How Is Hercule Poirot Similar
Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes have become two of the greatest well-known characters in detective fiction. They are intricate characters with profound skills, exceptionally distinct personalities, and two different approaches that leave the audience always wanting additional stories. There is, without a doubt, no wonder why these two have plummeted from their stories and become incredibly realistic to readers all over the world. Each character has his own prestige resulting from their substantial influences on the reader and literature. The impacts of these two have a countless amount of people wondering who the leading symbol of a detective in detective fiction is. Although Hercule Poirot is the only fictitious character to ever receive an obituary in The New York Times, Sherlock Holmes is the absolute iconic detective character.
The sleuths have extraordinary skillsets, in which, attracts a large …show more content…
audience. Their skills show to be outstanding enough to glorify, but attainable enough to be believable. They have astonishing powers of observation and can utilize the smallest of details to solve a case. They notice indicators the reader may not assume to watch for during an investigation. In the Roger Ackroyd case, Poirot notices there was a fire burning during the time the crime had taken place (Christie, 82). In “The Red-headed League,” Holmes remarks the assistant’s trousers (Doyle, 269). The reader is in awe of the clues others have missed and yet, somehow, the detective is so quick to discern. How much and what these detectives can observe during their investigations is a reason why readers enjoy reading these stories.
Not only can these detectives observe the smallest details that matter, but they can also deduce from these observations. Their powers of observation would not be as helpful if they could not develop them in order to realize appropriate information. Poirot exploits the state of the fire to understand why somebody would open the window (Christie, 85). Holmes concludes from the assistant’s trousers that he had spent a great deal of time digging underground (Doyle, 277). These two detectives demonstrate how vital it is that a detective is able to deduce.
A detective can have strong powers of observation and deduction, but an excellent detective must employ the imagination. Poirot and Holmes both find pride in how pronounced their imaginations are and how necessary it is to make the most of them. Poirot tries to understand why someone would move a chair at the scene of the crime and must rely on his imagination to create different reasons (Christie, 274). Holmes even comes outright and states how essential imagination is; “See the value of imagination… We imagined what might have happened, acted upon the supposition, and find ourselves justified” (Doyle, 518). Each of these detective’s cases clearly demonstrates the combination of observation, deduction, and imagination. The best part of these qualities is that one can develop and strengthen these skills. This connects with and inspires the reader and in turn the reader admires these detectives impressively.
Although skills are especially critical in a detective, a well-developed personality allows the reader to believe in and appreciate a character. The stories portray the characters as superior, but they have faults as well. It is, undoubtedly, important that these detectives have a remarkable intelligence. Consequently, along with their intelligence and their valuable skillset comes an egotistical personality trait. Although people admire the men for their cleverness, there is a disapproval for their strong ego. For example, a description of Poirot illustrates him as looking “ridiculously full of his own importance” and Holmes is “very clever….but he is certainly very conceited” (Doyle, 20). This, however, causes them to be realistic; a reader would not be as engaged if the characters had no faults. This allows the reader to be able to hold Poirot and Holmes on a pedestal and also keep them grounded at the same time.
Poirot and Holmes have an abundance in similarities pertaining to their skills and their personality, nevertheless, their personalities also differ considerably.
Both men maintain a clean appearance, but they live extremely differently. Poirot has a reputation for being tidy and coordinating his house to be “arranged with formal precision” (Christie, 75), whereas Holmes’ is described as “one of the most untidy men” (Doyle, 585). Another difference between the two men is how social they are. Poirot is exceedingly friendly and can blend himself with all those he encounters, whether it be a group of gossiping women, the investigating police, or highly esteemed clients. In contrast, Holmes talks minimally and even criticizes those around him (Menes). Holmes has a handful of weaknesses that bring him to the same level as a regular person; he suffers from depression and abuses drugs. They both have characteristics a person can admire and disapprove of simultaneously, therefore making each character realistic and
intriguing.
Along with admirable skills and a believable personality, the detectives fascinate people with their methods. They both confer with a sidekick and the police throughout their cases. They collect evidence and thoughts from each of the parties, but they usually withhold their thoughts until the completion of the mystery. Poirot tends to extract much of his information from those involved in the case. He focuses on why incidents happen in a case; he explains this when he says “Then there is the psychology of a crime. One must study that.” (Christie, 93), he believes it is crucial to deliberate similar to the criminal. Holmes, on the other hand, pays no attention to why and cares exclusively regarding how. He spends the majority of his time examining external clues left at site or on a person. Poirot often says “method, order, and the little grey cells” (Christie, 93), when referring how he inspects at a crime. Which means he observes a crime identical to a puzzle and interoperates information as pieces. Poirot relies on people’s testimonies and his own powers of deduction to find answers. When he comes to a conclusion, he gathers all involved and shares his methods. Holmes’ approach is slightly similar, but he tackles a crime with the scientific method. He asks himself questions concerning the crime, observes, hypothesizes, experiments, deduces, and lastly, explains. Poirot’s concentration is theoretical, and Holmes is an empirical investigator. Poirot theorizes while he has others perform his physical work. Holmes is a particularly hands-on detective which results in exciting action and experience. These tactics are both effective and involve the reader in the journey to the solution.
Plenty will agree that Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes are the best fictitious detectives out there. Both of them happen to be extremely complex. These detectives were in fact, so loved, that after each author tried to stop writing their stories, the public would not allow it. The authors had no choice but to restore and continue with their creations. Poirot has a high following due to the fact that he brings the importance of motive to detective fiction along with a respect for women. Including women’s thoughts and ideas in investigations appeals to a female audience without taking from the male portion; this results in a vast fan base. As previously mentioned, Hercule Poirot was the first and only fictitious character who received a spot on the front page of The New York Times with his obituary. Sherlock Holmes may not have received an obituary, but loads of people argue if he was in fact a real person (Wolff). There are actual places and buildings reserved for the reminiscence of Sherlock Holmes which creates the uncertainty of his actual existence. His stories are simple enough to amuse a child, and yet, profound enough for scholars to study; a “phenomenon worldwide” (Dalrymple). In addition to being loved, Sherlock Holmes is the first known detective to bring into play forensic science to solve a crime (Heifetz). He incorporated methods that made him “timeless” (Taylor). Holmes earns the respect from countless different professionals in various different fields, whether it be from literature to science to criminal justice. It is undeniable that these detectives left a substantial mark on the world being further instilled with both living on in reprints and media adaptations.
In conclusion, Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes immeasurably influence detective fiction. People love these characters as if they were real people that truly existed. There are umpteen reasons why these two detectives are the ultimate sleuth; their impressive skillset, their unique personalities, competent methods, and significant effects on the world have demonstrated superiority over all other detectives. Even though there are a considerable amount of qualities that qualify Hercule Poirot to be the best, Sherlock Holmes continues to be the predominantly memorable of the two, furthermore signifying detective fiction. The dispute of the top detective is close, but Holmes succeeds as a result of, being loved by all ages, people can idolize and connect with him, he brings excitement, and he is reputable and respected due to the numerous different outcomes his stories instigated.
The sleuths have extraordinary skillsets, in which, attracts a large …show more content…
audience. Their skills show to be outstanding enough to glorify, but attainable enough to be believable. They have astonishing powers of observation and can utilize the smallest of details to solve a case. They notice indicators the reader may not assume to watch for during an investigation. In the Roger Ackroyd case, Poirot notices there was a fire burning during the time the crime had taken place (Christie, 82). In “The Red-headed League,” Holmes remarks the assistant’s trousers (Doyle, 269). The reader is in awe of the clues others have missed and yet, somehow, the detective is so quick to discern. How much and what these detectives can observe during their investigations is a reason why readers enjoy reading these stories.
Not only can these detectives observe the smallest details that matter, but they can also deduce from these observations. Their powers of observation would not be as helpful if they could not develop them in order to realize appropriate information. Poirot exploits the state of the fire to understand why somebody would open the window (Christie, 85). Holmes concludes from the assistant’s trousers that he had spent a great deal of time digging underground (Doyle, 277). These two detectives demonstrate how vital it is that a detective is able to deduce.
A detective can have strong powers of observation and deduction, but an excellent detective must employ the imagination. Poirot and Holmes both find pride in how pronounced their imaginations are and how necessary it is to make the most of them. Poirot tries to understand why someone would move a chair at the scene of the crime and must rely on his imagination to create different reasons (Christie, 274). Holmes even comes outright and states how essential imagination is; “See the value of imagination… We imagined what might have happened, acted upon the supposition, and find ourselves justified” (Doyle, 518). Each of these detective’s cases clearly demonstrates the combination of observation, deduction, and imagination. The best part of these qualities is that one can develop and strengthen these skills. This connects with and inspires the reader and in turn the reader admires these detectives impressively.
Although skills are especially critical in a detective, a well-developed personality allows the reader to believe in and appreciate a character. The stories portray the characters as superior, but they have faults as well. It is, undoubtedly, important that these detectives have a remarkable intelligence. Consequently, along with their intelligence and their valuable skillset comes an egotistical personality trait. Although people admire the men for their cleverness, there is a disapproval for their strong ego. For example, a description of Poirot illustrates him as looking “ridiculously full of his own importance” and Holmes is “very clever….but he is certainly very conceited” (Doyle, 20). This, however, causes them to be realistic; a reader would not be as engaged if the characters had no faults. This allows the reader to be able to hold Poirot and Holmes on a pedestal and also keep them grounded at the same time.
Poirot and Holmes have an abundance in similarities pertaining to their skills and their personality, nevertheless, their personalities also differ considerably.
Both men maintain a clean appearance, but they live extremely differently. Poirot has a reputation for being tidy and coordinating his house to be “arranged with formal precision” (Christie, 75), whereas Holmes’ is described as “one of the most untidy men” (Doyle, 585). Another difference between the two men is how social they are. Poirot is exceedingly friendly and can blend himself with all those he encounters, whether it be a group of gossiping women, the investigating police, or highly esteemed clients. In contrast, Holmes talks minimally and even criticizes those around him (Menes). Holmes has a handful of weaknesses that bring him to the same level as a regular person; he suffers from depression and abuses drugs. They both have characteristics a person can admire and disapprove of simultaneously, therefore making each character realistic and
intriguing.
Along with admirable skills and a believable personality, the detectives fascinate people with their methods. They both confer with a sidekick and the police throughout their cases. They collect evidence and thoughts from each of the parties, but they usually withhold their thoughts until the completion of the mystery. Poirot tends to extract much of his information from those involved in the case. He focuses on why incidents happen in a case; he explains this when he says “Then there is the psychology of a crime. One must study that.” (Christie, 93), he believes it is crucial to deliberate similar to the criminal. Holmes, on the other hand, pays no attention to why and cares exclusively regarding how. He spends the majority of his time examining external clues left at site or on a person. Poirot often says “method, order, and the little grey cells” (Christie, 93), when referring how he inspects at a crime. Which means he observes a crime identical to a puzzle and interoperates information as pieces. Poirot relies on people’s testimonies and his own powers of deduction to find answers. When he comes to a conclusion, he gathers all involved and shares his methods. Holmes’ approach is slightly similar, but he tackles a crime with the scientific method. He asks himself questions concerning the crime, observes, hypothesizes, experiments, deduces, and lastly, explains. Poirot’s concentration is theoretical, and Holmes is an empirical investigator. Poirot theorizes while he has others perform his physical work. Holmes is a particularly hands-on detective which results in exciting action and experience. These tactics are both effective and involve the reader in the journey to the solution.
Plenty will agree that Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes are the best fictitious detectives out there. Both of them happen to be extremely complex. These detectives were in fact, so loved, that after each author tried to stop writing their stories, the public would not allow it. The authors had no choice but to restore and continue with their creations. Poirot has a high following due to the fact that he brings the importance of motive to detective fiction along with a respect for women. Including women’s thoughts and ideas in investigations appeals to a female audience without taking from the male portion; this results in a vast fan base. As previously mentioned, Hercule Poirot was the first and only fictitious character who received a spot on the front page of The New York Times with his obituary. Sherlock Holmes may not have received an obituary, but loads of people argue if he was in fact a real person (Wolff). There are actual places and buildings reserved for the reminiscence of Sherlock Holmes which creates the uncertainty of his actual existence. His stories are simple enough to amuse a child, and yet, profound enough for scholars to study; a “phenomenon worldwide” (Dalrymple). In addition to being loved, Sherlock Holmes is the first known detective to bring into play forensic science to solve a crime (Heifetz). He incorporated methods that made him “timeless” (Taylor). Holmes earns the respect from countless different professionals in various different fields, whether it be from literature to science to criminal justice. It is undeniable that these detectives left a substantial mark on the world being further instilled with both living on in reprints and media adaptations.
In conclusion, Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes immeasurably influence detective fiction. People love these characters as if they were real people that truly existed. There are umpteen reasons why these two detectives are the ultimate sleuth; their impressive skillset, their unique personalities, competent methods, and significant effects on the world have demonstrated superiority over all other detectives. Even though there are a considerable amount of qualities that qualify Hercule Poirot to be the best, Sherlock Holmes continues to be the predominantly memorable of the two, furthermore signifying detective fiction. The dispute of the top detective is close, but Holmes succeeds as a result of, being loved by all ages, people can idolize and connect with him, he brings excitement, and he is reputable and respected due to the numerous different outcomes his stories instigated.