Finished Hercule Poirot: the Complete Short Stories by Agatha Christie. Probably would rate it an 8/10... but holy frick, it felt like I was reading the Bible with how long it took me to read. Maybe around 30 hours? 40, even? Then again, it is over a thousand pages, so I guess that makes sense.
Being a longtime (and when I say longtime, I mean a long time; I grew up proudly lugging a 5-pound edition of The Complete Sherlock Holmes everywhere I went during elementary school) fan of Sherlock Holmes, I started reading the book with what was, quite frankly, an undeservedly warped perspective on Poirot.
During the first couple short stories, it was difficult for me to view Poirot objectively because of my fondness for Sherlock. Several superficial details really stuck out to me- for example, Inspector Japp vs Inspector Lestrade, the fact that they seemed to both prefer armchair musings to active detective work (but then again, I would say this is true for many intellectuals), a sidekick of lesser intelligence to feed their egos and highlight their own genius by stark contrast (Hastings vs. Watson)- who both, coincidentally, happen to be formerly military men, both the detectivesâ bases of operation being London apartments... and a few other points besides.
However, the longer I continued to read, the more I grew to appreciate the differences between Poirot and Holmes. I liked how open Poirot was to communicating with other people. Sometimes, with Holmes, because of his sociopathic tendencies, he seemed to have a very consistent contempt for the intelligence of most others besides himself (with, perhaps, exceptions in the cases of The Woman, Moriarty, and his brother Mycroft). It was refreshing to read Poirot, a detective who treated others with respect and a rather gentlemanly courtesy.
Even more distinctive of Poirot is his theatrical flair. Of course, Holmes has a flair for the dramatic, as well, but Poirot is so unabashedly himself and unapologetic about his abilities that I think itâs quite a lovable trait. Then again, I suppose the reason the same traits arenât lovable in others is usually because their boasting usually isnât exactly on par with the genuine article. (However, in Poirotâs case, the abilities of which he brags of are by no means understated, ergo his likability.)
I thought it was overall a good read, but I donât suppose Iâd like to go through it again. I personally still prefer Holmes much more, but I can appreciate why many people love Poirot so much.