Talk:The Sign of the Four

basic plot summary
While what is there now is interesting, it reads more like literary criticism. I think the artcle would benefit from a plot summary that refrains from comment on the literary constructions used (maybe have a separate section for that later?) and simply gives a synopsis of the events of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.118.23 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wider Publications?
Can anyone inform me of the several regional British journals that Sign of Four was published in? Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks Cw142 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Doyle & Wilde?
''Doyle was reputedly commissioned to write the story over a dinner with one of the magazine's agents, J.M. Stoddart, which was also attended by Oscar Wilde. At the dinner Wilde was also commissioned to write a novel, in his case   The Picture of Dorian Gray.''

Can anybody shed more light on this dinner meeting? It sounds extraordinary interesting to fancy Wilde and Doyle sitting at the same table... -- Syzygy 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea: Done! - DavidWBrooks 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa, Dude. I just checked out Doyle's memoirs at Amazon Germany, and they sell for like 200 US$ -- nota bene, a reprint from 1989! Amazon US doesn't seem to be appreciatably cheaper. Any idea where this absurd price comes from? (But thanks for the edit, Dave! Most interesting...) -- Syzygy 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The dinner, and its effect on Doyle, are chronicled in Samuel Rosenberg's Naked is the Best Disguise.Lestrade (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Title question
Is the correct title The Sign of Four or The Sign of the Four? I have seen both titles used for editions of the book. Why has this title confusion happened? Did the second published edition have a different title than the first published edition? &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 14:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above question was answered on Talk:Sherlock Holmes (thanks to User:Shimgray!), and has now been added to this article. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 05:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Sign of Four" was the original title, "The Sign of "the" Four" was what is was published as for the American market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.39.20 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot holes
I have removed the "plot holes" section.

The first two are reasonably logical, but unfortunately also completely wrong.


 * It's a bit surprising that it took the Sholto brothers six years to find the treasure -- considering the fact that it was hidden in a kind of attic which had a trapdoor to the roof. That trapdoor would have been visible from the outside, and the brothers should have noted it had to lead somewhere.


 * Why would it be visible from the ground 74 feet below?


 * The room in which Bartholomew Scholto was found dead was obviously in constant use. Yet there appears to be a dust layer on the floor thick and undisturbed enough that Holmes can deduce who was in the room and what they were doing.


 * The foot prints are seen in the room above that where they found the treasure, a room quite obviously not in constant use, as it was sealed up for many years.

The latter three are worse. They account to "I don't think this character should have acted this way, and I would have written it this way instead," and have no references. This is original research and pure speculation. Rather ridiculous.


 * Jonathan Small, who seems a lively person with no suicidal tendencies, unaccountably puts his own neck in the noose by gratutiously admitting to murdering a prison guard and even providing the police with the murder weapon. At the very least he would face being returned to the same unpleasant Andaman prison colony which he escaped. Had he avoided giving his real name, the London police would hardly connect him with an escaped convict in faraway India. Of course, it is necessary for Small to tell his story in order to solve the mystery, but Doyle could have easily enough found a way for him to do it without incriminating himself (for example, to have him get killed during the final chase and let Holmes and Watson find his story written down beside the body, or to have him severely wounded and dying so that he has nothing to lose by telling all).


 * It displays a very touching belief in human nature for four hardened robbers and murderers to confide the secret of a hidden treasure to their prison guard without asking for any guarantee whatsoever that he would fulfill his part in the deal, set them free and give them their share of the treasure. Their confidence in Sholto is all the more surprising considering that they themselves had no hesitation in betraying and murdering a man for the sake of the selfsame treasure.


 * Jonathan Small proclaims repeatedly and loudly his loyaty to his three Indian co-conspirators. Indeed, this is the main redeeming feature which makes him a sympathetic character albeit a criminal. Yet when he found a way of escaping from the Andamans he did not share it with them, nor did he later make any effort whatsoever to set them free.


 * Doyle could have set right the last two points, without substantially changing the story line, by having Sholto help the four prisoners escape, come with him to Agra and point out the treasure - whereupon he betrays them to the British authorities, in battle with whom the three Indians are killed and Small is returned to the Andamans while Sholto makes off with the entire treasure. With that in the past of the story, Small would do exactly the same things he did in the course of the book - indeed, he would have an even stronger motive for doing them.

The plot needs to be expanded, since all it was was these silly "plot holes." Atropos 23:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check your language, Atropos, "silly" and "ridiculous" isn't the vocabulary asked for. To the points you address --


 * It is reasonable to assume that if you're looking for a hidden treasure for six years, you once check out the roof.


 * Footprints were found both in the "attic" and in Sholto's laboratory.


 * If a person in a story acts seriously "out of character", obviously only to serve the plot's needs, don't you think this qualifies for a plot hole? It is extremely far-fetched to assume a prisoner would share a treasure secret with a guard without having any means to put pressure on the guard, to release them and share the booty. -- Syzygy 06:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

more Plot holes?
Possibly More plot holes?
 * Small gives the impression of being a barely-educated man-yet he manages to receite the total contents of the Agra treasure without a mistake!
 * [Education has absolutely nothing to do with memory. Lestrade]


 * The Agra Treasure box itself is described as being about 12 inches square and iron bound-yet in realty could it have really held that much treasure as described by Small? Also it seem to be unaccountably heavy-yet Small manages to lug it around London without dificulty!
 * Thirdly after being captured Small claims to have thrown the treasure out over the river during the 5 mile chase. Yet Watson's account does not tell of Small leaning out over the boat sides! The Grenada TV Version implies the treasure was dumped overboard by Small only after Toga was killed and fell overboard-not over a five mile stretch!
 * Small claims part of the treasure included a diamond called The Great Mogol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

"whom many regard as..."
"whom many regard as the best-known literary character ever invented"

As always, either source it or delete it. (isn't there a bot who can autodelete these?) 85.227.226.168 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. I have tagged this article for "weasel words." Trixen 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Small acting out of character?!
Okay, several problems here:

The section starting with "The greater tautness and unity of the second book are, however, achieved at the price of having Jonathan Small act very much out of character" should at the very least be in its own section. The Scarlet page calls this section "inconsistencies".

But the main problem, of course, is that the entire reasoning isn't sourced and reads in a biased way (I was asking myself what wikipedia has against Doyle's story, before I caught myself realizing it's because it's deliberately not neutral language). Even if you reply saying you can prove this (as a matter of just stating an opinion) that only makes in original research.

I propose a) that this entire section is removed, or if not, b) is pruned and cleaned-up, retaining only those specific plot items that we can agree are strange, and at the very least c) it is moved into its own section (it is definitely inappropriate under the general "plot" header) and given some sort of tag indicating it's controversial, speculative or equivalent.

85.227.226.168 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this section isn't a plot summary, it's just pretty much comparing "A Study in Scarlet" to "The Sign of Four". I agree with you that the section seems to be biased.

Not only is the reasoning unsourced, the data is inaccurate. Small did not admit to the london murder, nor did he commit it. Sholto was killed by Tonga, who was then beaten by Small for killing him. Small told the whole story so as to prevent himself from being charged with a crime he did not commit. There was also considerable evidence of Small's innocence in the London murder, as was discovered by Holmes and Watson upon their first visit to Pondicherry Lodge. Also, Small was not asked by the police to remove his wooden leg. He was merely made to walk in front of Jones so that the inspector could not fall victim to Small's modus operandi. Did anybody actually read this book? Someone with a copy of it in front of them needs to clean this up.--Thorvindr (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the section "Comparison of the first and second books" (and calling A Study in Scarlet "the first book" feels rather incongruous) is unencyclopaedic, more like Lit Crit and full of WP:OR. And yet there is no straightforward Synopsis, which would seem to be mandatory for a such a convoluted story. I accept that inconsistencies of plot and characterisation could be mentioned if they are objectively obvious, and preferably supported by independent references. OTOH, I believe that Small's confession is credible in the context of a passion for vengeance. Not all people are rational and calculating all the time; indeed, that is the mark of great writing, to create complex characters that challenge our understanding of personality. So I could add arguments against the speculation about "plot holes" - but I won't, because neither point of view has a place in a Wikipedia article.

I might have a stab at a proper synopsis, when I have a chance to re-read it. Swiveler (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

pure speculation
I was bold and removed the following section:

Doyle could have set right the last two points, without substantially changing the story line, by having Sholto help the four prisoners escape, come with him to Agra and point out the treasure - whereupon he betrays them to the British authorities, in battle with whom the three Indians are killed and Small is returned to the Andamans while Sholto makes off with the entire treasure. With that in the past of the story, Small would do exactly the same things he did in the course of the book. Indeed, he would have an even stronger motive for wanting to revenge himself upon the perfidious prison officer.

This reads as if written by a would-be detective story writer that's decided to rewrite the story himself, and is so far from the desired tone of Wikipedia I could not keep myself from removing it immediately. 85.227.226.168 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We are going in circles here. Over the course of time, the abovementioned paragraphs have been written, removed, reinserted in a different form and removed again. Personally I feel that Small's behaviour is indeed a significant plot hole, because he has no motivation to act like he did, and pointing out alternatives is only reasonable -- this is more akin to stating the obvious than "original research", but YMMV. --Syzygy 13:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We're only going in circles if people do not respect the Wiki guidelines.

Restricting yourself to stating that Small's behaviour is odd/strange/unexplained is probably okay as an expression of common sense.

Stating that his behaviour is a "significant plot hole" needs a source (even if it is only your Sherlock Holmes page)

Giving alternatives may also be fine, provided it is clear it's only an example given for purposes of illustrating the so-called holes in the plot, but I do believe they should still be sourced. That is, don't add in an example you came up with just for this page - that's simply unencyclopaedic. (Playing "the game" has no place on Wikipedia)

195.24.29.51 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi or Sikh - Identity crisis

 * Conan Doyle has written that the three friends of Small are sikhs. He has given their names as Mahomet Singh, Dost Akbar and Abdullah Khan. I think he cannot distinguish between "Punjabi"(native of Punjab, Much like an englishman, french, or a scott) and a "Sikh" (follower of the religion "Sikhism"). A Punjabi can be either a Sikh, Hindu or Muslim. As anyone can see, the names Dost Akbar and Abdullah Khan are muslim names. They may have been Punjabis but definitely not sikhs. Also I have never seen a Sikh named "Mahomet" (apparently the greek/latin distortion of the name of the muslim prophet "Mohammed").

"The hindoo proper has long and thin feet. The sandle wearing Mohammedan has the great toe well seperated from others." This is rubbish. The physical characteristics of an Indian native depends largely on the geographical location or race which he belongs. Not on his religion. For example nearly all Kashmiris have fair skins and most south Indians are of darkish complexions. The difference in footwear is also dependant on the geographical location not religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.98.29.108 (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter of footmarks, our detective hero says
 * [Separated. Dependent. Lestrade]
 * Agree with you on both counts. -xC- 10:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish we had a criticism/plot holes kind of section in this article. So that these kind of things can go there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zs32 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Dr. Watson (the narrator) knew the difference between Sikhs and Punjabi. It appears to be Jonathan Small (who's words he took down) who did not. Also, a person's religion is a direct result of the time and place of his birth and his race. A white man born in London in the 17th century is a Christian, or is at least astronomically likely to be. Just as anyone born in India during the same period is as likely to be a Hindu or a Muslim, depending upon which part of the country they were born in. Footwear is just as affected by religion as it is by ethnicity (which also bear upon each other). Muslims wore sandals because they are easy to get on and off quickly, a necessity for a practitioner of Islam during this period. A Hindu would have no such necessity. When Holmes refers to "the Hindu proper," he is obviously not talking about a white man or an Arab who happen to follow that particular religion (which, at the time, would have been almost un-heard of). He was referring to a person of a specific ethnicity, which would dictate not only their religion but their footwear and physiology. All of this is totally irrelevant, however, as the point Holmes was trying to make is that the man who made those footprints did not have bunched up toes like Watson and himself, nor did he have the long, thin feet characteristic of a medium to tall barefoot human, nor did he have toes that were separated as those of a habitual sandal-wearer. The thing that Holmes deduced is that the man who made the footprints was small and was not of a shoe-wearing ethnicity: a valid deduction, given the evidence, regardless of whether or not all Muslims wear sandals. Criminology is all about generalizing. --Thorvindr (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup Addition
Note: WP India Project Banner with Andaman and Nicobar Islands workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Andaman and Nicobar Islands or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate, please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 05:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Adaptations
Should have mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucifer_of_Blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by WHPratt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I think that the first infobox on the page is unnecessary; most of its information is covered in the second infobox and the rest is covered in the article. Moreover, the "Series" designation in the first infobox is even worse, since it just links to the disambiguation page which links back to this page. Mario777Zelda (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Sign of the Four" in Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine (1890).jpg