Hi All,
My two-bits on this topic (and apologies if I offend your sensibilities)...

What I found in Agatha Christie's writing is that all the clues are laid out
bare, and if we read it carefully, we can actually draw conclusions and solve
the mystery ourselves - with our limited intelligences and even more limited
knowledge of English literature.

Whereas in the Sherlock Holmes stories, the clues are there, but it is "one
level removed", and there is some specific technical knowledge that is needed to
make the connection.  Since we are following it from Dr.Watson's viewpoint (and
he is a layman in detecting areas, and does NOT have the breadth of knowledge of
the Master), we cannot make the connection.  So Holmes remains one level above
the audience, always. 
Classic example is:  "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time" from
the "Silver Blaze"
               But, says Colonel Ross, "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
               "That," said Holmes, "was the curious incident."Even though this
is pointed out as the clue, we cant decipher it without indepth knowledge.

This of course adds to the mystique of the Holmes stories, but the reader always
has to be "lead" to the solution via Holmes's explanations.

So which is better?  For sheer breadth of imagination, the Master is
unchallenged.  But for systematic deduction (in an interactive manner),
Poirot/Christie seems to have an upper hand.

Regards,
Jinesh

--- On Sun, 1/4/09, salvadesswaran_ps <salvadesswaran_ps@...> wrote:
From: salvadesswaran_ps <salvadesswaran_ps@...>
Subject: [sherlock holmes society of india] Re: Sherlock Holmes Vs Hercule
Poirot
To: SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...
Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 12:42 PM











I too have read Agatha Christie a lot. Her works are quite
intriguing,

but when it somes to characters, even her own Miss Marple and Tom and

Tuppence, the secret adversary pair are better than Hercule Poirot.

And he's no competition for Holmes. He simply does not appeal to one's

senses as a detective, but maybe he's a little too showy as you said.

When it comes to the kind of thinking and theorising that is needed

for any detective, fictional or real life, Holmes possesses in

abundance. Also he seems to have uncanny knowledge of many things such

as chemicals, tobacco stains and ash, and music. These make him a lot

more appealing to my senses and those of may people the world over.

So my verdict: Holmes wins hands down over all of Christie's

characters combined.





























[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]