Holmes Vs. Poirot

A burning question has intrigued me over and over again, "why did Ms Christie created Hercules Poirot at all when we already had Sherlock Holmes?". Well, Poirot fans, stop gnashing your teeth and let's go by deductive reasoning which, I know, you are not quite used to.

The character of Hercules Poirot, according to the autobiography of Ms Agatha Christie, was based mostly around Sherlock Holmes. There goes originality for a toss.

Sherlock Holmes solved his mysteries using his deductive reasoning skills, we often heard his saying that when all options were exhausted, what remained, however illogical, is the truth. Poirot on the other hand had even resorted to the mambo-jumbo of hypnotism (Ref : The Under Dog) to find out the main culprit. I wonder what Ms Christie thinking when she wrote that!

As a human being Sherlock Holmes was a much better man than Poirot. Holmes was of a noble nature, quite proficient in various fields of Botany, Geology, Music, Boxing, Jujitsu and the British Law. He also had profound knowledge in the subjects of Chemistry, Anatomy and Sensational Literature. Poirot on the other hand was a pompous egoist who thought he was the most brilliant human being that ever lived, and this was quite evident from his own conversation with his sidekick Capt. Arthur Hastings.

Poirot was not only lazy, he also refused to take long walks, go on tiresome errands, which often created a doubt in my mind about the authenticity of the fact that in his early career he was a police officer! The only field in which Poirot had profound knowledge in, I think, were mustaches. That man suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder for God's sake! More often than not we found him removing that single flake of dust from his suit or applying gels and creams on his mustache to the point of to the point of insanity.

Even the chemistry between Poirot and his sidekick Capt. Aurther Hastings was not a good one and we often found Hastings praying for Poirot's failure. Whereas we find Holmes and Watson go together so well that even after Watson got married, he loved the company of Holmes and often came back to the quarters of 221B, Baker St.

Poirot was almost always found in the right place at the right time which more than often had helped him to track down the culprit (Ref : Wasps' Nest). Either than man was God gifted, or Ms Christie was too lame to think of a plot and build a story around it. The stories of Ms Christie are so predictable, that sometime a reader can point out the culprit even before Poirot does. They lacked in variety too.

Next comes the villains. The nemesis of Sherlock Holmes was a person named Prof James Moriarty. He was equally a mastermind as Holmes and was revered by Holmes for his formidable character. Moriarty was referred to by Sherlock Holmes as "the Napoleon of crime". Poirot, on the other hand, never encountered any such opponent. Ms Christie was too afraid to introduce an equally capable nemesis for Poirot lest she might end up hurting his ego!

After reading all these I think you would agree that Sherlock Holmes was the legend, and that Poirot's character would never reach that culmination point of success. After all it's elementary, eet ees, eh Mon Ami?

P.S. Sherlock Holmes was inducted as an honorary fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2002, the only fictional character so honored.