One thing that surprised me about The Sign of Four is its brevity - only 76 pages in my Complete Sherlock Holmes. But I think this shows a somewhat more disciplined approach by Doyle, and also perhaps a growing awareness that "less is more" which leads to the success of the short stories. It's still not as tight as it could be - once again the actual mystery, which is literally a locked-room murder, gets rather sidelined in the tale of dangerous foreigners coming to disrupt London to gain an ancient revenge, though this time they are thieves from the East (and in fact, of the two only one is actually foreign, it is the other who is actually the thief, and it is really the conveniently dead English fathers, Sholto and Morstan, who are the villains) rather than religious fanatics from the West.
There's a lot of family in this short book. We start with Watson and his brother, then we encounter the Morstans, the Sholtos, and Jonathan Small and his adopted family of fellow conspirators with the child-like Tonga (very small; can't talk properly; er, also kills people with a blowpipe - I admit the analogy is not perfect). The book ends with the establishment of a new family as Watson gets engaged to Mary Morstan, who he has known for, what, two days? Of course, the point is to increase the dramatic effect as the reader imagines his or her normal family life being disrupted by the mistakes of previous generations, but I found it striking.
Sherlock Holmes has no family. (Mycroft and Vernet are in the future.) For him, as he says at the end, "there still remains the cocaine-bottle." I can't think of another novel which portrays the use of cocaine in such a positive light - "so transcendently stimulating and clarifying to the mind". In fact, I can't think of many novels about drug use at all, other than Philip K. Dick, William S. Burroughs, and Hunter S. Thompson, and even their more enthusiastic moments have a conscious sense of self-destruction about them. Again, Doyle is more subversive than I had realised. (And he has another, if briefer, go at the cosy relationship between the media and the police.)
I'm finding more in these than I had expected to. On to the classic short stories next.
Edited to add: new userpic is from a letter written by Arthur Conan Doyle to my distant cousin Frederic.)
There's a lot of family in this short book. We start with Watson and his brother, then we encounter the Morstans, the Sholtos, and Jonathan Small and his adopted family of fellow conspirators with the child-like Tonga (very small; can't talk properly; er, also kills people with a blowpipe - I admit the analogy is not perfect). The book ends with the establishment of a new family as Watson gets engaged to Mary Morstan, who he has known for, what, two days? Of course, the point is to increase the dramatic effect as the reader imagines his or her normal family life being disrupted by the mistakes of previous generations, but I found it striking.
Sherlock Holmes has no family. (Mycroft and Vernet are in the future.) For him, as he says at the end, "there still remains the cocaine-bottle." I can't think of another novel which portrays the use of cocaine in such a positive light - "so transcendently stimulating and clarifying to the mind". In fact, I can't think of many novels about drug use at all, other than Philip K. Dick, William S. Burroughs, and Hunter S. Thompson, and even their more enthusiastic moments have a conscious sense of self-destruction about them. Again, Doyle is more subversive than I had realised. (And he has another, if briefer, go at the cosy relationship between the media and the police.)
I'm finding more in these than I had expected to. On to the classic short stories next.
Edited to add: new userpic is from a letter written by Arthur Conan Doyle to my distant cousin Frederic.)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 12:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 01:14 pm (UTC)Well, that won't last! There's more than one story later on where Watson rails strongly against Holmes's use of it. And then there's the story partly set in an opium den, which is in large part about the evils of that drug.
Perhaps Doyle became more aware of the downside of drugs later on, or perhaps in his attempt to represent Holmes's views here he felt that he had been unwisely uncritical.
Also: cool userpic! :)
no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 03:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 06:29 pm (UTC)But having seen how he depicts general public attitudes to opium dens and opium use, I think it's also possible that he was reflecting a real dichotomy or debate. As with everything, I'm sure there were those who were whole-heartedly in favour and those who were totally opposed. And as you say, there may well have been a social distinction between opiates and cocaine. The impression I have is that opium and perhaps other drugs was/were disapproved of by society, but that at that time there was a much stronger feeling against government interference in people's private lives than there is today.
Perhaps, given all this, Doyle felt that as a doctor, it was unwise to show Holmes as having a positive attitude without giving a counterbalancing opinion.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-28 08:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-28 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-25 07:00 pm (UTC)