Sherlock Holmes

ianthepoet

I was brought up loving Sherlock Holmes, apart from Agatha Christie, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is read more than a few times.

Agathasmykid

I really like Holmes as well.  I still prefer Agatha Christie though.  The Holmes short stories are very very good!  However I think Agatha's novels are just way better than Conan Doyle's.

tudes

Agathasmykid said:

I really like Holmes as well.  I still prefer Agatha Christie though.  The Holmes short stories are very very good!  However I think Agatha's novels are just way better than Conan Doyle's.

I agree. I also like Sherlock Holmes, but Poirot and Marple are better than Sherlock. I think it's the way they conduct the investigation. Holmes look for clues, make experiences, disguise himself and Poirot/ Marple try to know the victim's personality (who she/he was, what he/she does), to know her/his family, who will profit with the murder and so on to find out the killer.
Holmes focus on the  "objects" and Poirot/ Marple pay much more attention in what people say about the victim and themselves. If they're telling the truth or not and why.
I enjoy Christie much more.

swilks1991

I only started reading Holmes because I ran out of Christie's to read. But now I am a huge fan! I would say I love both equally but for different reasons.

Tommy_A_Jones

I prefer Poirot and Miss Marple because the Stories are more straight forward easier to read, and I prefer the Characters in the books

glalonzo0408

Tommy_A_Jones said:

I prefer Poirot and Miss Marple because the Stories are more straight forward easier to read, and I prefer the Characters in the books

I agree Tommy.....

Tommy_A_Jones

I think that is the same with Lord Peter Wimsey and Campion though

MissQuin

I've only read two short stories of Holmes and at the time I found them dull. But maybe a full length book is good? I've seen an adaptation of Hound Of The Baskervilles and I liked the Gothic style, is it like that to read?

I very much doubt any crime author can replace Christie as my favourite. But Edgar Allan Poe comes closest in my affections!

^:)^

lachy.a.w

I can't get enough of the adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, especially the BBC's Sherlock. But as yet I haven't read any of the books. I have the complete collection which will wait until I've finished with Miss Christie.

MissQuin

I was drawn into the modern Baskervilles episode- against my will! I wanted to turn off the TV as I had other stuff to do. But I was too mesmerized. The Sherlock series has gone down a storm here in the UK.

Sad_Cypress

Sherlock Holmes was the first one to drag me into the world of detective stories. I love him with all my heart and always will. I like the contrast between Christie and Doyle - Holmes is more of an activist and Poirot, Marple, etc. are thinkers.
The Russian adaption of Sherlock Holmes - in my opinion - is the best. I also really like the UK adaption with Jeremy Brett and David Burke.
As for the modern "Sherlock" with Cumberbatch.... When I first heard about the new series I was truly excited. But when I saw them... To tell You the truth I felt very irritated. I'm not saying that the series are bad but I'm more of a "stick to the original stories" person.
I know that they made it "modern" and everything but still...

MissQuin

Oddly enough, I can somehow cope better with modern updates. At least you are prepared for the fact they will be very different. But the Sparkling Cyanide adapt set in the modern day  is so bad. I have nothing but  absolute contempt for it!

AlexBarry

As a Sherlockian of a half-century, I must confess to a preference for Conan Doyle's writings.  I think that may much be due to the Victorian period and the mysterious atmospherics that he described so adeptly, and that so impressed my young mind when I first began reading the canon.  When rereading the tales as an adult, I'm again swept back to that time of youthful wonderment.

May I suggest to those here who have read few or none of the stories, a most entertaining edition is The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, by William Baring-Gould.  At the time of publication he was one of Great Britain's foremost Holmsians, and he includes comprehensive marginal notes that really make the stories more accessible, and indeed, more believable, to modern readers.  A warning however:  These are not books for propping up on one's chest for bedtime reading.  The two volumes are oversized and rather heavy!

Christery

I enjoy the Sherlock Holmes stories but don't find them quite as satisfying as Christie's. First of all, there seems to be a lot more words and phrases that are no longer in common use whereas Christie used more common language. It does provide a lot of atmosphere and flavor but sometimes I have to stop and look words up. Secondly, often Holmes gets clues through using disguises or tipping off street urchins, where Christie's detectives concentrate more on interpersonal relationships and the motives for murder. However, we do all have to realize that if it wasn't for Conan Doyle we wouldn't have Poirot as Christie was definitely influenced greatly by the Holmes stories.

Frank

My Favourite authors are Arthur Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie. I am sure that anyone who has read all the Sherlock Holmes stories and all the Poirot stories will agree that Agatha Christie was inspired by the writings of Arthur Conan Doyle.  

Tommy_A_Jones

yes there are a lot of similarities aren't there?

shifra.shomron

I love Holmes. I love the fact that he studied so hard to be a private detective, and is such a talented and eccentric one. Reading Doyle one gets such a flavor of Victorian London - constant smog, fog, horse drawn cabs. As for Holmes' street urchins @Christery, Poirot also pays for info, and generally very expensively, too; that fellow that has a network all over, and when he reports to you, he'll never look at you, instead he'll talk to the table. Mr Goby, that's his name!
But I agree that AC gives you a lot more of human interest and relationships. For one thing, she wrote novels, Doyle generally wrote short stories. More importantly, Poirot as a detective was fascinated by people, and by human nature. Holmes was not - he was a thinking machine, almost a robot. He computed the facts. It was left to Watson to lend a human voice to the story (though occasionally Holmes would prove himself human) and give the sympathetic and descriptive touch. But how much more powerful AC who had Hastings functioning as a Watson, and a detective NOT devoid of human feeling. Her detectives had logic + emotion. In fact, at times almost too much emotion...