Oh, BROTHER! {Common Points between Sherlock Holmes and Poirot}

"Coincidence?  I think NOT!"

   Hercule Poirot was adapted (maybe even PLAGIARIZED from an original creation of Arthur Conan Doyle.
I've gotten a bit of support from Sherlock Holmes fans on the issue of christie's  potential plagiarism,  but christie loyalists are a hard sell.  I can't say that I blame them, either.
Having been stabbed in the back by christie,  by way of her slamming of Poirot,  I can understand how they would NOT want to admit that their literary idol betrayed them.  Took me a while.  I'm a reader and so I assumed (foolishly in this case)  that the author wrote for the pure enjoyment of telling stories. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sometimes, the so called 'author'  is more SELF involved.  Her motivation is not the love of telling stories but building HER reputation.  More to the point, in catering to her EGO in being able to share literary fame with an author of her liking.
With Sherlock Holmes being the biggest thing to happen to literature since the advent of movable type,  agatha knew that her only hope of competing with Doyle would be to,  in essence,  COPY his best known character. Tweaking  for apparent distinction, while keeping the facets of the character that made Holmes stand out, both the man and the stories.
Allow me to share seven (7) COMMON POINTS between Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot.  At the very least,  these points will  give christie fans second thoughts. Make them say "Hmmmm"  🤔🤔🤔 Her loyalists, on the other hand,  will stand by that woman,  come HELL or High Water!  So I'm not even going to try to persuade them.  That would be an exercise in futility.

Common Point #1  :   BOTH Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot were....less-than- modest when it came to declaring their skills and career accomplishments.  This is NOT a SLAM,  simply a point.   Then again,  it was this very trait, kept by christie for her version of Holmes, which she also BERATED Poirot about.

Common Point #2  The famed detectives were both  sticklers for detail and order in case stories.

Common Point #3   Holmes and Poirot got antsy if there wasn't a case in a while.   The detectives needed the mental stimulation of a challenging case and the lack of that stimulation drove them to illness, moody moping,  drug use, or random violin playing.

Common Point #4 Holmes and Poirot each had a competitive working relationship with their respective Scotland Yard liasons;  Chief Inspectors Lastrade and Japp.  The C.I.'s  had issues with the detectives stealing their thunder; referring to the non-Scotland Yard sleuths as "amateurs' . Over time, however,  Lastrade and Japp learn to work with Holmes and Poirot;  doing their part, while the sleuths performed  their unique brand of deduction.

  Common Point # 5 BOTH Holmes and Poirot had been known to work,  even when they were ill.   This work-a-holism made it just about IMPOSSIBLE for Watson and Hastings to keep them away from a case,  even in convalescence.

Common Point #6  Neither Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot  had a longtime relationship / romance .  Now, from what I've read  in Sherlock Holmes stories,  the man had trust issues with women. The ONE exception being  Irene Adler,  whom Watson conveyed was the singular female Holmes had referred to, with much respect,  as THE woman.  Would there have been a romance?  Only fan-fiction writers know for sure.
Likewise, Poirot had no significant romance.  WAS this just because Holmes didn't have a romance?  Or because christie didn't believe the Belgian sleuth was entitled to love? 

  THANKFULLY, the series writers were kinder to Poirot than christie had been. (Not that THAT took much effort) .  In Double Clue,  (episode , NOT book)  Poirot develops a bit of a lopsided romance with jewel thief , Countess Vera Rosakoff.  At the end of the episode,  (as she's getting on a train) , he gives her...I think a cigarette case to remember him by and she kisses him on the very top of his forehead.  You wanna cry. The 'romance' of sorts, is rekinded in Labors of Hercules (MOVIE, NOT book!)  Sadly, that goes south when Poirot would NOT give the Countess's daughter,  Alice Cunningham a free pass. Jewell thievery is one thing, multiple murder is another.

   However,  THE episode , {where the screenwriters came perilously  CLOSE to violating christie's edict against giving Poirot a love story} was The Chocolate Box. In the episode, Poirot falls in love with a young woman (Virginie Mesnard)  who needs to know who killed her cousin,  Paul Deroulard.  When the court won't go any further,  she enlists Poirot's help to get to the truth of the matter, and romance is in bloom. 
   SADLY,  The screenwriters end up marrying Virginie off to another man.  Thankfully, I am  under no such edict and gave Poirot and Virginie their love story!
   In your FACE, AGATHA!!!  😝 🖕

Common Point #7
Also, like  Sherlock Holmes'  Watson,  Hastings is inexplicably widowed.  Why was Hastings bereft of his wife for no apparent reason?
A) JUST because John Watson was deprived of his own wife?
B) Because christie didn't give a rip?
C)  both of the above?
I'm going with C .  Considering the rancid disregard  agatha had for Poirot,  Hastings hardly merited a thought, as far as she was concerned. At the end of the day, I SERIOUSLY have to wonder if christie even realized that too many common points between the detectives and their stories would undo  her?  Alas,  no one from Arthur Conan Doyle's family said a peep, and theirs were the voices  that would have put the nail in agatha's casket of unmerited self- promotion.

Common Point #8 (which should be common point 1)  BOTH Study in Scarlet and Mysterious Affair At Styles (movie NOT book)  begin with a war.  Different wars, considering the time line but in both cases, it's Watson/Hastings who are re-introduced to old friends as they recuperate.   

    In the case of Watson, he is introduced to Holmes.  Watson needs new digs and  his friend thought a roomie would be helpful in paying the rent, etc.  In the case of Hastings,  he is re-acquainted with Poirot when he (Hastings) is invited to stay with a high school friend while he recovered from war injuries.  He'd met Poirot while doing some war time duty in Belgium. Either way,  it's a war that pairs up the iconic colleagues. 

Bottom line;  Any ONE of these points could be called a COINCIDENCE.  Perhaps even two. But all eight?  NO. Not possible. The two characters are essentially ONE.  Holmes;  remodeled and renamed.
Putting it in Real Estate  terms, { because somehow, that seems to work for me} , Agatha Christie took possession of a house that did NOT belong to her.  She did NOT design this 'house'  from cellar to attic.  She simply  remodeled an already-existing structure just enough to give the initial appearance that Poirot  had been created from  scratch.  However,  as was shown in the Common Points  between the two detectives,  christie kept the very trait of Holmes'  that she would come to loathe, and then blame Poirot for,  as if  the character could know he had been the  direct result of another character.
If you have yet to be convinced that agatha's self-declared "DETESTABLE"   detective began existence as SHERLOCK HOLMES, I offer you  the last story in the  Poirot canon;  Curtain:  Poirot's Last Case .
In the book version,  { which I read BEFORE finding out what a heartless,  thieving creature christie was} ,   HASTINGS acts as the narrator,  like Watson about Holmes.    ( Coincidence?  Not bloody likely! )   .
_______________________________________
"Why oh WHY did I EVER create this DETESTABLE, bombastic creature?"
~agatha christie, Re: Poirot~
Detestable:  Deserving of INTENSE dislike/ HATE  Oxford Dictionary of Current English  © 2001
________________________________________
 
   So here's the deal.  Supposing  I turn out to be utterly wrong, and christie did create Poirot, from  attic to cellar . (just like I wrote the score from Jaws.)  Yuh!   That reality would make her shitting on Poirot that much  WORSE!   That would mean that she COMPLETELY WASTED  HER time,  her readers' time {while taking our money under false pretenses)    and Poirot's  life.
And - For - WHAT?!?!?
What was the reason for creating him at all?  What PURPOSE did it serve, apart from boosting christie's already-grandiose sense of SELF IMPORTANCE?  If she didn't give a damn about the character she 'created'  anymore than she cared  for the story she was telling ,    it was ALL  TOTALLY USELESS !!!!  And EVERY actor who ever played Poirot is owed an APOLOGY from christie's  relatives!

😭ENEMIES. 😡

  ~BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR~

  In my story,  The Execution of Agatha Christie,  I got.... FAUSTIAN.  I took a scene from the movie Phantom of the Paradise, where the movie's villain makes a deal with the devil (literally) to get what he wanted; see also, eternal youth.   The consequences turn out to be a LOT more than that little egomaniac bargained for. (Oooh YEAH!) because Swan NEVER counted on being stalked  by a determined young songwriter,  who cared MORE for his music than he was intimidated by an evil hobbit in high places!
In the name of giving back what agatha dished out, (betraying readers)  I gave that bitch  the opportunity to live the dream;  a life where Hercule Poirot NEVER existed.  And all she had to do is burn the handwritten version of her first Poirot novel,  Mysterious Affair at Styles.   
   I have to tell you, it was one of the easiest stories to write. The last line, especially,  was a genuine thrill.  "Hercule Poirot's foremost enemy was dead."  It came to me,  out of the clear blue sky,  and I committed it to the page.  Whatever revisions and   edits I have to make,  that last line is staying!   Sorry, Stephen King, but I am NOT killing that darling.


   Let me ask you AGATHA devotees,  in all honesty,  IF christie had been given that opportunity, do you think she would have taken it?  Seriously!  Knowing her HATRED for Hercule Poirot,  would she have burned that first story ;  UN 'creating'  Poirot,  since she had other characters  making money for her?

   I'd like to think she would have.
Does this mean I HATE Poirot as much as christie did? NO. Never!   In fact, I don't think I've EVER felt more SYMPATHY or COMPASSION  for ANY  fictional character in books, movies or a television series,  as I feel for Poirot.
  No lie!  Hell, not even Archie Bunker could lay claim to the dubious distinction of being HATED by Norman Lear and/or Carroll O'Connor the way agatha maligned Poirot.  Let me make it clear; we are talking about two SERIES characters.   THINK about this, okay?   Archie Bunker vs Hercule Poirot.  And ARCHIE won!  At least so far as having the respect of author and actor.

Would you believe me if I told you....?????

I've watched any number of interviews with Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor,  Sherman Hemsley,  Rob Reiner, et ensemble,  and NOT ONCE  did Mr. Lear or Mr. O'Connor refer to Archie as someone THEY hated!   They were mystified by him,  confused by him. They felt sorry for him.  But they NEVER HATED him!
Norman Lear said, "Archie was afraid of tomorrow" , and  Carroll O'Connor suggested that Archie felt like life was giving him the wrong  end of the stick. Neither author or actor ENDORSED Archie's more confrontational actions  or statements,  they simply permitted  him to be who he was and dealt with issues as they came up.
Had Mr. Lear, in particular,  felt  the same animosity for Archie that agatha had against Poirot,  we wouldn't remember All in the Family because that show wouldn't have survived the first season!   Both author and actor HAD to believe that Archie Bunker had redeeming qualities , or that would have been the end of it.
So how...HOW, in the name of Tommy Wiseau  is it,  that Archie Bunker,  with all  his  ISSUES  has been touted as "America's Lovable Biggot"  and yet Hercule Poirot (according to his ersatz  'author' ) was someone to be HATED?!  He didn't  even get a  long-term love story! HITLER had a girlfriend but Hercule Poirot wasn't entitled to romance!

    🤔🤦‍♀️🤷   W.T.F ?!?!?!?  🤔🤦‍♀️🤷

   If ANYONE can make sense of that bit of convoluted  'logic',  fill me in!  PLEASE!!!!!  🙇‍♀️🙏
When all is said and done, christie fans,  you are completely free to read or watch and believe whatever you like. That's TOTALLY your business.  Likewise,  I can try to warn you about the 'author'  you so highly esteem. Is she REALLY worthy of your respect/ worship?    If you want to spend time and money on someone, who only 'created' a  particular character in order to cater to her own expansive EGO, then have at it.  It's your time. It's your money.  But if christie is, even now, forty years plus DEAD , still entitled to respect,  then why aren't you, as a reader, entitled to the same respect?

  Oh, and speaking of EGO....just in case you require further evidence of christie's ARROGANCE,  I can make that case in two words;  Ariadne Oliver. Yes,  agatha's  fictional double.  Christie inflicted Mrs Oliver  into Poirot's life, so as to be able to snipe at her despised sleuth from a front row perspective.  At the same time, declaring herself as an author of a FINNISH detective she wished she'd never bothered with. Sound familiar!?
Oh goodie. Another agatha christie.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to gouge my eyes out with a dirty butcher knife.
Have a nice day.