Not as good as "The Study in Scarlet" ( )

The Sign of Four was intriguing classic mystery and fabulous sequel that revolved around best duo in history of literature pursuing another case of Indian treasure and murder. It was about greed, vengeance, betrayal, trust, friendship and methods of deduction.

Writing was amazing, gripping and fast paced. It was written in first person narrative from Watson’s perspective. Setting of England was atmospheric. Author packed lot of things in just few pages.

Mystery was fascinating. It was amazing to read Sherlock’s observations and descriptions on how he figured out identity of culprit and the case. I liked reading about shortest community of Adaman Island, the tribal people.

Culprit’s side of story on Indian treasure was most interesting. It was second best part to Sherlock’s description on case and the way he solved it.

Overall, The Sign of Four was intriguing, suspenseful, and well written historical fiction and mystery. I see why it’s a classic.

I highly recommend this. if you enjoy,
Classics
Murder mystery
Quirky character
descriptive narration
some interesting quotable lines

QOTD: Which is your favourite Classic mystery?

Full review - https://booksteacupreviews.com/2021/07/15/the-sign-of-four-sherlock-holmes-2-by-... ( )

This was significantly worse than the first story, mostly because there was almost no mystery. Stuff was presented as Holmes discovered it, and he never made any mistakes. Disappointing. ( )

After being disappointed with "A Study in Scarlet", I decided to tackle a second Holmes novel in the hopes that things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. I'm not beaten yet - I'll be attempting "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" as my next train-to-work novel - but so far, this doesn't do anything for me.

There are some good elements here: Holmes of course is an enjoyable response to the crime fiction that existed at the time. His methods of deduction, while sometimes ponderous, are always clever. Unfortunately, there's very little else to be said for this book.

Watson continues to be an uninteresting narrator; the supporting characters are mostly forgettable, with the exception (oddly) of the police characters, who so far I have found pleasant; and Holmes himself, as many other reviewers seem to note, is at his least likeable here. Obviously, we're supposed to be somewhat confounded by his aloof personality, but his treatment of other members of the human race is extremely off-putting. Like the 2000s versions - Dr. House, etc. - it's supposedly tempered by his desire to help the innocent and fearful, but really the fact that he only seems to have a heart for small children just leads me to assume he is a sociopath.

And then there is the mystery itself: here, Conan Doyle reveals himself as mostly a pulp writer, it seems. Like "A Study in Scarlet", this mystery is decidedly outlandish: cannibalistic midgets, wooden legs, etc, etc. Yes it's escapism and I accept that, but the problem is these mysteries are almost tailor-made for Sherlock Holmes. No human being could possibly be expected to guess from a simple murder that it involved so many elaborate contrivances and foreign devils. It seems strange to say it, but if Holmes could instead investigate a (complex) drawing-room mystery or the like, I might be drawn into the work more, as this would require him to piece together clues within my human scope of comprehension. I'm not asking for an easy mystery, just one that has more of a human element.

Anyway, I'll be interested to continue reading the Holmes books (although I may slow down, as I do have the rest of my life), and perhaps find out why he has become such a mythical figure! ( )

I liked this more than Doyle's first Sherlock novella, at least the writing and most of the character development. The first page was a shock though, with Sherlock being portrayed as a morphine addict. I wish Doyle had not gone there with this character, especially if it was for shock value. Evidently Doyle wrote this after a chance encounter with Oscar Wilde so I wonder how much of the story, if any, was influenced by that meeting. ( )