Scan barcode
arachan's review against another edition
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
This is meant to be a political thriller and, given the time it was written, I was expecting the political assassination to be foiled and the forces of law and order to triumph. I was not expecting the four just men to actually assassinate their target.
Part of the struggle is that the book can't decide if it is on the side of the four just men, who have very hazy motivations, or on the side of the establishment and police. There's no main character and so it's very easy to lose track of what's happening
Part of the struggle is that the book can't decide if it is on the side of the four just men, who have very hazy motivations, or on the side of the establishment and police. There's no main character and so it's very easy to lose track of what's happening
colorfulleo92's review against another edition
3.0
Another audiobook I've listened to read by B.J Harrison. Picked this one up mainly because it was a decent length and sounded interesting enough. But I wasn't impressed. It was an alright story but not something I would hand in my Christmas three. Though my biggest reason picking the audiobook was to experience the narrator. Which I usually don't do. But I've seen a huge amount of books narrated by B.J Harrison so I was very intrigued to see if I enjoy his voice. It's very easy to listen to but not a voice that stands out from other narrator but he does do a good job reading
tobyyy's review against another edition
4.0
Unread shelf project 2022: book 15.
This was a fun foray into a thriller written in the years preceding the Golden Age of Mystery. Although it was a little far-fetched, I loved the conspiracies, the characterizations, and the suspense. It wasn’t a mystery, per se, except for how they achieved the crimes, but it was a “rollicking good tale.” Especially if you read this and remember that it was written in 1905 — I think that’s pretty important to ensure the maximum overall enjoyment.
This was a fun foray into a thriller written in the years preceding the Golden Age of Mystery. Although it was a little far-fetched, I loved the conspiracies, the characterizations, and the suspense. It wasn’t a mystery, per se, except for how they achieved the crimes, but it was a “rollicking good tale.” Especially if you read this and remember that it was written in 1905 — I think that’s pretty important to ensure the maximum overall enjoyment.
bread_mountain's review against another edition
1.0
This was shit. But it is kind of interesting to see how many people essentially invented Batman. Manfred is Batman c but rich and irritatingly smarmy.
roxanamalinachirila's review against another edition
3.0
Not terrible, not great.
Four men decide to enforce their own brand of vigilante justice on a minister who will propose what they see as an unjust law. The minister won't back down, because he believes that what he does is just.
Contains: murder announced in advance! Evading the police! Strict moral codes!
Does not contain: a whole lot of detail about that law and why it's just/unjust.
Four men decide to enforce their own brand of vigilante justice on a minister who will propose what they see as an unjust law. The minister won't back down, because he believes that what he does is just.
Contains: murder announced in advance! Evading the police! Strict moral codes!
Does not contain: a whole lot of detail about that law and why it's just/unjust.
jenmckenzie's review against another edition
mysterious
slow-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? Yes
3.0
bubblescotch's review against another edition
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
3.5
fictionfan's review against another edition
4.0
Surprisingly contemporary...
When the British Foreign Secretary decides to push through a law which will allow the enforced return of political refugees to their countries of origin, he becomes a target of the Four Just Men – a group of vigilantes who set out to right what they perceive as wrongs that the normal systems of justice can't touch. The story is a kind of cat-and-mouse game where the reader, along with the entire British public, waits to see if the Four Just Men succeed in carrying out their threat to assassinate the Foreign Secretary.
This was a rather odd read for me, in that I hated the premise – vigilantes are not my cup of tea – and yet found the storytelling compelling enough that I found myself racing through it. It's well written and the pacing is excellent. Wallace sits on the fence himself as to the rights and wrongs of it – he shows both sides, but doesn't take too strong a stance in favour of either. I believe in later books he chose cases that weren't quite so murky, where it was clearer that the victims of the Just Men deserved their fate, and I suspect I might prefer those.
This one, however, despite having been published way back in 1905, has a surprisingly relevant plot. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent political agitators from using the safety of foreign countries to stir up revolutions back in their own nation. With my recent Russian Revolution reading, it made me think very much of those Russians, like Lenin, who spent their time in the safety of exile encouraging their countrymen back home to commit acts of terrorism against the state. But I also couldn't help thinking of the West's current moral struggle over the question of allowing in refugees at a time when the fear of terrorism is high, or the difficulty of expelling people even when it's known they are attempting to radicalise others.
It's a quick read – somewhere between a long novella and a short novel. There is a mystery of sorts over how the Just Men plan to carry out the assassination. Martin Edwards tells us in his book The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books that, as an advertising ploy, Wallace offered cash prizes to readers who could work out the solution. Apparently, so many did that it nearly bankrupted him. I wish I'd been around at the time, because I thought it was blindingly obvious. I suspect, though, that might be because the key is more commonplace now than it would have been back then. Forgive the vagueness, but to say more would be a major spoiler.
The rest of the plotting works much more effectively. There is a real sense of the building tension as the deadline approaches. The Foreign Secretary is not physically brave, but shows a good deal of moral courage in the end. The police are shown as competent and vigilant, good men determined to protect the Secretary even at the expense of their own lives, if necessary. The press get involved and we see their dilemma of being ordinary good people who don't want to see murder done but also journalists who do want a huge front page story! Wallace handles all these ethical questions well and believably, I thought. The Just Men themselves are more shadowy, with no real background given as to why they've set themselves up as judge and executioner or how they got together. I found them far less credible. But I was pulled along in the need to know whether the Secretary would survive.
An intriguing read that provoked more thought than I was anticipating. I don't think I'm sufficiently enthusiastic to want to read more of the adventures of the Four Just Men, but overall I found this one interesting and entertaining enough to be glad to have read it, and to recognise its claim to be a classic of the genre. And, on that basis, recommended.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
When the British Foreign Secretary decides to push through a law which will allow the enforced return of political refugees to their countries of origin, he becomes a target of the Four Just Men – a group of vigilantes who set out to right what they perceive as wrongs that the normal systems of justice can't touch. The story is a kind of cat-and-mouse game where the reader, along with the entire British public, waits to see if the Four Just Men succeed in carrying out their threat to assassinate the Foreign Secretary.
This was a rather odd read for me, in that I hated the premise – vigilantes are not my cup of tea – and yet found the storytelling compelling enough that I found myself racing through it. It's well written and the pacing is excellent. Wallace sits on the fence himself as to the rights and wrongs of it – he shows both sides, but doesn't take too strong a stance in favour of either. I believe in later books he chose cases that weren't quite so murky, where it was clearer that the victims of the Just Men deserved their fate, and I suspect I might prefer those.
This one, however, despite having been published way back in 1905, has a surprisingly relevant plot. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent political agitators from using the safety of foreign countries to stir up revolutions back in their own nation. With my recent Russian Revolution reading, it made me think very much of those Russians, like Lenin, who spent their time in the safety of exile encouraging their countrymen back home to commit acts of terrorism against the state. But I also couldn't help thinking of the West's current moral struggle over the question of allowing in refugees at a time when the fear of terrorism is high, or the difficulty of expelling people even when it's known they are attempting to radicalise others.
It's a quick read – somewhere between a long novella and a short novel. There is a mystery of sorts over how the Just Men plan to carry out the assassination. Martin Edwards tells us in his book The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books that, as an advertising ploy, Wallace offered cash prizes to readers who could work out the solution. Apparently, so many did that it nearly bankrupted him. I wish I'd been around at the time, because I thought it was blindingly obvious. I suspect, though, that might be because the key is more commonplace now than it would have been back then. Forgive the vagueness, but to say more would be a major spoiler.
The rest of the plotting works much more effectively. There is a real sense of the building tension as the deadline approaches. The Foreign Secretary is not physically brave, but shows a good deal of moral courage in the end. The police are shown as competent and vigilant, good men determined to protect the Secretary even at the expense of their own lives, if necessary. The press get involved and we see their dilemma of being ordinary good people who don't want to see murder done but also journalists who do want a huge front page story! Wallace handles all these ethical questions well and believably, I thought. The Just Men themselves are more shadowy, with no real background given as to why they've set themselves up as judge and executioner or how they got together. I found them far less credible. But I was pulled along in the need to know whether the Secretary would survive.
An intriguing read that provoked more thought than I was anticipating. I don't think I'm sufficiently enthusiastic to want to read more of the adventures of the Four Just Men, but overall I found this one interesting and entertaining enough to be glad to have read it, and to recognise its claim to be a classic of the genre. And, on that basis, recommended.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
richardhannay's review against another edition
3.0
Opinión: una novela estupenda para una tarde de sábado. El desenlace es problemático y, para un lector español, la idea de que un jefe del movimiento carlista pueda ser solución política a algo..risible pero la novela es agradable y simpática y tras su tono de divertimento menor el lector puede reconocer algunas cuestiones que aparecen en Chesterton, en Buchan y en otros autores de la época: la quiebra de la fé tanto en las instituciones políticas como en la Justicia Divina como instancia última de resolución de las más graves iniquidades y la aparición alternativa de una creencia en sociedades secretas que, actuando en la sombra, conspirarían para acabar con la civilización o para apuntalar a los gobiernos según el caso.