Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by notwellread
The Sign of Four by Arthur Conan Doyle
2.0
A Study in Scarlet ★★★☆
The status of this instalment as one of the less-read Sherlock Holmes stories is probably well-deserved. I had heard that this instalment humanises Sherlock a bit more, but I did not see much of that, though we get more of Watson’s background through the reference to his alcoholic brother in the opening. I was surprised that the story begins and ends with Sherlock taking cocaine, something usually left out of other versions or the character, and we get another reference to his boxing, which was referenced in the first volume as well. I liked the self-conscious reference to the publication and structure of the previous story and Sherlock’s response to it, and given that it expresses similar sentiments to those of many reviewers now, I wonder if this was at all based on reader feedback at the time as well:
Although I didn’t find the mystery itself particularly strong, it is recognisably very trope-heavy, which means the case is quite predictable but also means we get some elements — an exciting boat chase, a dog following a scent, a secret pact — that most readers will probably enjoy and which start to solidify the Sherlock Holmes ‘brand’. There are also some distinctly racist and imperialist attitudes displayed uncritically throughout, particularly towards the character of Tonga (who is characterised as having “savage instincts”, is devoted to Small for some reason, and is exhibited “at fairs and other such places as the black cannibal”): unfortunately in this respect the story is very much of its time.
The status of this instalment as one of the less-read Sherlock Holmes stories is probably well-deserved. I had heard that this instalment humanises Sherlock a bit more, but I did not see much of that, though we get more of Watson’s background through the reference to his alcoholic brother in the opening. I was surprised that the story begins and ends with Sherlock taking cocaine, something usually left out of other versions or the character, and we get another reference to his boxing, which was referenced in the first volume as well. I liked the self-conscious reference to the publication and structure of the previous story and Sherlock’s response to it, and given that it expresses similar sentiments to those of many reviewers now, I wonder if this was at all based on reader feedback at the time as well:
“Detection is, or ought to be, an exact science, and should be treated in the same cold and unemotional manner. You have attempted to tinge it with romanticism, which produces much the same effect as if you worked a love story or an elopement into the fifth proposition of Euclid.”
“But the romance was there,” I remonstrated. “I could not tamper with the facts.”
“Some facts should be suppressed, or at least a just sense of proportion should be observed in treating them. The only point in the case which deserved mention was the curious analytical reasoning from effects to causes by which I succeeded in unraveling it.”
Although I didn’t find the mystery itself particularly strong, it is recognisably very trope-heavy, which means the case is quite predictable but also means we get some elements — an exciting boat chase, a dog following a scent, a secret pact — that most readers will probably enjoy and which start to solidify the Sherlock Holmes ‘brand’. There are also some distinctly racist and imperialist attitudes displayed uncritically throughout, particularly towards the character of Tonga (who is characterised as having “savage instincts”, is devoted to Small for some reason, and is exhibited “at fairs and other such places as the black cannibal”): unfortunately in this respect the story is very much of its time.