I have never read Poirot. Holmes was written as escapist trash in it's time, that's why there are so many inconsistencies in the stories. Don't get me wrong, I love the stories but they are not deep reading.

I don't think either is all that deep to be fair.

[removed]

I will not commit on Poiret, I've never read him.

I've only read two Poirot novels -- Murder on the Orient Express (duh, who hasn't?) and The ABC Murders -- and they were fine. With Holmes I've mostly read the short stories, so I'm biased towards Holmes in large part because I prefer the format of short mysteries, but of course both Holmes and Poirot exist in both formats.

[removed]

[removed]

I generally prefer Christie... usually, but not always, at the end of a Poirot novel I feel like I could have guessed the solution even if I didn't. This is pretty much what I'm looking for in a mystery.

I disagree a bit about the sidekicks -- Watson isn't as smart as Holmes but he at least has some useful skills -- Hastings is pretty much just an impulsive idiot. (Although this maybe is what makes Curtain so... well, I won't say more but it wouldn't work without Hastings being Hastings, even as an older man.)

I must say I'm on the extreme end where I really love Poirot and absolutely hate Holmes. I've read some Holmes stories where the solution was basically gotten by Holmes tying the criminal up and interrogating him, which imo is such a cheap way of solving a mystery.

On the other hand, I grew up with Poirot and love every eccentricity of his, and especially the part where he's very tactful and kind (though shrewd) to everyone so they confide in him, as opposed to Holmes being the tactless and kinda rude person.

Holmes is more fun for me, there is bit more light-heartedness in the stories; And I like his dynamic with Watson, it's no surprise it's been imitated so often by other authors.

[deleted]

I don’t hate Holmes, but I do prefer Poirot because of his eccentricity as well. Poirot (and Hastings) are just funnier, a bit more light-hearted and goofy.

Added bonus, there are many more Poirot stories than Holmes stories.

Poirot.

I do enjoy reading Holmes. But you are never meant to be anything other than a spectator. You aren't Sherlock Holmes, you are not meant to solve this mystery. And often the answer, quite frankly Doyle pulls out of his ass. Relevant information is withheld from you. Hound of the Baskervilles is a favorite novel of mine but I think it perfectly shows this asspullery. You are Dr. Watson. You are provided clues and red herrings with which you will draw your conclusions. But ultimately, the most important pieces of information are kept away from you. And only when Holmes comes back do these vital clues get presented. So you can marvel at how amazing he is. You never question him. You will always accept the truth as he says it.

I have a soft spot for Poirot. Because his detective work is more criminal profiling. Which I personally find fascinating. He isn't dusting for prints inasmuch looks at the behavior and deduces the background of the perpetrator. It is lies upon lies with the truth hiding in plain sight. And in the end, you may still be left wondering, did Poirot really catch the bad guy?

Holmes has been sort of a hero for me. Ya, the stories have holes and some pretty big ones. I haven’t read any Poirot but I’ve seen all the David Suchet and Poirot drives me crazy. It’s Hastings I like and of course Miss Lemon.

I enjoy both, but I enjoy Poirot better as a character. His particular brand of charisma appeals to me.

In terms of how the books are plotted and written, Poirot is by far better. The plots are tight and I like the fact that even when I reread some books I can’t figure out the solution (but maybe that says more about me than the author lol)

Holmes is depicted as lot more action oriented than Poirot. I prefer the little gray cells action.

Doyle was far better at writing short story length mysteries than novels. When he wrote them, he'd pad out their length with long stretches in which, absent the detective, no progress would happen but much melodrama did. Agatha Christie had the skills of a true detective novelist.

Holmes stories i genuinely find boring. There is no need to follow the story as none of it is truly relevant to the crisis nor resolution.

Poirot is a delight.

Holmes appealed to a younger me, but now I prefer considering Poirot or Maigret.

Murder of Roger Ackroyd. That’s what you need to read for Poirot. Right now. Go do it. NOW.

I prefer Holmes especially since I enjoy the Stephen Fry narration but even without I still prefer it to Poirot. Not really a fan of Agatha Christie.

Nero Wolfe! All three are fantastic.

I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes smartest guy in the room character. I also vastly prefer the short stories.

I've never read Maigret, what story do you recommend to get into it?

Yes! that's the first story of Poirot that I read, I love it!

I enjoy them both equally.

[removed]

There are a lot to choose from, but this should get you started.

Yeah I get what you're saying about the feeling of the possible guessing of the solution at the end of Poirot's stories, and I suppose that's something Christie noted as a lacking in detective stories, giving the reader at least some little possibility or sensation of possibility of reaching to the culprit.

That is one of the main reasons that the stories of Ellery Queen (at least some of them) were a kind of novelty for me. There you have the direct challenge from the author to analyze the problem and trying to reach the conclusions before telling you the solution

I'll toss it on the ol' docket.

Thanks!

Holmes please