crime seem insoluble. In “the adventure of the speckled band”, Helen stoner comes to Sherlock
Holmes, and speaks of her sisters death just before she wed, when she would have received her
inheritance. Helen Stoner had heard a low whistle outside her room and when she rushed in to see
her sister she spoke of a “speckled band” before she died. Now Helen stoner is to be wed, and she
has heard the low whistle outside her room once again. It turns out to be a Swamp-adder, the most
deadly snake from India, which would kill anyone within 10mintues of its bite. At first the crime
seems insoluble, Conan-Doyle went with the more traditional approach; from the beginning of the
story we are aware that the most likely suspect is the character Dr Roylott., the evil step father.
Helen Stoner points to him as the most likely suspect and he is the only one who is described in
great detail, who has a motive: money and was the only person in the house other than Helen
Stoner at the time of her sister death. We can assume that he is the murderer in this story just by
the description Dr Watson gives of him. He describes Dr Roylott as ‘a huge man’, who possessed ‘A
large face seared with a thousand wrinkles and marked with every evil passion’. He has ‘deep-set,
bile shot eyes’ and a ‘high thin fleshless nose, which gave him the resemblance of a fierce bird of
prey.’ So although we are aware of the killer, we are yet to find out how he killed Helen stoner’s
sister, and there is the mystery of the words “the speckled band.” The crime appears to be
insoluble, because there was no possible way to get into Julia’s room with the exception of a small
ventilator and so we begin wondering how Julia died. There is a hostile and unpleasant atmosphere
in this story, which has been created through the money motive, compared to “The Affair at the
Victory Ball”, this story uses more complex ideas, compared to the more down to the earth ideas of
“The affair at the victory ball.” This could be because of the change in genre over the 100 years. As
time passes the needs and wants of reader change, Christies novel differs from Conan-Doyle’s as
the modern reader wants a more puzzling, complex plot to those wrote by Conan-Doyle. Modern
audiences demand action quicker, with a story that reaches the plot with a past pace; this is evident
in the text “The Affair at the Victory Ball.” When Conan-Doyle was writing, televisions or computers
hadn’t been invented so people had a lot more time to read, this is perhaps the reason why the
story “The Adventures of the Speckled band” has a slower pace and is more detailed.
Both of the stories have taken place, and are now being recorded by the detective’s sidekicks,
Doctor Watson and Captain Hastings. In both stories the sidekicks are more down to earth and
therefore become someone that the reader can relate to. Both of the sidekicks have inexperience
and are not collective thinkers in comparison to the detectives Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot.
Watson asks the questions that the reader wants to hear such as “what can it mean?” and “My God!
Did you see it?” Through the use of these questions the writer manages to engage the reader in the
story. Whereas Hastings does not ask these questions and he does little more than to just tell the
story. Watson is more down to earth than Holmes who is perceived as being slightly egocentric and
egotistic “Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary”. Sidekicks are a traditional element of
detective fiction and in both cases they share the same qualities, they are both a little naïve and fail
to successfully conclude the cases as the detectives do. Doctor Watson is more actively involved in
the story, and is referred to by Holmes as his “intimate friend” rather than just a sidekick.
The heroes in the stories, are the detectives, Sherlock Holmes in “the adventure of the speckled
band” and Hercule Poirot in “The affair at the Victory ball.” Holmes is the classic detective. Assisted
by Dr Watson, he makes the ‘rapid deductions, as swift as intuitions, and yet always founded on a
logical basis’ that have made him so famous among avid readers and film buffs alike as the super-
sleuth of Baker Street. Holmes has a clear and very sharp ability to deduce even the most complex
mysteries, a gift which Dr Watson admires greatly. He says ‘I had no keener pleasure than in
following Holmes in his professional investigations, and admiring…(the way in which)…he unravelled
the problems which were submitted to him.’ Holmes takes every chance he gets to exercise, or
sometimes show off, his abilities. When talking t Helen Stoner, her says ‘you have come by train I
see… I observe the second half of a return ticket in the palm of your left glove.’ He then goes on to
deduce that she went to the train station by dogcart. ‘The left arm of your jacket is spattered with
mud in no less than seven places. The marks are perfectly fresh. There is no vehicle save a dog-
cart which throws up mud in that way, and only when you sit on the left hand side of the driver.’ He
may be exercising his skill, or he may be using this occurrence as a sales tactic, impressing a
potential client. Basically, Holmes is presented as an observant, intelligent and committed detective,
which is the typical investigator’s role in a detective fiction. The first time Sherlock Holmes is
mentioned in the story is in the second paragraph when he wakes Watson up, which the reader
would find unusual as, we are told he is a late riser. We also get the feeling that Holmes has
collected a considerable amount of money for his efforts on the seventy odd cases he has solved.
He is also respectful and a gentlemen and cares a lot for people, ' "You must not fear," he said
leaning forward and patting her arm'. Holmes finds his work rewarding, as when Miss Stoner says
she can't pay yet, Holmes lets her pay when she can.
Sir Conan Doyle would have influenced Agatha Christie, as she said in her autobiography “he would
have a rather grand name- one of those names such as Sherlock Holmes” and “Hercule Poirot and
his Watson, Captain Hastings.” As a great author, it would have been very hard for Agatha Christie
not to aspire to Conan Doyle, in some way as he is probably the most famous detective fiction
novelist, and this is perhaps the reason why Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot share similar
characteristics. Both of the detectives are egocentric and quirky but Holmes is physically and
mentally stronger because he uses a more tactical method of thinking rather than Poirot because at
the end of the text he catches Dr. Roylott in action and good triumphs over evil, Holmes is a more
interesting character. He is very mysterious as he is a gaunt figure with deerstalker and pipe. Poirot
is perhaps too eccentric and bigheaded, infact he comes of as being a little pompous. As Holmes has
strength, he demands attention and concentration. The reader does not aspire to Poirot the way that
they do to Holmes. Hastings is not involved in the story as much as Watson, and Poirot does not
confide in him as Holmes does with Watson. Infact Poirot seems more independent and likes to take
the credit of the investigation for himself “Always I have a little desire to keep the threads in my
own hands up to the last minute.” I think that Poirot is impolite to the other characters “Just tell me
what we have been seeing?” “Never mind the other night milor” and “And yet you are all wrong.”
Yet when Holmes meets Miss stoner for the first time he offers he coffee and also says to her "You
must not fear," he said leaning forward and patting her arm', showing his concern. Sherlock Holmes
in comparison to Hercule Poirot, Holmes is an attentive, intellectual and devoted detective and is not
as pompous and arrogant as Poirot is. Holmes is more caring and considerate; he also carries a
certain disposition even when he meets the evil Dr. Roylott for example when Sherlock Holmes
meets Dr Roylott for the first time he laughs and jokes when Dr. Roylott threatens him “Holmes
chuckled heartily. “Your conversation is most entertaining,” said he. “When you go out close the
door, for there is a decided draught.” Sherlock Holmes is a man of action whereas Hercule Poirot is
a man of thought- “a man of grey cells.” This could be because of the change in genre, over the
years detectives psychology has become more important to story and there is less need for a
detective who is constantly on his knees with a magnifying glass looking for clues. Perhaps the
stereotypical view of detectives has changed, this is evident in these texts.
There is an obvious difference in these texts, “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” is a 19th
century text and “The Affair at the Victory Ball” is a 20th century text, this is the reason why the
language, clothes, food, style and structure have changed. For example in “The Adventures of the
Speckled Band” some of the phrases are out of date such as “I was myself regular in my habits”
and “ but it’s the common lot this morning.” In “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” the plot is
slowly developed, this is because at the time, the audiences didn’t require the action to develop
straight away, because there were no televisions, people especially the upper classes had more
time. This is another reason why the story is very descriptive with a slow pace. In “The Affair at the
Victory Ball” the action happens almost instantaneously, and the story deals with the more modern
theme of drugs and is more violent and disturbing than “the adventures of the speckled band.” We
also have two different styles as one of them was written in the 19th Century and the other in the
20th Century. The Speckled Band starts with the reader being introduced to how many cases Dr
Holmes and Watson have solved and also what sort of cases these were. These cases were not
ordinary cases, they were all difficult; 'strange, but none-commonplace', so any normal cases were
shunned. The first sentence is also very long; taking up eight lines, so the reader can get
background all in one go, without having to refer back to anywhere. The story is retrospect, as the
plot of the story has already been started. We are introduced to the case and Dr Holmes; by Dr
Watson, the faithful companion to Holmes. The entire first paragraph is devoted to describing the
case of Dr Grimesby Roylott of Stoke Moran. Conan-Doyle used techniques in writing “The Speckled
Band” also. His story revolves around the character of the detective, Sherlock Holmes, which is a
preferred technique of mystery novelists, probably because it leaves a place for sequels. The story,
though centred on Holmes, is told as seen through the eyes of his companion, Dr Watson, providing
a good example of writing in the first person.
In “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” Holmes has to prevent a crime by solving Miss Stoners
sisters murder, where as in “The Affair at the Victory Ball” the crime has already taken place and
we are looking for who did it. Both stories finish with the solution and the detective showing how he
got to the conclusion. The resolutions of the two stories are very different. ‘The Speckled Band’ ends
with Holmes figuring out the mystery, and thwarting the evil Dr Roylott, using the Dr’s own method
of killing his daughters to put an end to him, creating a poetic justice when the snake, Dr Roylott’s
“murder weapon” turns and, enraged by Holmes hitting it with a stick, crawls back through the
ventilator and bites Dr Roylott. This is quite a typical resolution- justice has been served, the
murderer brought about his own destruction, helped along by the intelligent detective setting the
means of murder against the murderer. By the end of the story the reader is left feeling satisfied.
Good has triumphed, evil hasn’t, the right person came out on top. Holmes concludes clearly and
explaining to the reader his line of thoughts, as a detective, and how, why and when the “insoluble”
crime took place, once again allowing the reader to participate. In “The Affair at the Victory Ball”
Hercule Poirot reveals the suspect in a rather melodramatic environment, and then tells the reader
how he arrived at his verdict. The ending is rather artificial and forced, and although the final
outcome satisfies the readers curiosity, it fails to make the ending clear.
In “The Affair at the Victory Ball” the reader becomes involved in a rather elaborate and elegant city
scene, where we meet a large number of characters and acquaintances of Lord Cronshaw, all of
which are introduced to the reader, but not developed such as Mrs Mallaby. Perhaps the reason why
the characters are not developed is to meet the demands of the modern day consumer and for the
action to arise quite quickly. This creates some problems, there are so many suspects the reader
cannot possibly take part in the detective game, because not only does the detective not reveal his
line of thought and verdict till the end of the story, with so many suspects it becomes impossible for
the reader to guess. Whereas in “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” there are only a few
characters and we are aware of the most likely culprit Doctor Roylott. With very few characters the
writer Sir Conan Doyle is able to develop the characters more and not only does this allow the
reader to take part in the detective story, but also adds to the plot of the story. “The Adventures of
the Speckled Band” is set in a more rural, desolate and barren scene whereas the “affair at the
victory ball” is much more mysterious as it uses a masked ball which suggests deception, dramatic
tension and intrigue. The tone of “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” is much more antagonistic
as it uses a family killing and a money motive creating a hostile and aggressive atmosphere. I
think that the closeness of Holmes and Watson allow the reader to take an active role in the
detective story as the information is discussed and summarised by Holmes and Watson at various
stages in the story, for example they discuss their various interpretations of the bell rope before
they discover the speckled band. This means that the reader is not kept guessing as some of the
detective’s thoughts are unleashed. In both stories there are carefully laid red herrings and clues,
although I think that they are more carefully arranged in “The Adventures of the Speckled Band”
because not everyone understands what a pompon was in “The Affair at the Victory Ball” nor its
significance in the murder scene. As the story is more flippant because it changes the subjects very
quickly resulting in a fast pace, which gives the reader little time to think and therefore they cannot
think about the red herrings or their significance.
The detectives work very differently, Holmes is extremely observant and either develops his skill or
makes sure that Miss Stoner is aware he is a good detective as she is overwhelmed and dismayed
when he says “you must have started early, and yet you had a good drive in the dogcart, along the
heavy roads, before you reached the station.” Also you notice that straight away Holmes shares his
information with both Mrs Stoner and Watson, who is also in the room. Poirot is much more
enigmatic and reserved, perhaps it is because he is scared of people telling him he is mistaken or
that some one else will intervene, he even admits to be secretive when he says “always desire to
keep the threads of in my own hands up until the last minute.” Poirot seems rather egocentric and
conceited that he has solved the crime so quickly “The case will be complete”… “and yet you are all
wrong” and “It was all very simple.” Yet Holmes in “the adventure of the speckled band” keeps his
dignity, reserve and decorum, even when he has solved the case “I had come to these conclusions
before I had ever entered this room.” I think the reader is more sympathetic towards Mrs Stoner,
because we know her more than the characters such as Coco Courtenay and Lord Cronshaw, as her
character had been developed more. I think that you can sympathise with Sherlock Holmes more as
a detective, as he does not come across as being arrogant and egotistical, just at being good at his
job and fulfilling his potential as a detective.
The story of “The Adventures of the Speckled Band” is a better example of detective fiction and is
more successful in appealing to its audience. No doubtly, Agatha Christie was a great author of the
20th century, but Conan Doyle is a craftsman, manipulating the structure and language of the
detective genre providing a thrilling atmosphere convincing the reader to continue. Conan Doyle’s
“the adventure of the speckled band” is a classic and no doubt if he was alive today he would make
modern day classics. The change in genre has not altered my perspective on the one story that I
think is not only better constructed and uses better language, therefore more applicable to any
audience. Agatha Christie, compiled a unique and first-class story, and although she was an
excellent writer, she does not compare to Conan Doyle a considered genius of the detective genre.
Both books use their own ways to dramatise a person’s misfortune or death, they use various
methods in compiling a successful and respected story. It is Conan Doyle, who does this most
successfully through the simplicity, structure and language of his story, perhaps this is the reason
why he is considered a brilliant author.
