Customer Reviews

Arthur and George

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book by Julian Barnes is based on turn of last century crime featuring Arthur Conan Doyle and his fighting for a man innocent of crime, George Edalji. Julian Barnes is an outstanding artist who can turn a novel into a history lesson and this one becomes almost real life. Though the novel has a leasurely pace with a lot of conversation showing the same type of writing as then, it is very different from the author's usual crisp writing and a marked difference at that. The novel is partly from one person's point of view and partly from the other's. The book describes in detail the costumes, conversations and locations of those times.

The novel is very different from his earlier one, Flaubert's Parrot, written so long ago. Though the novel is long, it does not feel slow. It makes us sympathize with the victim and feel glad that Sir Arthur takes up his case. Like all Sherlock Holmes like cases, we look forward to a dramatic closure. Though it reads like detective fiction at times, there are loose ends which make us feel differently. The case makes us reflect on reality too as the victim is part Indian, so the racism creeps into the case. Just as the Alfred Dreyfus case in France happened about the same time, with the ant-semitism, the victim wonders why his case did not achieve the same fame or notoriety.

The book gives a good deal about the English of those days, their feelings and a lot about the biographical details of Arthur. It is a pleasure to read the book as it is different from the others. The readers might be challenged by the pace of the book though. Barnes is not straightforward in pointing the facts of the case, which might perturb some readers. I personally loved the writing, it is wonderfully protrayed and anyone who loves the writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle will love it.

Having completed the works of many an author chronologically, I have always admired successive maturity amidst those promissory. Julian Barnes is an exception. Each of his novels is an experimentation with the limits to which the definitions of 'fiction' and 'novel' can be stretched. From the uncanny literary critic that he was in 'Flaubert's Parrot', to the ambitious scale of 'A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters' - time and again, his works have defied classification and 'Arthur and George' is no exception.

A thoroughly researched, intensely moving and earnestly brilliant novel, Barnes takes us through the distinct early lives of one of the most famous novelist who ever lived and an aspiring young lawyer, whose father is a Parisee; then slowly and eerily brings forth the inexcusable racial prejudices highly prevalent in England those days; intertwines the lives of these two men, and richly illustrates how their lives are permanently altered thereafter.

Barnes is very subtle as he assiduously changes his narrative in each of the four parts of the novels, and is undoubtedly clever in hijacking the reader into the minds of the character. You cannot but sympathise with Edalji (Ay-dl-jee); you will be proud of Sir Arthur, you'll feel sorry for Touie, and understand the position of the lovely Jean. He'll even leave you feel intelligent some times, when the novel takes on the form of one of Holmes' adventure - for example, Sharp initially tells George, 'you're not the right sort', a phrase which is often repeated in the abusive letters (which are authentic, by the way) he receives.

It takes an extraordinary writer to turn a historical account into a novel, where the characters are sculptured with delicate care, that at the end of the intense ride, one finds his novel complete. Except Barnes chose to include the fourth and rather unnecessary part of the novel, which neither informs much about the characters whom we come to love by the end of the third part nor adds much to the strength of the narrative. The reader is bewildered at the irrationality of the distinction that is supposed to exist between the rational and the spiritual - Barnes concludes on neither side, as usual, he is predictably unpredictable in leaving an open question.

Being the extremely readable, lucid historical fiction that it is and having been exquisitely packaged, it certainly demands a wide readership, and certainly deserved its Booker nomination.

George Edalji grows up as the son of a Parsee church minister and a Scottish mother in rural 19th century England. After school he becomes a solicitor and starts a modest practice of his own in Birmingham. Every morning he takes the train from his parent's house to his work and every evening he walks for a little over an hour, before doing some more work and turning in early. He feels utterly English, but most people see only his brown skin and consider him an outsider. When he starts to receive threatening letters and strange objects (dead birds, an unknown key) he considers it a prank, but when he reports it to the police they turn the whole story upside down and claim that he writes the threats himself. When somebody starts mutilating horses the police even claims that George has done this, arrests him after which he is convicted to 7 years in prison. After 3 years he is released without explanation, but he cannot resume his work as solicitor unless he is rehabilitated.

In parallel to this story there is the story of Arthur Conan Doyle, the "inventor" of Sherlock Holmes: an energetic man, good at sports, with a full social and family life and more or less the opposite of George. When Arthur's first wife dies of TB, he finally has the chance to marry his long-term best friend, but somehow he becomes depressed. Until he learns of the case of George Edalji. He decides to investigate the case himself, kicks some behinds and finally manages to get George at least partially rehabilitated. And in the meantime he regains his sanity and is capable to pick up his life

The amazing thing is that this is actually a true story: George Edalji was the "English Dreyfuss" and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did take an interest in his case. It is amazing to read how prejudice governed all the actions of the police, how a slightly strange, but perfectly harmless individual with a firm belief in English law and justice was completely wronged and ended up spending part of his life in prison on some ridiculous charges. I wondered whether George has Asperger syndrome (a form of autism): his reactions are certainly strangely flat and withdrawn, he does not really seem to understand social interactions and regularity is extremely important for him.

The fact that it never becomes really clear "who did it" is unsatisfying, but life can be unsatisfactory and since this story is based on facts rather than fiction, that's the way it is. All in all a very thorough piece of work and research by Julian Barnes.

Arthur and George is a fictional recreation of the great injustice done to George Edalji, a half-Indian solicitor who is accused of slaughtering farm animals. George is tried, convicted and sent to jail, where he spends three years engaged in menial activities and reading books. When he is released, he begins a campaign to clear his name, which includes writing a letter to the famous Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the world's most popular literary detective, Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur takes up the fight, throwing himself into the cause of clearing George's name.

Barnes is a skilled wordsmith. He carries the story along with ease, never saturating the text with flashy word choices or overly elaborate metaphors. The beginning of the novel, which is structured rather heavily around a series of disjointed chapters alternately titled 'Arthur' and 'George', focus on the upbringing and maturity of the two main characters. Barnes' writing serves these chapters well, as the quiet, mannered sentences ease us into what we expect will be a provoking, interesting and historically accurate portrayal of a forgotten period of Britain's past.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are early signs of difficulty in the novel as a whole. 'Arthur' goes on to become Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a tremendously popular author for his time, and one whose main creation - Sherlock Holmes - has well and truly resonated in the mind of his readers and continues to resonate in our current period. And yet, his literary development is left largely alone, we are told he has published books and is gaining fame and success, but that is all. This leads us to believe that Arthur's life is a charmed one, one of little hardship or difficulty.

So be it. That is easy enough to swallow, if we are to believe that Arthur is the great saviour of George's life. But George, too, is unattractive. He is a quiet, withdrawn young man, but beyond that we know very little. There is never an extensive examination of his psyche, which would allow us to understand the person he is and sympathise with his eventual downfall. Instead, we learn very little about him, and come to agree with the police that he is odd, a queer fellow who is difficult to root for.

So we have, approaching 100 pages into the novel, an unsympathetic character about to be placed into a situation designed to tug at our heartstrings, and an equally unappealing main character about to rescue him and save the day. But, again, Barnes shies away from creating a sense of dramatic urgency by waxing eloquently over Arthur's wife's illness, and his subsequent affair with a much younger woman, Jean. Because Arthur is not a wholly sympathetic character, is it difficult to care much for his marital difficulties. Fortunately for Arthur, these difficulties are only those of time, as his wife seems fairly content to plod along with consumption until she passes away.

The major problem with the story that is being told is that it is not a story. It is a recreation of something that actually occurred, and as with most things in life, there are no neat endings or beginnings. But, because we are reading a novel, it is expected that there will be some semblance of dramatic impact, particularly when Barnes struggles his best to convey an upcoming major event or revelation for a character. George is eventually proclaimed innocent of wrong-doing, but it is a stale, grey sort of innocence - the government was not interested in justice so much as saving face. Were it a Hollywood style production, there would be a grand magnanimous display of righteous justice for all, but because we are dealing with actualities and not fantasy, there is nothing for the reader but dissatisfaction.

The novel is constructed around the artifice of Arthur and George actually having a relationship. They don't, they share nine months together, and even then, it is in a purely professional sense. Arthur is not overly affected by it, though George, perhaps to move the story to its inevitable conclusion, is. There are tantalising hints of a great story between two men who made an important step towards free and great justice for all, but these hints never materialise. We are left with a limping, struggling novel that is pulled ahead only by the confidence of Barnes' words, not the positive qualities of his protagonists.

I was lucky enough to be given an advanced reader's copy of Julian Barnes' latest novel by a friend of mine. And my interest was captured, completely, from page one. The story is a true one- George Edalji is charged with and convicted of the brutal maiming of farm animals in Staffordshire. He spends three years in jail, and then finds that it is impossible for him to pick up his former life with such a conviction over his head. He writes to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, hoping that the creator of such a fine detective as Sherlock Holmes can help prove his innocence. And thus begins their relationship together.

However, George Edalji and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle don't meet until more than halfway through the book, and even then, they only see each other about three times.

Barnes' genius, then, lies in the rest of the story. It is obvious from the beginning why this book was short-listed for the Booker Prize. Barnes develops his characters from childhood onwards. We learn about Edalji's horrible eyesight, his relationship with his parents and his sister Maud. We learn about Doyle's annoyance with Sherlock Holmes, his relationship with his mother, and his wife, and Jean Leckie. We learn about each of their quirks and traits. And after learning about these two separately, and drawing our own conclusions, Barnes allows the two characters to meet, and allows us to learn about their conclusions of each other.

We learn about racial prejudice (though Edalji refuses to believe he was racially profiled- he staunchly calls himself an Englishman). We learn about the legal system prevalent in England at the time, and how the court of appeals came to be. We learn about spiritualism and attend a seance. We see Doyle's guilt for being in love with a woman that is not his wife, and Edalji's hope that the justice system he so believes in will see his obvious innocence. We learn so much about two extraordinary men, and the people who touched their lives. All told in a masterful, immediate narrative tone that catches your interest and holds it for 400 pages.

This was my first book of the new year, and it is one that I already know will make it onto my list of Best Books of 2006, and probably onto the list of books that stays with you long after you finish reading them. Highly, highly recommended.

Excellent read. Complex, insightful, hugely entertaining. You cant cheat with this one - you need to read carefully and dont miss a trick or it may not make much sense later on. I cant imagine how much time and research went into writing a novel like this- it is really several stories all interlocking. Most people focus on the court case and the relationship between Sir Arthur and George but I was equally fasinated with Sir Arthur himself - his life, his 'mistress', his mother, not to mention the Edjali family and the insight into an inter-racial( and religious) marriage in England during Victorian times. All so fascinating and frustrating at the same time. Loved it - should have won the Booker.

Enjoyable read, and takes me back in time. Have found his work a little difficult in the past but this was our latest book club selection so I made the effort, and happy I did. look forward to comparing notes with the girls!

Well-researched. Excellent, readable language and character development. Julian Barnes takes the reader on an engrossing voyage into the social life of late-Victorian England. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And, thank heavens, all done without the need for gutter language, either!

As with all Julian Barnes's novels, the writing is crisp, intelligent and beautifully paced. Also present is Barnes's particular fondness for looking at real life texts and putting a fictional squint on them to convey a fascinating story or set of ideas. However, whereas in books such as Flaubert's Parrot and A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapters approach the past from oblique angles - a biography of Flaubert created from quirky fragments of the man's life, history recreated from a woodworm's viewpoint - Arthur and George displays none of this creative quirkiness. What you get is a plodding, carefully told detective story about a young Parsee man, George Edalji, who is wrongly accused of a series of animal mutilations in a sleepy Staffordshire village. Arthur Conan Doyle, the world famous author of the Sherlock Holmes stories, hears of his case and rushes in to ensure justice is done. The novel is padded out with nice but ultimately boring vignettes into the life of Arthur Conan Doyle and George Edalji. Barnes has obviously done extensive research into the life of Conan Doyle and the Great Wyrley outrages, but loving and painstaking hours spent creating what you feel is a convincing portrayal of a real life character does not guarantee that you are producing a figure of great fictional merit. There are long digressions into Conan Doyle's anxieties with his mistress Jean Touie and his growing love of the occult, adn long streams of dialogue that serve merely structural, not dramatic effect. It is not one of Barnes's greatest efforts. It was raptuously received by the critics in Britain, and made the Booker Prize shortlist but it failed to impress the judges. For really original and stylistically dazzling fiction, I would look elsewhere.