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.
Written in 1905, this remains a gripping and exciting character piece that examines the effect of political terrorism on a passive populace. While the characters of the police who pursue the titular four are never more than loosely drawn, those of the men themselves are the clearest fascination, and the gaps in their characterisation just encourage the reader to fill them in by himself. The plot whips along, the tension palpably increases as the annointed hour of the act moves ever closer, and while the climax has a whiff of the deus ex machina, it's allowable in the realms of what is, clearly, a pulp novel that outstrips its boundaries. It's exciting, stirring stuff, with the added benefit of -- quite unconsciously-- being a fascinating glimpse into the bigotry and superciliousness of the Edwardian Englishman.
What do You think about The Four Just Men (2001)?
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.
—Nick Duretta
Nice little mystery ... quick, fun read.The viewer alternately looks over the shoulders of the four master criminals and the police trying to keep the target safe. It does stretch credibility at times and you never really get to know the Four that well ... except for the new recruit you don't get to know them at all. The ending is contrived and not fairly hinted at for those who like to guess along at home, but it wasn't one of those that leaving you wanting to throw the book across the room, either.Good plane / train fare, but not a detective masterpiece. 3.5 stars.
—Randal
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.
—John
