In Response to Gen: Part 1

Okay, time for some major catch-up; this calls for some drastic measures. Therefore, i will be responding to, not one, not two, but all of Gen's recent comments in independent posts!!! Isn't this going to be exciting!!!

However I think in looking at his faults and how they compare to Holmes you can probally discover a lot about both the books, to me it kind of shows that Holmes is like this ultimate standard of what is to be a sleuth.

I agree, Gen. I think all detectives in literature are caste in the mold of Holmes. Be it in minute similarities or in very conspicuous likenesses (if that is a word), i believe that most authors, when they set out to write a good mystery novel, try to copy the original. Holmes still remains the epitome of detective excellence, so it only makes sense that Detective Cuff and Ms Marple bear very didtict similarities to Holmes in certain aspects: if only to make them as believable or as good as Holmes seems to be. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that Holmes was the first, the granddaddy of all fictitious sleuths. Therefore every other sleuth we see does somehow resemble Holmes because he set the standards for our comparisons. However, what if Holmes had not been the first; what if Ms. Marple had preceeded Holmes, or even Hercule Poirot (another one of Agatha Christie's detectives), would we then still hold Holmes in such high regard and praise him as the patriarch of detective fiction? I think not. I think a lot of it has to do with his being the first in the genre and thus retaining the perks of being the original.