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

Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot!

Expand Messages
  • sumalsn
    Dear Holmesians, Why is Sherlock Holmes more popular than Hercule Poirot still?Is it due to the first mover advantage? Sherlock Holmes appeared in 1887 whereas
    Message 1 of 18 , Apr 26, 2016

      Dear Holmesians,

      Why is Sherlock Holmes more popular than Hercule Poirot still?Is it due to the first mover advantage?

      Sherlock Holmes appeared in 1887 whereas Hercule Poirot was around only by 1920.

      Was the quality of the Canon superior to Agatha Christie's works?

      Can members come out with their reasons for this phenomenon?

      Regards,

      Sumalsn

    • Noufal Ibrahim KV
      ... I read Poirot only after Holmes and generally felt that it was a rip off with some trimmings. The only detective series of that time which I ve found
      Message 2 of 18 , Apr 26, 2016
        On Tue, Apr 26 2016, sumalsn wrote:

        > Dear Holmesians,
        > Why is Sherlock Holmes more popular than Hercule Poirot still?Is it due to the first mover advantage?
        > Sherlock Holmes appeared in 1887 whereas Hercule Poirot was around only by 1920.
        > Was the quality of the Canon superior to Agatha Christie's works?
        > Can members come out with their reasons for this phenomenon?

        I read Poirot only after Holmes and generally felt that it was a rip off
        with some trimmings.

        The only detective series of that time which I've found genuinely
        superior (atleast in content) to Holmes is R. Austin Freeman's John
        Thorndyke.


        [...]


        --
        Cordially,
        Noufal
        http://nibrahim.net.in
      • Philip K Jones
        My friends: Some years ago I finally figured out why I prefer Sherlockian tales to those involving Poirot. This may be of interest in this discussion, so I
        Message 3 of 18 , Apr 26, 2016

          My friends:

           

          Some years ago I finally figured out why I prefer Sherlockian tales to those involving Poirot.  This may be of interest in this discussion, so I pass it along for what it is worth (NOTHING!  No charge!).

           

          After considering that question and coming upon an insight, I re-read the Agatha Christie books I had in my Library, to confirm that insight and they completely supported my flash of intuition.  I do NOT LIKE ANY of the characters in any books by Agatha Christie.  Many show interesting or admirable qualities from time to time, but NONE are persons I would wish to meet.  To my mind, that sums up my reaction to all of Ms. Christie's writing.  It may be interesting and gripping, but I can feel NO personal involvement with her characters nor any desire to interact with or to care about them.

           

          I hope this prompts comment.

           

          Sincerely:

           

          Philip K. Jones

          An Illdressed Vagabond

          pkenj@...

           

           

          From: SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@... [mailto:SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...] On Behalf Of sumalsn
          Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 4:38 AM
          To: SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...
          Subject: SHSI Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot!

           

           

          Dear Holmesians,

          Why is Sherlock Holmes more popular than Hercule Poirot still?Is it due to the first mover advantage?

          Sherlock Holmes appeared in 1887 whereas Hercule Poirot was around only by 1920.

          Was the quality of the Canon superior to Agatha Christie's works?

          Can members come out with their reasons for this phenomenon?

          Regards,

          Sumalsn

        • sumalsn
          Dear Holmesians, There are very striking similarities between the two as well. To name a few, a) Both their confidants were ex-servicemen, Dr Watson for
          Message 4 of 18 , Apr 26, 2016
            Dear Holmesians,
            There are very striking similarities between the two as well. To name a few,
            a) Both their confidants were ex-servicemen, Dr Watson for Sherlock Holmes and Capt Hastings for Hercule Poirot
            b)  Both has close associates in the Police Force, Inspector Lestrade for Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Japp for Hercule Poirot.
            c) There was a "the woman" for them who happened to function beyond the pale of law , Irene Adler for Sherlock Holmes and Countess Vera Rossakoff for Poirot.

            I am sure there are many other similarities which I have omitted. Members may send in their comments to keep it going!
            Regards,
            Sumalsn
             
          • sumalsn
            Dear Shri Noufal and Holmesians, I have never read any book of R Austin Freeman. I see that many of his works are available at Project Gutenberg and are
            Message 5 of 18 , Apr 27, 2016
              Dear Shri Noufal and Holmesians,
              I have never read any book of R Austin Freeman. I see that many of his works are available at Project Gutenberg and are available at the link below,
              Dr Thorndyke Short Story Omnibus

               


              Interested members can start off with their reading and inform us whether they match up to the Canon or not!
              Sumalsn

            • Sajan Venniyoor
              Dear Sumal, This subject had come up earlier on the SHSI list, in Nov 2013, when Agatha Christie s *Poirot*, which had been running on British television from
              Message 6 of 18 , Apr 28, 2016
                Dear Sumal,

                This subject had come up earlier on the SHSI list, in Nov 2013, when Agatha Christie's Poirot, which had been running on British television from 1989 till 2013, came to an end with the last episode, Curtain.

                As I had written then, "comparisons are odious, but Christie herself refers several times to the influence of Sherlock Holmes on her Poirot books. As she was casting about for her fictional detective, Christie admits in her Autobiography, she asked herself, "Who could I have as a detective? 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." 
                 
                But of course she tried to emulate Holmes. The Holmes motif pops up often, and frankly, in her autobiography. Later in her memoirs she says, "I was still writing in the Sherlock Holmes tradition – eccentric detective, stooge assistant, with a Lestrade-type Scotland Yard detective, Inspector Japp." 
                 
                Christie was a much more careful plotter than Doyle, and she generally stuck to things she knew about: poisons, for instance, about which she knew a great deal thanks to her work as nurse and pharmacy dispenser during the two World Wars. (I was fascinated to see Thallium introduced as an unusual poison in the 2010 movie, The Edge of Darkness. Christie had used Thallium for murder fifty years earlier)."

                Scroll website recently reviewed the 2015 book by Kathryn Harkup, 'A is for Arsenic -- The Poisons of Agatha Christie'. It is an excellent book which confirms our belief that Christie was far ahead of her times in her appreciation of the use of rare and common poisons in murder and assassination. She stumbles rarely. Christie was using ricin to poison her victims in 1929, though the deadly poison was "untreatable and untraceable" before 1978, when Christie was no more. (In 1978, ricin was used in the assassination of Gregori Markov, a Bulgarian journalist and dissident in the UK, very possibly through a poison-laden pellet fired from an umbrella. Bond would have loved that touch. Indeed, it was Ian Fleming who floated the notion that the Soviet Union used the Bulgarian secret service to carry out their dirty work). 

                But unlike Fleming, who had a pretty fair idea about international politics, Christie -- as I had written then -- "had a wide-eyed innocence about the world -- like in The Big Four -- which makes you wonder why a couple of hundred years of Empire hadn't endowed the writer (or reader) of popular fiction in England with a more subtle and penetrating sense of realpolitik than could be found in the pages of The Boy's Own Paper.

                I suppose it says something of the formative influences on English writers who grew up in Edwardian -- or Late Victorian -- England that they never quite outgrew the Golden Age, though Christie, like Wodehouse, was writing well into the 1970s. (Note: Ian Fleming, a far more 'contemporary' writer, died in 1964). Poirot, if I remember, was already 60 years old or more when he first appeared in 1920 (The Mysterious Affair at Styles), but he was hardly any older when he died in 1975 (Curtain: Poirot's Last Case), and his world hadn't changed very much either. The Second World War blew over his well pomaded hair without ruffling a strand."

                I can't help feeling that ACD wouldn't have bothered with subtleties like ricin-laced fig sandwiches. He would probably have inserted a phantasmal poison frog of the genus Epipedobates into the prospective victim's bathtub and hoped for the best. 

                Sajan


                Dear Holmesians,
                Why is Sherlock Holmes more popular than Hercule Poirot still?Is it due to the first mover advantage?
                Sherlock Holmes appeared in 1887 whereas Hercule Poirot was around only by 1920.
                Was the quality of the Canon superior to Agatha Christie's works?
                Can members come out with their reasons for this phenomenon?
                Regards,
                Sumalsn

                Virus-free. www.avast.com
              • Philip K Jones
                My friends: I have copies of about half of the published Dr. Thorndyke books, that is to say, I have sixteen different texts. Many of the Thorndyke tales are
                Message 7 of 18 , Apr 28, 2016
                  My friends:

                  I have copies of about half of the published Dr. Thorndyke books, that is
                  to say, I have sixteen different texts. Many of the Thorndyke tales are
                  short stories/novellas, so the actual number of stories runs closer to one
                  hundred than to the sixty of the Canon. In addition, these include more
                  than a dozen full novels, so Freeman's detective's volume doubles or even
                  triples Doyle's.

                  As to the quality of Freeman's work, I can only comment that I have only
                  once or twice re-read one of the Thorndyke tales, while I have read the
                  entire Canon at least seven times.

                  Sincerely:

                  Philip K. Jones
                  An Illdressed Vagabond
                  pkenj@...




                  From: SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...
                  [mailto:SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...] On Behalf Of sumalsn
                  Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:08 AM
                  To: SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@yahoo groups.co.in
                  Subject: SHSI Re:: Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot!


                  Dear Shri Noufal and Holmesians,
                  I have never read any book of R Austin Freeman. I see that many of his works
                  are available at Project Gutenberg and are available at the link below,
                  Dr Thorndyke Short Story Omnibus
                  <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500391h.html>

                  <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500391h.html> Dr
                  Thorndyke Short Story Omnibus
                  <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500391h.html>
                  Project Gutenberg Australia a treasure-trove of literature treasure found
                  hidden with no evidence of ownership
                  View on gutenberg.net.au
                  <http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks05/0500391h.html> Preview by Yahoo
                  Interested members can start off with their reading and inform us whether
                  they match up to the Canon or not!
                  Sumalsn




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • sumalsn
                  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
                  Message 8 of 18 , Apr 28, 2016
                    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.
                    Regards,
                    Sumalsn


                     
                  • Jay Ganguly
                    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
                    Message 9 of 18 , Apr 29, 2016
                      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...

                      Cheers
                      Jay


                      On Fri, 29 Apr, 2016 at 11:44 am, sumalsn
                      <no_reply@...> wrote:
                       

                      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.
                      Regards,
                      Sumalsn


                       
                    • Sridhar C
                      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
                      Message 10 of 18 , 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.

                        Regards,

                         
                        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...

                        Cheers
                        Jay


                         
                        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.
                        Regards,
                        Sumalsn


                         


                      • harsha_wardhan
                        Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 6, 2016
                          Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity

                          Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more interesting than Poirot. Simple.

                          1. Sherlock is young and energetic - we see his career growth in real time, as it were; Poirot is a retired old man and exclusively psychological in his approach

                          2. There's always a possibility that Sherlock may abandon his bachelor status and fall in love with a woman, Poirot has ruled himself out of the romance game - he calls himself "papa poirot"

                          3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.

                          4. Sherlock has a fawning chronicler who serves as a mirror on to which his better qualities project powerfully, and by proxy, on to us; Poirot, except for a lackadaisical Capt Hastings in a few episodes, needs the narrator to elevate him - a rather tawdry task, given that the narrator has to give proportionate space to all characters

                          5.   Sherlock shocks with his eccentric, bohemian and abrasive personality; Poirot is uniformly polite to the point of excessiveness

                          6. Sherlock has superhuman talents and abilities that spring when the situation demands, we have no advance warning that he is an expert in "baritsu" or has written a monograph on some obscure subject or was that disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                          7. Sherlock has foibles that somehow endear him to us - he takes drugs not because he's a junkie, but because his mind can't cope with slowness/boredom, he doesn't care about his appearances - he is a man-child in his slovenliness and housekeeping. Poirot is very finicky and fussy about neatness to the point of vanity

                          8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                          9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                          10. Sherlock has a powerful antagonist who's his equal, a Joker to his Batman; Poirot unfailingly dispatches his villain to jail at the end of each book  
                        • Sridhar C
                          Excellently put, Mr. Harshawardhan!  C. Sridhar All that is gold does not glitter,Not all those who wander are lost;The old that is strong does not
                          Message 12 of 18 , May 6, 2016
                            Excellently put, Mr. Harshawardhan!

                             
                            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 Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:40 AM, "harsha_wardhan@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:


                             
                            Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity

                            Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more interesting than Poirot. Simple.

                            1. Sherlock is young and energetic - we see his career growth in real time, as it were; Poirot is a retired old man and exclusively psychological in his approach

                            2. There's always a possibility that Sherlock may abandon his bachelor status and fall in love with a woman, Poirot has ruled himself out of the romance game - he calls himself "papa poirot"

                            3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.

                            4. Sherlock has a fawning chronicler who serves as a mirror on to which his better qualities project powerfully, and by proxy, on to us; Poirot, except for a lackadaisical Capt Hastings in a few episodes, needs the narrator to elevate him - a rather tawdry task, given that the narrator has to give proportionate space to all characters

                            5.   Sherlock shocks with his eccentric, bohemian and abrasive personality; Poirot is uniformly polite to the point of excessiveness

                            6. Sherlock has superhuman talents and abilities that spring when the situation demands, we have no advance warning that he is an expert in "baritsu" or has written a monograph on some obscure subject or was that disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                            7. Sherlock has foibles that somehow endear him to us - he takes drugs not because he's a junkie, but because his mind can't cope with slowness/boredom, he doesn't care about his appearances - he is a man-child in his slovenliness and housekeeping. Poirot is very finicky and fussy about neatness to the point of vanity

                            8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                            9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                            10. Sherlock has a powerful antagonist who's his equal, a Joker to his Batman; Poirot unfailingly dispatches his villain to jail at the end of each book  


                          • Binand Sethumadhavan
                            Me too. Wanted to jump in earlier, but work pressure intervened. Some additional comments on this email, plus a bit more... On 7 May 2016 at 08:40,
                            Message 13 of 18 , May 6, 2016
                              Me too. Wanted to jump in earlier, but work pressure intervened. Some
                              additional comments on this email, plus a bit more...

                              On 7 May 2016 at 08:40, harsha_wardhan@...
                              [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]
                              <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:
                              > 3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals
                              > exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.
                              >
                              > disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than
                              > extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                              It is this conversational interrogation that appeals to me in the
                              Poirot canon; I think it is an important skill for a writer to hide
                              significant clues in such conversations.

                              > 8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal
                              > informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                              Well, this is not strictly true. In The Third-Floor Flat, Poirot
                              admits being pally with pickpockets.

                              > 9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty
                              > important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting
                              > invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                              This also is not true; Poirot has friends in the government too. He
                              once rescued the PM of England from being kidnapped and at another
                              time, solved for a minister of the crown an embarrassing theft of
                              sensitive documents. These things must have got him some influence in
                              the government.

                              I will add one more point of difference - Holmes has his own views on
                              justice; he is OK with letting some perpetrators go undetected if he
                              feels that the interests of justice are served (Devil's Foot, Abbey
                              Grange). Poirot being a cop by training, doesn't share this sort of
                              worldview; preferring perpetrators to be arrested and tried.

                              One point not mentioned so far is, in my view Mrs. Christie
                              deliberately modeled Poirot as a not very like-able character (several
                              times he's referred to as "insufferable").

                              While his method of denouement is often the same (which in my view, is
                              calculated to obtain confessions in not-enough-evidence cases), the
                              story settings aren't as some other posters and commentators make them
                              out to be. He is often consulted or hired as a private detective
                              (After the Funereal, Five Little Pigs, The Clocks, Lord Edgeware Dies,
                              Sad Cypress and many others), or is serendipitously or intentionally
                              present in the vicinity of a crime (Murder on the Orient Express,
                              Death in the Clouds, Cards on the Table, Three-Act Tragedy etc.). but
                              the country house milieu is not all that common.

                              As for the popularity question - it is not in doubt that Holmes is
                              incredibly popular. I think the primary reason for that is the
                              "adventure" nature of the Holmes canon as opposed to the "detection"
                              nature of the Poirot canon. I started reading both of them at around
                              the same time - and while Holmes quickly became some sort of role
                              model or fantasy hero, Poirot was just a character in a book.

                              Binand
                            • Deepak Mehta
                              Mr. Harsha Wardhan, vwey well put Deepak K Mehta On Saturday, 7 May 2016 8:43 AM, harsha_wardhan@yahoo.com [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]
                              Message 14 of 18 , May 7, 2016
                                Mr. Harsha Wardhan, vwey well put

                                Deepak K Mehta



                                On Saturday, 7 May 2016 8:43 AM, "harsha_wardhan@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:


                                 
                                Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity

                                Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more interesting than Poirot. Simple.

                                1. Sherlock is young and energetic - we see his career growth in real time, as it were; Poirot is a retired old man and exclusively psychological in his approach

                                2. There's always a possibility that Sherlock may abandon his bachelor status and fall in love with a woman, Poirot has ruled himself out of the romance game - he calls himself "papa poirot"

                                3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.

                                4. Sherlock has a fawning chronicler who serves as a mirror on to which his better qualities project powerfully, and by proxy, on to us; Poirot, except for a lackadaisical Capt Hastings in a few episodes, needs the narrator to elevate him - a rather tawdry task, given that the narrator has to give proportionate space to all characters

                                5.   Sherlock shocks with his eccentric, bohemian and abrasive personality; Poirot is uniformly polite to the point of excessiveness

                                6. Sherlock has superhuman talents and abilities that spring when the situation demands, we have no advance warning that he is an expert in "baritsu" or has written a monograph on some obscure subject or was that disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                                7. Sherlock has foibles that somehow endear him to us - he takes drugs not because he's a junkie, but because his mind can't cope with slowness/boredom, he doesn't care about his appearances - he is a man-child in his slovenliness and housekeeping. Poirot is very finicky and fussy about neatness to the point of vanity

                                8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                                9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                                10. Sherlock has a powerful antagonist who's his equal, a Joker to his Batman; Poirot unfailingly dispatches his villain to jail at the end of each book  


                              • Noufal Ibrahim KV
                                On Sat, May 07 2016, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@gmail.com [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] wrote: [...] ... This is a very interesting point. My feelings for
                                Message 15 of 18 , May 7, 2016
                                  On Sat, May 07 2016, Binand Sethumadhavan binand@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] wrote:


                                  [...]

                                  > As for the popularity question - it is not in doubt that Holmes is
                                  > incredibly popular. I think the primary reason for that is the
                                  > "adventure" nature of the Holmes canon as opposed to the "detection"
                                  > nature of the Poirot canon. I started reading both of them at around
                                  > the same time - and while Holmes quickly became some sort of role
                                  > model or fantasy hero, Poirot was just a character in a book.

                                  This is a very interesting point. My feelings for Holmes have turned
                                  somewhat lukewarm as I grew older and I found Thorndyke more
                                  fascinating. The reason, I think, is the change from adventure to
                                  detection. If Poirot falls into the latter category, I think it's time I
                                  revisited his canon.

                                  --
                                  Cordially,
                                  Noufal
                                  http://nibrahim.net.in
                                • harsha_wardhan
                                  thank you friends for your kind words of apreciation
                                  Message 16 of 18 , May 7, 2016
                                    thank you friends for your kind words of apreciation
                                  • harsha_wardhan
                                    thank you friends for your kind words of appreciation ... Excellently put, Mr. Harshawardhan! C. Sridhar All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who
                                    Message 17 of 18 , May 7, 2016
                                      thank you friends for your kind words of appreciation


                                      ---In SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@..., <cs_gollum@...> wrote :

                                      Excellently put, Mr. Harshawardhan!

                                       
                                      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 Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:40 AM, "harsha_wardhan@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:


                                       
                                      Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity

                                      Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more interesting than Poirot. Simple.

                                      1. Sherlock is young and energetic - we see his career growth in real time, as it were; Poirot is a retired old man and exclusively psychological in his approach

                                      2. There's always a possibility that Sherlock may abandon his bachelor status and fall in love with a woman, Poirot has ruled himself out of the romance game - he calls himself "papa poirot"

                                      3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.

                                      4. Sherlock has a fawning chronicler who serves as a mirror on to which his better qualities project powerfully, and by proxy, on to us; Poirot, except for a lackadaisical Capt Hastings in a few episodes, needs the narrator to elevate him - a rather tawdry task, given that the narrator has to give proportionate space to all characters

                                      5.   Sherlock shocks with his eccentric, bohemian and abrasive personality; Poirot is uniformly polite to the point of excessiveness

                                      6. Sherlock has superhuman talents and abilities that spring when the situation demands, we have no advance warning that he is an expert in "baritsu" or has written a monograph on some obscure subject or was that disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                                      7. Sherlock has foibles that somehow endear him to us - he takes drugs not because he's a junkie, but because his mind can't cope with slowness/boredom, he doesn't care about his appearances - he is a man-child in his slovenliness and housekeeping. Poirot is very finicky and fussy about neatness to the point of vanity

                                      8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                                      9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                                      10. Sherlock has a powerful antagonist who's his equal, a Joker to his Batman; Poirot unfailingly dispatches his villain to jail at the end of each book  


                                    • vasudev murthy
                                      Very nice analysis! On 7 May 2016 16:25, harsha_wardhan@yahoo.com [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] wrote:  
                                      Message 18 of 18 , May 7, 2016

                                        Very nice analysis!

                                        On 7 May 2016 16:25, "harsha_wardhan@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        thank you friends for your kind words of appreciation



                                        ---In SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@yahoogroups.co.in, <cs_gollum@...> wrote :

                                        Excellently put, Mr. Harshawardhan!

                                         
                                        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 Saturday, May 7, 2016 8:40 AM, "harsha_wardhan@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia]" <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:


                                         
                                        Chiming in late with my thoughts on SH and HP and their relative popularity

                                        Sherlock Holmes is more popular than Hercule Poirot because Holmes is more interesting than Poirot. Simple.

                                        1. Sherlock is young and energetic - we see his career growth in real time, as it were; Poirot is a retired old man and exclusively psychological in his approach

                                        2. There's always a possibility that Sherlock may abandon his bachelor status and fall in love with a woman, Poirot has ruled himself out of the romance game - he calls himself "papa poirot"

                                        3. Sherlock engages in multifarious adventures of all types; Poirot deals exclusively with murder in a social, almost claustrophobic setting.

                                        4. Sherlock has a fawning chronicler who serves as a mirror on to which his better qualities project powerfully, and by proxy, on to us; Poirot, except for a lackadaisical Capt Hastings in a few episodes, needs the narrator to elevate him - a rather tawdry task, given that the narrator has to give proportionate space to all characters

                                        5.   Sherlock shocks with his eccentric, bohemian and abrasive personality; Poirot is uniformly polite to the point of excessiveness

                                        6. Sherlock has superhuman talents and abilities that spring when the situation demands, we have no advance warning that he is an expert in "baritsu" or has written a monograph on some obscure subject or was that disguised bookkeeper till after the fact; Poirot has no talents other than extensive police experience and conversational interrogation

                                        7. Sherlock has foibles that somehow endear him to us - he takes drugs not because he's a junkie, but because his mind can't cope with slowness/boredom, he doesn't care about his appearances - he is a man-child in his slovenliness and housekeeping. Poirot is very finicky and fussy about neatness to the point of vanity

                                        8. Sherlock has a hidden criminal streak, he is pals with criminal informers, he enjoys burgling; Piorot is always the policeman

                                        9. Sherlock has an extensive network of friends- his own brother is a mighty important G man; Poirot is a single operator, often found accepting invitations from old ladies to some party (where a murder occurs....)

                                        10. Sherlock has a powerful antagonist who's his equal, a Joker to his Batman; Poirot unfailingly dispatches his villain to jail at the end of each book  


                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and will be delivered to recipients shortly.