Maybe he struggles to make it all look easy. But maybe we are not giving him enough credit. His writing seems to flow so effortlessly that the reader intuits that it was easy for him to produce it. Of course, Barnes is such an exceptional writer and such a perceptive observer of human nature that it must have been easy for him to make those connections and then to convey them to his readers. What must it have taken to conjure up such a character? How much of his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle, is inherent in the fictional man? I get the feeling from reading Julian Barnes' Arthur & George that there is quite a bit of Doyle in Holmes. He still fascinates me as he still fascinates much of the world, as evidenced by the popularity of modern movies, television shows, and literary pastiches featuring him. He was my first literary love and I have remained true to him all these years later.

The first book that I bought by myself was a volume of the complete Sherlock Holmes stories. Even virtual illiterates could not escape the name of the great 'first consulting detective' or the knowledge of his story. I was drawn to them because I knew the name Sherlock Holmes. The first ones that I found on my own were the Sherlock Holmes novels.

I read and reread them, and later, when I was around twelve I think, I began to discover REAL books. I loved comic books, especially the Tarzan of the Apes ones. In fact, there were few on our bookshelves other than the ubiquitous King James Bible. I did not grow up in a house full of books.

Barnes julian arthur & george