As regular forum participants know, I am a member of the Sherlock Holmes Society (membership by virtue of being married to Maynooth, who is the Sherlock Holmes fanatic in our family - I am the Agatha Christie fan).

Later on this year, we are hosting one of the regular meetings at our place (it's our turn) and we have to organise a debate on "Who's the better detective - Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poiorot?"

It wasn't my choice of topic - the committee decides the calendar of events and the hosts are stuck with it.

I would appreciate any comments or feedback from Sherlock Holmes and/or Hercule Poirot fans on this topic.

One Vote to Sherlock (and Watson)!
The sheer thrill when it comes to reading a Holmes is Unique (I am NOT that big a Holmes-maniac but there is a charm to Holmes)


Never liked the Belgian (I always thought Tintin was a better detective than Poirot!) Maybe I have a bias towards Doyle (I never liked any Agatha's books). Poirot is too "cumbersome" and slow for my liking. (A good read for an insomaniac)

While I don't agree with ace's harsh assessment of Agatha Christie's novels, I would have to vote in favor of Holmes as well. You never see what is coming until the end, and you enjoy being in the dark until the last minute. I also love Watson for his good-hearted though dimwitted perspective on the crimes.

I am a Huge fan of both Holmes and Poirot! I have read all the Sherlock Holmes shortstories and novels--and the Poirot's as well.But, for all over easy reading, give me Poirot. So, one vote, please, for Christie's 5'4", dandified, green-eyed, little Belgian user of "the little gray cells".

As far as the 'puzzle' aspect of the books go, Agatha Christie doesn't 'cheat' as much as Doyle. The books are a fair puzzle, and you can figure out the answer, if you're only smart enough. (I never am, alas). The Sherlock Holmes books, though, are in my opinion a much better read, more atmospheric, and the characters are more like real humans, with human inconsistencies, misjudgements, etc.

Another vote for Holmes. I prefer the sardonic humour of Doyle to the intriguing puzzles of Christie's Poirot. However if you had asked about Miss Marple the story may have been different. Regards, Tin

Tin, I love the Miss Marple mysteries!

I wondered why Hercule Piorot is considered worthy of competing with Holmes (I must confess that I have read only 4 of his books - found them all ......)

Anyways I, now, took 'Evil under the Sun' - After the first 5 chapters, I must say I seem quite justified in my reaction (read earlier post).

[Ballot Rigging]
10,000 Votes to Holmes
[/Ballot rigging]

I'm for Poirot...and Miss Marple too! Never read any Sherlock Holmes, but Christie had such a wonderful way of leading you up the wrong path and then explaining everything at the end

I thought you might like to know the results of the debate. Following the strict rules of debating, the case was argued vigorously by each team (of three members). All club members present voted and the result was ..... a draw!

Now, if one club member had not happened to be in the smallest room of the house at voting time, Poirot would have won by a moustache!

Personally, I have to say that I felt the Poirot team's arguments were superior to the Holmes team's. After all, they argued, can you really trust the judgement of a detective who is known to indulge in cocaine and morphine?

Indeed, the object of the evening was not to decide which was the greatest detective but rather which team could get their argument across the best. Poirot would have had one less vote had I not been on the team argueing for Poirot.

I was, in fact, hard pressed not to vote for Holmes anyway as I know who is truely the greatest detective.

I am not going to take this opportunity to explain the short comings of the Belgian as that would involve "spoilers".

I will however add one paragraph;
Let's face it, if you heard a knock on the door, on a foggy evening, long after the gas had been lit and the door was opened to the ghost of Poirot, one would think themselves mad. However, if the door was filled with a figure in a cloth travelling cap, a lens and the words, "The game's afoot my good Watson" could one refuse the call of adventure? I think not!

cheers
Maynooth

Sorry, I'm new to the Forums, but for me it is Poirot all the time....with Miss Marple a close second! Sherlock Holmes...although I've never read the books I've seen programmes once or twice...is too English for me!

Before committing myself to the argumjent can I please ask a question "Was Poirot ever beaten on a case?"
I know Holmes was (I think 4 times - will have to check!) and the reasons why he was beaten are well documented in the books.

Sure somebody will confirm it but pretty sure he failed to solve a "short story" srime - think it was called "The Chocolate Box". Maybe more

By Holmes own admission in "The Five Orange Pips" he had been beaten;
"I have been beaten four times, three times by men, and once by a woman."

The woman presumably Irene Adler whom he always after referred to just as "The Woman".

There were a couple of cases that he figured out but the perpetrators died a horrible death before being brought to judgement.

The comment above about "The Chocolate Box" I have to assume is in regard to the Belgian as it is not a Holmes story written by Doyle.

cheers
Maynooth

Yes, sorry, should had said, "The chocolate box" has "that Belgium" (hope I spelt that right) in it!

DEFINITELY Holmes. There never was, never will be anyone like him. Poirot is a POOR second... The thrill, characterisation, wit, and feel of Holmes books is incomparable. In many ways, I feel Christie has tried to ape Holmes in Poirot, but she can't come close. Poirot strikes me as a silly fellow, hardly worthy of being compared with Sherlock Holmes.

Sorry if that's too harsh.

Ahh. MM24 I deduce you are a member of superior taste!

cheers
Maynooth

Looks as if I'll have to read a Holmes book (or at least one short story) to try and convert me!

Dear CRyan,

Might I be so bold as to suggest the novel "A Study in Scarlet". This is the first story and introduces Watson to Holmes and the reading public to them both.

If you are looking for a short story (there are 56 to choose from) I would suggest "A Scandal in Bohemia" as it is the first short story in the Canon.

Cheers
Maynooth

Thank you, I hoped somebody would suggest a book! I'll borrow it from the local library hopefully and then say what I think!

I'll add another vote for Sherlock Holmes. I'm not a big fan of detectives stories, though; yet, I used to read Conan Doyle when I was younger and I remember enjoying his stories. Holmes' wit and charisma can't be equalled by the moustached Belgian

Besides, Doyle was very skillful in creating atmospheres and portraying characters.

I hadn't read much Poirot - the last time when I posted here - since then I embarked on understanding the curious phenomenon of why people like 'piorot' (admittedly this could have been another of Piorot's failures had been attempted to solve it )

Anyways, after 40 books - the only one I liked and found refreshingly not-sleep inducing was "the Murder on Orient Express" (may be the 'The Three Act Tragedy'also).
By the way, most of Christie's short stories (in Poiot investigates, Piorot's Early Cases) seems to give me a weird sense of deja vu.
The Elder Brother, the failure (already talked about here)-but the way in which it was brought about (by Watson.. sorry Hastings), the Kidnapping of PMs, the Submarine Plots etc

Instead of this, I would rather ask the FT boys :
Who was better? Lestrade or Japps?

Yes, some of Christie's short stories were then stretched out into full length novels For example - the short story "Yellow Jasmine" later became "Sparkling Cyanide". the short story featured Poirot but the full length never. Haven't got around to reading any Holmes yet, but Japp, for me, was very slow, Poirot ran rings round him!

There are a lot of parallels between Agatha Christie's stories and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's. Christie makes no secret of the fact that Holmes was her inspiration.

In her autobiography, Christie relates the circumstances under which she wrote her first novel and says:

"At that date, I was well steeped in the Sherlock Holmes tradition. So I considered detectives. Not like Sherlock Holmes, of course: I must invent one of my own, and he would also have a friend as a kind of butt or stooge - that would not be too difficult..."

"I reviewed such detectives as I had met and admired in books. There was Sherlock Holmes, the one and only - I should never be able to emulate him. There was Arsene Lupin - was he a criminal or a detective? Anyway, not my kind..."

"He would have a grand name - one of those names that Sherlock Homes and his family had. Who had his brother been? Mycroft Holmes. How about calling my little man Hercules? He would be a small man - Hercules: a good name. His last name was more difficult. I don't know why I settled on the name Poirot..."

Later she wrote:

"I was also tied to two people: Hercule Poirot and his Watson, Captain Hastings. I quite enjoyed Captain Hastings. He was a stereotyped creation, but he and Poirot represented my idea of a detective team. I was still writing in the Sherlock Holmes tradition - eccentric detective, stooge assistant, with a Lestrade-type Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Japp - now I added a "human foxhound", Inspector Giraud, of the French Police. Giraud despises Poirot as being old and passe."

Just as Conan Doyle tired of Sherlock Holmes, so did Christie tire of Hercule Poirot:

"Now I saw what a terrible mistake I had made in starting with Hercule Poirot so old - I ought to have abandoned him after the first three or four books, and begun again with someone much younger."

"Hercule Poirot, my Belgian invention, was hanging around my neck, firmly attached there like the old man of the sea".

Whenever Christie adapted a short story as a novel, or a novel as a play, she took the opportunity to dispense with Poirot and susbtitute another detective. She did this when she adapted the novels "Appointment with Death", "Five Little Pigs", "The Hollow" and "Murder on the Nile" into plays. As JaneMarple mentioned above, the short story "Yellow Iris" was adapted to become the novel "Sparkling Cyanide" and once again, Agatha decided not to use Poirot in the novel although he appears in the short story.

"Poirot is rather insufferable. Most public men are who have lived too long. But none of them like retiring. So I am afraid Poirot won't either - certainly not while he is my chief source of income".

Agatha Christie created another leading character, the mystery author Ariadne Oliver (based on herself) who hated her fictional detective, a Finn called Sven Hjerson. When Oliver complained about being saddled with her own creation, it reflected Christie's feelings about Poirot.

Another interesting parallel is that both Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot only ever had strong feelings for one woman - Irene Adler and Countess Vera Rossakoff respectively. But these attachments go nowhere and the two ladies do not feature in more than one or two stories.

Edited to add: And what about their retirement occupations? Holmes turned to beekeeping and Poirot to the cultivation of vegetable marrows. Now don't those two occupations seem incongruous given the personalities of the two detectives? This is especially true in the case of Poirot. Poirot, who is so meticulous in his personal hygiene, who frets over a speck of lint on his clothes and grooms his moustache to perfection. Can you really see him getting dirty, digging in a garden and putting fertilizer on his marrows?