Saturday, 22 December 2007

OK but


This is an interesting, surprisingly gentle book based on a real-life case which ultimately led to the setting up of the Courts of Appeal. It reads, more or less, like a typical work of historical fiction with a narrative that is alternatively focused on George Edjali, accused and convicted of mutilating animals, and Arthur Conan Doyle who was convinced of his innocence. My main criticism is that the characters just do not come across as three-dimensional and emotionally sound leaving me, as a reader, as a detached observer of the events described in the text. Ultimately as a work of fiction I preferred This Thing of Darkness.

6 comments:

belle said...

oh oh oh, am so with you on this one! We did it as a book group and I was the lone dissenting voice. But clearly, they know nothing ;o)

riverwillow said...

Obviously as we are women of taste and discernment and not philistines :o)

belle said...

Oh absolutely! No philistines here ... *snigger*

brunhilde said...

I didn't like this either, but then I have never liked a Barnes book and I like to be consistent. What's a Philistine?

Table Talk said...

Just to be different I got really engrossed in this but then I live very close to where George was so badly treated and I ended up feeling personally responsible, which might have something to do with it!

riverwillow said...

Table talk, please feel free to be different as if we all liked the same things it would, at the very least, be boring. As for George don't feel responsible as you would have to be very very old indeed to have had any involvement with the case.