tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post113730026282514604..comments2024-02-20T03:18:43.590-05:00Comments on Magnificent Octopus: Arthur & George, and Michiko & Terrence and others, and Julian and meIsabella Khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10735198478395875257noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1149774510543864352006-06-08T09:48:00.000-04:002006-06-08T09:48:00.000-04:00Book Review 'Arthur and George'This is not so much...Book Review 'Arthur and George'<BR/><BR/>This is not so much a comment but I thought someone might be interested in a non-fiction account recently published by Pegasus Elliot Mackenzie? This new book “Conan Doyle and the Parson’s Son: The George Edalji Case”, researched and written by Gordon Weaver between 1999 and 2003, is the only non-fictional account of the George Edalji miscarriage of justice case. This book goes behind the scenes to explore the complex issues that surround the harassment of the Edalji family and the conviction and trial of George Edalji. The vast wealth of Home Office documentation held at the UK’s National Archives provides additional dimensions to what in fact was the case that changed the face of English legal procedure. <BR/><BR/>The work provides a comprehensive account of social attitudes, legal processes, police duplicity, judicial connivance and bureaucratic intransigence during the late Victorian and Edwardian era. For a synopsis of this work visit www.theplebeian.net. <BR/><BR/>Best wishes,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Adam NavinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1138294350062181502006-01-26T11:52:00.000-05:002006-01-26T11:52:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Kate S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16897618197257393697noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1138289387002593822006-01-26T10:29:00.000-05:002006-01-26T10:29:00.000-05:00Thanks for your review of this, Isabella. I want t...Thanks for your review of this, Isabella. I want to read it because the subject matter interests me and because I usually enjoy Julian Barnes. <BR/><BR/>I read another book about Conan Doyle several years ago called <I>Teller of Tales</I>, by Daniel Stashower and found it fascinating.MaryBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412656596874731198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1138124287488858232006-01-24T12:38:00.000-05:002006-01-24T12:38:00.000-05:00Damn you, Rachel, making me think...I have no prob...Damn you, Rachel, making me think...<BR/><BR/>I have no problem accepting that there are differences, even <I>more</I> than between Canadians and Americans, and stronger ones 100 years ago than now. But I still have trouble believing it could rival the obstacles faced by a visible minority.<BR/><BR/>There's no argument with you, Rachel, but now the book's got to argue its way out of my head.<BR/><BR/>(I've skimmed over the beginning again and I hope to have time later this week to track down people who've read it so someone can confirm or dispel my reading — please!...)<BR/><BR/>Barnes doesn't say much about Arthur's childhood. His father was absent as a drunkard and then in the madhouse. His mother took up with another man. Arthur was sent to school in England. Barnes gives no evidence for Arthur being marked as non-English. If anything, his parents' behaviour might mark him an outsider, but even that seems to wash off him. I don't know whether Barnes's approach reflects that little is documented of Arthur's childhood, that it doesn't much interest him, or that he doesn't feel it's relevant.<BR/><BR/>And then Arthur finds success early in adulthood, in England — if he had suffered discrimination, he readily overcame it. So when he perceives himself to be non-English, I'm a bit surprised.<BR/><BR/>In his successes and values, Arthur may be more English than non-English; George on the other hand may be more non-Engish than he lets himself believe. (Maybe this is Barnes's point?)<BR/><BR/>Tim: When I saw Barnes he matter-of-factly stated he read the Sherlock Holmes stories as a kid. So, not really an homage in this case. His interest lay in how a writer took up a public/political case (as Zola in Dreyfuss).<BR/><BR/>The case against George simply isn't as important as the Dreyfuss affair. As with the characters of Arthur and George, Barnes tries to draw parallels, but not entirely effectively — they're just too different.<BR/><BR/>There are some interesting issues raised regarding race etc, but Barnes treats them with such a light touch (too light), I was never made to seriously consider them. <BR/><BR/>For a book that didn't leave much impression on me, I certainly have a lot to say about it now. I promise I won't bore you with it any longer. While I enjoyed the book on a superficial level, now I know why I wasn't entirely satisfied with it.Isabella Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10735198478395875257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1138039569426426222006-01-23T13:06:00.000-05:002006-01-23T13:06:00.000-05:00I'm never quite sure what to make of authors who d...I'm never quite sure what to make of authors who decide to fictionalize the lives of famous people (particularly authors). I suppose in some way its a tip-of-the-hat to those who inspired you. Yet, more often than not, I find myself being let down by these attempts to draw (very) real people into fiction. <BR/><BR/>The first time I read a novel where this was attempted was another Arthur Conan Doyle "adventure" -- <I>The List of 7</I>. While Doyle's real life self might have made a perfect match for Frost's imaginative landscape, I couldn't help but feel as though Doyle was being short changed. <BR/><BR/>It's almost as if the authors find it pleasing to use real people as characters, but work hard not to step on anyone's toes. In so doing, they wind up creating very flat characters, who don't stand up against the vivid backgrounds and plots they're attempting to create.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15771924243879740522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1137891019437385172006-01-21T19:50:00.000-05:002006-01-21T19:50:00.000-05:00Well, bearing in mind that I haven't read the book...Well, bearing in mind that I haven't read the book, Irish and Scottish are VERY different from English. It's not so different than Canadians being different from Americans. They may seem indistinguishable to outsiders, but they don't like to be mistaken for each other.<BR/><BR/>There's a lot of very bitter history there. And you're talking about a country (England) where infinitessimal differences in accent could (once upon a time) brand you for life. Class differences were as divisive as race differences, and he would have been subject to both -- the Irish were considered a race, with all the baggage that imparts. Surly, lazy, violent, despised. Conan Doyle, however he may have tried to blend in, would have been readily identifiable as Irish, the moment his name was heard. Doyle is a really common, really Irish name.<BR/><BR/>-Rachel<BR/>(who is Irish, Scottish, AND English. They can interbreed!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1137872885336953782006-01-21T14:48:00.000-05:002006-01-21T14:48:00.000-05:00I knew that, Irish and Scottish, and should've sai...I knew that, Irish and Scottish, and should've said so.<BR/><BR/>What am I getting at? At the risk of offending a lot of people, is that really so very distinctly not-English? Arthur considered himself an outsider, but would others view him that way? And to the degree that George's family was not-English?<BR/><BR/>(George's father was from Bombay, and George was quite dark-skinned. The question of being an outsider is then complicated by the fact that George thought of himself as English, he <I>was</I> English, even while he refused to accept that threats against him, and being set up for the crime of which he was accused, might be racially motivated.)<BR/><BR/>It makes me uncomfortable to think of these two states of being an outsider as in any way equal. And I wonder, is that a deliberate effect, or is it just me?<BR/><BR/>There's a deeper discomfort, come to think of it: Barnes sets up their stories in parallel, splicing them back and forth, to highlight their similarities, but beyond the "we're all just people" sentiment and holding broad ideals in common — doing right by others, adhering to the code — I just don't buy it. They're very different characters. (Maybe this is why the structure was so obvious to me — it doesn't exactly, or comfortably, fit what it seems to be trying to uphold. But maybe that's the point?)<BR/><BR/>Anyone?Isabella Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10735198478395875257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5767816.post-1137857861375691222006-01-21T10:37:00.000-05:002006-01-21T10:37:00.000-05:00Conan Doyle is not English because he's Irish. An...Conan Doyle is not English because he's Irish. And Scottish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com