Re: Sherlock or Poirot?
Posted: 17 Jul 2023, 03:55
Well, I believe we're talking about the two detectives' personalities, and not which novels are preferred in the literary sense (which is dealt in another post – "Agatha Christie vs Arthur Conan Doyle"). So, here's my take on it:
It's quite clear, even without too much research that one of Agatha Christie's most significant influence in creating the figure of Poirot was the well-known Sherlock Holmes, and she also admitted it herself. So, Holmes has the advantage of being there first.
The two figures have some similarities, mostly their being bachelors, their exceptional abilities, their crew, etc. They also have dissimilarities – the most obvious is Poirot being a foreigner, a complete stranger to the British culture he lives in. However, these are mostly circumstantial. When I observe the personality of the two detectives, as most eccentric as both detectives are, I find the figure of Holmes much more human. Here's why:
- Holmes is less arrogant than Poirot. He sometimes boasts about his abilities and "the science of deduction", but this is mostly in the face of Dr Watson, and not in the presence of other people, while Poirot keeps boasting about his "little gray cells" in front of almost anyone who listens to him, and always regards himself as the most important person around. Christie herself couldn't bear his character (Wikipedia - By 1930, Agatha Christie found Poirot "insufferable", and by 1960 she felt that he was a "detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep").
- Holmes is very successful, but sometimes makes mistakes. He sometimes fails. He has some equal rivals that beat him in a few occasions. I refer to Irene Adler in "A Scandal in Bohemia", Professor Moriarty, which finds him and kills him, in a fight in which they both lose their lives in "The Last Problem" (Well, we know that, later, Holmes is brought back to life). Holmes even believes, for a moment that he failed to guard Sir Henry Baskerville, until, luckily, it turns out that the victim is the criminal Selden, and not Baskerville. Maybe there are some more examples that I don't remember.
- Holmes has weaknesses – he is sometimes under depression, he uses drugs. In comparison, Poirot hardly has flaws.
- Holmes is a man of wide horizons – he plays the violin, he writes scientific monographs, and he even writes some of the stories – for example, "The Lion's Mane". I don't recall any similar feature in Poirot.
These facts are some of the reasons why I like Holmes much more than Poirot. I stress, again, that I related here only to the personalities, and not to the literary qualities of the stories and novels themselves.
It's quite clear, even without too much research that one of Agatha Christie's most significant influence in creating the figure of Poirot was the well-known Sherlock Holmes, and she also admitted it herself. So, Holmes has the advantage of being there first.
The two figures have some similarities, mostly their being bachelors, their exceptional abilities, their crew, etc. They also have dissimilarities – the most obvious is Poirot being a foreigner, a complete stranger to the British culture he lives in. However, these are mostly circumstantial. When I observe the personality of the two detectives, as most eccentric as both detectives are, I find the figure of Holmes much more human. Here's why:
- Holmes is less arrogant than Poirot. He sometimes boasts about his abilities and "the science of deduction", but this is mostly in the face of Dr Watson, and not in the presence of other people, while Poirot keeps boasting about his "little gray cells" in front of almost anyone who listens to him, and always regards himself as the most important person around. Christie herself couldn't bear his character (Wikipedia - By 1930, Agatha Christie found Poirot "insufferable", and by 1960 she felt that he was a "detestable, bombastic, tiresome, ego-centric little creep").
- Holmes is very successful, but sometimes makes mistakes. He sometimes fails. He has some equal rivals that beat him in a few occasions. I refer to Irene Adler in "A Scandal in Bohemia", Professor Moriarty, which finds him and kills him, in a fight in which they both lose their lives in "The Last Problem" (Well, we know that, later, Holmes is brought back to life). Holmes even believes, for a moment that he failed to guard Sir Henry Baskerville, until, luckily, it turns out that the victim is the criminal Selden, and not Baskerville. Maybe there are some more examples that I don't remember.
- Holmes has weaknesses – he is sometimes under depression, he uses drugs. In comparison, Poirot hardly has flaws.
- Holmes is a man of wide horizons – he plays the violin, he writes scientific monographs, and he even writes some of the stories – for example, "The Lion's Mane". I don't recall any similar feature in Poirot.
These facts are some of the reasons why I like Holmes much more than Poirot. I stress, again, that I related here only to the personalities, and not to the literary qualities of the stories and novels themselves.