Scan barcode
stories's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.5
This tale has not aged well, but is certainly twisty. I do enjoy the vivid characters that Conan Doyle sketches.
Not to mention the impact that Love At First Sight has on narrator reliability.
Not to mention the impact that Love At First Sight has on narrator reliability.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Death, Racism, Alcohol, Colonisation, and Classism
Minor: Drug use, Gun violence, Racial slurs, Cannibalism, Religious bigotry, Death of parent, Murder, and War
nathanjhunt's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? N/A
3.5
My 9th book finished in 2022.
This book hasn't aged well. This is my very first dive into a Sherlock Holmes novel, and I must admit, I wasn't expecting so much racism from it.
It's a snapshot into the British colonial minds and attitudes of the late 1800s. Imperialism was reaching its peak, and that forms the backbone of the plot. The whole basis of the treasure was that it was stolen in the first place. I can't sympathise with any of the characters because they're hunting for colonial gains. It really does leave a sour taste in the mouth.
The casualness of drug use at the beginning of the novel was baffling! They call this era 'The Great Binge' for a reason! If anything, this is an interesting case study into middle-class society of the time.
Casting the plot aside, I did enjoy seeing how Holmes' mind works, and having it from Watson's POV worked very well. There was a lot of monologue and explaining along the way. Every character seems to speak in the same manner and the same words. I feel like Conan Doyle was very comfortable writing as a middle-class man, but had no idea how to write characters from poorer and different backgrounds, and it's full of stereotypes. The cast, I suppose, is diverse, but it's written badly.
I left feeling unsatisfied by the story - why demonise one character, but act like the other was right with what they did? It just doesn't make any sense. And ultimately, Holmes did hardly anything in this novel, if was the characters around him mostly.
I enjoyed it somewhat, and am curious to read other Sherlock Holmes novels, but perhaps this wasn't the best one to start on.
This book hasn't aged well. This is my very first dive into a Sherlock Holmes novel, and I must admit, I wasn't expecting so much racism from it.
It's a snapshot into the British colonial minds and attitudes of the late 1800s. Imperialism was reaching its peak, and that forms the backbone of the plot. The whole basis of the treasure was that it was stolen in the first place. I can't sympathise with any of the characters because they're hunting for colonial gains. It really does leave a sour taste in the mouth.
The casualness of drug use at the beginning of the novel was baffling! They call this era 'The Great Binge' for a reason! If anything, this is an interesting case study into middle-class society of the time.
Casting the plot aside, I did enjoy seeing how Holmes' mind works, and having it from Watson's POV worked very well. There was a lot of monologue and explaining along the way. Every character seems to speak in the same manner and the same words. I feel like Conan Doyle was very comfortable writing as a middle-class man, but had no idea how to write characters from poorer and different backgrounds, and it's full of stereotypes. The cast, I suppose, is diverse, but it's written badly.
I left feeling unsatisfied by the story - why demonise one character, but act like the other was right with what they did? It just doesn't make any sense. And ultimately, Holmes did hardly anything in this novel, if was the characters around him mostly.
I enjoyed it somewhat, and am curious to read other Sherlock Holmes novels, but perhaps this wasn't the best one to start on.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Death, Drug use, and Murder
Moderate: Racial slurs, Racism, Xenophobia, and Colonisation
Minor: Cannibalism and Alcohol
em_davies7019's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Drug use, Racial slurs, Racism, and Colonisation
Moderate: Violence and Religious bigotry
Minor: Cannibalism
caitlin_doggos's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.25
Content Warnings
Graphic: Addiction, Death, Drug abuse, Drug use, Gun violence, Misogyny, Racial slurs, Racism, Sexism, Violence, Murder, Colonisation, War, and Injury/Injury detail
gabspina's review against another edition
adventurous
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.75
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Colonisation
Moderate: Racism and Xenophobia
Minor: Misogyny
ezraaa's review against another edition
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death and Racism
chalkletters's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
1.75
Once before I’ve attempted to read all the Sherlock Holmes stories in order — though I don’t think I got to the end. It was just before I started logging all my books on goodreads.com and I suspect I tried to do them all in a row, with nothing else in between, and just got tired of them.
The Sign of Four was never one of my favourites, standing out mostly for introducing Mary Morstan. The structure is strikingly similar to A Study in Scarlet, both trundling along as Sherlock investigates the case until they find their prime suspect and inflict on him a long and slightly rambling interview to uncover the origins of the crime.
Interestingly, as happened when I read A Study in Scarlet, my empathy for characters outside of Sherlock and Dr Watson seems to have increased. In this case, I couldn’t help feeling that Mary’s claim on the treasure was pretty tenuous. There were reasons beyond Dr Watson’s marital ambitions to hope that she might not get her hands on it. The depiction of Tonga is also unfortunate at best, as I’m sure more educated people than me have adequately expounded.
Nothing about The Sign of Four struck me as particularly clever, so I’d go so far as to say it’s only required reading for the most die-hard Sherlock Holmes fans. It did include the scene where Sherlock performs his science of deduction on Dr Watson’s pocket watch, though, which prompted me to visit and enjoy the scene in Sherlock which it inspires.
(As much as I love this scene, I can’t give the book extra points because of it!)
Content Warnings
Minor: Death, Drug use, Racism, Cannibalism, Death of parent, and Murder
gailbird's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
hopeful
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.75
You gotta love Doyle introducing characters in very specific ways and then completely shifting them in the very second installment—Watson says he got shot in the shoulder in A Study in Scarlet, hello sequel wherein it is said he got shot in the leg. And after Watson says he ruled out Holmes using narcotics because “the temperance and cleanliness of his whole life [forbade] such a notion,” he opens the next story with, roughly, “Sike! Holmes has been alternately shooting up morphine and cocaine three times every day for months and I’m getting annoyed with both it and him.” I guess it keeps things dynamic.
Anyway, at the beginning, Holmes is essentially out of work, and presumably has been for the amount of time he’s been using narcotics daily, when Miss Mary Morstan enters the scene. She tantalizes Holmes with the cerebral intrigue of her mystery, and Watson with the romantic intrigue of her femininity. And, yes, it is just about that melodramatic. Because The Sign of Four has a romantic subplot that is so sudden and idealistic that the main obstacle between the two is the looming shadow of an inherited fortune—that hasn’t materialized yet. Sure, it was a different time when class and wealth disparities where a bigger issue of “honour” and whatnot, but really, it was a rather underwhelming reason for tension. But we already know that Watson is an excitable, romantic fellow. He literally goes off on Holmes because Holmes says he “didn’t notice” Mary was good-looking. Why does Watson care if someone else thinks she’s stunning? It speaks more about Watson’s state of mind than anything negative about Holmes. Holmes just gets demonized for pointing this aspect of Watson’s personality out when he critiques the “romance” Watson made of the first case he was on with him. And that, really, boils down to a matter of taste, so you can’t hold that against Holmes either—remember how bitterly Watson rated Holmes’ article in the first book? Dr. Watson's very words were, I quote, “What ineffable twaddle! I never read such rubbish in my life!” So, really, Holmes’ critique of Watson’s writing isn’t that awful.
I personally appreciate the writing of Doyle, as Watson. He has a great turn for painting an atmospheric scene with words. This mystery has some of the most memorable settings—the London streets, Pondicherry Lodge, the docks. And of course the backstory in India and the prison island. It’s a more gripping mystery than A Study in Scarlet because it’s harder to track down the perpetrators—though it is fairly obvious early on who they are—and the chase scene on the river is intense. The backstory of the treasure and the members who represented the Sign of Four, along with the Morstan connection, was interesting from the point of view of the man who had been cheated out of it and was willing to go to any lengths to recover his right, both for himself and the other three members of the Sign. It certainly highlights the murky territory of British Imperialism, foreign interventions, prisons, and general oppression that is easily exercised over those in less powerful positions. The eventual fate of the treasure seems fitting in light of events.
Anyway, at the beginning, Holmes is essentially out of work, and presumably has been for the amount of time he’s been using narcotics daily, when Miss Mary Morstan enters the scene. She tantalizes Holmes with the cerebral intrigue of her mystery, and Watson with the romantic intrigue of her femininity. And, yes, it is just about that melodramatic. Because The Sign of Four has a romantic subplot that is so sudden and idealistic that the main obstacle between the two is the looming shadow of an inherited fortune—that hasn’t materialized yet. Sure, it was a different time when class and wealth disparities where a bigger issue of “honour” and whatnot, but really, it was a rather underwhelming reason for tension. But we already know that Watson is an excitable, romantic fellow. He literally goes off on Holmes because Holmes says he “didn’t notice” Mary was good-looking. Why does Watson care if someone else thinks she’s stunning? It speaks more about Watson’s state of mind than anything negative about Holmes. Holmes just gets demonized for pointing this aspect of Watson’s personality out when he critiques the “romance” Watson made of the first case he was on with him. And that, really, boils down to a matter of taste, so you can’t hold that against Holmes either—remember how bitterly Watson rated Holmes’ article in the first book? Dr. Watson's very words were, I quote, “What ineffable twaddle! I never read such rubbish in my life!” So, really, Holmes’ critique of Watson’s writing isn’t that awful.
I personally appreciate the writing of Doyle, as Watson. He has a great turn for painting an atmospheric scene with words. This mystery has some of the most memorable settings—the London streets, Pondicherry Lodge, the docks. And of course the backstory in India and the prison island. It’s a more gripping mystery than A Study in Scarlet because it’s harder to track down the perpetrators—though it is fairly obvious early on who they are—and the chase scene on the river is intense. The backstory of the treasure and the members who represented the Sign of Four, along with the Morstan connection, was interesting from the point of view of the man who had been cheated out of it and was willing to go to any lengths to recover his right, both for himself and the other three members of the Sign. It certainly highlights the murky territory of British Imperialism, foreign interventions, prisons, and general oppression that is easily exercised over those in less powerful positions. The eventual fate of the treasure seems fitting in light of events.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Confinement, Death, Drug use, and Murder
Moderate: Racial slurs, Racism, and Blood
Minor: Cannibalism
More...