Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5061Re: SHSI Re:: Re: Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot!

Expand Messages
  • Sridhar C
    Apr 29, 2016
      Hi all,

      I agree completely with Mr. Ganguly. With Poirot, it's always been "Wow, he's pretty cool!", but with Holmes, it's always been, "Holy * (add your favourite expletive of surprise)! How does he do that?!"

      With Poirot, it's always been, "What a character!", whereas with Holmes, even when re-reading an adventure for the umpteenth time, my first thought sometimes is, "I wonder what case he is working on right now," before my second thought intervenes with a reminder that he was the creation of another man and not real. Of course, all this happens within a fraction of a second.


      C. Sridhar
      All that is gold does not glitter,
      Not all those who wander are lost;
      The old that is strong does not wither,
      Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

      On Friday, April 29, 2016 12:54 PM, "Jay Ganguly ruling_jay@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:

      We usually hear references to "Agatha Christie" and "Sherlock Holmes" - and there lies the difference. A human writer and a character outside the confines of reality.

      Besides, Poirot is a genial, avuncular character ("Papa Poirot" as he sometimes calls himself) while Sherlock grows with us - the attraction of youth should not be underestimated. Agatha Christie has better plots, well-constructed characters and proper whodunits. She understands people. We like Poirot (or Miss Marple) but we'll never be in love with either.

      Sherlock, on the other hand, (often almost instantly) captures the hearts of a certain type of people - and this is probably why Sherlockians, regardless of race, location, language etc, tend to get along pretty well generally. He's attractive and addictive and overshadows his creator. We love him because he's perfectly situated on that fine line between human and superhuman. He is a hero who doesn't fit in. The character is more important than the plots/stories; they're not whodunits, they're adventures!!

      Well, that's what I think...


      Dear Sajan sir and Holmesians,
      Ah! I do agree that we had discussed this before but I suppose that is the part of the package, to discuss the same thing and throw fresh light on it.
       I agree with you on the issue of research  but I feel that Agatha Christie's works had a very set pattern to it.
      The murders were generally in a  country house amidst the wealthy set. Her writing pace is glacially slow and the plot moves through the use of dialogue.All the suspects gather at a location where the detective delivers his denouement.It is very predictable and the pattern seems to be unvaried.
      Agatha Christie never possibly depised Hercule Poriot  contrary to  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I agree that she was a careful writer but not necessarily an interesting one owing to an element of repetition. It is very predictable and the pattern seems to be unvaried.It is understandable due to her body of work (detective fiction) being vaster than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.


    • Show all 18 messages in this topic