Holmes or Poirot?

Submitted by confrita t3_z4nu8d in books

What of this two detectives do you like more?

I know they belong to different historial contexts, which of course brings differences in social customs, crime investigation technology and the overall situations in which the characters are involved into, but I would like to know wheter you prefer the more action-based Holmes approach to he resolution of problems or perhaps you like more Poirot's use of the 'little grey cells'.

The question can of course encompass Watson and Hastings, although in my opinion these two character are not that different from each other.

Personally I find that Holmes approach it's more entertaining to read, at least for me. I like Poirot, but sometimes his convoluted methods create a certain lag for me and ends up making the reading experience a little bit boring until the final explanation phase.

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Hartastic t1_ixs9nbc wrote

I generally prefer Christie... usually, but not always, at the end of a Poirot novel I feel like I could have guessed the solution even if I didn't. This is pretty much what I'm looking for in a mystery.

I disagree a bit about the sidekicks -- Watson isn't as smart as Holmes but he at least has some useful skills -- Hastings is pretty much just an impulsive idiot. (Although this maybe is what makes Curtain so... well, I won't say more but it wouldn't work without Hastings being Hastings, even as an older man.)

21

confrita OP t1_ixwzmsh wrote

Yeah I get what you're saying about the feeling of the possible guessing of the solution at the end of Poirot's stories, and I suppose that's something Christie noted as a lacking in detective stories, giving the reader at least some little possibility or sensation of possibility of reaching to the culprit.

That is one of the main reasons that the stories of Ellery Queen (at least some of them) were a kind of novelty for me. There you have the direct challenge from the author to analyze the problem and trying to reach the conclusions before telling you the solution

3

kaysn t1_ixsm07r wrote

I do enjoy reading Holmes. But you are never meant to be anything other than a spectator. You aren't Sherlock Holmes, you are not meant to solve this mystery. And often the answer, quite frankly Doyle pulls out of his ass. Relevant information is withheld from you. Hound of the Baskervilles is a favorite novel of mine but I think it perfectly shows this asspullery. You are Dr. Watson. You are provided clues and red herrings with which you will draw your conclusions. But ultimately, the most important pieces of information are kept away from you. And only when Holmes comes back do these vital clues get presented. So you can marvel at how amazing he is. You never question him. You will always accept the truth as he says it.

I have a soft spot for Poirot. Because his detective work is more criminal profiling. Which I personally find fascinating. He isn't dusting for prints inasmuch looks at the behavior and deduces the background of the perpetrator. It is lies upon lies with the truth hiding in plain sight. And in the end, you may still be left wondering, did Poirot really catch the bad guy?

14

DemythologizedDie t1_ixspvpd wrote

Doyle was far better at writing short story length mysteries than novels. When he wrote them, he'd pad out their length with long stretches in which, absent the detective, no progress would happen but much melodrama did. Agatha Christie had the skills of a true detective novelist.

2

HerculeHastings t1_ixsdjy1 wrote

I must say I'm on the extreme end where I really love Poirot and absolutely hate Holmes. I've read some Holmes stories where the solution was basically gotten by Holmes tying the criminal up and interrogating him, which imo is such a cheap way of solving a mystery.

On the other hand, I grew up with Poirot and love every eccentricity of his, and especially the part where he's very tactful and kind (though shrewd) to everyone so they confide in him, as opposed to Holmes being the tactless and kinda rude person.

8

Current_Argument4876 t1_ixshc9b wrote

I don’t hate Holmes, but I do prefer Poirot because of his eccentricity as well. Poirot (and Hastings) are just funnier, a bit more light-hearted and goofy.

Added bonus, there are many more Poirot stories than Holmes stories.

5

StoneTwin t1_ixsw6sm wrote

Holmes stories i genuinely find boring. There is no need to follow the story as none of it is truly relevant to the crisis nor resolution.

Poirot is a delight.

4

GodOfDucks t1_ixsfjg0 wrote

Holmes is more fun for me, there is bit more light-heartedness in the stories; And I like his dynamic with Watson, it's no surprise it's been imitated so often by other authors.

8

crypticxword t1_ixspfz0 wrote

In terms of how the books are plotted and written, Poirot is by far better. The plots are tight and I like the fact that even when I reread some books I can’t figure out the solution (but maybe that says more about me than the author lol)

Holmes is depicted as lot more action oriented than Poirot. I prefer the little gray cells action.

6

phadrus56 t1_ixruhl8 wrote

I have never read Poirot. Holmes was written as escapist trash in it's time, that's why there are so many inconsistencies in the stories. Don't get me wrong, I love the stories but they are not deep reading.

5

JackieGigantic t1_ixrxvqw wrote

I don't think either is all that deep to be fair.

5

phadrus56 t1_ixryoub wrote

I will not commit on Poiret, I've never read him.

−2

BookeofIdolatry t1_ixswgxv wrote

Holmes appealed to a younger me, but now I prefer considering Poirot or Maigret.

4

abraendel t1_ixu7h8a wrote

Nero Wolfe! All three are fantastic.

4

JackieGigantic t1_ixrz69f wrote

I've only read two Poirot novels -- Murder on the Orient Express (duh, who hasn't?) and The ABC Murders -- and they were fine. With Holmes I've mostly read the short stories, so I'm biased towards Holmes in large part because I prefer the format of short mysteries, but of course both Holmes and Poirot exist in both formats.

3

ADHD-HDTV t1_ixtggjg wrote

Murder of Roger Ackroyd. That’s what you need to read for Poirot. Right now. Go do it. NOW.

3

confrita OP t1_ixv6ed8 wrote

Yes! that's the first story of Poirot that I read, I love it!

2

20above t1_ixtkmt1 wrote

I prefer Holmes especially since I enjoy the Stephen Fry narration but even without I still prefer it to Poirot. Not really a fan of Agatha Christie.

3

rositalagata t1_ixsp7c6 wrote

I enjoy both, but I enjoy Poirot better as a character. His particular brand of charisma appeals to me.

2

Sea-Bottle6335 t1_ixsmyv4 wrote

Holmes has been sort of a hero for me. Ya, the stories have holes and some pretty big ones. I haven’t read any Poirot but I’ve seen all the David Suchet and Poirot drives me crazy. It’s Hastings I like and of course Miss Lemon.

1

ZaphodG t1_ixud89r wrote

I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes smartest guy in the room character. I also vastly prefer the short stories.

1

arcoiris2 t1_ixvjn1x wrote

I enjoy them both equally.

1