The Sign of the Four

The second novella recounting the exploits of Sherlock Holmes shares a peculiar structural feature with the first, A Study in Scarlet: a tale within the tale. The second, told at length by the freshly apprehended culprit, is the crime behind the crime, the reason why he intrepidly executed vengeance. This doesn’t free him of guilt for the fresher crime, nor does he expect it to, but it casts what has been done in a softer light.
The earlier crime occurs elsewhere — exotic locales like the Utah territory and the Indian subcontinent.
Not that any of this impresses Holmes. At the end of the tale of the Agra treasure, he only remarks to the wooden-legged Jonathan Small about the more recent crime: “You brought your own rope. That I did show more not know.”
A second shared feature, more prominently on display here than in the first book, is the blithe racist remarks. Watson, who records the Holmes cases, unreflectingly shares the prejudices of his day and sees the world, or at least its population, in strictly black-and-white terms. The blacks include the inhabitants of India, whose revolt against their imperial masters seems incomprehensible.
I don’t suggest that the Holmes canon be subjected to the same mutilation that Dahl and others are undergoing. This book reflects the attitudes of London 1890; let it stand.
This is particularly true because the tale subverts its own racial attitudes in a way that escapes Watson and may have also escaped Doyle. “The Four” of the title are four men who have been cheated. Small is one; the other three are Sikhs. These four hold faith with each other. They are robbed of their (stolen) treasure by a white man, a British officer, no less.
Book banners might also want to know that the book opens with Holmes injecting himself with a seven percent solution of cocaine. Reading this for the first time as an impressionable thirteen-year-old didn’t turn me into an intravenous drug user. show less

This is my least favorite of all the Sherlock Holmes novels. I’d probably give it 3.5 stars, if we had half-star ratings. What I liked: Even though its tone is very dark, it fits the story, since this novel is all about the evils of colonialism. Its villain is well fleshed out, as are the supporting characters. It’s got a strong female character, whom Sherlock even praises for her “genius” (his word). There is some good humor here, too, as when Watson, overcome by Mary’s beauty, gets tongue-tied and says some really goofy things. There is subtlety here, too, with Sherlock’s character. He seems vulnerable here in a way that he generally doesn’t, and I get the strong impression that he is lying to Watson when he mentions how show more little notice he (Holmes) takes of the opposite sex. He seems very much affected by women, both here and in later stories, and his denial seems forced, almost desperate. There’s definitely some room for interepretation here. My impression is that Holmes likes being in control of everything, and women, who can prompt strong emotional reactions in men, are a threat to that control. And I really love that Doyle went out of his way on a couple different occasions to mention Watson’s limp. His army backstory is a constant presence here, and it adds still more depth to an already interesting character. And romance! Watson does not talk about himself enough in these stories, so it was nice seeing him get a love story here.

What I didn’t like: Okay, I’m gonna come right out and say it. Sherlock is mean to Watson! This is the story where he crosses the line from lovably egotistical to just plain rude, and Watson must really love this man to keep on forgiving him like that. I do like that Holmes’ behavior isn’t excused; Watson really IS hurt by the comments, and Holmes even apologizes in one place. But Holmes’ egotism and self-centeredness reach their peak in this story, and that can be difficult. I also didn’t like how bleak everything turned out. So many characters are corrupt, and even the decent ones aren’t always great, and most elements of the story don’t really end well (although some do). There is a fairly long flashback scene near the end, but it doesn’t really add much. It doesn’t really make the villain more sympathetic; neither does it flesh out the victim in any meaningful way. The flashback in “Scarlet” did both of these things. Although this book has some beautiful moments, it’s just not my cup of tea. show less

Despite the attitudes of the time (yes, there's racism, misogyny, all that colonial rot) which are present in the stories, the stories still hold up. There's clunkiness, massive info dumps, gratuitously elaborate back stories, but the solving of the mysteries is gratifying. And I like how quickly Watson falls in love: BOOM.

But, for those who don't enjoy their crimes served with a heaping helping of the worst stereotypes imaginable, I suggest going with one of the more recent filmed versions. The screenwriters for the Jeremy Brett and Benedict Cumberbatch* series have downplayed all the worst aspects of Doyle's writing, while retaining the feel of deduction and attention to detail.

*As far as I'm concerned, the world is a better place show more for having the name "Benedict Cumberbatch" in it. I try to say it at least once a day. It makes me as happy as the word "defenestrate." show less

Even though the plot of this book is driven by the murder of Bartholomew Sholto and the search for a misappropriated treasure, the sub-plot of Watson's obsession with Mary Morsten is much more entertaining. In observing the development of his infatuation we learn much about the marriage and courting customs of the day, in addition to gaining an increased portrait of Watson himself. Much of Watson's thoughts centre about Mary's potential inheritance, since it seems that a half-pay surgeon cannot marry a woman of means, which creates much angst for Watson and much laughter for the reader. This concept seems foreign to modern readers, but clearly the issue of "gold digging" is not a new phenomenon as Watson constantly worries that people show more will think his proposal is only prompted by Mary's newfound wealth. Mary seems like a capable enough character though - even though her role was largely limited to that of a follower alongside Holmes' investigation - but I am hoping that the future stories will continue to feature her and give her a more active role. show less

'It is a romance!' cried Mrs Forrester. 'An injured lady, half a million in treasure, a black cannibal, and a wooden-legged ruffian.' ... 'And two knights-errant to the rescue,' added Miss Morstan, with a bright glance at me." (pg. 88)

Another cracking Sherlock Holmes adventure. With its talk of stout constitutions, most singular peculiarities and Watson wanting to give a man the back of his hand for talking ill before a lady, to say nothing of the hidden compartments, tell-tale footprints, Baker Street Irregulars and a steamboat chase on the Thames, there is nothing quite so recognisable as a Sherlock Holmes story. And yet despite this overwhelming familiarity, with the great detective being so embedded in our popular culture, the show more stories – including The Sign of Four – retain a remarkable freshness.

This freshness is partly because of the way the story is told through the restrained and yet incredulous narrator Dr. Watson, which serves to restrain our own incredulity at some of the plot contrivances, and partly because of the background detail (the criminal's origin story takes in lost Rajah treasure and the Indian Mutiny of 1857), but mostly because of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's often-underappreciated writing. It is quick and easy to read and yet takes time to take in detail; it is thrilling and fast-paced and yet just as willing to devote words to studious reflection (and a discussion of Winwood Reade's The Martyrdom of Man).

It is this mix of freshness and familiarity (the introduction of the sniffer dog Toby brought back fond childhood memories of watching Basil the Great Mouse Detective) which makes The Sign of Four, and the other Sherlock Holmes stories, so thrilling, agreeable and easy to read. But then, you probably know all this – the reputation and endurance of the stories speak for themselves. As Sherlock himself says after the criminal has finished his recollections at the end of The Sign of Four: "A fitting wind-up to an extremely interesting case. There is nothing at all new to me in the latter part of your narrative, except that you brought your own rope." (pg. 142)" show less

Sherlock Holmes took his bottle from the corner of the mantelpiece, and his hypodermic syringe from his neat morocco case. With his long, white, nervous fingers he adjusted the delicate needle, and rolled back his left shirt-cuff. For some little time his eyes rested thoughtfully upon the sinewy forearm and wrist, all dotted and scarred with innumerable puncture-marks. Finally, he thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-line arm-chair with a long sigh of relief.
Three times a day for many months I had witnessed this performance, but custom had not reconciled my mind to it....
'Which is it to-day?' I asked, 'morphine or cocaine?'
He raised his eyes languidly from the old black-letter volume show more which he had opened.
'It is cocaine,' he said, 'a seven-per-cent solution. Would you care to try it?'

Insert Holmes being a pompous ass (albeit an extremely smart one). Insert casual racism. Insert casual sexism. Insert a rather exciting chase scene, followed by an extended life story/confession from the criminal. And finally we arrive at the conclusion:

'The division seems rather unfair,' I remarked. 'You have done all the work in this business. I get a wife out of it, Jones gets the credit, pray what remains for you?'
'For me,' said Sherlock Holmes, 'there still remains the cocaine-bottle.' And he stretched his long white hand up for it.

One star off for racism. One star off because the criminal's confession ran too long. (But I almost want to add a star back for the excessive drug use.)

Even though I'm not usually a short story fan, I think I prefer that format for Holmes. show less

This is my least favorite of all the Sherlock Holmes novels. I’d probably give it 3.5 stars, if we had half-star ratings. What I liked: Even though its tone is very dark, it fits the story, since this novel is all about the evils of colonialism. Its villain is well fleshed out, as are the supporting characters. It’s got a strong female character, whom Sherlock even praises for her “genius” (his word). There is some good humor here, too, as when Watson, overcome by Mary’s beauty, gets tongue-tied and says some really goofy things. There is subtlety here, too, with Sherlock’s character. He seems vulnerable here in a way that he generally doesn’t, and I get the strong impression that he is lying to Watson when he mentions how show more little notice he (Holmes) takes of the opposite sex. He seems very much affected by women, both here and in later stories, and his denial seems forced, almost desperate. There’s definitely some room for interepretation here. My impression is that Holmes likes being in control of everything, and women, who can prompt strong emotional reactions in men, are a threat to that control. And I really love that Doyle went out of his way on a couple different occasions to mention Watson’s limp. His army backstory is a constant presence here, and it adds still more depth to an already interesting character. And romance! Watson does not talk about himself enough in these stories, so it was nice seeing him get a love story here.

What I didn’t like: Okay, I’m gonna come right out and say it. Sherlock is mean to Watson! This is the story where he crosses the line from lovably egotistical to just plain rude, and Watson must really love this man to keep on forgiving him like that. I do like that Holmes’ behavior isn’t excused; Watson really IS hurt by the comments, and Holmes even apologizes in one place. But Holmes’ egotism and self-centeredness reach their peak in this story, and that can be difficult. I also didn’t like how bleak everything turned out. So many characters are corrupt, and even the decent ones aren’t always great, and most elements of the story don’t really end well (although some do). There is a fairly long flashback scene near the end, but it doesn’t really add much. It doesn’t really make the villain more sympathetic; neither does it flesh out the victim in any meaningful way. The flashback in “Scarlet” did both of these things. Although this book has some beautiful moments, it’s just not my cup of tea. show less