![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Scandal in Belgravia
For now, just one of my many thoughts on this episode--
I'm rewatching it trying to catalogue exactly what Irene Adler is responsible for. Since she is one of the biggest Mary Sues to ever roam through fandom, rampaging for over a century, I'm hyper sensitive to any portrayal of her. This one I like, but bears a worrying potential for her to pop up over and over, which would be grating to me. In particular, I've always hated the portrayals of Adler as a lovable rogue (see RDJ's Sherlock). In this, she is a lovable rogue--but not really. She is actually quite bad.
1. We can assume that it was her call to Moriarty at the pool, probably about the email she photographed. (Unless we find out what that phone call was in a future episode, that seems the most logical--Moffatt doesn't leave threads hanging.)
2. Since she reported it to Moriarty immediately, and since Moriarty was clearly giving her direction in the seduction of Sherlock, when she says later that she had one of the best cryptographers in the world look at it, and that he was upside down at the time, I'm going to assume that was Moriarty. Meaning she's probably, if not had sex with him, at least dominated him in a professional capacity.
3. Faking her death was part of the Moriarty directed plan. We aren't told how she could trick Sherlock so convincingly, but it would require the corpse to be a perfect body double. Those don't turn up by chance. Which means she either murdered someone or, more likely, was involved in the conspiracy that murdered someone. And she doesn't seem at all bothered by that.
Sherlock showed in the pilot that he's unreasonably attracted, intellectually, to killers, if they're smart. So I don't think the murder would give him pause.
What I think would, though, is what she says at the end--that she had all this information but didn't know what to do with it until Moriarty. That makes her Moriarty's subordinate. And, given the photos she received at the beginning, however well she played the game, it makes her Moriarty's pawn.
I think that it is that emotion--the sudden realization that she, as a subordinate, is inferior to him--that frees him up to solve the puzzle at the end. The very end of the episode was rather ludicrously over the top, more than a little Mary Sue, and clearly just to leave the writers the option of bringing her back. Which I will be annoyed if they do too often.
But I can't help feel that Sherlock must have lost some respect for her. Killing, that wouldn't turn him away. But allowing yourself to be someone else's pawn? That would. Look at how he reacts to Mycroft's attempts to use him as a pawn.
I'm rewatching it trying to catalogue exactly what Irene Adler is responsible for. Since she is one of the biggest Mary Sues to ever roam through fandom, rampaging for over a century, I'm hyper sensitive to any portrayal of her. This one I like, but bears a worrying potential for her to pop up over and over, which would be grating to me. In particular, I've always hated the portrayals of Adler as a lovable rogue (see RDJ's Sherlock). In this, she is a lovable rogue--but not really. She is actually quite bad.
1. We can assume that it was her call to Moriarty at the pool, probably about the email she photographed. (Unless we find out what that phone call was in a future episode, that seems the most logical--Moffatt doesn't leave threads hanging.)
2. Since she reported it to Moriarty immediately, and since Moriarty was clearly giving her direction in the seduction of Sherlock, when she says later that she had one of the best cryptographers in the world look at it, and that he was upside down at the time, I'm going to assume that was Moriarty. Meaning she's probably, if not had sex with him, at least dominated him in a professional capacity.
3. Faking her death was part of the Moriarty directed plan. We aren't told how she could trick Sherlock so convincingly, but it would require the corpse to be a perfect body double. Those don't turn up by chance. Which means she either murdered someone or, more likely, was involved in the conspiracy that murdered someone. And she doesn't seem at all bothered by that.
Sherlock showed in the pilot that he's unreasonably attracted, intellectually, to killers, if they're smart. So I don't think the murder would give him pause.
What I think would, though, is what she says at the end--that she had all this information but didn't know what to do with it until Moriarty. That makes her Moriarty's subordinate. And, given the photos she received at the beginning, however well she played the game, it makes her Moriarty's pawn.
I think that it is that emotion--the sudden realization that she, as a subordinate, is inferior to him--that frees him up to solve the puzzle at the end. The very end of the episode was rather ludicrously over the top, more than a little Mary Sue, and clearly just to leave the writers the option of bringing her back. Which I will be annoyed if they do too often.
But I can't help feel that Sherlock must have lost some respect for her. Killing, that wouldn't turn him away. But allowing yourself to be someone else's pawn? That would. Look at how he reacts to Mycroft's attempts to use him as a pawn.
no subject
"We both thought the best resource was flight, when pursued by so formidable an antagonist; so you will find the nest empty when you call to-morrow. As to the photograph, your client may rest in peace. I love and am loved by a better man than he. The King may do what he will without hindrance from one whom he has cruelly wronged. I keep it only to safeguard myself, and to preserve a weapon which will always secure me from any steps which he might take in the future."
no subject
Also, the king calls her "the well-known adventuress," and even gentlemanly John characterizes her as "of dubious and questionable memory." And she was a stage performer--permanently shady in that era, though of a higher class than most.
The details of the story make it perfectly clear that Irene is a demi-mondaine and ruthless. There are plenty of ways to interpret Irene that play off one or another aspect of her ACD!character, especially as our attitudes towards women have changed so much since then, but whenever I see someone complaining that the "canon Irene" wouldn't do something shady or belong to a shady profession, all I can imagine is that they haven't actually read the story and/or have no idea what the Victorian attitude towards stage performers was.
no subject
ACD!Irene is inherently selfish, acting on her own behalf and looking out for her own interests. She's not part of some wider plot to destroy European monarchy, whereas Sherlock and Guy Ritchie!Irenes are both catspaws for the actual Big Bad.
ACD!Irene also looks after an apparent injured clergyman with 'grace and kindliness', which I can't see either of the recent adaptations doing. (Even if BBC Sherlock had bothered with a better disguise.)
And I could believe that ACD!Irene would, possibly, murder in the heat of passion but she wouldn't go in for such a calculated, cold-blooded plot as Sherlock!Irene.
no subject
no subject
Sarah T., feel free to continue at mine.
no subject