I'll be in my blanket fort....

Some conclusions I've reached based on these stats:

Horowitz adapted a lot of episodes for the show—he was the adaptor of the second most episodes for the series, after Clive Exton—but his tenure with the show was... kind of short-lived.

Although there are some episodes adapted by Horowitz that I personally sort of like (Yellow Iris, Jewel Robbery at the Grand Metropolitan, Hickory Dickory Dock), and this means that Horowitz may write some okay stuff sometimes, it's quite possible that these particular stories are the ones that don't deviate too much from Christie's original storylines (I'll still have to read these stories before I can say this for sure though)

However, we KNOW that Anthony Horowitz LOVES to change things & add all sorts of shit to the episodes that wasn't in the original stories, so, that being his modus opporandi means... it's also possible that the stories of his I like are nothing like the original stories, and I might start disliking them a bit if I read them...which is. a scary thought.

I have... mixed feelings about his version of Lord Edgeware Dies now that I've read the original, but. Horowitz clearly added a lot of shit to the plot of this one, too, so... I'm not actually too hopeful about liking his takes on the ones I haven't read yet.

I Can't Believe That Anthony Horowitz adapted my two least favourite episodes in the entire series actually, this explains SO much, The Double Clue and Murder on the Links. Which. Incidentally. Are the two episodes that establish the show!canon for the main romance-driven plots involving Poirot and Hastings (respectively).

Horowitz is also responsible for adding all the extra romance bullshit for Poirot into the plot of Lord Edgeware Dies, which tells me that Anthony Horowitz absolutely CANNOT be trusted with romance plots. We can see how BADLY he fumbles them each time! (Which... I recognise that the producers, the directors, and the actors also have some sway in how the episodes turn out, but... I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and speculate that the crappy way the romance turned out in Horowitz's scripts might just be due to some Bad Ol' Fashioned Misogyny and how Horowitz seemed to Trip All Over Himself in these three scripts trying to No-Homo Everything... just sayin'...)

Implications for Poirot's & Hastings' romantic lives

NOW. Since Horowitz is the one who had considerable creative control over ALL of the major ""romance"" plots involving Poirot and Hastings (respectively) in the show, this means that Horowitz was almost single-handedly responsible for establishing the show's canon regarding all of the (hetero!) romances involving Poirot & Hastings.

And again: yes, the producers might have wanted to see specific scenes, too, so they must have given some input into Horowitz's scripts. There was probably an editing process. And the directors and the actors themselves absolutely had a hand in helping to establish this canon, with their shot design, direction, and the characters' actions. But! keep in mind that Horowitz is STILL the one who ultimately wrote the scripts! Most of the additional scenes and most of the lines said by the characters were thus presumably contributed by him! So, if this show is even half as gay as it appears, Anthony Horowitz played a HUGE ROLE in making it that way, intentionally or not!

Now, returning to the fact that the romance plots came specifically from screenplays that Horowitz adapted—The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies—We can see that these three episodes carry within them a sort of continuity of storyline that doesn't seem to be followed by most the other screenwriters who adapted for this show (except... for Clive Exton... Hmm.... More on that in a moment).

One thing I do like about the continuity of these three episodes is that they can ALL be interpreted as SUPER GAY (which is obviously what I, as something of a gay man myself, am interpreting them as). What I don't really like is... having analysed these three episodes very intensely, I don't think that the gay interpretation is what Horowitz intended to portray. I do think that his intentions terribly backfired on him: in fact, I think that he was trying SO HARD to No-Homo everything... that the plots of these three episodes wrapped all the way back round to being SUPER GAY.

HOKAI. SO. Starting with Horowitz's adaptation of the Double Clue—which, at least on their first viewing, most people I've talked to tend to interpret as a romance between Poirot and the Countess Rossakova (And YES her surname is supposed to end in -a, guys. Уж я-то знаю о чём я говорю)—Poirot is positioned as a man who does not allow people to get close to him and would rather push them away than entertain the possibility of a relationship. While this is technically true to the character that Agatha Christie wrote, this implication was not in the original short story The Double Clue (possibly because there was no room for such an implication in a short story), meaning Horowitz added it in.

Lads. Let's have a look at all the other things that got added in: Horowitz added in the admittedly, pretty gay scene about Hastings and Poirot seeing a bride, prompting Hastings to ask Poirot if he'd ever considered marriage.

Horowitz added in the scene where Hastings gets shot at.

Horowitz added the scene where Hastings is getting his wounds tended to by Miss Lemon while Poirot stands by with his hand on Hastings' shoulder. Horowitz wrote Hastings' little pouty line about 'where are you [Poirot] taking her [the countess]?'

LIKE. HOLY SHITBALLS, YOU GUYS. HOROWITZ IS RESPONSIBLE. FOR ADDING IN THE MAIN SCENES THAT MADE THIS EPISODE SO GAY. And the awful part is, this probably happened because he was trying really hard to force the story to be hetero, but he just couldn't resist adding in Hastings asking Poirot about marriage AND a literal HONEST TO GOD Hastings Whump Scene^TM, complete with him being touched and doted upon by both Miss Lemon AND Poirot.

(Okay, Mr. "I'm not gay myself, but"... I'm sure that NONE of your personal experiences with that First Boss of yours contributed in Any Way Whatsoever to the way you wrote Hastings and Poirot's dynamic, or the things you write in your self-insert books /MAJOR sarcasm)

Next, let's consider Murder on the Links. I go into detail about Horowitz's additions to the plot of this story here, and I've already talked extensively about my interpretation of this episode in previous posts, but to sum things up: This episode. Is BAD. It's disrespectful to the characters and it ignores what Agatha Christie wrote in favour of... what could possibly be some unknown point he was trying to make.

The way Horowitz writes this episode, Hastings is positioned as a man who is more concerned with aesthetics than he is with honesty when it comes to his romantic partners (which... doesn't seem to fit the Hastings Agatha Christie actually wrote, nor does it seem in keeping with the sharp, honest-to-a-fault Hastings that Clive Exton wrote in the Cornish Mystery). Horowitz further positions Hastings as someone who needs another man's interference to actually get married—implying that Hastings is so stupid & useless that he needs somebody to do everything for him. OUCH.

In Horowitz's godawful adaptation of Murder on the Links, Hastings falls for Isabelle—a woman whose only onscreen actions position her as being a Manipulative Liar (who is NOTHING like the love interest character Agatha Christie originally wrote for Hastings)—and ends up super sad at the end of the episode because he's apparently hung up on this horrible woman. Who basically THREW HIM IN THE GARBAGE. But who cares, right? At least she's ""hot""! That's all that matters, right? "Oh but you're so hot! Oh please throw me in the garbage again, ma'am!" Is that what you wanted, Mr. Horowitz? Is this your idea of romance??? I cannot believe this script actually made it through production.

And THEN at the end of the episode, Horowitz adds a scene where Poirot practically forces this lying, manipulative woman to go marry Hastings, presumably so that Hastings will stop being So Sad^TM

(but it also looks for all the world like Poirot thought doing this would solve both Hastings' loneliness problem AND his OWN problem of having feelings for Hastings at the same time...

And then he immediately looks like he REGRETS IT).

Like. Lads. DAMN. Essentially, from where I'm standing at least, the way Horowitz writes this episode, Poirot is made to LOOK, for all the world, like a repressed gay man who's basically throwing a woman at his crush, regardless of what her actions say about the kind of person she is, for the sole purpose of marrying Hastings off and thus ceremonially placing Hastings out of his own reach.

LET ME SAY THAT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT WAY: Horowitz basically sets up the story of Murder on the Links so that, in Poirot's haste to try to simultaneously solve his own problem of having a crush on Hastings/make Hastings happy in the moment, Poirot is literally guaranteeing that Hastings is going to later be hurt even more than he already has been by the woman he marries...and that Poirot himself will later be hurt, too, when hastings starts going on about what a Great Person she is. Like. Oooough. DAMN. OUCH.

But. I guess you could argue. That this episode does set the scene for some nice albeit wildly off-book doomed yaoi narratives later in the show I guess??

Now. As the ICING ON THE KINDA TONE-DEAF LAYERED CAKE that Mr. Horowitz has been baking for us with the previous two ""romance"" plots here, let's consider what happens in Anthony Horowitz's version of Lord Edgeware Dies. What is Horowitz responsible for adding to the plot of THIS one? WELL! The answer is: A WHOLE DAMN LOT.

Again! we have to keep in mind that, in his book, Poirot & Me (which I haven't read all the way through, mind you, I just stumbled on this Google Books sample when I was researching for my spreadsheet) David Suchet himself attributes the added scenes in Lord Edgeware Dies to Anthony Horowitz, saying that he was building off of a previous theme established by Clive Exton in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd:

So! Looking JUST at additions to the spoken lines in the script for Lord Edgeware Dies which are presumably attributable to the screenwriter, especially if the main star of the show is also attributing these things to him, we can deduce that:

Horowitz added the subplot about Hastings making a terrible financial decision and then LEAVING ISABELLE BEHIND IN ARGENTINA (You know, Isabelle? the Lying, Manipulative Cocktail Bar Singer Lady from Murder on the Links that Horowitz makes Poirot sorta force Hastings to marry? YEAH. HER) to SELL THEIR RANCH while Hastings himself looks for a place for them to live in London even though he's like. BROKE broke. So much for the Happily Ever After Hastings seems to get in the books!

Horowitz then writes Hastings as Swearing Up & Down that Isabelle is such a Wonderful, Understanding Wife even though NONE of her actions in Murder on the Links would lead us to believe this, and that he's TOTALLY A NEW MAN thanks to her.

Which he does Right in Front of Poirot's Salad.

Except Horowitz himself has previously established! That Poirot is the one who basically forced Hastings and his wife together! So the way this shakes out? Horowitz basically made it so that Poirot brought all of the pain and discomfort he's feeling in this moment onto himself. OUch. That's actually terribly RUDE to Poirot's character!!

Horowitz went FURTHER and added the honestly ridiculous subplot about Poirot seeming to be sort of interested in Jane Wilkinson, whilst vehemently denying it. And Poirot actually does a pretty good job of convincing me that he isn't interested in her and that he's ACTUALLY interested in HASTINGS... which some of the other scenes added in by Horowitz actually reinforce.

Like the little bit where. Poirot. LITERALLY DECLINES. LITTLE MISS HOT LADY JANE WILKINSON'S INVITATION OUT TO DINNER. IN FAVOUR OF INVITING HASTINGS OVER TO HIS OWN HOUSE FOR DINNER. AND TELLING HIM NOT TO BE LATE.

OR THE PART. WHERE. AT SAID DINNER. MISS LEMON ASKS POIROT IF HE'S EVER CONSIDERED MARRIAGE (Hey! Does that sound familiar? YEAH!! BECAUSE THIS IS THE SAME THING!! THAT HOROWITZ MADE HASTINGS ASK POIROT!! WHEN THEY SAW THAT BRIDE BACK IN DOUBLE CLUE!! THIS MIGHT JUST BE A BIG HINT! THAT THE SAME WRITER!! WROTE BOTH OF THESE SCENES!!)

AND THEN POIROT RESPONDS. THAT HE'S BEEN TEMPTED IN THE PAST. THEN SAYS, BUT NOW ALAS *LOOKS DIRECTLY AT HASTINGS* I FEAR THAT IT IS TOO LATE. AND WHY IS IT TOO LATE, POIROT??? IS IT BECAUSE HOROWITZ MADE YOU LITERALLY THROW A WOMAN AT HASTINGS SO THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO FACE YOUR FEELINGS FOR HIM???????

BUT THAT is CERTAINLY NOT ALL!

Horowitz also presumably added Hastings' little lines about if you just ignore your suspicions and convictions.. you know, like I did in Murder on the Links.. and go out with the hot lady who was giving you the time of day earlier, you might just be able to Get Married and Be Happy^TM like me, Poirot!

And he also presumably added the scene where Hastings thinks he has it all figured out and basically tells Poirot that he Knows (read: incorrectly assumes) that Poirot is Hung Up on Jane Wilkinson and gives him a speech about how There Comes A Point In your Life When You think Romance Has Passed You By But When It Does Finally Hit You, It Can Really Bowl You Over... (which is RICH coming from the Mr. Arthur "My Boss Best Friend Chose My Wife For Me" Hastings that Horowitz so """"KINDLY""""" gifted to us)

And Hastings says all this... because... Poirot is... sitting there quietly and thinking... ???? (i.e., exhibiting... behaviour that is VERY NORMAL FOR HIM? To which Horowitz makes MISS LEMON say, "I've never seen him like this" BullSHIT, yes you HAVE!! Since when do you NOT know that Hercule Poirot is ALMOST ALWAYS sitting in silence and employing his little grey cells?? An EXTREMELY Careless Scripting Addition that Ignores Poirot's Disposition, which.... considering some of the things that happen in Murder on the Links... seems to be very much in the Horowitz style!!)

I do have to say. That Horowitz did add something which I actually find to be very sweet: When Poirot gifts Hastings some reward money (which I definitely don't remember being in the book) so that Hastings can start rebuilding his life after making that Terrible Financial Decision (Y'know. The one that Horowitz himself presumably added. Hmm. This is cute, but it feels suspiciously like putting a bandaid on an awful plot point... another thing that feels very in keeping with the Horowitz Style^TM).

Now. I do love how character-driven (misguided as it was) the plot of this episode was. But... Given all of the EXTRA crap like this that got added to Lord Edgeware Dies, the murder investigation almost seemed to be the subplot of this episode rather than the main event?? Which is? If I understand correctly? Usually what's supposed to happen with murder mystery shows? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG tho LMAO

Something I find to be... interesting... is that, Lord Edgeware Dies is not the final episode that Horowitz adapted for the series (he went on to adapt Evil Under The Sun. Which is ALSO interesting, but I won't talk about that here. This post is already entirely too long), but this episode directly drew from lines of continuity that he established in Double Clue and Murder on the Links, and it almost feels like this episode, along with some of the things he added to Evil Under the Sun, were supposed to be the culmination of the story he was trying to tell us about these men's romantic lives...

...and from where I'm standing? The story Horowitz ended up telling us is that Hastings is Useless and Stupid and has to have everything done for him, and Poirot loves him in spite of all this, but that Poirot is the kind of man who pushes people away if they get too close, will deny his true feelings (even though... the truth is what motivates him the most??), so he throws a woman at his crush to try to Make It All Better^TM and ends up regretting it for the rest of his life.

Which. technically. And likely unintentionally. DOES make for a pretty good Doomed Yaoi plot. You're right! I do gotta hand that to him. FINE. I guess he can keep his unintentionally cute little reward-money-bandaid-scene that looks suspiciously like the bandaid scene in Murder on the Links where Hastings is Sad^TM so he gives Hastings *checks notes* AN ENTIRE WOMAN.

But I ask you: did Horowitz have to be so disrespectful to the characters to tell this story? Clive Exton, for example, was doing an excellent job telling a more respectful story of Hastings' and Poirot's devotion to one another!

A GROUP EFFORT

Now, I realise I am attributing a lot of this additional stuff to Horowitz, which may not be entirely fair, since the producers, the directors, and the actors do have somewhat of a say in what happens in the show; for example, we can't forget that Hugh Fraser and David Suchet's brilliant on-screen chemistry and acting choices actively helped this show be as gay as it was!

However ☝️ I will point out that, when it comes to the continuity of the ""romance"" storylines in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies, the actors wouldn't have had the lines they were supposed to say without the screenwriter, Anthony Horowitz.

And, in my defence, in David Suchet's book, Poirot & Me, David Suchet himself also seems to attribute a lot of the plot additions and/or changes in Horowitz's screenplays to Horowitz specifically.

But what about the producers and the directors, you might say? The producers pay for what they want to see and the directors build on that vision and add their own spins on it, right?

Technically true! So, let's have a look at some of the other players here:

The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies:

Each have different directors (Andrew Piddington, Andrew Grieve, and Brian Farnham, respectively), so—although these directors could have shared a similar vision—this particular line of continuity regarding the main characters' romances in the show can't be explained by a single director's vision.

HOWEVER. These episodes were all produced by Brian Eastman (with the help of a few other executive and associate producers, but Brian Eastman is the only producer that had his hand in all three of these episodes), so he could definitely have had a hand in how gay the episodes ended up being! (Especially since he produced 49 of the 70 episodes, and brought us gems like Murder in the Mews, The Third Floor Flat, The Incredible Theft, The Veiled Lady, The Lost Mine, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Affair at the Victory Ball, The Adventure of the Egyptian Tomb, Dumb Witness, and Murder in Mesopotamia, six of which are also Clive Exton episodes, interestingly enough!! 👀)

So. All of this to say that, this may well have been a group effort. BUT. at least concerning the line of continuity regarding the main characters' romances established in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies, Screenwriter Anthony Horowitz and producer Brian Eastman seem to be the lowest common denominators here. If Horowitz wrote it? Eastman paid him to put it there. And I'll point out: The directors and the actors obviously rolled with it, or I wouldn't have had any textual evidence whatsoever to inspire me to write this post!

What about Murder in Mesopotamia?

Now! An extra note about Murder in Mesopotamia, since I went the extra mile and found out who adapted this one, and since, interestingly, this is the only episode I have seen that's not written by Horowitz, but still directly follows lines of continuity in the """romance""" plots that were established by both The Double Clue and Murder on the Links.

Specifically, Murder in Mesopotamia directly refers to the ""romance"" line of continuity established in Double Clue, because the Countess (even though she does not appear in the episode) is referenced multiple times and is shown as repeatedly letting Poirot down and STICKING HIM WITH THE BILL later, which is much closer to being the Countess character that Agatha Christie actually wrote, and seems to run directly counter to the Countess character that Horowitz established in The Double Clue, who was apparently so enamoured with Poirot that she basically almost gives herself up multiple times. Oh! 👀 Are... we perhaps... witnessing some narrative infighting amongst the screenwriters?

Murder in Mesopotamia also directly, but very subtly, refers to the ""romance"" line of continuity established in Murder on the Links, because it contains a little tiny blink-and-you'd-miss-it, almost throwaway line uttered by Poirot about Hastings' wife (who also does not appear in the episode) about sending him out of the continent because she 'needed a break'.

Not just the city. Not just the country. OUT OF THE CONTINENT.

It seemed to be a throwaway line that took less than a second to say. I doubt many people even caught it. But. I. am insane about this show. So I definitely paid attention to that tiny little line. In fact, the first time I heard it, it echoed VERY LOUDLY in my ears and I was lucky enough to be able to go replay it a few dozen times so I could see if I actually heard what I thought I heard. And it turns out I did hear it right.

LADS. I don't know what the screenwriter's intention behind this line was. (If I can figure out a way to reach Mr. Exton for comment, I'll ask him, but... he was born in 1939, so...my window to ask may be closing fast.) We may not ever know.

But (and this is entirely my interpretation of this line) it almost sounds to me like this subtle little line was a bit of a shot across Horowitz's bow; a line that said "Uh-huh, you THOUGHT you were telling a romantic story, but you were wrong. You don't understand the characters like I do. That woman you made Hastings marry is literally the kind of person who would tell him she "needed a break" and would SEND HIS ASS AWAY SO THAT HE WASN'T EVEN ON THE SAME CONTINENT AS SHE WAS And To Do What exactly? This is just my impression based on the storylines that Horowitz established, but maybe Isabelle found somebody else she likes better than Hastings, just like she did to Jack in Murder on the Links, and now that she's Married to Hastings and therefore kind of Stuck With Him she has to... what? Send him out of the continent because she doesn't want him to catch her fucking CHEATING ON HIM, but she knows, based on what Horowitz established, that he'll basically take her lies and half-truths at face value and not suspect a thing??????? Idk! Again, this is just the impression I get of the situation! and... it's a pretty damn strong one!! Especially since!!! A main theme in the episode!!! Is The Murderer. Kinda. Yannow. Psychologically Torturing a Woman That He Considers as having Cheated on Him!!! JUST SAYIN'.

Murder in Mesopotamia also happens to be one of the most respectful and Yearning-est of episodes that Poirot and Hastings are in together.

There's Poirot playfully teasing and subtly flirting with Hastings.

There's Longing Gazes.

There's hand touching and gentle smiles.

There's Hastings showing his devotion to Poirot, and lingering in Poirot's presence, for little reason other than just to be with him.

OUghh LADS. THIS is MUCH truer to the Poirot and Hastings that Agatha Christie actually wrote. And this episode was such a salve to my soul after the shitstorm that comprised the lines of continuity in The Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies.

Interestingly, Murder in Mesopotamia was the final episode that Clive Exton wrote for the series. That was truly the end of an era for such a wonderful screen writer, and I am truly grateful for his humble contributions to writing believable episodes that were true to Agatha Christie's characters and absolutely helped make the show as gay as it was 🫡

The interactions between Hastings and Poirot in this episode are some of the most heart-rending, sad-to-be-doomed-by-the-narrative scenes during Producer Brian Eastman's and Clive Exton's tenures with the show, both of which incidentally ended with the release of Murder in Mesopotamia in July of 2001. You know who else's tenure with the show ended earlier, in April of 2001? Anthony. Bleepin'. Horowitz's.

Lads. What I'm trying to imply here? Is that it looks to me like Brian Eastman specifically (with Clive Exton's help) seemed to intentionally (but in a subtle subtextual sort of way) want to make the show as gay as it was, and even despite all of Anthony Horowitz's No-Homo-ing and bending over backwards into Oh-Yeah-Anthony-That's-TOTALLY-super-Hetero-behaviour-we-Promise-Good-Job territory, they succeeded... but ultimately... that era came to an end with the release of Murder in Mesopotamia. Well. At least it sure went out with a bang.

And now I understand why I'm struggling to get as into the later episodes as I am into the earlier ones. Because, at least in my case, what I found so compelling about the earlier episodes in the show were the other characters' dynamics with Poirot, and without them there, Poirot becomes a terribly lonely old man, and that kinda crushes me in ways I struggle to describe. And it seems that the Driving Force of the Gay behind my main ship for this show seems to have ended with the Brian Easton & Clive Exton et al. Era in 2001. I truly mourn the loss of their creative vision for this show.

In Conclusion...

Now... as a final note. Writing out this discussion. Has brought me to the startling realisation. That ALL of the fics I have written for this fandom (including the three I started in 2024 and have never posted publicly). INCLUDING MY McFUCKENING WEBCOMIC.

Are tied. To trying to do what I watched Clive Exton seem to do in Murder in Mseopotamia, which is: to fix, correct, or otherwise refute some of the bullshit that Anthony McFreakening Horowitz implied about Agatha Christie's characters.

Lads. What the FUCK. I'm So Mad. Ough. I have allowed the curiosity to guide me into the depths, seeking the dark and forbidden knowledge!! AND NOW!! I KNOW TOO MUCH!!! I KNOW THINGS THAT I CANNOT UNKNOW!!!!!

I mean. I've got to hand it to him. Horowitz likely unintentionally gave us some pretty funny lines and some Okay VERY GAY Moments. And he definitely inspired me to try to advocate better for these characters than he ever did.

But HOO BOY, lads. HOLY FUCK. I can't believe the inciting incident that finally got me shipping Hastings and Poirot was likely that stupid dinner scene written by Anthony McFuckening Horowitz.

I can't believe I set out to prove that Hastings is NOT useless and CAN be smart and that Poirot wouldn't do Hastings like that, actshually because of Some Bullshit^TM that Anthony Horowitz decided to add to Double Clue, Murder on the Links, and Lord Edgeware Dies.

Lads. I'm reeling. If it weren't for that dinner scene, or for Anthony Horowitz's frankly terribly disrespectful treatment of my favourite characters? I MAY NOT HAVE FINISHED AN ENTIRE 57 PAGES OF A WEBCOMIC. What. WHAT.

Now. All that being said. It wouldn't actually be fair to attribute all of my fic inspiration to Horowitz. Yes, Horowitz may have written the scenes that made me want to take the characters away from him and do right by them, but it is a direct result of the brilliant works of Clive Exton and some of the other people involved in the show who actually understood the characters (like Directors Edward Bennett and Renny Rye, and screenwriters Michael Baker and Andrew Marshall, to name a few) that I came to know and love these characters.

I was already Gleefully Noticing the Signs of Gay^TM way back in the very first episode I watched, The Adventure of the Clapham Cook (Which! Incidentally! Happens to be a VERY NUTRITIOUS AND DELICIOUS Clive Exton episode! Thank you for my favouritest Poirot Lines That He Ever uttered, Mr. Exton!!!). The Signs of Gay^TM were built up in a LOT in the episodes that aired between 1989 and 2001. Many of the stories contributed by Mr. Exton et al. (and the compelling fondness and devotion they show between Hastings and Poirot) continue to help me through The Horrors that are Currently My Life. And not to be Dramatique^TM, but they even absolutely SAVED my life.

And when I started reading Christie's original works (I read The Mysterious Affair at Styles first, and yes, I read her stories in Russian, but they're still ultimately her works), I became extremely compelled by the dynamic that Agatha Christie herself built between Poirot and Hastings: specifically that Hastings seems to have his own thoughts and feelings and his own agency, but he's STILL, somehow, MADE to be Poirot's best friend, confidant, and helper. Hastings' character literally frames Poirot's, lends Poirot the necessary reverence and respect that allows the audience to Get To Know Who Poirot Is, and helps him to understand what conclusions The Average Englishman would reach, and although Hastings sometimes annoys him, Poirot can't help loving him for it.

And I just happen to believe that such a dynamic is very compelling and also can be interpreted as SUPER GAY.

So. Yes. It's hard to ignore that a lot of my fannish inspiration in the Poirot fandom... stems from me watching Double Clue, Murder on the Links, Lord Edgeware Dies, and finding myself in a place of Holy Shit, Hastings and Poirot are REALLY ACTUALLY LITERALLY LEGITLY Gay for each other, Marcus! I gotta prove that asshole wrong about them!

BUT! This all just goes to show:

Once you put your work out there into the world, you have NO control over how people (who may or may not think much more deeply about who the established characters in the source material actually are and the psychological implications of certain actions than you yourself might permit yourself to, Mr. Horowitz) might interpret it!!

More power to us fans who actually think about character dynamics, write the stories we want to hear that are still respectful to the characters, and ship what we want to ship!!!!