A review by dorhastings
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
adventurous
challenging
mysterious
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
I swear I thought I'd read a whole lot of Sherlock Holmes not that long ago, and this story just eluded my memory. So far I'm 0 for 2 for these first two books about Sherlock Holmes. But at least I'm enjoying them!
I finished A Study in Scarlet on the same day I started The Sign of Four, so my memory of the transition between the two books is a bit hazy (in terms of one conversation between Holmes and Watson). In the foreword, Fry talks about The Sign of Four being a sequel to A Study in Scarlet, and that made me think the two were more connected than they are. Certainly Watson and Holmes do reference the mystery involved in A Study in Scarlet, and you also see that Watson is learning more about how to live with Holmes. But otherwise, you don't have to have read A Study in Scarlet to appreciate this book if you know anything about Sherlock Holmes.
In comparison to A Study in Scarlet, this book seemed more complex (in a neutral way) As with A Study in Scarlet, there is a mystery in the present to solve, and the novel does involve some telling of the backstory at the end (not quite as much as the former book). I would say the mystery is also more challenging and adventurous, as Holmes decides to dress up as a sea captain to be able to move about more discreetly in his investigation. You also understand a bit more about Holmes's process of deduction by his having to explain it more directly to Watson, who is not a fool but does not understand Holmes's procedure without explanation. (He's still no dummy; if anything, he's fairly humble.) We also see an unmotivated Sherlock Holmes, who alternates between opium and cocaine when he's not stimulated by a case. Some of the references do not date particularly well, but I suppose they are consistently with how folks spoke at the time.
In this book, you do see a bit more of Holmes and Watson engaging in some verbal sparring. Holmes finds their exchanges more entertaining, whereas Watson seems a bit peeved some of the time, but you do get the sense that Holmes is pleased to have a companion around. He does not generally come right out and say it, but he does value Watson's presence, intelligence, and diligence.
I will say I didn't enjoy this book as much in terms of the backstory. But Stephen Fry is an amazing narrator.
I finished A Study in Scarlet on the same day I started The Sign of Four, so my memory of the transition between the two books is a bit hazy (in terms of one conversation between Holmes and Watson). In the foreword, Fry talks about The Sign of Four being a sequel to A Study in Scarlet, and that made me think the two were more connected than they are. Certainly Watson and Holmes do reference the mystery involved in A Study in Scarlet, and you also see that Watson is learning more about how to live with Holmes. But otherwise, you don't have to have read A Study in Scarlet to appreciate this book if you know anything about Sherlock Holmes.
In comparison to A Study in Scarlet, this book seemed more complex (in a neutral way) As with A Study in Scarlet, there is a mystery in the present to solve, and the novel does involve some telling of the backstory at the end (not quite as much as the former book). I would say the mystery is also more challenging and adventurous, as Holmes decides to dress up as a sea captain to be able to move about more discreetly in his investigation. You also understand a bit more about Holmes's process of deduction by his having to explain it more directly to Watson, who is not a fool but does not understand Holmes's procedure without explanation. (He's still no dummy; if anything, he's fairly humble.) We also see an unmotivated Sherlock Holmes, who alternates between opium and cocaine when he's not stimulated by a case. Some of the references do not date particularly well, but I suppose they are consistently with how folks spoke at the time.
In this book, you do see a bit more of Holmes and Watson engaging in some verbal sparring. Holmes finds their exchanges more entertaining, whereas Watson seems a bit peeved some of the time, but you do get the sense that Holmes is pleased to have a companion around. He does not generally come right out and say it, but he does value Watson's presence, intelligence, and diligence.
I will say I didn't enjoy this book as much in terms of the backstory. But Stephen Fry is an amazing narrator.