This is an interesting contrast in the depiction of the two detectives’ vanity. Doyle, through Watson’s eyes, shows his idol, Holmes to be infallible, but shows Holmes’ vanity in his criticism of Watson. Christie on the other hand, shows Poirot’s vanity by creating a situation where he almost makes a fool of himself. Johnson however, does not respond to Poirot’s comment. Clearly, Christie does not want to openly humiliate Poirot.
Holmes and Poirot also use similar methods notice similar clues. For example, both detectives noticed family portraits and used them to identify the culprit. Holmes shows Watson a portrait. At first he sees nothing, but then Holmes “curved his right arm over the broad hat and round the long ringlets, and “the face of Stapleton had sprung out of the canvass”. Similarly, when Sugden asked Poirot when he was sure that he had committed the crime, Poirot replied “I was not sure till I brought home a false moustache tried it on Simeon Lee’s picture. Then - the face that looked at me was yours.”
Another interesting similarity between Holmes and Poirot is that they never reveal their suspicions until the end of the novel. However, the two authors convince the reader that different people are to blame, but then reveal their innocence or give them an alibi, thereby creating an atmosphere of suspense. They then reveal that the actual culprit is a character who was not suspected at all. In the case of “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas”, the culprit is a police Superintendent, who was actually helping with the investigation.
In “The Hound of the Baskervilles” one of these characters is the butler, Barrymore. One night, Watson hears Barrymore walking around very quietly “with no covering on his feet” clearly trying to be stealthy, and then sees him signalling someone on the moor. This is clearly intended to convince the reader that the butler is at least working with the murderer if he himself is not the murderer. However, it is then discovered that he was communicating with his brother-in-law who could not have had any connection with the murder. Christie however, goes much further, and gives all the characters a motive for murdering Simeon Lee.
She does however, include a character very similar to Barrymore. Horbury, although not a butler, performs more or less the same tasks for Simeon Lee, and like Barrymore, is trusted by nobody. He “sneaks around like a cat”, which is very similar to Barrymore’s description, and “listens at doors”. Because of this mistrust he was the main suspect for a while, but it was then proved that he was not the culprit.
The fact that clues appear irrelevant at first is another very obvious similarity between the two books. For example, in Christie’s book, when Poirot, Johnson and Sugden are interviewing Pilar, she say that Simeon Lee “‘must have been handsome – very handsome, like you’… to Superintendent Sugden” and Sugden’s face turns “brick-red at the compliment”, the reader is lead to believe that he is simply embarrassed. He is in fact afraid that she has noticed the similarity between him and his illegitimate father, Simeon Lee. However, Poirot does reveal this at the end.
Similarly, in Doyle’s novel, when Sir Henry’s new boot which he has “never worn” disappears, followed by “the loss of the old black boot, and…the return of the new brown boot”, the reader does not suspect that the boots were stolen to give the hound Sir Henry’s scent, and that the brown one was returned because it did not have the scent.
Such small and seemingly irrelevant clues can lead to two possible reactions from the reader. The reader might notice these clues, resulting in a feeling of satisfaction when the detective finally reveals them. On the other hand, the reader might overlook the clues and enjoy seeing all the facts in retrospect.
This however, shows one of the few contrasts between the two stories. In Doyle’s, the story is written from Watson’s point of view. Because of this, the reader sees Watson’s opinions and suspicions and almost inevitably agrees with them. For example, at the beginning of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” when Watson assumes that the letters “CCH” stand for “Something Hunt”, the reader is inclined to agree with him as it seems so logical.On the other hand, “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas” is written from a third person perspective. This allows the readers to form their own suspicions and come to their own conclusions.
The relationship between the killers and their victims was also quite similar, as both of them murdered relatives. Stapleton murdered Sir Charles and tried to Sir Henry, to whom he was related for the family fortune “which he might…claim from South America” thereby hiding the fact that he had ever been near the scene of the crime. On the contrary, Sugden’s motive for killing Simeon Lee, his illegitimate father, was not money, but simply because he “resented the wrong your (his) father did you (him)”.
The similarity is that both killers were not suspected up till the end. Being a police Superintendent, Sugden was not suspected. However, there were hints at the similarity between him and Simeon Lee as I have mentioned before. Stapleton appeared to be the harmless friend of Sir Henry. I believe that this makes the story more exciting and keeps the reader interested until the end of the story.
The final similarity is that both murders are “remarkable”. As he was killed in a room that was locked from the inside and nobody was even near the room at the time, Simeon Lee’s murder was considered “unreal”. Sir Charles Baskerville was killed by a hound, “but not such a hound as mortal eyes have ever seen”. “Fire burst from its open mouth” and “its eyes glowed with a smouldering glare”. This clearly shows how unnatural the hound was, if not supernatural.
Although the crimes seem unreal, the authors give reasonable explanations. For example, the Hound’s ability to glow in the dark is explained in a single word by Holmes, “Phosphorus”. In Christie’s novel, Sugden visited the house twice on the day of the murder, once before, and once after. Poirot explains how he “killed him (Simeon Lee) before you (Sugden) left the house the first time” and “turned the key from the outside”. Despite being quite strange both explanations are plausible.
In conclusion, I believe that all these similarities between the two stories, such as the similarities between the two detectives, the way in which clues are revealed and the way in which the author keeps the reader interested, show how similar Agatha Christie’s novels are to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s. Therefore, I believe that the detective genre has evolved very little over the years.
