and Bars. Barnes could have created copious copy from the rich mines of his protagonist's character, but chooses not to spin more such gems from his raw material. Without giving anything away about the conversation over that lunch, here is Braithewaite's uncharitable thought before meeting the low key American academic Winterton:
'Had Ed really discovered some Juliet Herbert material? I admit I began to feel possessive in advance. I imagined myself presenting it in one of the more important literary journals; perhaps I might let the TLS have it. 'Juliet Herbert: A Mystery Solved, by Geoffrey Braithewaite', illustrated with one of those photographs in which you can't quite read the handwriting. I also began to worry at the thought of Ed blurting out his discovery on campus and guilelessly yielding up his cache to some ambitious Gallicist with an astronaut's haircut'. As with much comic genius, the hilarity is in the detail - the horror of being pipped to the literary post by the clean-cut blandness of a pudding bowl shorn American hunk.
Elsewhere, Barnes's known affection for France comes to the fore in Braithewaite's eulogy to the country. Like Boyd in Bamboo, Barnes lists random facts about the culture of his adopted country which make its scents, tastes and smells come alive.
All in all, Flaubert's Parrot is an interesting stroll through the life of a great French writer folded into intriguing glints into the life of a fictional character. The promising sparks of the latter could have been ignited into an explosive blaze of a novel.

a mixed meandering, 09 Jun 2008
No,not an autobiography but the thoughts on parents,grandparents and photograph of never to be known person in ravaged photograph were fascinating. His brother features greatly in his meanderings althought I sensed a degree of frustration that brother's thoughts did not tally with his at most times.
Thoughts of pre death anticipation and death itself,along with a possible afterlife and existence,or non existence of God were approached from many angles,leaving the reader to make up his/her mind on the subject. Also one or two unique views on the perception of a God..thought provoking.
Not an easy book to read,and you could easily give up in trying to follow his thoughts......"what the hell is he trying to say now?" You may even find your mind is only picking out the fairly straitforward sections and skimming the convolutions,of which there are many.
At the end of the book I found myself thinking that I had been used as Julian's psychiatrist and sat through many hours of expensive consultations.

Style Battles Content, 21 Apr 2008
In NOTHING TO BE FRIGHTENED OF, Julian Barnes uses the history of his immediate family and the comments of many writers--who he considers his "true bloodline"--to examine death, as well as its connection to God. Rest assured that this book, like A HISTORY OF THE WORLD IN 10½ CHAPTERS, is a primarily an essayist's intellectual journey. The book is never morbid or creepy.

For me, NtbFo was best when Barnes was writing about his biological family. When writing about the death of his parents, for example, he conveyed the weakness and humiliation and rage of the dying, as well as the complex feelings of anger, pity, and responsibility in survivors. Likewise, the book was strong when Barnes wrote about his grandfather. Then, he pondered how little a person leaves after death, with mystery and a few random artifacts all that's left after, say, 50 years pass. These family-based musings are thoughtful and tender. And Barnes's brother, a philosopher who does not allow slack thinking, adds rigor to Julian's thoughts.

On the other hand, the results are mixed when Barnes uses the comments of numerous writers to explore his subjects. Here, the ideas and anecdotes he presents are always interesting, ranging from consoling to depressed, from accepting death to dread. And, his work with this material is a pleasure to read when an essay--few are longer than five pages--starts with the adroit presentation of a concept, moves to a supporting or contrasting idea, and then finishes with revelation or connection.

But occasionally, his short essays develop in an inscrutable and arbitrary fashion, with this reviewer finishing an essay in confusion, not insight. (How the heck did I get here?, was my not infrequent reaction.) Even after rereading, these particular essays struck me as brilliant babbling, not the achievement of sparkling or new connections. This has unfortunate consequences for NtbFo, since Barnes frequently circles back to ideas he has already explored, returning to them to layer or enrich meaning. But, this strategy doesn't work when an idea's original presentation, or new context, lacks clarity.

Nonetheless, Barnes has a very interesting mind. He writes fine prose and this book renewed my interest in his work. Next: ARTHUR & GEORGE.


Barnes sheds light on Death, 07 Apr 2008
"I may be dead by the time you are reading this sentence."

Julian Barnes gets all his thoughts on death down on paper before his doctor gets to him in the future to deliver the, Mr Barnes - I'm afraid it's not good news.

So the book is like a will drawn up in preparation for his inevitable death, by whatever form it takes. Although by all accounts Barnes is in good health and has many more years before him, he's written this book now as insurance against a rushed job as his draws his final breath.

So instead of a thinned narrative of a dying man, we get the literary genius of Barnes saying in full health ...

"Let's get this death thing straight."

And for us this is good news.
The book is thought provoking and demonstrates the ability of Barnes to intelligently consider a taboo subject. And far from being macabre, you feel like you are being invited to chat with Julian over an after dinner cigar. It's all very english:

"My fear of death is low-level, reasonable, practical."

Some would run around screaming, "We are all going to die!" in the face of death. Julian in effect says, calm down stop running around like a headless chicken, or worse still sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich and let's talk about it calmly over port and cheese.
He brings death out into the light, where it is less frightening.
Leaving it in the dark, is never a good idea - it's far scary. Julian flicks the light on for us and attempts to dispel the lurking beast from under the bed.

Julian also brings a good dose of humour in to wash down the bitter pill.

"Sometimes (I) find life an overrated way of passing the time."

Into the mix then are thrown God, Barnes' brother, French writer Jules Renard and some Barnes family memoir ( although he says "this is not my autobiography." )
So, for example, we get Barnes giving account as to how he let go of a possibility of religion as an adolescent,

"hunched over some book or magazine in the family bathroom, I used to tell myself that God couldn't possibly exist because the notion that He might be watching me while I masturbated was absurd."

and

"I don't believe in God, but I miss him."

Hmm - so God was there in the bathroom, until Julian couldn't bear the thought and banished him?!

Barnes' stance now? An agnostic -

"How can we be sure that we know enough to know?"

One of Barnes' recent books was called The lemon Table - a collection of short stories - The lemon being the Chinese symbol for death.
What Barnes does in Nothing to be Frightened of, is invite us in around his own lemon table and opens the discussion.

It feels like he really hopes he won't have the last word.

Superbly constructed discourse on life and death, 31 Mar 2008
I have long been a fan of Julian Barnes and purchased this new volume without reading reviews, as I now tend to do with favourite authors. I took it for granted that the writing would be excellent and it was. However, I was amazed at the feat that he has brought off here. The discourse on life and death, interwoven with autobiographical detail, passages about Jules Renard [and you don't need to know anything about him to enjoy the writing - to me he was only a name],combine to produce a stunning and thought-provoking book. It is one of the best he has written, for sheer content and style. Although death figures large, the result is never morbid. To me it is a celebration of life by one of the most literary of all writers. Where another author might have written separate chapters or disappeared down cul de sacs, Barnes has produced a masterpiece of constrained, fluid writing, integrating all the elements brilliantly.

Elegant Writing, Bold Structure, Deliberately Diffuse, 27 May 2008
Julian Barnes is an elegant writer with an interesting mind. From paragraph to paragraph, these qualities are fully apparent in ARTHUR & GEORGE, especially as Barnes examines the issues his characters face. Here is George Edalji at 54, roughly 25 years after he was wrongly incarcerated and a cause célèbre.

"...But most nowadays had never heard of him. At times he resented this, and felt ashamed of his resentment. He knew that in all his years of suffering, there had been nothing he longed for more than anonymity. The Chaplain at Lewes had asked him what he missed, and he had replied that he missed his life. Now, he had it back; he had work, enough money, people to nod to in the street. But he was occasionally nudged by the thought that he deserved more; that his ordeal should have led to more reward. From villain to martyr to nobody very much--was not this unfair...."

Barnes has divided A&G into four sections. These are BEGINNINGS, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, ENDING WITH A BEGINNING, AND ENDINGS. Within each, Barnes has tucked appropriate narrative material.

For example, BEGINNINGS, shows the young Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji establishing themselves in life. It also shows the start of an ugly and threatening letter writing campaign against the Edalji family and the first glimmer of hostility toward the Edaljis from the police.

Meanwhile, BEGINNING WITH AN ENDING, provides, among other things, a disturbing picture of the police, who begin an investigation of animal mutiliations with the ending--that is George Edalji is the perp--and then create evidence to fit their theory. What I'm saying, in other words, is that Barnes has created a narrative that fits, on reflection, into four buckets.

This description makes ARTHUR & GEORGE sound like a tightly organized book. But for this reader, the structure suggested by these section titles doesn't really capture the reading experience. Indeed, this novel actually seems to progress from a slightly stiff examination of young male lives in an imperfect Victorian world, to a long police procedural and courtroom drama, to a biographical tale of a manic gentleman as he fights injustice and his tendency to depression, to a slightly sad summing up. While always elegant and interesting, A&G reads like a hodgepodge with Barnes unwilling to settle on a single narrative perspective to tell his story.

Here, I say "unwilling" because this hodgepodge-like quality struck me as a deliberate narrative strategy. Proof for me exists in Barnes's frequent mention of the disappearance and then unsolved murder of Dr. Sophie Hickman, a crime concurrent with the mutilations. It's just a small story point. But through this loose end, Barnes seems to be saying that facts in life don't really fit into an easy narrative structure.

So, in the final analysis, I'd call this a bold novel, organized in concept but deliberately messy in the execution. In a way, A&G is the opposite of an Arthur Conan Doyle mystery, where every messy fact narrows the case and leads the ingenious Holmes to a neat and inevitable solution.


A Wonderful Dramatisation of a Tragic Story, 29 Apr 2008
What you don't discover from the back cover of Arthur and George is that the novel is in fact based on true events. It revolves around Arthur Conan-Doyle's investigation of the `Wyrley outrages' and the gross miscarriage of justice that resulted from it. Although embellished and dramatised, all the quotes and letters are original and the book is all the more potent for its foundation in historical fact.

Despite these roots it is written entirely in the style of a fictional novel. For the first half of its 360 pages the book alternates between the lives of its two principal characters, Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji, and regards the backgrounds and life-stories of the two men. About 200 pages in, the two characters finally meet and it is here that the real quest for justice and intensity of the story begins.

The quality of the writing makes reading a pleasure at all times, however some parts, such as Arthur's early life, are a little prolonged and ponderous, as is the ending. Indeed in terms of pace and intensity the book would benefit from being perhaps 70-odd pages shorter. This would be my one criticism and denies it the full five stars.

`Arthur and George' is a beautifully written book and provides a moving insight into the lives of two very complicated men, their emotions, trials & tribulations, and above all their courage in retaining their honour and dignity in the most trying circumstances. This is a book that must be read.

Separate lives entwine ..., 13 Apr 2008
A curious hybrid of a book - the fictionalised biography of two men whose lives briefly entwined. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle becomes interested in a miscarriage of justice when a solicitor is convicted for a series of hate letters and animal mutilations; he decides to apply the mind that created Sherlock Holmes to the case.
Told at first in alternating chapters, we compare and contrast the lives of Arthur, the young doctor and dashing sportsman who becomes a megastar writer, and George the meek son of a Scottish mother and a Parsi vicar father, who doesn't really fit in but manages to do well and become a solicitor. We see Arthur set up as an enthusiast who gets serially obsessed in his work and pasttimes, whereas George likes structure to his life and is happy with his daily commute into work.
Eventually things start to happen - George and his father are the targets of hatemail, and then the animal mutilations start happening, and George gets the crime pinned on him by the police who are increasing keen to make an arrest and is sent to jail. Arthur having killed off Holmes, applies himself to the case to get George reinstated after his release with mixed success - achieving a pardon, but no compensation - the government and police force can't admit to being proved wrong by an amateur after all. And apart from inviting George to Arthur's second wedding, that's that essentially.
An easy read once you got through the initial character building and a rather low-key finish, but a great middle.

Just fantastic, 29 Nov 2007
One of the most satisfying and oddly moving books I have ever read. From horse-mutilation to spiritulaism via racism in Victorian Staffordshire! Fantastically solid characters, a pantomime villain and plenty of reasonable doubt in unexpetected places. This is a tremendous novel that could actually be characterised as crime writing.



A review by Philip Spires, 07 Aug 2007
George Edalji (that's Ay-dal-ji, by the way, since Parsee names are always stressed on the first syllable) is the son of a Staffordshire vicar of Indian origin and his Scottish wife. George is thus a half-caste, to use the language of his late-Victorian and Edwardian age. He's a diligent, if not too distinguished a scholar. He is uninterested in sport, is of small stature and doesn't see too well. He sleeps with his father behind a locked door, is in bed by 9:30, becomes a small town solicitor who develops an interest in train timetables and, by way of outlandish diversion, publishes a traveller's guide to railway law.

Arthur Conan Doyle (later Sir Arthur) is born in Edinburgh, completes medical school and generally accomplishes whatever task he sets himself, including becoming a world famous writer. Despite the fact that he kills off his creation, the detective Sherlock Holmes, ostensibly to devote time to tasks of greater gravity, popular demand insists that he raise the character from the dead. He does this and proceeds to generate even greater success than before. He marries happily twice and pursues and interest in spiritualism, amongst other good causes.

Perhaps because of who they are, the Edalji family become the butt of the campaign of poison pen letters. When they complain, all they accomplish is the focusing of further unwanted attentions on themselves. When a series of ripping attacks on animals remains unsolved, George, somehow, becomes the prime suspect. Convinced of his villainy, police, judicial system, expert witnesses, jury and press see him convicted of the crime and sent down for seven years. Good conduct sees him released after three.

Sir Arthur wishes to do good and takes up George Edalji's case. He researches the facts, analyses the possibilities, tracks down neighbours and officials who have been involved. He creates an alternative explanation of events and presents it to officialdom, seeking a pardon and compensation for George, who by this time has transferred to London to start a new life. The two men meet and the incongruity of their assumed expectations of life are as irreconcilable as they are irrelevant to their joint focus on George's case. After official review, however, the Home Office Committee eventually concludes in an ambiguous manner. Edalji was convicted of the crime and the conviction is declared unsound; but crucially he is not declared innocent. He is therefore found not guilty but then not innocent either and so not worthy of compensation. When, years later, Sir Arthur dies and his associates stage a spiritualist gathering in his honour in the Royal Albert Ha