Indian Readers discussion

I am a Poirot man all the way. Poirot novels for me are a perfect example of detective fiction. Holmes was much more of an adventure.
And, when it came to solving a mystery, I favored the little grey cells to mud stains on boots. Even as a character I liked Poirot, his neatness, his adherence to SQUARES with definite ends rather than Circles. Holmes, being somewhat temperamental, was not the kind of person I would look up to.
But, curiously, the modern thrillers of today, take both the aspect, of analysing a crime using grey cells and searching for mud prints on boots, using SCENE OF CRIME procedures.

But for the ultimate question : Hercule Poirot, as he once himself said "Dont fear Madame, because the best mind in Europe is here to help you", rules the world!!

Couldn't stand poirot's arrogance and holmes was more entertaining, he is the rock star among detectives...

Aditya wrote: "Couldn't stand poirot's arrogance and holmes was more entertaining, he is the rock star among detectives..."

How could you say Holmes was not arrogant??? He definitely had an arrogant steak in him, especially the way he treated Ms. Hudson. Poirot on the other hand, was very respectful towards George, his butler.
On top of that Holmes never had to face the prejudice of being "That little Belgian, with an egg shaped head" i.e. being a foreigner. Holmes was always one of them.
And, if I go by the plots, Agatha Christie was way ahead of Conan Doyle when it came to twists and turns.

somehow I am prejudiced against Holmes. I dont like him much, though he is a great detective and I enjoy reading his adventures. I feel he will look down upon his nose at the rest of us. Poirot too thinks he is great and methodical, but then he tolerates others and is more gentle and sweet.

Smitha wrote: "somehow I am prejudiced against Holmes. I dont like him much, though he is a great detective and I enjoy reading his adventures. I feel he will look down upon his nose at the rest of us. Poirot too..."

Exactly my sentiment.

I can't choose between the two. One goes by physical evidence and the other by behaviour and motivations. Both have idiosyncrasies that could initially be annoying, but they grow on you as you read more of them.

What is more interesting than the creations are the two authors themselves. Here is a contrast that may explain the different natures of their creations.

- AC, in her own words, had a very happy childhood in a well-off family. ACD's childhood was very different. His happiest moments were when he wrote to his mother from his oppressive boarding school.
- AC was home-schooled and had a governess, whereas ACD learnt his ropes outside in the world.
- ACD traveled extensively, including to the arctic and Africa. At least in the initial years, AC was mostly in England and France
- ACD was a practicing doctor, while AC was a pharmacist.

To me, this seems to explain why Holmes was an outdoors, vigorous, physical evidence detective, while Poirot was more of the indoors, armchair variety who relied mostly on soft aspects. The characters reflect their creators' lives.

Their training seems to explain why Watson was a practicing doctor, while Hastings was an incorrigible romantic.

Maybe because I don't remember correctly from the only 1-2 agatha christie and few BBC Poirot series I came across, To me Poirot is a flat character. There is hardly anything except few traits that you can draw parallels with Holmes, like solitary nature, sarcastic, cynical. But when you read Holmes you feel you understand him and his personality more. And that draws me to Holmes.
He is undoubtedly neurotic, selfish, politically incorrect and who naturally gets annoyed at being interfered with. He is quirky, his methods are, much to Watson's annoyance, kept to himself. He is intellectual, psychologist, he is a scientist too. There is much of philosophical approach to his investigation which I don't know whether Poirot stories have (cos I haven't read enough Poirot).
I think the only place where Conan doyle wasn't probably correct was in humour dept. I can't imagine how a character like that cannot be humourous, which is why I believe Guy RItchie's version of Sherlock Holmes is perhaps more accurate than Conan doyle's.

Holmes for me too for most of the reasons already stated. :)

We can probably add a poll ;)

RV Raman wrote: "I can't choose between the two. One goes by physical evidence and the other by behaviour and motivations. Both have idiosyncrasies that could initially be annoying, but they grow on you as you read..."

Very interesting observation!

RV Raman wrote: "I can't choose between the two. One goes by physical evidence and the other by behaviour and motivations. Both have idiosyncrasies that could initially be annoying, but they grow on you as you read..."

loved reading this post...

Poirot for me. As a character, he was more colourful. The atmosphere of the books is much cosier. And most importantly... most of the cases are MURDERS ... much more exciting! (Shows a deplorable love of sensationalism on my part, I admit.)

Speaking more seriously, I liked the 'psychological' explanations that he gives for most crimes. I think it shows a reasonably good understanding (for a crime thriller) of the motivations behind crimes. And I think the plot twists are more interesting in the AC books.

I prefer Holmes.
"Dont fear Madame, because the best mind in Europe is here to help you" --Hercule Poirot.
Isn't that being a bit pretentious? Poirot, I think of him as a little meek sort of guy, one who would choose his words before delivering a reply. So, the quoted sentence does seem "inconsistent" with his character. And in contrast to Holmes' novels, I feel that Poirot's novels do not encourage the reader to think the whole situation. Some clues are revealed to the reader towards the end of the book, at the verge of revelation.
But Sherlock, I find his books to be energetic and funny. Doyle lays out all the clues giving the reader a chance to use his gray cells.
But that's just what I feel.

I prefer Poirot. Although i have read only three books featuring him, The mysterious affairs at styles, Elephants can remember and Three act tragedy. I have found that his books have humor while books having Sherlock are generally grim. And i feel Poirot would be much better company than Sherlock. Especially when they both have no case to work on. Unlike Sherlock, Poirot doesn't do drugs when he has no case to work on and he doesn't goes nuts.

They're very different characters, as others have pointed out. Still, I prefer Holmes, and not due to any ancestral bias :)

Aravind wrote: "Maybe because I don't remember correctly from the only 1-2 agatha christie and few BBC Poirot series I came across, To me Poirot is a flat character. There is hardly anything except few traits that..."
I don't know how I skipped your post! I really liked how you described Holmes. I too feel that there isn't much depth to Poirot, which is why I don't think about Poirot much, and so, no attachment or feelings for him. I believe, for a hero in a long series, such emotional attachment and depth is expected and necessary.

Going through all the responses here, i wonder how many opinions are (subconsciously) based on the movies/series rather than the actual characters depicted in the books!

Aditya wrote: "Going through all the responses here, i wonder how many opinions are (subconsciously) based on the movies/series rather than the actual characters depicted in the books!"

Good question!
But as we read the books first and formed the images,I guess they would have more influence.

RV Raman wrote: "Interesting thought - written word or visual.

For me, it is the written word. I think I had known Holmes & Poirot for close to 20 years before I watched the first movies (Orient Express and Basker..."

What do you feel about the latest movie version of Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)? I thought of it as so different from the books, it didn't feel like Holmes at all... and so I actually enjoyed it as I would enjoy a 'new' character!

Aayushi wrote: "yes the movie is the image of the character in mind of the director .It may be good but the images formed by us are more convenient .The movies mostly change many aspect of the book"

And I've always felt that movies erase/blur the images I've created in my own mind. I know this is not an original comment of mine, many others feel so too!

Uddipta wrote: " I feel that Poirot's novels do not encourage the reader to think the whole situation. Some clues are revealed to the reader towards the end of the book, at the verge of revelation"

My thoughts exactly. I like mysteries in which we can be equal participants too.
But since both Poirot and Holmes are so different in their approaches, for me it's a question of mood. If I'm feeling like reading something on the speculative side, I'd go for Poirot and I'll choose Holmes for outdoor mysteries. It was interesting to know that they both are similar to their creators themselves.

Also, it's been a long time since I've read Poirot, and I've been watching BBC's Sherlock recently so I may be not completely true to the books. But I guess the original impression always remains stronger, which for me were the books.

RV Raman wrote: "Indiabookstore wrote: "What do you feel about the latest movie version of Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)? I thought of it as so different from the books, it didn't feel like Holmes at all... and so I a..."

My goodness! Watson as a woman! What happens to Holmes' famed misogyny then?

I think it's because there's such a thorough psychological examination of the character that you end up feeling very sympathetic to the villain at the end. Punishing the criminal would turn us against the hero, in some way.