Oh, I think he's a grat foil for Poirot. Don't forget, this form of book wasn't more widely written (in comparison with more recent years) as the genre was started by Poe in the previous century but only really bought to the publics imagination by Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes. Hasting's filled the Watson role that proved to be an invaluable device in Conan Doyle's works. He's there for contrast, to show Poirot in a certain light, and to give a personal slant to the books as he narrates them.

AC made Hastings very lovable. He's very british, which I think she felt she needed due to Poirot being Belgian - a fact that could so easily have turned readers away at the time of writing. Hastings makes the books he is in (and especially the first few) easy for us to access, he sets the scene as his character would have been recognisable to most british readers and helps the plot to develop with this simplistic view of life.

As the public grew to love Poirot for himself, AC dispensed with Hastings, so I feel he never just becomes a literary gimmick. Having them glued together through the entire catalogue wouldn't have worked at all, so she gave us the best of both worlds.

Hastings' role is essentially that of Dr. Watson to Poirot's Sherlock Holmes. Hugh Fraser perfectly captured the essence of Hastings on screen in a way that hadn't been done before. In the Ustinov films. Hastings is a bumbling fool who looks ridiculous. The flaw of the Poirot series, however, was struggling to include Hastings, Japp, and Miss Lemon in adaptations of books in which they weren't present. So, although Hastings is a great character in the books, more or less mirroring the reader's thoughts, there's no reason for him to be in every single Poirot adventure. Otherwise it gets rather dull.

I guess they included him as much as possible to give Poirot someone to talk through his cases with. In the non-Hastings books we are privvy to Poirots thought processes but on film these things have to be spoken. Either Japp, Miss Lemon or Hastings can be used as a tool in this respect, but I agree it does get a bit crowded when they all get crammed in!!

If I remember rightly, when Hastings isn't in a book Poirot spends alot of time with another Character so they are taking the Hastings role whicdh as go_leafs ritghtly said is a Watson type role A) to have someone bounce Ideas off and B) to reveal to the Reader or viewer what is hapopening.

Yes, but the books are mostly then written from a third person perspective and not narrated as the ones containing Hastings are. So you do get someone for Poirot to discuss the case with but it's a less personal view. The great thing is, Poirots' books work whichever way they are written.

Hastings is a slightly more simplistic Watson. He can be cliched and tiring, but at the same time his presence and Poirot-Hastings interactions add some warmth to the stories. He is also sometimes used as a comic relief. 

That's why I think that the original Poirot stories have just the right amount of Hastings - enough for you to feel the warmth and have some smiles at his expence, not enough for you to tire of him.

I agree with both of you but I nwould add that all Detective fiction like that whether it be Christie, Wenteworth or more modern-day Work like Hazel Holt, Betty Rowlands, June Thompson etc is cliched

It's very interesting to compare the early Hastings books with the later non-Hastings ones.  Poirot becomes increasingly isolated, as his outside social interactions seem to come mainly from his increasingly rare cases.  Also, Mrs. Oliver assuming the role of Poirot's sidekick adds a completely different dynamic to the later books.

Recently, I have been thinking that perhaps there is another reason why AC created Hastings besides the fact that Poirot needed an English companion (the latter of which does relate to what I have to say).

First of all, Hastings, as we know is gullible, and doesn't look beyond what people tell him, and is pretty much clueless when it comes to clues (pun intended). In short, he's not the brightest bulb in the lamp. So perhaps when AC first started writing mysteries she wanted readers to have a character to relate to. I am not saying that she thought the general public was stupid but Hastings represented to the certain readers she was catering to (whether they be middle or upper class etc.) an everyday/average type of guy. Also, perhaps she thought that people wouldn't feel so inferior to Poirot's intellect if he had someone like Hastings around him who is new to mysteries just like many readers would probably be.

In relation to that, perhaps she also decided to create Hastings so he could ask Poirot the questions the reader would ask, for example: "Why on earth would Mr. "so and so" want to incriminate himself for?" Hastings constant questions would have served another purpose in that readers wouldn't feel baffled or cheated by the solution.

And I think overtime when she wrote more and more mysteries she felt comfortable w/ her skill for putting in clues subtly but that were being fair at the same time, and along w/ knowing that people liked Poirot and that they didn't find him un-relatable she decided not to incorporate Hastings anymore.

There are probably others reasons why she got stopped writing so frequently about Hastings that I don't know or have forgotten about. And I don't have any definite proof of this, of course, it's just my opinion. But you have to admit that it does make sense. What does every one think about this?

I think you are absolutely right. He's a bit stereotypical at times (But this isn't a criticism as I love the simplicity and very human Hastings) and therefore very recognisable to her reading audience from the first book. And as we then feel in love with Poirot for himself, we needed Hastings less.

Really good post, Bundle!

Hastings is DISSED! Even Poirot admitted to it! What Hastings has is the "ability to point out the obvious" But Bundle is entirely right, AC admitted to Hastings' being Poirot's "Watson" and the books needed the "but how did you think of it?" questioner. I've always felt he worked better than any Poirot sidekick, even Mrs. Oliver! (I never considered Race or Battle "sidekicks")  He (like Watson) has his speciality. Holmes admitted that he would never had allowed Watson to examine him, when Holmes was "dying"! What Poirot depends on Hastings to give him is the insulated British point of view. When one is commiting murder in the British uppercrust, one NEEDS a "stiff upper lip" Captain to help you see what the killer is trying to put across. THAT is why Hastings is invaluable!

I had never thought of it before but it is refreshing that Hastings has no Talent unlike Watson who is a Doctor, the only thing Hastings brings the ability of letting Poirot bounce ideas of him and he help the reader know what is happening but more importantly, if he was the link that brought Poirot to Styles in the first place. 

Tommy_A_Jones, but you are forgetting The ABC Murders. That's the one where Hastings actually had the right idea and if Poirot and the police had listened, it would have been solved before Doncaster! Hastings, in his simplicity keeps Poirot from commiting the sin of "complicating the matter"

I had forgotten that, I have read it 3 or 4 times but still forgot.

"Oh I say!" I love Hastings, and I love Hugh Fraser in the TV role. I do see why she faded him out as a character as Poirot aged though, and I agree with Bundles comments above about Christie's development as a writer. I've not read Curtain, but I understand that Hastings makes a return in the final book.

I heard there was a competion for the writers of the shorter Poirots. They challenged each other to see how many times they could make Hastings 'Oh I say!'

I wonder who won?! I'll have to watch my DVD's again and try to count!

Or is that obsessional....

It doesn't matter if it is Puffinjill, I should think there is to make a good guess, each Hour long episodes are in 3 or 4 parts, so say that means 2 "Oh my God"'s per short story and say 4 for every Novel, If you do watch the DVDs tell me if I am right by the way, I don't know how muc my formulae would make my gue to be.

If I can find the time, Tommy......!

I think go leafs was right in an earlier post. Hugh Frasers' interpretation of Hastings has captured our imagination and his portrail is every bit as good as Suchet's Poirot. Hastings character (as written by AC) doesn't give any actor a massive amount to get their teeth into (not like Poirot with all his quirks and mannerisms) but Hugh Fraser has developed him into a believable, enthusiastic yet simple soul that the audience can identify with.

Up until Fraser, all previous Hastings were very one dimentional and mostly came across as the stereotypical silly ass. It made it hard to see why Poirot, for all his intelligence, would waste his time with such a pathetic companion! Surely his ego was big enough without having to keep an idiot around to make him appear good!! But with Fraser's Hastings the friendship between him and Poirot is believable. They may be very different in many ways, yet they are truly fond of each other, just as AC wrote.

Plus, I'm a sucker for Hugh Fraser as he reads the majority of my AC audio books and he does so magnificently! So perhaps I am biased!

Hugh Fraser is great indeed.

I have another general question in relation to Hastings; In which book was he the most useful? Also, were there books that any of you thought he didn't really need to be around for?

Ooh, that's tricky JL, obviously in Styles he's important as he introduced Poirot to the crime and us to Poirot I guess.

I think he's useful in ABC, Links and Dumb Witness (which I disliked intensely - one of the few AC books I don't like), and not so useful in Peril at End House and The Big Four.

I've not read Curtain as yet, so not too sure about that one.

There haven't been that many Actors playing Hastings, I can only name Jonathon Cecil, in the films, Simon Williams and Jeremy Clyde on Radio and there was Robert Morley in The Alphabet Murders but not many to choose from but Grasere is the best, although I swichted of before I got to seeting Robnert Morley's performance but if I can I am determined to get the DVD or Video If I can 

Good question, Jack London. As 3rdGirl says he is most definately important in The Mysterious Affair at Styles because without him, there would have been no introduction to M. Poirot. He doesn't aid Poirot too much in the solving of the case but through him we get to know the inhabitants of the house. These are his 'kind of people' and they agree to Poirot's help due to Hastings knowledge of his abilities. So, without him, the story would have been very different and no so involving as the personal intimate side would have been lacking.

I think we would all agree that his deductive powers aren't particularly anything to write home about but where his is astute is stating the obvious. This is particularly useful in The ABC Murders when he, almost naively, guesses the truth earlier than Poirot can see it. Also, there are many books in which he does not appear personally but Poirot still refers to him with fondness and, in remembering his friend and his way of looking at things, he can then see some light in the problem he is solving. Knowing Hastings helps keep Poirot human and not just a fussy, fastidious, pompous little man (that sounds cruel but I love him really!).

So maybe the answer is Hastings is useful in all Poirot books, whether he personally appears or not.

That is very true, Hastings is indeed essential in Styles.

I personally think that the short stories with Hastings in them can tend to be more interesting than the longer ones sometimes.

I enjoy Hastings in the short stories too. I liked him a lot in The Affair at the Victory Ball (and in the TV adaptation) as well as The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb, where he was really gullible over Poirot's delving into mysticism. He's a good narrator too!