sherlock holmes vs hercule poirot

well....now surely enough, some of u here(detectiv freaks lyk myself)...are well aware of what at all s there to be said.........but surely n certainly, mon ami, opinions can vary or more precisely, opinions need to vary.....tut tut....dn get in2 the feelin dat i m already favourably bent towards one.....& now if i v convinced my detectiv freak pals abt my neutral position.....i m gonna proceed into the matter.....for those who r nt voracious readers of holmes or poirot, u can go through all thes.....if u have at any tym in ur lyf, felt any propensity for such stories but might have had nt found the tym 2 do so....others who hav no such interest.....well, get the hell outta here.....

i shall begin with sherlock holmes.



a young very much active man rathr shrouded in mystery, with the best contemporary brain & accordin 2 holmes himself, "a private consultant for detectives" by professn....i.e., detectives who cud nt solve cases came to him & he helped them with his ingenious ideas & realizations 2 solve the cases....
Holmes had an excellent ability 2 deduce from on-site clues.....he measured footprints & various things dropped accidentally(& sm intentionally in order 2 misguide the police) by criminals & came upon the conclusion in a logical train of thought.....at the end he wd xplain how he solved the case.......n phew......the whole thing wd lie uncovered b4 ur eyes.....with nothin not understood.......
He knew well dat he was brilliant in his field, but did nt brag much abt that, xept the fact dat he wd mock at the scotland yard officers gregson & lestrade from tym 2 tym......his assistant watson was a clever enough guy.....whom holmes often took in2 confidence.....though holmes rathr preferred nt 2 display his progress 2 anybody b4 the end.....
holmes was rathr a stoic guy....who nevr had any emotions.....he strictly adhered 2 the fact dat the working of the heart opposed that of the brain......& he seemed 2 b rathr afraid of the fact that if he wd start nurturing emotions, the truth wd elude him....& holmes nevr had any respect for women whom he treated as stupid & malicious creations of GOD(xept IRENE ADLER.....this was the one lady...who had outsmarted holmes) ......
now speaking abt sir conan doyle, i wd insist dat he was able 2 successfully endow this character with an enigma that continues 2 haunt its readers forevr......whethr u read the stories twice thrice or ten tyms...after suitable lapses of tym......u ll feel an addictn...an overwhelmin one....2 absorb more of this overpowering personality...u ll try 2 know him bettr...again an again....but u wont .....he will alwayz remain at a distance lyk the snow-capped lofty peaks dazzling in the bright sun......inspiring awe in u.....

now i come upon hercule poirot।



a short man of 5 ft 4 inches with an egg-shaped head tilted at 1 side, & a tremendous moustache......there stands hercule poirot for u......a rathr old man, a retired police officer in fact.....not very agile physically....& by no means , a lykly detectiv......& yet he is the best detectiv of his age.....sitting at a place.....makin a few leisurely inquiries & all the while, using "the little grey cells", he wd invariably penetrate the psychology of the most cunning criminal, he wd realize merely by the countenance of others who was holdin the truth & who was givin it out.....though as a matter of fact, in most of his novels, everybody invariably lies......there is a cobweb of lies.......& poirot , by a "little order & method", wd tear apart those lies & arrive at "nothing but the truth"........
poirot held little regard for footprints (smthin which was esteemd highly by holmes).....& curiously enough, footprints left by criminals were alwayz deliberate 2 incriminate sm1 else.....his criminals were too sophisticated.....& wd invariably hit upon sm innovativ way 2 murder the victim......the suspicions will continue 2 dwindle on him or her or that guy or this gal & so on.......until finally poirot wd narrate how he came upon the real culprit......
more often than not, he had no evidence of the crime(unlyk holmes who alwayz had the proof at the end) & only relied on his "little grey cells" & his profound understandin of human psychology .....the xplanation though amazing, will alwayz leave u wondering whethr the given solution wd b the only 1.......& invariably there wd b othr solutions possible theoretically but thos wd nt seem viable 2 the little belgian detectiv...& hence he wd rule them out(& at tyms u might evn differ with him)......
another curious thing was his assistant in many cases, arthur hastings(lyk watson for sherlock), who was as dumb as an asshole......the sheer stupidity & vanity & complex of hastings s bound 2 try ur patience at sm tym or the othr......he wd alwayz think himself as clever as poirot.....in spite of his incessant failures.....& poirot alwayz seemd 2 amuse himself by makin a fool of hastings....almost alwayz poirot wd deceive hastings abt his actual train of thoughts.....& wd misguide the lattr by some kinna deliberate comment.....at the end poirot wd beg his pardon & reason dat hastings was too honest & simple & was sure 2 alarm the actual criminal if he had known the truth......
also poirot had huge respect for the womenfolk & alwayz treated them with the utmost regard & dignity....he was emotional & seemd 2 b perfectly gullible & vulnerable to the charms of young beautiful ladies......but actually he cud see through them...he was amiable, did nt hav any astoundin personality, was devoid of charisma & he had the ability 2 mak anybody at ease b4 him.....
at the sm tym, howevr poirot was incredibly sure of himself all the tym(holmes was nevr half as much sure) ......& used 2 publicly call himself "the best detectiv of contemporary times"....& used 2 bang his chest....n then he wd mock at his asst. hastings & at inspector japp of scotland yard ....he wd go on sayin things lyk "it is I......hercule poirot...."& all sorts of contemptuous remarks .......

now abt agatha christie...her hercule poirot s generally regarded as the best detectiv........yes, the best...... since sherlock holmes....yes indeed....& i wholeheartedly agree with the idea.....& hence I say

DETECTIVE HERCULE POIROT CANNOT BEAT DETECTIVE SHERLOCK HOLMES

but there remain othr aspects......agatha christie's novels had a beautiful story.......unlyk thos of sir conan doyle.....the mere purpose of sherlock holmes stories & novels is 2 give an accurate account of how holmes arrives at the conclusion......his eccentric methods, his whims (which were smtyms for real & sm tyms with a particular reason), his incredible inferences drawn about the owner of an object by just observing the object(remember the hat or the watch?)...thes have alwayz been highlighted.....evrythin els s secondary.....the story, the crime, the circumstances.....or the other characters...they xist merely as means 2 demonstrate the inordinate skills of sherlock holmes ...here the detectiv is the most important......not the story..

christie was different......alwayz her stories were highlighted...the plot was ingenuine.....it was lyk a beautiful n xciting thriller with invariable surprises n twists at the end.......& hercule poirot was merely the man ....the good detectiv who was able 2 bring out the truth.....from an intangible web of lies n bad business.....stess has been there on poirot & his ideas....but the story has alwayz exceeded the detectiv.....& the detectiv has nt been mystefied......he' s lyk a fellow neighbour.... only a really clever one.....poirot s devoid of the charms that sherlock holmes has.....the 1st tym u read a novel, u will lyk it immensely, mayb u will prefer it to holmes.....bcoz the story s amazing....& the plot unravels in such a beautiful smooth manner....but if u try 2 read it for the 2nd tym, u wont feel lyk goin through it again.......it's the sm plot ..... & u know all abt it.....u have nothin more 2 gain from it.......ther s no absorbing personality whom u wanna know bettr......u will take an immense lykin 2 the character, but poirot will not inspire ur imagination........the way holmes does....

now talkin abt the best of sherlock holmes........ther r soo many 2 mention, indeed & strange but curious enough s the fact dat i lyk none of the so-called bestsellers of holmes.......among the novels, The Hound of the Baskervilles s his best known one & I loathe it.....i jus do not lyk the novel.....A Study in Scarlet & The Valley of Fear appeal 2 me far more than the other one......the way holmes was introduced by sir conan doyle in his 1st novel A Study in Scarlet..twas simply breath-takin.....

Regardin the short stories, again......The Speckled Band s by far the most well-known one...but it seems 2 me the most abominable story evr written abt holmes....2 me....A Scandal in Bohemia.....The Beryl Coronet.....The Naval Treaty....The Second Stain.....The Devil's Foot....The Thor Bridge..........they were far more puzzlin & xciting cases......

& abt poirot, i dare say that most of the short stories r nt really up2 the mark & certainly they cannot stand in comparison 2 the short stories of holmes....howevr, the novels r damn good...most of them......& i can assure u.....that the likes of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.......Death on The Nile.........The Mysterious Affair at Styles....Murder on The Orient Express.....will keep u on ur toes & make u hold ur breath.....while going through them....u ll relish each moment of the journey through the pages.......


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this has been a really poor write of mine............i jus wanted 2 blurt out sm facts & write smthing on sm topic........& i found none bettr than this