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

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

I've only ever read a handful of the original Sherlock Holmes stories and novels, and I keep meaning to fix that. Although it's been a while since I last read A Study in Scarlet, I remembered enough to know that I wasn't a huge fan of it, so I decided to skip to the next one, The Sign of the Four. I downloaded it for free from Project Gutenberg.

This one starts with Holmes injecting cocaine into himself while Watson, appalled and disapproving, watches. Holmes is bored, bored, bored, and unless something interesting comes along, he plans to float on a layer of drugs, Watson's worries about the possibility of lasting damage be damned. Thankfully, Miss Mary Morstan arrives with a reasonably interesting case.

Miss Morstan's father has show more been missing for nearly ten years. Six years ago, she began receiving mysterious packages every year, each one containing a large pearl. Only that morning, she received a letter saying that she was a “wronged woman” and that she would have justice if she went to a particular meeting place. She could bring two friends, but was asked not to notify the police. Holmes and Watson decide to assist her, Holmes because he's intrigued and Watson because Miss Morstan is pretty. Luckily for Holmes, the case quickly becomes more complex.

It may be a result of having seen a lot of Sherlock Holmes film and TV adaptations, but I feel like I have a better appreciation for Holmes and Watson's interactions now than I did several years ago. I especially liked their conversation at the beginning of the book, despite Holmes engaging in self-destructive behavior as they were having it. Watson didn't notice, but I do believe I caught Holmes fishing for compliments. The bit with Watson's brother's watch was nice, too. Holmes was overly blunt, but kinder than some adaptations have painted him.

The mystery itself was...meh. I was fairly interested, up until the part where the guy who was responsible for everything launched into his long explanation of how he originally came by the treasure and was then wronged. A Study in Scarlet did something similar, and I disliked it in that novel, too.

I also had issues with the whole “cannibalistic savages who inexplicably use poison darts” aspect. It irked me that supposedly the only reason one character died was because of the “savage instincts” of that accomplice. There were additional problems even just on the level of believability. I mean, wouldn't it be a bad idea for cannibals who eat at least some of their meat raw to hunt with poisoned darts?

Like A Study in Scarlet, this was a bit disappointing overall, but Holmes and Watson were still enjoyable to read about.

(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.) 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

I enjoyed the thrill of the chase more than the kill, so to speak. That’s usually how I find most detective fiction, which is why I don’t read too much of it. When you find out who did what, it’s invariably “told” in backstory, whereas I’d rather it was “shown” through dramatization.

As noted, I did enjoy the build-up, where Holmes and Watson are out and about investigating. Luckily, this occupies much of the novel, so my interest didn’t start to drift off until near the end.

Another element I like is the subtle love story between Watson and Holmes’s client Mary Morstan. It adds a little colour to the narrative.

It's difficult to read something as iconic as a Sherlock Holmes story with fresh eyes these days, or at least with eyes who aren't seeing through lenses that have been honed by how influential Arthur Conan Doyle's works have been for almost a century and a half. But there it is: the bits that work here have long since been done over, and better, by later writers, and the bits that are left are a kind of dull adventure story (limited detecting here) with lumps of clunking expository prose, benevolent sexism, and racism both odious and just plain weird (Did you know that Hindus have distinctly shaped feet?).