|
|
|
SHERLOCK HOLMES
The infamous detective Sherlock Holmes first appeared in “The Study in Scarlet” in the 1880s. It is said that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wasn’t very happy with his creation and even decided to kill him off (but had to reincarnate him because the public threatened to burn down his house if he didn’t bring their favorite character back to life)
The stories start when Dr. John Watson, an army doctor, starts to narrate the whimsical adventures of his flat mate, Sherlock Holmes who is the only consulting detective in the entire world.
Holmes appears in almost 9 novels and 56 short stories and he remains the 2nd most adapted character in the history of fiction. (Closely, preceded by Count Dracula who, let’s just all admit it, deserves the first position). People loved the brilliant sleuth, still do. And many networks have recreated the iconic character of Holmes such as BBC Sherlock, Elementary, the movies ( starring RDJ) and so on.
 |
| Henry Cavil as Sherlock Holmes |
HERCULE POIROT
Hercule Poirot is a Belgian detective created by the queen of mystery, Agatha Christie, who, just like ACD wasn’t much happy with her detective. ( for some reason they hate their best creation……”side glances at Victor Frankenstein”)
For a loyal side kick, Poirot gets Capt. Hastings who is definitely “not the sharpest tool in the shed” but is a good companion. Poirot first appeared in “The Mysterious Affair At Styles” (which is the best debut story ever) in the 1920s.
 |
| Hercule Poirot & Capt. Hatings |
Later Christie wrote 55 novels and more than 50 short stories for the public who just couldn’t get enough of their favorite Belgian sleuth. Just like Holmes, he is still adapted to various media. Like the recent, “Murder on the Orient Express” & “Death on the Nile” movies.
 |
| Davit Suchet as Poirot |
SO WHY COMPARE THEM?
The two detectives are brilliant and significantly different from one another yet still they are not in the position where they can be judged so easily.
Holmes was easily bored unless he was investigating an interesting case, was a chemist, depended on physical evidence & forensics, was a creature of solitude, played the violin and was tall & wiry.
Poirot was a chatty person who loved good company, also loved interesting cases, always relied on human psychology & nature and was short, stout with a moustache.
But the main difference was not their method of investigation neither it was their looks or attitudes. Rather it was the narratives! Christie never wrote Poirot with the aspect of comparing it to Holmes in her mind. Doyle never wanted his detective to be compared either. (I’d say Doyle didn’t want his detective to live either but…)
We see so much diversity and versatility in Doyle’s stories which is not found in christies stories. Holmes investigated scandals, robberies, attempted murders (some of them were very interesting). He even helped the government and helped find jewels & gems. ( The Adventures of the Bruce Partington Plans). The crimes were very entertaining and what was much more enjoyable than finding the culprit was the way Holmes figured it out. Sometimes the culprit is easily identified, even by the reader and I’d say many stories had almost no plot twists because we all saw it coming. But there is something infinitely satisfying about reading Holmes figure it out.
On the other hand, Poirot almost always investigated murders in his novels(The ABC murders, Poirot’s Christmas, Peril at the End house, Evil under the Sun, Five little Pigs) He rarely investigated robberies or any other felonies. But the plot twists were just mind boggling. Rest assured, everyone gasps at the end of those novels. You can almost never guess the culprit. Some of those inspired many modern-day thrillers and suspense stories. But Poirot fails to engage his audience in the method. Most of his method was basically eavesdropping and listening to every one else. That is because he relied on human nature and psychology much more than he relied on physical evidence. Christies books are the classics on which the foundation of the genres was renovated but her detective lacked the charm we find in Holmes.
|
|
|
And if I may add, the moral compass of the two sleuths differed quite strikingly. In various tales of Holmes, we see how he disregards the law or fools the police because he is a believer of the greater good. ( The Adventures of the Blue Carbuncle) In some of his cases he takes the matter in his own hands rather than involving the police and in some cases, he may as well be called a morally grey character.
On the other hand, Poirot strictly believed in law & order. He strongly believed that justice should prevail in all conditions and more often than not he made sure that the culprit got what he deserved. And we see this depiction of his strict nature in almost every story.
But I do like Holmes in a sense that his stories were strictly speaking an essence of the sleuth genre. Unlike Poirot who often travelled places, we find a kind of comfort in knowing that our deer-stalker hat lover resides in Baker St. And it was sometimes a bit funny that kings and government officials were forced to drag themselves to his lodgings. He was too proud to go anywhere.
 |
| BBC Sherlock |
That reminds me of a thing our detectives have in common, their very condescending nature! Through Poirot was sweet and established dominance in a nice but solemn way, Sherlock Holmes was a sass queen. (I’m so sorry). His sarcasm and his salty nature were just one of the few reasons no one was willing to share a flat with him.
 |
| Murder on the Orient Express |
CONCLUSION
The two characters could’ve been comparable if the stories were written in some similar manner. However, that’s not the case. Simply the prevailing writing style also changed in several decades and ACD’s books are actually not that interesting anymore just because they are written in old style and youth would almost consider them homework rather than a pleasure after college.
Christie’s writing style is also not in use today however the plot twists and interesting yet satisfying endings are the driving force that keep her stories alive.
So instead of Holmes vs Poirot, it should be Holmes & Poirot where we all discuss how the two masterminds would’ve gotten along. Holmes would’ve hated the cheerful Monsieur Poirot and his loquacious evening routine while Poirot would’ve loathed Holmes chemistry mess and his sulking habits.
On the other side, I sincerely believe that Dr. John Watson & Capt. Hastings are best friends in an alternate universe.
Happy Reading!
0 Comments