So, I want to write a mystery story where the two MCs, the detectives, are, whenever they have the chance, debating over who is better, Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes. I know Holmes is such a classic no one will care, but Poirot isn't quite the same. Will people be fine with that? Also, I've barely read any Sherlock Holmes, which might be problematic. There's also a pole on here for which is better, but that's just for fun.
Not a problem. A problem . If your character speaks nonsense, they'll look dumb in the eyes of the reader. Which might be an issue if you intended for this character to appear smart. Also, there's a limit of how much nonsense a reader would tolerate in a book
This reminds me of a fun little book I read several years ago by Robert Kaplow, Who Is Killing the Great Writers of America? Each chapter was, in essence, a short story written in the style of the writer who would end up dead at the end of the chapter. Quite clever and well done. Whether your idea is advisable depends entirely on your expectations for the project. If you are writing for your own personal enjoyment, or with the goal of self-pubbing without concern about potential sales, I'd say do what you like. If, however, your goal is commercial success, I would advise against it because, in all likelihood, the only one who will be completely tickled by the "debate" is you. If you do decide to proceed, I would echo DeeDee's advice and suggest that you read as much of Holmes as you can - at least until your friends call you "Sir Arthur".
Poirot is definitely a classic. Not as popular as Holmes, of course, but still a household name. ITV have done very successful series based on both. If you haven't watched them yet you really should. There are a few significant differences from the books, naturally, but they are great TV. You should definitely read as much Holmes as is humanly possible, whether it's for a project or not. I've been a complete Holmes nerd since I sat up at night and read The Hound of the Baskervilles in one go when I was about 8.
DeeDee is absolutely right here. I've read a bit of Holmes, seen even less of Poirot, and don't have an opinion on who is better, but if your characters are going to debate a topic, you need to be incredibly knowledgeable about it. Doesn't matter if Character A is an idiot who your setting up to fail, that's fine, but you have to know as many and as strong of the arguments for both sides as you possibly humanly can before you set up the competition or anyone with an informed opinion is going to throw your book down and tell their friends to do the same. I can join in a reasonably informed debate about the merits of branches of the US military service, but if you asked me to write a book about chess, you'd probably stop reading when the rooks used their flamethrowers to take out the third rank of the enemies pawns...
That's just stupid. Everyone knows only knights and bishops can access flamethrowers once they reach level 2 and 3, respectively! Pawns just get muskets with bayonets.
