James Bond versus Sherlock Holmes

In My Humble Opinion
1

To begin with, cut the funky-dunky hand-dandy gadgets that Bond has. Let’s look at their minds, their methods. Bond is swarthy, and tough… a “man’s man”. He relies on his fists and his gun as often as his intellect. Additionally, he does something that Holmes would never do: He relies on gut instinct, and luck. He takes crazy chances, and allows his passions to get in the way of his rationality. But he gets the job done.

Holmes, on the other hand, is a walking brain. He leaves nothing to chance, or to guesses, or to instinct. He observes everything, and always makes sure he has a way out. He doesn’t allow anything to cloud his logic. However, his brute-force factor is decidedly low, and if he gets outsmarted (rarely, but it happens), that’s when he gets in a bind.

So who’s the better agent? Who’s better at solving the case? Let’s forget the case matter for a second (i.e.- “Bond is better because he’s saved the word dozens of times”) and just look at who’s better at doing what they set out to do. Who’s got the better methods? Who’s better at figuring out his situation? And who’s got a better drink?

2

No question – Holmes. The man relies much more on ratiocination and double-checking his facts. He’s showy, and in his way, self-indulgent, but he’s much more careful. Bond is a gambler who goes with his instincts. It’s not that he doesn’t do his homework and, in the books at least, he takes good care of his equipment and gadgets. But he’ll rush in where angles fear to tread. He gets away with this because Fleming lets him, but in real life he’d be dead by now.

Interestingly, actor Nicol Williamson (who portrayed Holmes in the 1976 flick The Seven Per Cent Solution said in an interview that the attraction of Holmes was that he was very much like Bond. But it’s not true. Except possibly for Irene Adler, Bond didn’t go for the ladies at all. His intoxication was music (and, at first, Cocaine), not martinis. God knows how he kept in shape – he was described as in excellent shape and an expert at “Baritsu”, but he never seems to work out, and is always described as lethargic when not on a case, whereas Bond works out every day.

3

I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. One’s a field agent for intelligence services, one’s a detective. One, in theory, must be physically sharper and practised in ‘action hero’ stuff (weapons, languages, vehicles etc), while the other has to rely solely on his deductive powers. Finally, one was intended as an ‘action’ character (more so in the films) and one was not.

4

Holmes did intelligence work for England in WW1.

He suceeded.

Ergo, Holmes is the more skillful op.

5

Not true. He finally defeated Moriarity by throwing him off cliff. In one story (can’t remember which one), a musclebound bad guy shows off by bending an iron fireplace poker. Holmes later takes this same poker, and straightens it out, which is much more difficult to do. He wasn’t usually a physical detective because he didn’t need to be.

Bond gets captured by the bad guys practically every other week. Holmes doesn’t. Holmes is clearly the superior of the two, although a spy and a detective aren’t really directly comperable.

6

“The Speckled Band”. I also seem to recall that it’s Holmes who shoots the malevolent blow-gun-wielding midget at the finale of the steam-boat chase in The Sign of Four. Shooting from one moving boat, to another one, at a moving target in uncertain light, and under pressure - I think Bond would be pressed to match that.

7

IIRC Holmes would take calculated risks. (can’t think of a specific example, but much of his work and actions seemed to centre around probabilities).

8

Holmes by far. And I’m a big Bond fan. But Bond has been saved by pure luck way too many times to be considered in Holmes’s league. Holmes knows how to watch out for himself.

9

It’s not even a contest: Bond wins.

James Bond was easily equal to Holmes in the intelligence department- he knew several languages and his mind was a virtual encyclopaedia. Physically he was Holmes superior. And while Bond may have been a bit of a sex addict, Holmes awful addiction to narcotics is a major character flaw.

In terms of opponents, Bond faced much more dangerous opponents, and got out of many more dangerous situations than Holmes, even if he used better gadgets.

There is no question Sherlock Holmes had a brilliant deductive mind. But in terms of overall resourcefulness, even with gimmicks, if I had the choice of Bond or Holmes trying to stop Blofeld from blowing up the planet, my choice hands down is 007.

10

Let’s look at the big picture. When Holmes was involved England was clearly the most powerful country around-truly an empire. Obviously some credit needs to go to the man at 221 B Baker Street (no, not Watson! and no not the Scotland Yard man who was disguised for years as Mrs. Hudson).

Since Bond has been on the scene, little by little the power of Great Britain has been chipped away. While some may say the blame lies with Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles or John Profumo, I think all of that wild living and distruction of good British gadgets by Bond has to be pointed to at least a bit.

11

Shall we begin comparing Blofeld and Moriarty now? At least they’re in the same line of work.

12

“The Speckled Band” again. Locking himself and Watson in a room with a deadly poisonous snake coming through the air vent. If he missed striking the snake to drive it back and only “roused its snakish temper” (I love that line!) then it would have been certain that one of those two would not have left the room alive.

As for Holmes’ physical acumen, in one of his adventures out in rural England (I believe it’s “The Solitary Cyclist”) Holmes is pimpslapped by the son of the local squire and responds with proper Oxford-style boxer training, immediately kicking ass.

(Full disclosure: I have the Bantam two-volume edition of the complete adventures, and I was the president of my high school’s chapter of The Baker Street Irregulars.)

I really don’t think it’s fair to try to compare the two. Holmes lived in an era when electrification itself was still a novelty and a luxury, while Bond lives and works in a world where technology advances at an unbelievable rate of speed and the Moriarty-like criminals use every advantage they can think of.

I suppose a better question, or set of questions, would be:

Could Holmes survive as a detective in today’s world?

Would Bond have been as successful as a British spy in Holmes’ time?

13

Not real comparable, but…

You need to go over “Final Problem” and “Empty House” again. Moriarty takes real work to destroy, and chucking the elderly math professor off a cliff isn’t much compared to what’s obliquely mentioned - the wholesale destruction of a criminal empire. Holmes mostly provides the information to the police rather than anything physical, but he does have to beat some people up to get safely to Watson’s at the start of the story. After offing Moriarty, he disappears on a longish odyssey while Moriarty’s underlings are brought in by the police, wandering as far as Tibet and doing God knows what all. He returns just in time to go on a stakeout for the last big fish, Colonel Moran. This involves sitting in a dark room waiting for a man with a gun who wants you dead to show and try to kill you from across the street. Not too bad, I say.

Holmes biggest blunder was that a woman with an incrimating photo of the King of Bohemia slipped past him. Bond’s was more egregious - remember Vesper the double agent? Papers on a tray? Oops. At least when Holmes compromised national security, it was someone else’s nation.

14

I think that it also depends partly on which Bond you mean.

The literary Bond is a quite differant animal to the film Bond, for starters the technology is nothing like as prevalent and he does not rely on the distractions of armies etc to get him where he needs to be.

The book Bond is up to date on politics, and world events.He often uses knowledge to achieve his aims, in fact Fleming uses the literary device that is so comman in Holmes stories, that is that the central character is privey to infromation that the reader is not.

IMHO this device is one of the few flaws in the Homes stories. Since the intent is to allow the reader the delusion that they could figure out the end it spoils things to suddenly bring in this information it’s too much like a get out to me.

The Bond stories deal with personal, direct and immediate threats both to his own welfare and that of the world whereas Holmes rarely has this and usually has the luxury of time on his side.

Bond has to move in very differant social spheres in short order with little or no time to prepare, Holmes uses others to do his legwork for him such as the ??? irregulars when they were searching the Thames yards for a missing boat.
I doubt that Holmes could convincingly change roles as quickly as Bond does.

You also get the impression that the book Bond is subject to forces that mould him, he has superiors who do not trust him with all information and they subject him to certain controls but Holmes is his own master-a gifted amateur perhaps but not the proffessional that Bond is.

15

Holmes is a professional. He is the world’s first ‘consulting detective’, meaning that when other detectives, including the police, have cases that they cannot solve, they bring them to Holmes.

16

I must confess to only half-know the two characters in question. Certainly, the two would have different levels of success in different situations… but I was more concerned about their methods: Bond’s reliance on luck, instinct, and passion, and Holmes’ usage of intellect, precise observation, and cunning.

17

But of course the authors of the respective books set up the situations such that their characters will be able to survive and solve the cases. In real life, you would rather have Holmes working a case, with his greater knowledge of chemistry and forensics, and his inability to recognize to importance of any minor clue. James Bond’s reliance on luck and instinct would hamper him in the real world. Fortunately, he doesn’t live or work their.

18

Well, it seems to me that Bond is better suited to working on a massive scale, as the pointman for a huge team of governmental agents. He also seems more capable of the snap-reaction, where something bad and unexpected happens and he immediately jumps out of the way of a gunshot or something.

In real life, Holmes wouldn’t be able to anticipate everything.

19

First up, I will admit that I’m somewhat biased towards Mr Holmes; I just prefer someone who relies on their wits to stay out of trouble and solve the case, rather than relying on their wits to get themselves out of trouble[sup]1[/sup].

From A Study in Scarlet
Holmes invents a new chemical test for haemoglobin. Did Bond ever invent anything that was useful to police forces throughout the world? No, Q did all the inventing.

“Knowledge of Botany - Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally…
Knowledge of Geology - Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other…
Knowledge of Chemistry - Profound.
Knowledge of Anatomy - Accurate, but unsystematic.
Knowledge of Sensational Literature - Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.
Plays the violin well.
Is an expert singlestick player, boxer and swordsman.
Has a good practical knowledge of British law.”

Holmes - a groundbreaker. The world’s first consulting detective. Capable of opening a can of whup-ass when the situation requires it, but prefers to rely on his intelligence to prevent the situation arising. Able to keep his mind on the job (Bond, in comparison, is very easily distracted).

As to Holmes’ unsavoury cocaine habit; well, cocaine hardly regarded as the vice it is today when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was writing. If he were writing today, Holmes wouldn’t even smoke.

The real reason, though, is that Holmes doesn’t have the entire British government to fall back on; just Watson (and, occasionally, Inspector Lestrade, who was about as much use as a screen door on a submarine) :slight_smile:

Bond has flash; Holmes has substance. Thus, Holmes rules.

: puts deerstalker back on and goes to play with the Hound :

[sup]1[/sup]And who needs a villain who’ll explain the dastardly plot while threatening to kill him.

20

I do agree it is really tough to compare the two for several reasons already mentioned. And indeed I do agree that a later 20th Century Sherlock Holmes certainly would have been a valuable asset. Unfortunately, the advances in science from Holmes era to let’s say Bond’s heyday in the 1960s would have possibly made Holmes less of an intellectual aberration, but again, we aren’t comparing apples to apples.

While Holmes was well schooled in many areas, Bond showed an amazing ability to quickly learn subjects in almost any matter to effectively carry out his cover.

In “Diamonds Are Forever”, when quizzed by M, he gave a flawless description of a diamond and it’s physical properties. To pose as a marine biologist in “The Spy Who Loved Me” the villian points to a fish at random; Bond not only gives it’s scientific name, but is able to rattle off facts about the fish, never mind that there are thousands of species. And in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” Bond plays a genetic scientist, and throughout the movie off the top of his head is able to impress the various women in Blofelds getaway with an encyclopaedic knowledge of gene research.

As for Sherlock Holmes pugilistic capabilites, they are impressive, but punching out a spoiled rich boy is hardly something you can compare to the many, many trained assassins that Bond not only beat up when attacked from behind, but killed with his bare hands (I can’t imagine Sherlock handling Jaws!).

Someone also brought up how the British Empire slowly dismantled when 007 was an agent. Problem was that was the result of the international communities disdain for colonialism, and not because of any of Bonds shortcomings. Bond saved the world from Apocalyse several times- I think he gets a mulligan.

Unlike Holmes, Bond didn’t invent anything, but in terms of TOTAL RESOURCEFULNESS, Bond still wins, even if by a hair. And yes, even in the 19th Century!:smiley: