Poirot versus Holmes?

Uma antiga rivalidade renasce em tempos de Youtube: Hercule Poirot ou Sherlock Holmes?

Pessoalmente, eu não vejo sentido nesta disputa, mas discussões inacreditáveis acontecem nos comentários de dois vídeos publicados no site de compartilhamento.

Assistam e tirem suas próprias conclusões!

Sherlock & Dr.Watson + Poirot & Captain Hastings = kick arse (em inglês)
Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZdDOyn4HTk

Sherlock Holmes VS Hercule Poirot (em francês)
Link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E32qOeedZ74&NR=1

Anúncios

13 pensamentos sobre “Poirot versus Holmes?

  1. Levando em conta a originalidade, escolheria Sherlock Holmes, por ter nascido primeiro que o detetive de Agatha. Levando em conta a outra parte, a inteligência de Sherlock está em elevado nível, um complexo emaranhado de conceitos. Holmes leu vários livros de crimes, casos clássicos, publicou artigos de símbolos e de vários outros pelos quais não me lembro agora. Não conheço Poirot. Porém estou convencido da superioridade de Sherlock Holmes. Fora tão bem escrito que alguns acreditam que ele realmente existiu. Uma grande bobagem, digo. Além disso, os relatos do Cão dos Baskervilles provam a genialidade conaniana. naquele momento ele inventou uma lenda. Além disso, ele criou o amor entre Watson e Sherlock Holmes. Eram amigos de verdades. Conan pôs Sherlock na realidade quando o citou na guerra civil alemão, como que auxiliando o governo quando já deixara de lado a carreira policial. Sherlock adquiri com estas qualidades (superficiais, para quem quase já leu a obra completa) o título de maior detetive que já houve no universo inteiro, pelos quais, o método de dedução nem seu próprio criador entendera.

    • Eu conheço Poirot e adoro ele! Mas não consigo escolher um dos 2. Eles agem de forma diferente e são ambos surpreendentes! se eu tivesse que sr amiga de um deles, preferia o Poirot que é um gentleman (gentil, amistoso, doce). Mas… Vc já assistiu à série Sherlock com o Benedict Cumberbatch e o Martin Freeman? É incrível!!!

  2. Pegue Sherlock Holmes e crie seu oposto. Pois é. Agatha deu ao oposto o nome de Hercule Poirot. Tanto fisicamente quanto na maneira de agir. Enquanto um corre atrás de pistas, o outro fica sentado “meditando”.

    Já li e reli todos os livros de Agatha e de Conan Doyle, e sabe o que acho? Sherlock Holmes “força a barra”, não tem como alguém ser tão inteligente. Suas histórias também são muito inverossímeis (nunca disse serem ruins, pelo contrário). A vantagem é que o leitor acompanha seu raciocínio e se delicia por isso.

    Quanto à Poirot, a engenhosidade não está na dedução na carta de um rei ou de uma mancha, e sim em porque tal pessoa disse aquilo naquela ocasião. Agatha o força a pensar. A solução está bem ali, mas você deve encontrá-la sozinho. Somente no final do livro Poirot expõe a solução, a qual geralmente é inusitada. “Como eu não pensei nisso??” diz o leitor de Agatha.

    No fritar dos ovos, Sherlock é tão brilhante que conseguiria resolver qualquer mistério do universo, inclusive os crimes “domésticos” e “psicológicos” de Poirot. Já este, em tese, não conseguiria resolver um enigma como “O Signo dos Quatro” sentado, tomando seu licor de menta. No universo literário Sherlock é melhor. Na verossimilhança Poirot ganha.

  3. I have read Sherlock Holmes as well as Hercule Poirot books.

    I would like to know from Mathew Azevelo (and anybody else who voices similar viewpoints) what he means when he says “the clue is right there and you have to find it alone” ? Is it so “simple” ??? Ok – agreed that if you make it “obvious”, the “mystery” is lost – but tell me – are there enough clues (enough number of “conclusive” details to help you (the readers) “deduce” the truth) in all Christie books ???? No sir !! Not at all !!!! At the end of the books, you are given an explanation of WHAT HAD HAPPENED – NOT “HOW IT WAS FOUND OUT” ! I still wonder how many people (especially Agatha Christie fans) understand the difference between these two things !!

    Why am I stressing so much on these things ?? Well – if, once upon a time, Sherlock Holmes appeared “reaslistic” to a whole world of people and they began looking for 221B Baker Street so that they could meet him, it is because of this – “perfect” description of people, places, situations and VERY IMPORTANTLY – THIS “REASONING” -the entire thought process that went behind the solution of a case – right from the moment he is given something to investigate something till he is through with the solution were the hallmarks of the work. {THIS IS WHY I TOO SIDE WITH HOLMES – IF IT IS A “DETECTIVE” STORY, THE IDEA OF “DETECTION” MUST BE EMPHASISED !!}

    If Hercule Poirot appeals to anybody, I would say it is because (i) the conversation of characters is in conversational (colloquial, I mean, ungrammatical) English. Also, it is in bits and pieces, unlike in Sherlock Holmes where a character gives a lenghthy narrative of his / her experience for which he / she seeks an explanation from Holmes. and PERHAPS, MORE IMPORTANTLY, (ii) the readers are able idenfify themselves with some character(s) in the story and the way Hercule Poirot appears to “sympathise” with them.

    Hercule Poirot often asks Arthur Hastings to “use his grey cells”. This means Agatha Christie asks her readers to use their grey cells. What I would argue here is – Agatha Christie did not how to create and include a concrete evidence to support that part of her plot and so, conveniently throws the ball into the reader’s court and leaving it to him understand the thought that went behind the conclusion by the detective while the truth is that it is just “told” and NOT “reasoned” from anywhere / anything – at the most, the reader would be made to “feel” the “truth” in what Poirot says from the way the character had acted in a particular fashion on some previous and /r subsequent occassion(s).
    Another “reason” why people MIGHT go for Poirot instead of Holmes is the difficulty in unearthing of the tangible clues and reasoning which Sherlock Holmes seems to do so easily ! (I can assure anyone that it is NOT so easy, but it is a science by itself and – called forensics – it is largely useful in cracking a hell of a lot of crimes as on date – but sadly Agatha Christie had dismissed it so cheaply in many of her novels !!)

    {AFTER ALL, IF “PSYCHOLOGY” IS SSOO POWERFUL, WHY DIDN’T SHE MAKE POIROT ANSWER HIS CLIENTS’ CALLS BETTER ON TIME, DETECT THE “WISH TO MURDER” IN ANY CHARACTER(S) AND THUS SAVE LIVES ? WHY LET THE MURDER(S) HAPPEN ??? The answer is so simple – only if you let it happen, you can “reconstruct the crime”. IRONICALLY, SHERLOCK HOLMES – A DETECTIVE WHO DEPENDS MORE ON TANGIBLE CLUES – {WHICH YOU GET only IF THE ACT WAS DONE} HAD SUCCESSFULLY PREVENTED CRIMES OFTEN !!)

    Dear poirot fans, before getting angry with me, please, please reflect like this: how often does Poirot ever explain “why” he suspects some character ?? You find him saying “I was not satisfied”, “it SOMEHOW seems all wrong”, “it didn’t ring true”, etc. Don’t you think these are just “hunches” / “feelings” and nothing more ?? And yet, he claims he “thinks” ! [Whereas Sherlock Holmes only too clearly explains what the perpetrator of the act had wanted him to think and what exactly gave him away !!] I mean to say Sherlock Holmes (Sir Conan Doyle) keeps Watson (the readers) updated about what he feels at the moment and what he intends to do next at regular intervals and gives a gist of the whole case in the end (TELL ME CHRISTIE FANS, IS this NOT “ORDERLINESS’ ?? IS this NOT “METHODICALNESS” ???). Whereas Hercule Poirot prides in being secretive till the end. Even in the end, you don’t find him explaining when / how he found out which aspect of the case – but only how the murder was done, by whom and for what motive.

    Hercule Poirot is “orderly” and “methodical” – yes – in “wearing ties and shoes where such things are not expected from him”, in “folding newspapers”, in “arranging flowers in vases”, in “ironing his clothes” etc. As a DETECTIVE. . . .huh ??? It is a big, BIG question mark !!

    And, did the Agatha Christie fan world notice one another point ? Hercule Poirot is claimed to be an ex-detective officer with the Belgian police. okay. He “reconstructs the crime”. Do you think the police would use a “method” which would be useful ONLY in pointing at a perpetrator of a crime who is inside a confined area – plane, ship, railway coach, cottage or hotel, etc. ?? Don’t you think a detective’s job involves a lot of rushing here and there, following / overhearing / tracing people and so a lot of adventure ?? In fact, only to direct the suspicion to those inside the confined area, Poirot “suspects” “whose word for it do we have that . . .?”, “what evidence do we have for . . . ?”. Cannot all the people in the house be innocent of a murder at all ?? Cannot the single person who is testifying something be speaking the truth AT ALL ?? If someone wants someone else dead, should that someone be only within the house ?? (as though the whole world comprises of only these people. . .)

    And for the bottom line: IS MURDER THE ONLY CRIME ON EARTH ?? Poirot hardly does investigate any other type of crime.

  4. o detetive belga Hercule Poirot é muito melhor e muito mais inteligente que sherlok holmes!
    Poirot demonstra um conhecimento estremo do comportamento humano.
    e quem conhece verdadeiramente os filmes e livros de poirot sabe perfeitamente que ele em nenhum dos seus mistérios fica sentado!

Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do WordPress.com

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta WordPress.com. Sair / Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair / Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair / Alterar )

Conectando a %s