Similarities Between Sherlock Holmes And Hercule Poeirot

TITLE
There are are many detectives in the world but two outstanding investigators, in reality, never existed. Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie respectively, are two of the most phenomenal fictional detectives, as well as the most well-known. They have many different qualities, but they are both very successful and accomplished. There are several aspects of the character and personality of these two men that make them the detectives that they are, yet they differ from each other almost completely. The qualities of a detective that make them successful change, depending on the situation and person, where different techniques will be effective. Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot are both

“[The stick] gives us base for several deductions,” he said of his work in The Hound of the Baskervilles (Doyle 3). This walking stick, certainly allow him a few deductions, for within seconds, with the use of his observations, he drew conclusions based on the world around him and his observations and ended up with much of the stranger’s life story readily available. Of his skills he says, “... [I] balance probabilities and choose the most likely… but, [I] always have some material basis on which to start [my] speculation” (47). He focuses on using all of his senses to closely examine the world around him and from there, he draws his conclusions and makes his deductions. On the other hand, to any questioning about his specialty, Poirot will quickly and dramatically declare that he specializes in, of course, “The study of human nature, monsieur!” (Christie 16). Poirot is a funny, little man who dislikes getting his hands, or anything else, dirty. He says his “watchword” is “method, order, and the little grey cells” in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (69). Poirot focuses on using the power of his mind and these “little grey cells” to think about cases from the perspective of the suspects and he focuses on psychology in determining the facts of the case. Both Poirot and Holmes use clues and evidence to ensnare

you yourself are not luminous, but you are a conductor of [my] light” (3). His social skills aren’t that great, and he believes that he is self-sufficient and he has trouble trusting others. Lying, insulting, and hiding from that one friend, is deemed necessary for the sake of the case, and Holmes condones his behaviour on multiple occasions. He doesn’t find it easy to strike up conversations with others and likes to keep to himself, with the exception of Watson. This affects him while investigating because he does not easily make connections with other people and he thinks of them only as clients in his business. They cannot easily distract him, but he lacks relationships that could be informative and beneficial. Poirot though, is a social butterfly who, unlike Holmes, makes connections with people, can easily have a conversation with them, and is more trusting. He has one main “sidekick” just like Holmes, but he speaks of him with admiration, appreciation, and praise. “I had a friend-a friend whom for many years never left my side...I miss [him] more than I can tell you” (Christie 16). Poirot clearly values this relationship immensely. Poirot has no trouble speaking with others and uses these relationships and connections to his advantage while investigating, as he understands human nature very well. Holmes is constantly insulting his partner, but Poirot clearly values the relationship he has with his friend.