27/07/2023
Long-standing debate among detective novels fans:
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle vs Agatha Christie, who is better?
Personally, it's quite difficult to say one or the other because both have strengths that I find unique and unequalled 💪
Even though their novels are considered murder mysteries, Christie's are a bit more of the traditional whodunits --the murderer is revealed at the end-- while Doyle's are more of howcatchems.
Most Sherlock Holmes stories (or at least, among the ones I've read), the murderer is revealed somewhere in the beginning or the middle. As readers, we know who the murderer is. Doyle focuses his story on unraveling the hows: #1)how was the murder done #2)how did the murderer escape the crime scene and #3)how did Holmes catch the murderer --and each how comes with their own plot twists.
Writing-wise, Christie is very good at detailing --grounding readers into her world. She makes us feel involved in Poirot's thought processes in solving the mystery, allowing us to explore the evidence together with the character as if we were his colleague and he was interacting with us.
What's more interesting about Christie's writing is how she manages to hide major clues in the minor details. This gives her room to still surprise readers with her plot twists --when she revealed the real murderer and the clues she hid, and we all go "Ahh, how did i miss that?" 🧐
Although Doyle's storyline seems discontinuous and compartmental, but he is great at building suspense --retaining readers' excitement from one part of his story to another. He makes us hooked on each mystery, locking our feet on the ground and our eyes on the pages.
Some might find his storyline a bit jerky and complex, jumping from one scene to the next. But this only adds character to the main character. No one knows how Holmes thinks, we are just as clueless as any other characters in the story. At the end, after the murderer was suddenly caught --using the plan Holmes had secretly set in motion,-- Doyle explained the deduction process and tied all the compartments together. BOOM 🤯🤯 everything suddenly makes sense!
[The best screen adaptation, in my opinion, for how it feels to read Sherlock Holmes, is Cumberbatch's Sherlock TV series. The clashing scenes during transitions are how i imagined they were in the books 💯💯]
Character-wise, I prefer Christie's Hercule Poirot than Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (sorry, Sherlockians 👻). To master the art of deductionism, he needs to master everything else; which makes Holmes a bit of an over-savant. Poirot is a much more relatable character. There were times when he overlooked certain clues --just like we were when we're reading the story!
Plot-wise, i prefer Sherlock Holmes than Hercule Poirot. "Someone in this room is the killer" and "Everyone in this room is a suspect" are some of the famous lines in Christie's stories. Most of her plots are quite identical. People who have familiarised with her way of writing know what to look for --and sometimes even where.
Sherlock Holmes' storyline is much more dynamic. Sometimes new character is introduced at the last minute and throws the readers off. Perplexed, triggered, new emotions are awakened.
Plus, the resolution is more imaginative. His famous quote, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth…" and he's not lying, it IS improbable, some of them defy the laws of physics --but creatively 😉
Both are such great writers. They are the crème de la crème. There is a reason why their stories are among those that they call the blueprints for murder mysteries.
A Haunting in Venice is coming in September. Make sure you free your schedule and check them out! In the mean time, grab A Haunting in Venice from the nearest bookstore! *this is not a paid ads 😆