What do you think?
Rate this book
The Four Just Men #1
The Four Just Men
When the Foreign Secretary Sir Philip Ramon receives a threatening, greenish-grey letter signed FOUR JUST MEN, he remains determined to see his Aliens Extradition Bill made law. A device in the members' smokeroom and a sudden magnesium flash that could easily have been nitro-glycerine leave Scotland Yard baffled. Even Fleet Street cannot identify the illusive Manfred, Gonsalez, Pioccart and Thery - FOUR JUST MEN dedicated to punishing by death those whom conventional justice can not touch.
134 pages, Paperback
First published June 4, 1905
121 people are currently reading
1551 people want to read
About the author
Edgar Wallace
2,055 books259 followersRichard Horatio Edgar Wallace (1875-1932) was a prolific British crime writer, journalist and playwright, who wrote 175 novels, 24 plays, and countless articles in newspapers and journals.
Over 160 films have been made of his novels, more than any other author. In the 1920s, one of Wallace's publishers claimed that a quarter of all books read in England were written by him.
He is most famous today as the co-creator of "King Kong", writing the early screenplay and story for the movie, as well as a short story "King Kong" (1933) credited to him and Draycott Dell. He was known for the J. G. Reeder detective stories, The Four Just Men, the Ringer, and for creating the Green Archer character during his lifetime.
Over 160 films have been made of his novels, more than any other author. In the 1920s, one of Wallace's publishers claimed that a quarter of all books read in England were written by him.
He is most famous today as the co-creator of "King Kong", writing the early screenplay and story for the movie, as well as a short story "King Kong" (1933) credited to him and Draycott Dell. He was known for the J. G. Reeder detective stories, The Four Just Men, the Ringer, and for creating the Green Archer character during his lifetime.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews
May 29, 2023
Interesante novela. Aunque se la relaciona con las novelas de la "habitación cerrada", no es el tema principal. Quien coja esta novela pensando en un misterio en una habitación cerrada cometerá un error. Es verdad que una parte de la novela es la ejecución de un plan en una habitación cerrada, pero, mayoritariamente, la trama es la ejecución del plan y la relación entre los personajes.
-----------------------------------
Interesting novel. Although it is related to the "locked room" novels, it is not the main theme. Anyone who picks up this novel thinking of a mystery in a locked room will be making a mistake. It is true that part of the novel is the execution of a plan in a locked room, but, for the most part, the plot is the execution of the plan and the relationship between the characters.
-----------------------------------
Interesting novel. Although it is related to the "locked room" novels, it is not the main theme. Anyone who picks up this novel thinking of a mystery in a locked room will be making a mistake. It is true that part of the novel is the execution of a plan in a locked room, but, for the most part, the plot is the execution of the plan and the relationship between the characters.
November 3, 2019
Warn Ramon that the Four do not go outside their promise. If they have threatened to kill in a certain manner at a certain time they will be punctual. We have proof of this characteristic. After Anderson's death small memorandum book was discovered outside window of room evidently dropped. Book was empty save for three pages, which were filled with neatly written memoranda headed 'Six methods of execution'. It was initialled 'C.' (third letter in alphabet). Warn Ramon against following: drinking coffee in any form, opening letters or parcels, using soap that has not been manufactured under eye of trustworthy agent, sitting in any room other than that occupied day and night by police officer. Examine his bedroom; see if there is any method by which heavy gases can be introduced. We are sending two men by 'Lucania' to watch.
The detective finished reading. 'Watch' was not the last word in the original message, as he knew. There had been an ominous postscript, Afraid they will arrive too late.
Ha! That was fun. Granted the premise is ridiculous, the plot has massive holes in it, the writing is tainted with all of the hallmarks of its time, and the solution was drawn out of a hat at the end, but it was fun to read this.
In a way, this was also an interesting book to show up differences in how our understanding of the term vigilante justice has changed since 1905, when this was written, and how our understanding of the particular "justice" exerted in this story may have changed, too.
Or has it? I mean, I read an article the other day discussing an apparent rise in people believing that it is ok or even justified to send death threats to politicians. Nothing new there, of course, even if it is hitting home hard when this is a reality for friends in that career path.
However, since the murder of Jo Cox over something as trivial (in the greater picture of things) as her stance on Brexit this issue has been a very public one.
So, yes, there were angles to the story that were a lot more intriguing than the plot itself, which fell apart even on the basic premise that a bill could be stopped becoming law just by killing of a single minister. It's just not quite how it works. Thankfully.
The detective finished reading. 'Watch' was not the last word in the original message, as he knew. There had been an ominous postscript, Afraid they will arrive too late.
Ha! That was fun. Granted the premise is ridiculous, the plot has massive holes in it, the writing is tainted with all of the hallmarks of its time, and the solution was drawn out of a hat at the end, but it was fun to read this.
In a way, this was also an interesting book to show up differences in how our understanding of the term vigilante justice has changed since 1905, when this was written, and how our understanding of the particular "justice" exerted in this story may have changed, too.
Or has it? I mean, I read an article the other day discussing an apparent rise in people believing that it is ok or even justified to send death threats to politicians. Nothing new there, of course, even if it is hitting home hard when this is a reality for friends in that career path.
However, since the murder of Jo Cox over something as trivial (in the greater picture of things) as her stance on Brexit this issue has been a very public one.
So, yes, there were angles to the story that were a lot more intriguing than the plot itself, which fell apart even on the basic premise that a bill could be stopped becoming law just by killing of a single minister. It's just not quite how it works. Thankfully.
November 15, 2020
This is not your typical mystery; it is more akin to a thriller. The author was new to me, so I didn't know what to expect from the book, but I wasn't much pleased with the outcome. The book, as I've already mentioned, is more of a thriller. The mystery part appears right at the end of the story making it quite insignificant. Wallace has attempted at a mystery of a locked room. The idea is intriguing of course, but the space allocated to the mystery was too sparse that it didn't make the intended impact.
The protagonists are three men, who call them "four just men" (the fourth man I believe is recruited for each specific task and don't become a part of the group) who exercise their own justice against whom no law can touch. They are the judge, jury, and the executioner and carry justice as they see fit. In short, they are a bunch of vigilantes. However, their sense of justice in this story wasn't satisfactory. At least that is how I felt, for it didn't resonate with me. The victim wasn't the wicked and cunning type that you could be thankful as good riddance, but an honest and conscientious man whose only fault is doing his job which somehow clashes with the interests of these vigilantes. I'm sure there might have been a motive behind for Wallace to pick up such a theme, but whatever motive induced him, it certainly has outlived its time and has lost its appeal.
Wallace's writing is good. I give him that credit freely. Even though the story is too fantastic for my taste and its sense of justice revolted me, it was still a page-turner. I enjoyed his satire on the whole although I thought he went a bit far with it. :)
Now the big question is whether I'll proceed with the series. I'm not totally against the protagonists. It's that I had a difference of opinion with them here as to what is just! :) That means I may give them another chance before giving my final verdict.
The protagonists are three men, who call them "four just men" (the fourth man I believe is recruited for each specific task and don't become a part of the group) who exercise their own justice against whom no law can touch. They are the judge, jury, and the executioner and carry justice as they see fit. In short, they are a bunch of vigilantes. However, their sense of justice in this story wasn't satisfactory. At least that is how I felt, for it didn't resonate with me. The victim wasn't the wicked and cunning type that you could be thankful as good riddance, but an honest and conscientious man whose only fault is doing his job which somehow clashes with the interests of these vigilantes. I'm sure there might have been a motive behind for Wallace to pick up such a theme, but whatever motive induced him, it certainly has outlived its time and has lost its appeal.
Wallace's writing is good. I give him that credit freely. Even though the story is too fantastic for my taste and its sense of justice revolted me, it was still a page-turner. I enjoyed his satire on the whole although I thought he went a bit far with it. :)
Now the big question is whether I'll proceed with the series. I'm not totally against the protagonists. It's that I had a difference of opinion with them here as to what is just! :) That means I may give them another chance before giving my final verdict.
January 26, 2018
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
June 28, 2017
Το "Οι Τέσσερις Δίκαιοι" είναι ένα από τα πρώτα και κλασικότερα θρίλερ της τρομερής Βρετανικής σχολής, το οποίο εκδόθηκε για πρώτη φορά πριν από εκατόν δώδεκα χρόνια (!), δηλαδή το 1905. Ναι, είναι τόσο παλιό. Στα ελληνικά έχουν κυκλοφορήσει κάμποσα βιβλία του Έντγκαρ Ουάλας, αλλά πολύ παλιά, από εκδόσεις Λυχνάρι, Άγκυρα, ΒΙΠΕΡ κ.α. Μιλάμε τώρα για δεκαετίες του '60 και του '70. Μπορεί και αυτό το βιβλίο να έχει κυκλοφορήσει παλιότερα, αλλά δεν έχει σημασία: Τώρα κυκλοφορεί σε όλα τα βιβλιοπωλεία, σε προσιτή τιμή και σε ιδιαίτερα προσεγμένη και καλαίσθητη έκδοση απ'όλες τις απόψεις (εξώφυλλο, χαρτί, μετάφραση).
Στα της ιστορίας: Ο Υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας ετοιμάζεται να καταθέσει προς ψήφιση ένα νομοσχέδιο για την απέλαση και την έκδοση αλλοδαπών που διώκονται στις χώρες τους για πολιτικά αδικήματα. Όμως δέχεται μια απειλητική επιστολή από μια μικρή ομάδα ανθρώπων, οι οποίοι αυτοαποκαλούνται ως "Οι Τέσσερις Δίκαιοι". Απαιτούν να αποσυρθεί το νομοσχέδιο, ειδάλλως θα τον εκτελέσουν. Μάλιστα, δεν έχουν πρόβλημα να αποκαλύψουν και τα χρονικά πλαίσια των επόμενων προειδοποιήσεων, καθώς και του τελικού χτυπήματος, σε περίπτωση που ο υπουργός δεν κάνει πίσω. Άλλωστε, έχουν σκοτώσει αρκετούς ανθρώπους που, με τον έναν ή τον άλλο τρόπο, έκαναν κακό και αδίκησαν αθώους ανθρώπους, χωρίς να τιμωρηθούν από τον νόμο - έτσι, έχουν την εμπειρία και το απαραίτητο θράσος.
Σίγουρα είναι ένα βιβλίο που δείχνει τα χρόνια του. Και ίσως υπάρχουν βολικές ευκολίες για την εξέλιξη της πλοκής. Όμως, ανάθεμά το, διαβάζεται πολύ γρήγορα, ευχάριστα και με ενδιαφέρον από την αρχή μέχρι το δυνατό φινάλε. Προσφέρει λίγη δράση, μπόλικη αγωνία, μια-δυο εκπληξούλες, ενώ παράλληλα μας δίνεται και μια κατατοπιστική εικόνα του Λονδίνου στις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα και του τρόπου λειτουργίας των Αρχών. Οι χαρακτήρες δεν έχουν κάποιο ιδιαίτερο βάθος ούτε μπορεί να δεθεί ιδιαίτερα ο αναγνώστης με κάποιον εξ αυτών, όμως κάνουν την δουλειά τους. Η γραφή είναι παλαιάς κοπής, όμως σίγουρα ευχάριστη και άκρως ευκολοδιάβαστη. Γενικά πρόκειται για ένα πιο-κλασικό-πεθαίνεις αστυνομικό θρίλερ, ό,τι πρέπει για το καλοκαιράκι. Ανυπομονώ να μάθω ποια άλλα βιβλία θα κυκλοφορήσουν από την καινούργια σειρά ονόματι "Μαύρη Γάτα" των εκδόσεων Αλεξάνδρεια.
Στα της ιστορίας: Ο Υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας ετοιμάζεται να καταθέσει προς ψήφιση ένα νομοσχέδιο για την απέλαση και την έκδοση αλλοδαπών που διώκονται στις χώρες τους για πολιτικά αδικήματα. Όμως δέχεται μια απειλητική επιστολή από μια μικρή ομάδα ανθρώπων, οι οποίοι αυτοαποκαλούνται ως "Οι Τέσσερις Δίκαιοι". Απαιτούν να αποσυρθεί το νομοσχέδιο, ειδάλλως θα τον εκτελέσουν. Μάλιστα, δεν έχουν πρόβλημα να αποκαλύψουν και τα χρονικά πλαίσια των επόμενων προειδοποιήσεων, καθώς και του τελικού χτυπήματος, σε περίπτωση που ο υπουργός δεν κάνει πίσω. Άλλωστε, έχουν σκοτώσει αρκετούς ανθρώπους που, με τον έναν ή τον άλλο τρόπο, έκαναν κακό και αδίκησαν αθώους ανθρώπους, χωρίς να τιμωρηθούν από τον νόμο - έτσι, έχουν την εμπειρία και το απαραίτητο θράσος.
Σίγουρα είναι ένα βιβλίο που δείχνει τα χρόνια του. Και ίσως υπάρχουν βολικές ευκολίες για την εξέλιξη της πλοκής. Όμως, ανάθεμά το, διαβάζεται πολύ γρήγορα, ευχάριστα και με ενδιαφέρον από την αρχή μέχρι το δυνατό φινάλε. Προσφέρει λίγη δράση, μπόλικη αγωνία, μια-δυο εκπληξούλες, ενώ παράλληλα μας δίνεται και μια κατατοπιστική εικόνα του Λονδίνου στις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα και του τρόπου λειτουργίας των Αρχών. Οι χαρακτήρες δεν έχουν κάποιο ιδιαίτερο βάθος ούτε μπορεί να δεθεί ιδιαίτερα ο αναγνώστης με κάποιον εξ αυτών, όμως κάνουν την δουλειά τους. Η γραφή είναι παλαιάς κοπής, όμως σίγουρα ευχάριστη και άκρως ευκολοδιάβαστη. Γενικά πρόκειται για ένα πιο-κλασικό-πεθαίνεις αστυνομικό θρίλερ, ό,τι πρέπει για το καλοκαιράκι. Ανυπομονώ να μάθω ποια άλλα βιβλία θα κυκλοφορήσουν από την καινούργια σειρά ονόματι "Μαύρη Γάτα" των εκδόσεων Αλεξάνδρεια.
September 7, 2023
Μια από τις αντιπροσωπευτικότερες νουβέλες της Βρετανικής Σχολής Αστυνομικής Λογοτεχνίας του 20ου αιώνα (1905) και ένα από τα σημαντικότερα βιβλία 'κλειδωμένου δωματίου' μαζί με 'Το μυστήριο του κίτρινου δωματίου΄' του Γκαστόν Λερού (1907) και τον 'Ασώματο άνθρωπο' του Τζον Ντίξον Καρ (1935).
Χαρακτηριστικά, ο Ουώλλας εμπνεύστηκε την ιστορία του βιβλίου το 1904, όταν κάλυπτε τον πόλεμο Ιαπωνίας-Ρωσίας όπου και γνώρισε από κοντά τον 'σκοτεινό' και επι��ίνδυνο κόσμο των μυστικών πρακτόρων. Άλλωστε, όπως έχω αναφέρει ξανά,ο Ουώλλας μαζί με τον Ρος ΜακΝτόναλντ αποτελούν το λογοτεχνικό δίδυμο της ίντριγκας και του σασπένς, τα οποία, στην προ��ειμένη περίπτωση, ο πρώτος 'διανθίζει' με το φλεγματικό βρετανικό χιούμορ, χαρίζοντας δροσιά και ένταση στην πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα και πρωτότυπη πλοκή.
Η συγκεκριμένη ιστορία ξεφεύγει από την συνηθισμένη θεματική του συγγραφέα, αφού εδώ καταπιάνεται με τον χώρο της πολιτικής, δίνοντας ένα τόνο διαχρονικότητας στο βιβλίο, το οποίο έξυπνα αποφεύγει τους 'υφάλους' ενός κοινότυπου πολιτικού θρίλερ. Το κίνητρο για το ξεδίπλωμα της πλοκής είναι ένα νομοσχέδιο για την απέλαση και έκδοση αλλοδαπών που ετοιμάζεται να καταθέσει προς ψήφιση ο υπουργός εξωτερικών της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας - άραγε πόσο σύγχρονος είναι ο Ουώλλας 118 χρόνια μετά;
Η δράση τοποθετείται με συναρπαστικό τρόπο, ταυτόχρονα, σε δυο αντιμαχόμενες πλευρές που αλληλοεξαρτώνται : στις κινήσεις της τρομοκρατικής ομάδας των 'Τεσσάρων δικαίων' και στην αντίδραση του υπουργού και της αστυνομίας μέχρι .... την ανατροπή του τέλους της ιστορίας - σημαντικές λεπτομέρειες και πληροφορίες, επίσης, αναφέρονται για τη πολιτική ζωή και τους νόμους της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας των αρχών του 20ου αιώνα.
Πέρα από αυτό, αξίζει να αναφέρω την συνέπεια, το μέτρο και την οικονομία στη δομή της πλοκής που δεν ξεφεύγει σε κανένα σημείο από τον βασικό της στόχο, όπως και την συναρπαστική εξέλιξη των γεγονότων που δημιουργούν τη συμπάθεια του αναγνώστη, ακόμα, και προς τους 'Τέσσερις δίκαιους'.
Ένα κλασικό αστυνομικό βιβλίο που διαθέτει διαχρονικότητα και κινηματογραφική αισθητική.
Βαθμολογία: 4,4/5 ή 8,8/10.
Χαρακτηριστικά, ο Ουώλλας εμπνεύστηκε την ιστορία του βιβλίου το 1904, όταν κάλυπτε τον πόλεμο Ιαπωνίας-Ρωσίας όπου και γνώρισε από κοντά τον 'σκοτεινό' και επι��ίνδυνο κόσμο των μυστικών πρακτόρων. Άλλωστε, όπως έχω αναφέρει ξανά,ο Ουώλλας μαζί με τον Ρος ΜακΝτόναλντ αποτελούν το λογοτεχνικό δίδυμο της ίντριγκας και του σασπένς, τα οποία, στην προ��ειμένη περίπτωση, ο πρώτος 'διανθίζει' με το φλεγματικό βρετανικό χιούμορ, χαρίζοντας δροσιά και ένταση στην πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα και πρωτότυπη πλοκή.
Η συγκεκριμένη ιστορία ξεφεύγει από την συνηθισμένη θεματική του συγγραφέα, αφού εδώ καταπιάνεται με τον χώρο της πολιτικής, δίνοντας ένα τόνο διαχρονικότητας στο βιβλίο, το οποίο έξυπνα αποφεύγει τους 'υφάλους' ενός κοινότυπου πολιτικού θρίλερ. Το κίνητρο για το ξεδίπλωμα της πλοκής είναι ένα νομοσχέδιο για την απέλαση και έκδοση αλλοδαπών που ετοιμάζεται να καταθέσει προς ψήφιση ο υπουργός εξωτερικών της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας - άραγε πόσο σύγχρονος είναι ο Ουώλλας 118 χρόνια μετά;
Η δράση τοποθετείται με συναρπαστικό τρόπο, ταυτόχρονα, σε δυο αντιμαχόμενες πλευρές που αλληλοεξαρτώνται : στις κινήσεις της τρομοκρατικής ομάδας των 'Τεσσάρων δικαίων' και στην αντίδραση του υπουργού και της αστυνομίας μέχρι .... την ανατροπή του τέλους της ιστορίας - σημαντικές λεπτομέρειες και πληροφορίες, επίσης, αναφέρονται για τη πολιτική ζωή και τους νόμους της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας των αρχών του 20ου αιώνα.
Πέρα από αυτό, αξίζει να αναφέρω την συνέπεια, το μέτρο και την οικονομία στη δομή της πλοκής που δεν ξεφεύγει σε κανένα σημείο από τον βασικό της στόχο, όπως και την συναρπαστική εξέλιξη των γεγονότων που δημιουργούν τη συμπάθεια του αναγνώστη, ακόμα, και προς τους 'Τέσσερις δίκαιους'.
Ένα κλασικό αστυνομικό βιβλίο που διαθέτει διαχρονικότητα και κινηματογραφική αισθητική.
Βαθμολογία: 4,4/5 ή 8,8/10.
March 23, 2013
2012 Review:
It was weird. I know, and distinctly recall the exact feeling, that I completely loved these men when I first read this long ago. I admired them and they were beyond cool and ingenious. I still think they’re ingenious. Thing is? I also think they are very probably in the wrong.
They’re murderers, killers, and their only frame of reference is their own sense of justice and their conscience. They’re the original vigilantes.
Now in the case of that raping priest one of them killed it’s a pretty simple theory. If the law can’t touch a criminal, they are the ones who dispense justice. Some of the other cases cited were perhaps less black and white, but still. Evil people were killed by our three just men.
But in this book? They set out to kill a minister so that he can’t pass a bill that would release political refugees to their original countries. Okay, put like that it seems at least moderately simple again. But it’s really not. Who’s in the right here? Who’s wrong? And how can those three be the ones to decide? At one point they even bring up that they’re doing God’s work, and, really, that sounds awfully like those nutcase psychopaths you get in fiction.
That minister they kill? He believes he is doing the right thing. And shouldn’t a law be discussed by the governing body instead of being basically blackmailed and terrorized away? That it actually works is the weirdest thing of all, actually. But back to the question of what’s right. Our minister does not come across like a very nice man and his motives may not be the purest, but they are far from malicious either. He actually gives a very good speech before he dies, wherein he states that he believes in the justice of his cause, and the four believe theirs is the just cause. And that’s really the point of the matter.
Yeah, that bill he is trying to force through (since it appears he has the assembly under his thumb) is not something I can agree with, but he does give some valid arguments. I like how he obviously understands the counter-arguments as well and acknowledges them in said speech. The thing is? Being against that bill (and thereby saving at least one country from dictatorship and famine, or so we’re assured) does not seem to justify murdering a person who stands up for what can be argued to be a valid position on a political subject. Someone who won’t let himself be blackmailed by terrorist threats, even as his death becomes more and more a certainty.
Sure, I don’t like that minister. Who would? But I respect him.
Manfred and his buddies? I dunno if I can respect them. The admiration I used to have for their skill and spirit has deflated. Completely. They’re… Well, I hope they will deal with clearer causes in the other books. Maybe this is just me growing up, or me applying realistic considerations to a story of mystery and sensation from a completely different time. But I’m sad my heroes are debunked.
At the same time! It’s probably a very admirable thing to have their first book handle a matter that is, at least to modern eyes, not black and white and does not set them up as pure and infallible heroes. This story and they way it is told illuminates both sides of the argument and efforts and actually makes for a pretty deep conflict. As a reader it’s up to me which side I choose; even though it’s obvious where the author places his values.
So yeah. Not what I expected. But intriguing for that very reason.
It was weird. I know, and distinctly recall the exact feeling, that I completely loved these men when I first read this long ago. I admired them and they were beyond cool and ingenious. I still think they’re ingenious. Thing is? I also think they are very probably in the wrong.
They’re murderers, killers, and their only frame of reference is their own sense of justice and their conscience. They’re the original vigilantes.
Now in the case of that raping priest one of them killed it’s a pretty simple theory. If the law can’t touch a criminal, they are the ones who dispense justice. Some of the other cases cited were perhaps less black and white, but still. Evil people were killed by our three just men.
But in this book? They set out to kill a minister so that he can’t pass a bill that would release political refugees to their original countries. Okay, put like that it seems at least moderately simple again. But it’s really not. Who’s in the right here? Who’s wrong? And how can those three be the ones to decide? At one point they even bring up that they’re doing God’s work, and, really, that sounds awfully like those nutcase psychopaths you get in fiction.
That minister they kill? He believes he is doing the right thing. And shouldn’t a law be discussed by the governing body instead of being basically blackmailed and terrorized away? That it actually works is the weirdest thing of all, actually. But back to the question of what’s right. Our minister does not come across like a very nice man and his motives may not be the purest, but they are far from malicious either. He actually gives a very good speech before he dies, wherein he states that he believes in the justice of his cause, and the four believe theirs is the just cause. And that’s really the point of the matter.
Yeah, that bill he is trying to force through (since it appears he has the assembly under his thumb) is not something I can agree with, but he does give some valid arguments. I like how he obviously understands the counter-arguments as well and acknowledges them in said speech. The thing is? Being against that bill (and thereby saving at least one country from dictatorship and famine, or so we’re assured) does not seem to justify murdering a person who stands up for what can be argued to be a valid position on a political subject. Someone who won’t let himself be blackmailed by terrorist threats, even as his death becomes more and more a certainty.
Sure, I don’t like that minister. Who would? But I respect him.
Manfred and his buddies? I dunno if I can respect them. The admiration I used to have for their skill and spirit has deflated. Completely. They’re… Well, I hope they will deal with clearer causes in the other books. Maybe this is just me growing up, or me applying realistic considerations to a story of mystery and sensation from a completely different time. But I’m sad my heroes are debunked.
At the same time! It’s probably a very admirable thing to have their first book handle a matter that is, at least to modern eyes, not black and white and does not set them up as pure and infallible heroes. This story and they way it is told illuminates both sides of the argument and efforts and actually makes for a pretty deep conflict. As a reader it’s up to me which side I choose; even though it’s obvious where the author places his values.
So yeah. Not what I expected. But intriguing for that very reason.
December 22, 2019
This was an interesting twist from your average mystery. In my opinion, there really aren't any good guys. It does pose the question: when is vigilante justice justified?
The story, however, was well written and quite suspenseful.
No one knows who the Four Just Men are, where they are from, or where in the world they could be at any given moment. They are vigilantes who through ingenious means execute people they believe have gotten away with criminal activity. They have assassinated royalty who have murdered and gotten away with it; priests who sexually abused their parishioners; and other high profile people who have hurt others with impunity.
A minister in the British parliament is trying to push through a bill that would alter the amnesty status of certain Spanish delegates who would be persecuted and probably executed if forced to return to Spain (this takes place during the Spanish Civil War). The man receives a letter from the Four Just Men that warns him that if he brings the bill to Parliament, they will kill him.
The minister refuses to back down and a race is on in the Scotland Yard to discover the identity and plans of these four men before they carry out their threat.
Others with more phlegmatic dispositions might read the story calmly enough, but I found it stressful, suspenseful, but entertaining as well. I have just found out there are more Four Just Men stories. This will not be the last book by Edgar Wallace I'll be reading.
The story, however, was well written and quite suspenseful.
No one knows who the Four Just Men are, where they are from, or where in the world they could be at any given moment. They are vigilantes who through ingenious means execute people they believe have gotten away with criminal activity. They have assassinated royalty who have murdered and gotten away with it; priests who sexually abused their parishioners; and other high profile people who have hurt others with impunity.
A minister in the British parliament is trying to push through a bill that would alter the amnesty status of certain Spanish delegates who would be persecuted and probably executed if forced to return to Spain (this takes place during the Spanish Civil War). The man receives a letter from the Four Just Men that warns him that if he brings the bill to Parliament, they will kill him.
The minister refuses to back down and a race is on in the Scotland Yard to discover the identity and plans of these four men before they carry out their threat.
Others with more phlegmatic dispositions might read the story calmly enough, but I found it stressful, suspenseful, but entertaining as well. I have just found out there are more Four Just Men stories. This will not be the last book by Edgar Wallace I'll be reading.
September 23, 2021
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
March 18, 2022
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.
January 27, 2014
I can see why this was hot stuff in its day (around the turn of the 20th century) but it doesn't age well. Wallace was an incredibly prolific writer of thrillers, and this one introduced the venerable "locked room" mystery that was to become a staple of mysteries and thrillers for years. A man, targeted for murder at a specific time, locks himself in a room in which there is no other access. Yet he's murdered anyway--how? The explanation here is barely convincing and not very satisfactory. The writing is a bit florid, the characters mostly generic, but the depiction of early 1900s London makes this somewhat worthwhile.
April 29, 2020
Απολαυστικό!
Για να είμαι ειλικρινής, οι χαρακτήρες δεν έχουν βάθος και το τέλος είναι αναμενόμενο. Δεν υπάρχουν ανατροπές και εκπλήξεις, ούτε ψάχνεις να βρεις τον δολοφόνο όπως στα περισσότερα βιβλία του είδους.
Ωστόσο, είναι ατμοσφαιρικό, κυλάει πολύ γρήγορα και περιγράφει ωραία το Λονδίνο όπως ήταν πάνω από 100 χρόνια πριν.
Για να είμαι ειλικρινής, οι χαρακτήρες δεν έχουν βάθος και το τέλος είναι αναμενόμενο. Δεν υπάρχουν ανατροπές και εκπλήξεις, ούτε ψάχνεις να βρεις τον δολοφόνο όπως στα περισσότερα βιβλία του είδους.
Ωστόσο, είναι ατμοσφαιρικό, κυλάει πολύ γρήγορα και περιγράφει ωραία το Λονδίνο όπως ήταν πάνω από 100 χρόνια πριν.
February 28, 2020
I just finished not only The Four Just Men but the next one in the series The Council of Justice too. It's good for the Four Just Men that I kept going after the first book because I didn't like them when I was reading the first one. I am incredibly glad I am not one of the four just men because I don't want to be one of the people who not only decides who gets killed, but then goes and does it. How would I ever decide who is worthy of living? Or dying for that matter. I suppose I could pick all the serial killers, rapists or child molesters, but I still don't want to be the one doing the picking. I keep having this imagine in my head of one day explaining to Jesus how I came to decide who lives and who dies, and that's even before I have to explain killing the person. But, luckily for me I'm not one of the four just men. As for who they are:
We're told in the prologue the four men are Leon Gonsalez, Poiccart, George Manfred, and Thery, or Saimont, no one seems to know which name is really his. He is the unlucky fourth man, he doesn't seem to know what he is doing there, what they are doing, what anyone is saying, as for being one of the four just men, he's never heard of them, and it is never clear to me how they came across this guy in the first place or how they talked him into helping them when he never heard of them before, but they did, and that's our four men. As for Poiccart, if he has a first name no one told me about it. Oh, they are all wealthy gentlemen, the first three, I don't know what the fourth is, and they have nothing better to do with their money than run around killing people. I have been giving some thought to the plot writing this obviously, and can't come up with one woman in the entire novel. There had to be one in there somewhere, but I can't think of one. Anyway, these men feel that there are some bad guys that can get away with anything, so they have decided to make sure this doesn't happen. They usually send the bad guy two warnings to stop whatever it is he is doing, and if he doesn't he ends up dead, usually in a strange way.
This time it is the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Philip Ramon, because he is trying to get a bill passed that will remove protection from extradition for foreign nationals living in exile in their country. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to kill the guy over, but that's what they are going to do. I'm not sure why they are so upset, the politician guy is going to bring up the bill, whatever that's called, then I suppose they will debate it for an eternity, then finally vote on it, but it won't pass because the other side won't vote for it no matter what it says. At least that's how it works here. By the time the bill would have passed all the exiles the four just men are trying to protect will have died of old age. And so the rest of the book is them planning the murder, and the politician refusing to listen to them, and a whole bunch of police setting up traps and protection and things like that, and wondering if anyone is going to get killed and how, considering all the police standing around.
I'm not telling you any more about it except there are only three just men by the end of the book and, this I found fascinating, originally the book came with the offer of a huge prize for anyone who guessed the ending, unfortunately for Wallace he must not have been as mysterious as he thought because he eventually had to declare bankruptcy as too many people guessed correctly. I wonder how huge the prize was. I'm not sure what he meant by guess the ending, I guessed who would be dead by the end, but not how. I didn't like this one very much, I didn't like these guys running around choosing who lives and dies, but I continued on to the next one and I like that one better, so I'll move on to that one for my next review. In the meantime, happy reading.
We're told in the prologue the four men are Leon Gonsalez, Poiccart, George Manfred, and Thery, or Saimont, no one seems to know which name is really his. He is the unlucky fourth man, he doesn't seem to know what he is doing there, what they are doing, what anyone is saying, as for being one of the four just men, he's never heard of them, and it is never clear to me how they came across this guy in the first place or how they talked him into helping them when he never heard of them before, but they did, and that's our four men. As for Poiccart, if he has a first name no one told me about it. Oh, they are all wealthy gentlemen, the first three, I don't know what the fourth is, and they have nothing better to do with their money than run around killing people. I have been giving some thought to the plot writing this obviously, and can't come up with one woman in the entire novel. There had to be one in there somewhere, but I can't think of one. Anyway, these men feel that there are some bad guys that can get away with anything, so they have decided to make sure this doesn't happen. They usually send the bad guy two warnings to stop whatever it is he is doing, and if he doesn't he ends up dead, usually in a strange way.
This time it is the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Philip Ramon, because he is trying to get a bill passed that will remove protection from extradition for foreign nationals living in exile in their country. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing to kill the guy over, but that's what they are going to do. I'm not sure why they are so upset, the politician guy is going to bring up the bill, whatever that's called, then I suppose they will debate it for an eternity, then finally vote on it, but it won't pass because the other side won't vote for it no matter what it says. At least that's how it works here. By the time the bill would have passed all the exiles the four just men are trying to protect will have died of old age. And so the rest of the book is them planning the murder, and the politician refusing to listen to them, and a whole bunch of police setting up traps and protection and things like that, and wondering if anyone is going to get killed and how, considering all the police standing around.
I'm not telling you any more about it except there are only three just men by the end of the book and, this I found fascinating, originally the book came with the offer of a huge prize for anyone who guessed the ending, unfortunately for Wallace he must not have been as mysterious as he thought because he eventually had to declare bankruptcy as too many people guessed correctly. I wonder how huge the prize was. I'm not sure what he meant by guess the ending, I guessed who would be dead by the end, but not how. I didn't like this one very much, I didn't like these guys running around choosing who lives and dies, but I continued on to the next one and I like that one better, so I'll move on to that one for my next review. In the meantime, happy reading.
September 28, 2015
Somehow, probably because of the 1959–60 TV series, I seem to have known about the concept of the Four Just Men all my life -- and I've even discussed on my Noirish site the 1939 movie based (very loosely) on Edgar Wallace's novel -- so it came as quite a surprise recently to realize that I'd never actually read the novel itself.
The Four Just Men are essentially psychopaths, but they've channeled their psychopathy into the murdering only of people who are doing immeasurable harm to numbers of others -- child molesters, tyrannical rulers, etc.: only bad guys, in other words In fact, at the outset of the novel there are three Just Men, one of their number having been fatally caught in a shootout; they have recruited as a fourth a more-common-or-garden serial killer who has a particular expertise that will be useful to them in their latest caper.
That caper involves as its target Sir Philip Ramon, the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who plans to put through Parliament a bill that would endanger those rebels against vile repression in Span currently sheltering in the UK. The Four Just Men give him warning after warning that they'll kill him if he persists with the bill, but of course he ignores them and . . .
There's also a locked-room mystery here that must have seemed a heck of a sight more impressive when the book was first published (1905) than it does today. At the time it was the subject of a contest -- "guess the murder method" -- that Wallace ran in conjunction with the Daily Mail, where the book was serialized. So many people got the right answer that Wallace was bankrupted.
This was Wallace's first novel and, having read a few of his later ones, I was very pleasantly surprised by it. The others I've read have had a sort of pleasing mediocrity to them -- rather like the entries in the long Edgar Wallace Mysteries series of B-movies that Merton Park Studios churned out in 1960-64 -- but this novel has a genuine wit that the others I've read lack. I chuckled several times at the humor, and felt a definite sense of suspense as the hours ticked down toward Sir Philip's deadline.
This short novel is by no means a fine work, and its central premise is beyond reprehensible (who decides who're the bad guys who deserve to be murdered?), but it's certainly very well worth reading, not just as entertainment but to find out how the wordsmithing machine that Edgar Wallace became got started.
Wallace wrote five further Just Men books. While reading this one, it struck me that someone ought to continue/recreate the series for a 21st-century readership. I'm here if you want me, Edgar Wallace Estate.
The Four Just Men are essentially psychopaths, but they've channeled their psychopathy into the murdering only of people who are doing immeasurable harm to numbers of others -- child molesters, tyrannical rulers, etc.: only bad guys, in other words In fact, at the outset of the novel there are three Just Men, one of their number having been fatally caught in a shootout; they have recruited as a fourth a more-common-or-garden serial killer who has a particular expertise that will be useful to them in their latest caper.
That caper involves as its target Sir Philip Ramon, the UK's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who plans to put through Parliament a bill that would endanger those rebels against vile repression in Span currently sheltering in the UK. The Four Just Men give him warning after warning that they'll kill him if he persists with the bill, but of course he ignores them and . . .
There's also a locked-room mystery here that must have seemed a heck of a sight more impressive when the book was first published (1905) than it does today. At the time it was the subject of a contest -- "guess the murder method" -- that Wallace ran in conjunction with the Daily Mail, where the book was serialized. So many people got the right answer that Wallace was bankrupted.
This was Wallace's first novel and, having read a few of his later ones, I was very pleasantly surprised by it. The others I've read have had a sort of pleasing mediocrity to them -- rather like the entries in the long Edgar Wallace Mysteries series of B-movies that Merton Park Studios churned out in 1960-64 -- but this novel has a genuine wit that the others I've read lack. I chuckled several times at the humor, and felt a definite sense of suspense as the hours ticked down toward Sir Philip's deadline.
This short novel is by no means a fine work, and its central premise is beyond reprehensible (who decides who're the bad guys who deserve to be murdered?), but it's certainly very well worth reading, not just as entertainment but to find out how the wordsmithing machine that Edgar Wallace became got started.
Wallace wrote five further Just Men books. While reading this one, it struck me that someone ought to continue/recreate the series for a 21st-century readership. I'm here if you want me, Edgar Wallace Estate.
July 24, 2022
An interesting twist on the crime novel. Not a whodunnit, but a howdunnit. The murderers are also laid out as a group of wealthy vigilantes, righting wrongs that go unpunished by the legal system. Although that stance is problematic in this book - it’s fine when dealing with their past activities, such as killing priests for raping and then abandoning young girls, but less so when killing a minister of state for passing a government bill through a democratic parliament.
Also - killing Ramon wouldn’t stop the bill passing anyway, it would just happen in the next session.
So, intriguing, but the characters of the Just Men, the police force and the victim are drawn in far too broad strokes to really convince.
So 3 stars for its innovative format and structure rather than for the writing and character building.
Also - killing Ramon wouldn’t stop the bill passing anyway, it would just happen in the next session.
So, intriguing, but the characters of the Just Men, the police force and the victim are drawn in far too broad strokes to really convince.
So 3 stars for its innovative format and structure rather than for the writing and character building.
November 22, 2017
This was a very intense story especially given when it was written. It has certainly stood the test of time and could be classified today as a thriller. Having said that, I was stunned by the arrogance of the vigilantes. I think this sentence sums it up for me "Here are men arrogating to themselves the divine right of superior judgment."
September 4, 2017
Fun, fast read. Four criminals swear to kill a man unless he does what they want. His honor demands that he shall not bend. But the criminals act only for the greater good...
A nice crime story of a type that isn't often seen these days. I liked it.
A nice crime story of a type that isn't often seen these days. I liked it.
March 6, 2024
★★★☆☆ 3 stars
March 28, 2022
The Four Just Men (Just Men #1) (1908) by Edgar Wallace. The “Heroes” of the Four Just Men Stories are assassins, murderers and determined to let nothing stop them in their quest for justice. They work outside the law to stop evil in it’s many forms from spreading or going unpunished. They know no matter what happens there will be no acclaim for them, that the forces of law enforcement around the globe are aligned against them, and if caught only death is in their future.
But their holy grail is justice despite the odds, no matter the peril to themselves.
In this, the first of the six books written within two decades of the early 20th century, Mr. Wallace introduces his most famous creations. The title is a bit deceptive. As the story opens we discover there are only three Just Men, the fourth having died in a hail of bullets. But the authorities learned nothing from the body, not his identity nor a clue to the others.
The book begins in 1908 London. The three have persuaded a much needed but unwilling partner to join their plan. They are trying to stop a bill from passing through Parliament, an “Aliens Extradition Bill” that would evict many people from Great Britain, sending them back to their country of origin and, in many cases, deadly peril as they are good people who have been branded enemies of corrupt states.
Sir Philip Ramon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is the ramrod behind the bill. He is the type of man who, once determining a course of action, will not be deterred, death threats be damned. Now Scotland Yard, in the form of Detective Superintendent Falmouth, is arrayed against the Four. Despite all the past triumphs of the Four, Falmouth is certain he can keep the Foreign Secretary safe from all harm.
The Four do not wish to kill Sir Philip, nor had they wished to kill others in the past. The Four only wished to have those who became their targets to see the error of their ways and reform. In this case, they merely wish to stop the Bill from going forward. They give several warnings and a few demonstrations of their ability to go anywhere, no matter how guarded,and plant (non)lethal devices even within the chambers of the House of Lords and the Commons.
But the great man will not be driven off his course no matter how rough the going may get for himself or the members of Parliament.
As the approach of the session to act on the bill arrives, security draws tighter about Sir Philip. It seems all of London and the surrounding environs draw in upon the areas of Downing St. All want to see if The Four can carry out their threat of if the Minister will fold to their demands. The climax is a just reward for the reader.
The Four Just Men stories were written more than 100 years ago. Attitudes were different and Wallace wrote to the contemporary audience of the time. These six book are a snap-shot of the times. The modern reader should bear this in mind and perhaps mull over the strides we have made in the use of our language and our opinions.
No matter, these stories are fine tales of action and adventure that even today’s reader can appreciate. And after reading the first in the series I can understand his reading audience clamoring for more of The Four.
But their holy grail is justice despite the odds, no matter the peril to themselves.
In this, the first of the six books written within two decades of the early 20th century, Mr. Wallace introduces his most famous creations. The title is a bit deceptive. As the story opens we discover there are only three Just Men, the fourth having died in a hail of bullets. But the authorities learned nothing from the body, not his identity nor a clue to the others.
The book begins in 1908 London. The three have persuaded a much needed but unwilling partner to join their plan. They are trying to stop a bill from passing through Parliament, an “Aliens Extradition Bill” that would evict many people from Great Britain, sending them back to their country of origin and, in many cases, deadly peril as they are good people who have been branded enemies of corrupt states.
Sir Philip Ramon, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is the ramrod behind the bill. He is the type of man who, once determining a course of action, will not be deterred, death threats be damned. Now Scotland Yard, in the form of Detective Superintendent Falmouth, is arrayed against the Four. Despite all the past triumphs of the Four, Falmouth is certain he can keep the Foreign Secretary safe from all harm.
The Four do not wish to kill Sir Philip, nor had they wished to kill others in the past. The Four only wished to have those who became their targets to see the error of their ways and reform. In this case, they merely wish to stop the Bill from going forward. They give several warnings and a few demonstrations of their ability to go anywhere, no matter how guarded,and plant (non)lethal devices even within the chambers of the House of Lords and the Commons.
But the great man will not be driven off his course no matter how rough the going may get for himself or the members of Parliament.
As the approach of the session to act on the bill arrives, security draws tighter about Sir Philip. It seems all of London and the surrounding environs draw in upon the areas of Downing St. All want to see if The Four can carry out their threat of if the Minister will fold to their demands. The climax is a just reward for the reader.
The Four Just Men stories were written more than 100 years ago. Attitudes were different and Wallace wrote to the contemporary audience of the time. These six book are a snap-shot of the times. The modern reader should bear this in mind and perhaps mull over the strides we have made in the use of our language and our opinions.
No matter, these stories are fine tales of action and adventure that even today’s reader can appreciate. And after reading the first in the series I can understand his reading audience clamoring for more of The Four.
May 19, 2025
Interesting thriller. Probably the original vigilante novel in which four people try to punish criminals who escape the law. Doesn't have the same power today, as it must have had when it first came out. But it was famous during its time because the plot was probably new and pioneering. Wanted to read this for a long time, and I'm glad I finally read it. It wasn't as good as I'd hoped, but it was fast-paced and gripping, and a great read for a lazy Sunday afternoon.
There is a sad story about Edgar Wallace. When he was born, his mother gave him up for adoption. Many years later, when he had become successful, she turned up again in his life. She was poor and terminally ill, and wanted his help. He had never met her in his life, and he was angry with her now, and he turned her out. I don't know whether he felt sad after that. I think he must have. His adoptive parents seemed to have loved him and taken care of him well, and he seemed to have had a happy childhood, and so there is some sunshine there.
Have you read 'The Four Just Men'? What do you think about it?
There is a sad story about Edgar Wallace. When he was born, his mother gave him up for adoption. Many years later, when he had become successful, she turned up again in his life. She was poor and terminally ill, and wanted his help. He had never met her in his life, and he was angry with her now, and he turned her out. I don't know whether he felt sad after that. I think he must have. His adoptive parents seemed to have loved him and taken care of him well, and he seemed to have had a happy childhood, and so there is some sunshine there.
Have you read 'The Four Just Men'? What do you think about it?
May 8, 2022
Adına ödül verilen, polisiye türünün kurucularından Edgar Wallace’ı sonunda okudum. Bir şekilde denk gelirseniz, 1905 tarihli “The Four Just Men”i atlamayın. Yayımlandığı yıla göre yenilik sayılabilecek iki önemli farkı var: 1. Romana adını veren grup, hukuğun iflas ettiği noktada devreye girip adaleti kendi yöntemleriyle sağlayan bir grup suikastçiden oluşuyor. Suikastçilerin başrolde olduğu bir romanda, haliyle suç-masumiyet ölçütleri sorgulanıyor. 2. Klasik hiper zeki dedektifin çözdüğü bir davayı izlemiyoruz; işlenen bir suç değil, işlenecek bir suç var. Mekanlar, kişiler sürekli değişiyor; bazen basına bazen parlementoya bazen karakola konuk oluyoruz; bu da anlatıya - aksiyon azlığına rağmen - epey bir hız kazandırmış. Keşke bu serideki diğer romanlar da çevrilseydi...
December 15, 2019
Bel giallo originale. Sappiamo chi sono gli assassini, sappiamo quando colpiranno e sappiamo chi sarà la vittima, mentre non sappiamo come e se ce la faranno. Su questo dubbio e sullo svolgimento esatto degli eventi si dipana tutto il romanzo che tiene incollati sebbene non sia uno stile del tutto scorrevole. Così come la folla londinese si accalca davanti al presunto luogo dell'omicidio, anche noi sfogliamo le pagine cercando di capire come e anche se avverrà l'omicidio. I quattro giusti, beh, diciamo tre più uno, sono dei giustizieri o sono soltanto degli assassini? Ai posteri, ovvero ai libri seguenti, l'ardua sentenza! Tre stelline
October 7, 2020
Uno de los misterios de cuarto cerrado más antiguos y famosos. Interesante, rápido y con un muy buen manejo del suspenso para su época. Obviamente la lectura tiene muchos atavismos del tiempo en que se escribió y algunas partes de la premisa central no aguantan el paso del tiempo. Sin embargo, queda como un divertimento muy rápido para continuar las lecturas.
Es muy famoso el tremendo gaffe que cometió el autor con el libro: como treta promocional se le ocurrió dar un premio en metálico al que adivinara la solución. Sin limitar la cantidad de premios. Terminó declarándose en bancarrota.
Es muy famoso el tremendo gaffe que cometió el autor con el libro: como treta promocional se le ocurrió dar un premio en metálico al que adivinara la solución. Sin limitar la cantidad de premios. Terminó declarándose en bancarrota.
March 2, 2023
Δεν με ενθουσίασε: ας προσπεράσω το τελειωμένο ξέπλυμα στη τρομοκρατία και να δώσω έμφαση στο βιβλίο ως ανάλαφρο ανάγνωσμα (γιατί αυτό είναι). Δυστυχώς είναι κακογερασμένο με την έννοιά ότι η δομή του είναι κουραστική, συχνά υπονοούνται πράγματα και δεν είναι πάντα ευδιάκριτο τι γίνεται ακριβώς. Κρίμα γιατί αποπνέει μια vintagιά που μου αρέσει, γιαυτό και τα τρία αστεράκια. Θα ήθελα να βγούνε και τα υπόλοιπα της σειράς.
September 22, 2013
Certainly not the best or best written mystery ever published, but such a fun read! I don't know if Wallace intended to, but he certainly skewered MPs, which is part of the fun. Not surprisingly, he's got anarchists wrong (the Four Just Men argue they aren't anarchists, and they're not), but reflects the fear of anarchists fueled by the press and ppoliticians--not to mention the acts of whacks who thought themselves anarchists or agent provocateurs--in the late 19th early 29 century. As an historical entity, it's well worth the read. I'll get around to reading the rest of the series. And as other reviewers have noted the Four Just Men dole out dole out justice to the most deserving.
July 14, 2009
This short and taut thriller is one of the best you will ever read in the crime genre. A story of four vigilante men, it makes for great reading and is definitely the perfect book for a boring afternoon!
December 31, 2012
Interesting twist to the mystery format - the book starts with the "4 just men" (vigilantes) planning the death of English minister Ramon and the murder doesn't occur until almost the very end.
September 18, 2013
An astonishingly well written and timeless classic. Wallace has the ability to describe place and time vividly and without lengthening the novel unnecessarily.
July 2, 2023
There are many terrible men and women in positions of power. By their greed and unscrupulousness they ruin the lives of people who cannot protect themselves. Wouldn't it be fair if they got a taste of their own medicine? Might it even serve justice to remove them from the face of the Earth?
The Four Just Men claim for themselves the divine right of superior judgment. Not only do they decide what's right and what's wrong, they resort to callous acts of murder like God might punish a wrongdoer. At the beginning of the novel, the three core members of the group – George Manfred, Leon Gonsalez, and Raymond Poiccart – have killed sixteen people. Their newest target is the Foreign Secretary Sir Philip Ramon whom they judge to-be-guilty for his Aliens Extradition Bill.
The content of the Bill is never explained in detail, but there was the Aliens Act 1905 at around the time of the book's publication. The Act very strictly limited immigration into the United Kingdom and prevented many asylum-seekers from a safe place to live. Caused by the horrors of war in Syria, the Ukraine, and elsewhere the numbers of immigrants who seek refuge are currently at an all-time high. Yet, there are those who would prefer to simply close the doors and let them deal with their own problems. Depending on where you stand, it's difficult to avoid strongly negative sentiments towards such blunt egoism.
The Four Just Men is an intriguingly sinister story for indulging those anti-democratic fantasies. The already interesting premise is further strengthened by bringing in the general public and by introducing an additional motivation seemingly less "noble". Baffled by the criminals' wit, the police puts a high reward on their head (well, on information that leads to their arrest). While the villains attempt to control politics guided by moral principles and by the threat of violence, the good guys are motivated by personal profit.
The unusual structure of how the story is narrated makes it more difficult still to decide who you should root for. The events are recounted somewhat distantly with some chapters presenting the media reception of what was going on. Between and within chapters the people in focus change and we see what both sides are up to. Neither the Four Just Men nor police commissioner Falmouth are clear protagonists in the usual sense.
I think Wallace mainly intents to instill admiration for the four vigilantes because of how easy it is for them to do what they do. I think the unfathomably superior villain almost defines a subgenre of crime fiction. For example, early in the story they place a bomb in the Parliament, and it's never explained how they accomplish this extraordinary feat. A couple of months ago I saw Deadlier Than the Male , which I thought was a good example why the easy superiority takes out all the tension. Later on there are some references to chemistry proficiency of one of the four men as superficial explanation of how it is they do what they do, though.
There are surprising tensions within the group. The newly recruited fourth member, the Spaniard Thery, is actually imprisoned to prevent him from consulting the papers. He is reluctant to go on with their plot and there is discussion on what to do with him. However, to my mind the subplot was rather confused and should have been more streamlined for further impact. There was also the other subplot with the pickpocket and the back-and-forth in his attempts to identify the man they now know was one of those they are looking for. But here too I thought the whole event doesn't really go anywhere.
Of course I'm familiar with many of the German Edgar Wallace movie adaptations, but it was only recently that I've learned you could take the novels seriously. For the most part it's a very undemanding read, and it also shares the silly humor with the movies. It's not screamingly funny, but there are some amusing remarks and twists. So, while I was surprised by its unexpected reflections on justice, in other respects my first Edgar Wallace novel was exactly what I asked for.
Rating: 3.5/5
The Four Just Men claim for themselves the divine right of superior judgment. Not only do they decide what's right and what's wrong, they resort to callous acts of murder like God might punish a wrongdoer. At the beginning of the novel, the three core members of the group – George Manfred, Leon Gonsalez, and Raymond Poiccart – have killed sixteen people. Their newest target is the Foreign Secretary Sir Philip Ramon whom they judge to-be-guilty for his Aliens Extradition Bill.
The content of the Bill is never explained in detail, but there was the Aliens Act 1905 at around the time of the book's publication. The Act very strictly limited immigration into the United Kingdom and prevented many asylum-seekers from a safe place to live. Caused by the horrors of war in Syria, the Ukraine, and elsewhere the numbers of immigrants who seek refuge are currently at an all-time high. Yet, there are those who would prefer to simply close the doors and let them deal with their own problems. Depending on where you stand, it's difficult to avoid strongly negative sentiments towards such blunt egoism.
The Four Just Men is an intriguingly sinister story for indulging those anti-democratic fantasies. The already interesting premise is further strengthened by bringing in the general public and by introducing an additional motivation seemingly less "noble". Baffled by the criminals' wit, the police puts a high reward on their head (well, on information that leads to their arrest). While the villains attempt to control politics guided by moral principles and by the threat of violence, the good guys are motivated by personal profit.
The unusual structure of how the story is narrated makes it more difficult still to decide who you should root for. The events are recounted somewhat distantly with some chapters presenting the media reception of what was going on. Between and within chapters the people in focus change and we see what both sides are up to. Neither the Four Just Men nor police commissioner Falmouth are clear protagonists in the usual sense.
I think Wallace mainly intents to instill admiration for the four vigilantes because of how easy it is for them to do what they do. I think the unfathomably superior villain almost defines a subgenre of crime fiction. For example, early in the story they place a bomb in the Parliament, and it's never explained how they accomplish this extraordinary feat. A couple of months ago I saw Deadlier Than the Male , which I thought was a good example why the easy superiority takes out all the tension. Later on there are some references to chemistry proficiency of one of the four men as superficial explanation of how it is they do what they do, though.
There are surprising tensions within the group. The newly recruited fourth member, the Spaniard Thery, is actually imprisoned to prevent him from consulting the papers. He is reluctant to go on with their plot and there is discussion on what to do with him. However, to my mind the subplot was rather confused and should have been more streamlined for further impact. There was also the other subplot with the pickpocket and the back-and-forth in his attempts to identify the man they now know was one of those they are looking for. But here too I thought the whole event doesn't really go anywhere.
Of course I'm familiar with many of the German Edgar Wallace movie adaptations, but it was only recently that I've learned you could take the novels seriously. For the most part it's a very undemanding read, and it also shares the silly humor with the movies. It's not screamingly funny, but there are some amusing remarks and twists. So, while I was surprised by its unexpected reflections on justice, in other respects my first Edgar Wallace novel was exactly what I asked for.
Rating: 3.5/5
March 16, 2017
In my quest this year to always have one classic novel going, I decided to start with this author I never heard of, an early 20th century Brit who specialized in journalism and the Victorian/Edwardian version of thrillers.
"Four Just Men" was the start of a series about a determined band of European vigilantes who decide to kill off people in the world whom the law cannot punish. In this debut, their target is none other than the foreign secretary of Great Britain, who is pushing through a bill that would deport a Spanish champion of freedom and subject him to certain imprisonment or death. The trick of these books is getting you to like these cultured assassins and buy into the nobility of their otherwise illegal and unethical actions.
The rest is the same kind of dabbling in new science that Conan Doyle had Holmes carry out. In this case, of course, the entire force of the Metropolitan Police is arrayed against the four gentlemen, who not only make their threats public but give specific dates on which they will issue other warnings and carry out their killing.
The foreign secretary is petrified by this threat, but is also so convinced of his propriety that he will not give in. And police officials throw everything they have into protecting him. Will the Four be able to pull this one off, especially after their newest recruit tries to turn himself in? And what happens when a pickpocket gets involved late in the game? And what methods will they use to commit the righteous crime?
It all gets resolved satisfactorily in this quick read.
"Four Just Men" was the start of a series about a determined band of European vigilantes who decide to kill off people in the world whom the law cannot punish. In this debut, their target is none other than the foreign secretary of Great Britain, who is pushing through a bill that would deport a Spanish champion of freedom and subject him to certain imprisonment or death. The trick of these books is getting you to like these cultured assassins and buy into the nobility of their otherwise illegal and unethical actions.
The rest is the same kind of dabbling in new science that Conan Doyle had Holmes carry out. In this case, of course, the entire force of the Metropolitan Police is arrayed against the four gentlemen, who not only make their threats public but give specific dates on which they will issue other warnings and carry out their killing.
The foreign secretary is petrified by this threat, but is also so convinced of his propriety that he will not give in. And police officials throw everything they have into protecting him. Will the Four be able to pull this one off, especially after their newest recruit tries to turn himself in? And what happens when a pickpocket gets involved late in the game? And what methods will they use to commit the righteous crime?
It all gets resolved satisfactorily in this quick read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 162 reviews