Detective fiction is fun and exciting, and the leaders of the pack in terms of characters, have to be Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) and Hercule Poirot (by Agatha Christie). I’ve read both authors and enjoyed everything they’ve thrown out there. But I wondered as I leafed through an old Christie novel, which detective would win a literary battle? The result might get me offed, but I think it’s worth the risk. So this week’s fiction collision pits the witty and charming Sherlock Holmes against the empathetic and eccentric Hercule Poirot.

Let’s do a quick rundown for each character:

Sherlock Holmes
Physical Appearance: Tall, agile, strong

Nationality: British…mostly

Strengths: Inductive reasoning, kickass brilliance, photographic memory

Dirty little secrets: smokes a lot, like his cocaine

Other notable traits: physically fit, judgmental, plays the violin

Hercule Poirot

Physical Appearance: short, fragile

Nationality: Belgian

Strengths: Deductive reasoning, vast knowledge of psychology, empathetic

Dirty little secrets: OCD, socially awkward

Other notable traits: Observant, clever, and nonjudgmental

Holmes is an extremely unrealistic character with all of his 007-type characteristics, but this makes him seem dashing and exciting. It’s easy to fall in love with him right away. Poirot is quite boring, avoiding physical exertion and preferring to stand just outside the crowd. It’s hard to like him, no matter how much you want to.

While working a case, Holmes prefers to observe, and later uses those observations to find the solution to the question posed using physical evidence and inductive reasoning. Poirot prefers to converse with people, and uses his knowledge of human psychology along with deductive reasoning, or ruling-out what doesn’t fit, to solve his case. In this way, Poirot would probably solve more cases in real life than Holmes would by simply relying upon physical evidence.

In terms of the mysteries they solve, Christie’s Poirot takes the prize for the most interesting. Poirot’s cases are creative and the reader is often surprised by the ending. Sir Conan Doyle uses intrigue, involving the reader in the case and allowing her to solve it on her own, sometimes long before Holmes gets around to it. While Holmes is more appealing to a reader’s imagination, Christie has to be given credit for keeping the reader enthralled in spite of the protagonist being so thoroughly boring.

When Christie created Poirot, she made it clear that Conan Doyle’s Holmes greatly influenced her work, so parallels are naturally present between the two characters. Both detectives are quite vain, and they have chivalrous sidekicks who played the stereotypical British gentlemen. Holmes had the reliable Dr. Watson, and Poirot had the loyal Captain Arthur Hastings. These sidekicks both chronicled the adventures of their detective companions, and assisted them in solving crimes. Watson and Hastings also suffered in their role as sidekicks as well, because both Holmes and Poirot were arrogant, conceited and downright rude when the mood struck them.

Both detectives also frequently outwitted the local police. While Sherlock Holmes bested Inspector Lestrade, Hercule Poirot had to compete with Scotland Yard’s Inspector Japp. Yet, despite their arrogance, Holmes and Poirot were content to let the inspectors take all the credit for solving the cases.

In terms of romance, neither detective seemed to have much action going on. Both had strong feelings for women on the wrong side of the law, which is rather cliche. For Holmes it was Irene Adler, who he’d often mention using not her name, but “the woman” instead. Poirot’s love was Countess Vera Rossakoff, who only features in a couple of stories, as does Adler.

Poirot and Holmes both prefer to use “little gray cells” (as Poirot would say) to put their deductive reasoning skills to work to solve a case. Holmes liked to disguise himself to get closer to the truth, while Poirot preferred to work a case at a safe distance. Holmes relies on attention to detail and physical evidence like foot prints and the arrangement of a body, while Poirot looks for motivation and explanations from within, by exercising the mind.

Finally, Poirot was pure invention with a dash of inspiration, while Holmes was based on Dr. Joseph Bell, who was one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s professors. I don’t think this makes one better than the other, mind you, but it is interesting to note how each author came to create the larger than life characters we know and love today.

So who is the winner? Well today we’re giving two awards. The fiction collision winner for best detective is Poirot, but the winner for most dashing and exciting is definitely Holmes. I suppose it depends on which type of mystery you prefer to read: Clever or charming?