I think I read too much Arthur Conan Doyle when I was young and got this idea that a gentleman should know a lot about one thing and plenty about most everything else.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Arthur Conan Doyle was entranced by the notion of a brilliant detective who can deduce everything a stranger has been up to from the merest clue, and yet can't have a trusting relationship with his closest friend.
I love Sherlock Holmes. There's still an awful lot to steal from Conan Doyle. But within a tradition you can work in many different ways.
When I think of Sherlock Holmes, I think of a guy who can wander into the confusion of life and sort of pluck out answers at will.
I read a bit of Ray Bradbury when I was a younger man. I don't read a lot of fiction anymore... like, none.
Men who wish to know about the world must learn about it in its particular details.
My only books were woman's looks, and folly's all they've taught me.
If a man writes a book, let him set down only what he knows. I have guesses enough of my own.
I read so much about men who aren't what they seem, and particularly stories written by women who found out their husbands had a slew of secrets they knew nothing about.
I have always advised men to read.
He who studies books alone will know how things ought to be, and he who studies men will know how they are.