Oh, I can't STAND Hastings! He just is there to ogle the ladies and doubt their criminality (Is that a word?) until I feel like crying.

Quite a lot of people see Hastings' mannerisms as cute and humorous in a good way. I believe that on IMDB movie boards there was a person who constantly and loudy complained about the fact that in recent Poirot films they've stopped adding Hastings where he doesn't belong ("Bring back Hastings!!!!").

I'm not a total hater of Hastings in the books (I liked his presence in ABC murders, and this is one of my favourites), but I definitely think that it's a good thing that AC wasn't a fan of him herself and didn't write every Poirot novel with him in it!

I found that out Lone Wolf when I started reading the books but I first came to know Poirot from the TV series which had Hastings in practically every episode even if he wasn't in the book. But why ?

ampman

One of the reasons that I prefer Miss Marple is that she doesn't need some gormless sidekick.

Well, Poirot does perfectly fine without Hastings in most of his stories, too.

In my humble opinion Hastings is a drip and I don't know why Poirot bothered with him. He is just a caricature of an Englishman.

One of the reasons that I prefer Miss Marple is that she doesn't need some gormless sidekick.

Hastings is no worse a creation than others at the time. Copying the Holmes/Watson relationship was really quite common, since Conan Doyle's stories enjoyed such popular success. Thus, Poirot had his Hastings, Dr. Fell had his Tad Rampole, and so forth.

I enjoy Hastings, but I quite agree- he is not needed in every single adaptation. His presence, in fact, has ruined episodes in the past (Exhibit A: Dumb Witness), with forced attempts at humour throughout.

But his comraderie with Poirot is fascinating. Note how the detective referse to him often even when he's not there, with phrases such as "If only mon cher Hastings was here!"

Still, Styles is not a very good book in itself, but it's the start of Poirot, which inflates its reputation. AC had not yet fully developed, and focused on the puzzle elements, while cardboard characters populated the novel, making it a rather dull read- I didn't really care much whether X was found innocent or not. The puzzle is technically brilliant, however, and the twist was a good one. Styles is rather like Star Wars in a way: the original film is nothing particularly amazing, but its popularity led to the incredible second film.

"A charge that has been laid at her door is that she just copied the Holmes/Watson partnership but is this a fair accusation?  It’s true that the best detectives need lesser beings to point up their finer points but is this being a bit unfair to Hastings?"

Well, most of AC's best Poirot books (and most of all Poirot books - he appears in 8 of 33 Poirot novels) were quite great without Hastings, with the narration being done in third person. AC herself was no fan of Hastings anyway.

And Hastings himself is a bit of a flanderized (see TvTropes) Watson, so there's certainly some truth in the accusation. 

(Talking about sidekicks, even though the only book with Mrs. Oliver I like is the only book with her in which Poirot doesn't appear (Pale Horse), she makes for a far more original sidekick per se).

I don't really share the infatuation some people have with Hastings, with all that wanting him to appear in every Poirot book and movie. He's an annoyingly naive and sappy character - OK in small doses, but unbearable in large ones.

That's one of the reasons I dislike Curtain - with Poirot being paralyzed, the focus is entirely on Hastings, who acts even more melodramatic and stupid then he usually is.

Still, there are books where I do think his presence enriched the story - namely, ABC Murders and Peril at End House.

i think this book is great because the murderer was suspected then cleared but he was still the murderer the murderers were eveyln and the husband

This is the first and the only Agatha Christie novel I have read, but I have made up my mind to read at least a bunch of them and have bought another already. From my point of view it is a bit unfair how Hastings is projected by Christie here. Although as suggested above it was required to represent us the ordinary readers, except those genius' who are Poirot's as said above.

Also Hastings does help Poirot in many places too with Poirot requesting him to help and without him requesting too, especially wrt to making sure the last link is not lost :P

Black shows up white, and so Hastings shows up Poirot, n'est-ce pas?  Without Hastings' endearing naivete, we would not appreciate the dazzling genius of Poirot.  If not for this rather gullible partner-in-crime, we would probably have to read through copious, mind-numbing paragraphs of passport-type descriptions and stereotypical characterisation, which Christie avoids beautifully.  Instead, everything Poirot is and thinks comes through with ease in his conversations with Hastings.  The asides and insights he shares with his companion divulge his humanity and subtlety of character, and aren't near as patronising as they would be if Poirot was possessed of a mean spirit.  Instead, like a man who is conscious of his superior intellect, without undue pride or rudeness, Poirot treats his friend gently, humorously.  If anything it is Hastings who is often shown to bear grudges and repeatedly doubts Poirot's little grey cells (oh, ye of little faith).  After all, how many times must a man prove he trully is the greatest detective in the world?!

And yet it is this trait, perhaps, that differentiates the partnership most strongly from that of Holmes and Watson.  For where Watson is an obedient, admiring servant, Hastings is given a more independent constitution, which allows Christie to disclose and conceal, clarify and baffle at leisure.  In this, Hastings becomes a representative of the common man, who rarely follows blindly where he is led, but instead deliberates, hesitates, doubts and falls prey to human weakness (ah, those auburn locks).  Indeed, in this respect Hastings faithfully mirrors us, the readers, who, if dropped between the pages of a book, would surely behave in the same fashion.  That is, of course, unless we had the mind of Poirot!