![]() ![]() On the other hand, HP’s way of “reconstructing the crime” is suitable ONLY when the perpetrator is within the confinement of investigation – be it a house, plane, ship, library, railway coach, or anything. ![]() For only those people who don't understand / appreciate this science of forensics, SH appears as unrealistic and / or HP appears as more realistic ! This is trouble-free because you need not rack your brains about conflicting testimonies from different characters. What does SH do ? He first talks in detail to the person bringing the sequence of events wanting explanation, visits the scene of the mystery, looks for any forensic clues, analyses what he finds, traces the ‘unknown / unseen’ characters, puts his findings about their movements to all of them and thus, jolts the guilty into a confession. I hope I would have no serious objections if I say that the method of investigation used by a detective should be suitable for identifying the perpetrator whoever he is and WHEREVER he is at the moment ! SH easily wins against HP again here. If I were to answer that, I would say that SH is better. It ceases to become merely a case, a question, a puzzle to be solved, and becomes instead a human drama.Ĭoming to a broader argument, we are here to debate who is a better DETECTIVE and not who is a better PERSON. Whereas both Poirot and Hastings are sympathetic, emotional creatures - not to mention the wonderful cast of characters around them that truly draw us into the story. But he's cold and analytical, with only Watson to throw warmth and feeling into the story and prevent it from just being a puzzle. Holmes is brilliant, and a great performer. It's the fact that Poirot cares greatly for the human element, he "studies human nature" that makes his stories perhaps more entertaining. Personally, I find them both very enjoyable - from both I get a sense of England at their time language, culture. he's more of a side character - appearing in the beginning and the end. It's hard to compare the two on a literary level, because Poirot usually appears in novels, while Holmes generally appears in short stories. He's fond of good food, fashionable (yet uncomfortable) shoes, and Russian cigarettes. Holmes uses drugs to wile away ennui he doesn't need to indulge when on a case, instead smoking shag tobacco. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |