A Scandal In Belgravia

Spoilers abound, reader beware.
 
I write this post in part to respond to a comment on my Spock and Sherlock article.  I also write it to squee profusely over the new episode of Sherlock from the Beeb.

I must preface this by stating my views on Irene Adler herself.  Doyle's original Scandal in Bohemia is the most famous and most recreated of the original canon, perhaps save for Hound of the Baskervilles.  There have been many spins on Irene.  Holmes admired her for being the only woman to fool him.  There had been 2 men, but Watson does not deign to name them.  This has led to fan fiction writers as well as professional writers to want to suggest that Sherlock and Irene had something else going on, particularly during his two-year sabbatical (resulting in a wide variety of "next generation" detectives, ranging from Raffles to Damian to Nero Wolfe).

That said.

I was at first totally on board with shipperdom on the coupling, but I've realized that in all honesty, Adler is not the be all end all for Holmes.  To put her into modern terms, in the context of her original story, Irene took nude pics with her ex-boyfriend and then threatened to post them on the internet before his wedding.  She's not a rocket scientist to begin with -- she's street smart and a grand actress.  She's not a "strong" woman.  She got to where she was by plying her trade -- actress and being "that girl."  We all know "that girl" -- she is not strong on her own, but she is the puppetmaster.  She makes the world spin around her. 

My reactions to the episode:

First off.  Poor frickin' Molly.  I really don't like how they're treating the character.  However, she does have a purpose, as I will detail below. 

Second off.  They do like to tease the Holmes/Watson shippers, don't they?

Third off.  I am satisfied that they are keeping "what" Sherlock is ambiguous.  Gay, straight, virgin, asexual, bisexual -- up to you.  Doesn't matter.  Sherlock = Sherlock.  That is all. 

This first episode of Series 2 was about Sherlock's heart, and I realized it long before Mycroft spoke to Watson. It proves that he does have one.  I do not interpret this series or any other series to be misogynistic as far as the depiction of women.  As I posted in "Spock and Sherlock," Sherlock lives in a predominantly homosocial society.  In order to maintain that same sort of environment and feel, women are limited in how they can enter into the storyline.  You can't have a female Watson.  Mycroft can't be female.  Neither can Lestrade -- see Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century or Laurie King's books.  Molly serves that purpose -- she is the epitome of "girl" -- and she does not fit in Sherlock's world.  Honestly, Molly is an incarnation of a Cumberbitch (a favorite term of mine for lovers of our favorite Sid the Sloth impersonator).  More generically, she is the perky girl sidekick that fiction writers always want to write in so Sherlock can go kiss someone other than John Watson.

Doesn't work, does she?  But that is her purpose -- to show that her character type does not work and probably should not attempt to be fused into the Sherlockian world. 



In contrast, the character of Mrs. Hudson has a new spin to her, and I like it.  Sherlock got her husband executed, and she owed him a favor.  Very strange starting grounds, but it's delightfully quirky.  The one note of consistency throughout Sherlock's incarnations, from the canon to Rathbone to Brett and to this one, is that Sherlock Holmes respects her.  The new Mrs. Hudson is decidedly a sly one herself, as she did manage to sneak the phone away from the burglar while playing the damsel in distress.  Both Sherlock and John snap at Mycroft when he tells their girl off -- good show, lads.

Mycroft.  I wish he was fatter, frankly, but he is all the manipulative statesman I could wish for.  I do hope the relationship between our Holmes boys becomes more civil, however.  The banter in the original canon is far less contentious, and much more fun in general when you know the two of them aren't at each other's throats. 

I would like to address the concerns of the commenter.  As indicated previously, I don't think Irene is strong or "had the rug pulled from under her" -- it was never there in the first place.  She is an adventuress -- she is neutral chaos, like Catwoman in the 1990s Batman the Animated series.  Neither good nor bad - she just makes it all interesting for herself.  She is not beholden by Moriarty, nor does she fall victim to him as portrayed in the most recent movie.  This Irene is a completely free agent who just happens to cross his path. I like her better than the Downey Jr. film version.  Rachel Adams' Irene is the sacrificial lamb, the cocky little thing that got herself over her head.  Irene Adler in the book and in this TV appearance is far from over her head.

True to the source material, Irene is a slave only to her heart.  I do not think we will see her again, as we do not see her in the original canon.  I would be disappointed if we did; Sherlock doesn't do that romance thing.  However, in the name of keeping Sherlock himself delightfully ambiguous, we have that scene right out of Lawrence of Arabia or 1001 Arabian Nights or something of that nature.  The final scene is Sherlock finally laughing to himself.  He takes pleasure in that memory -- and whatever came after; the shipper machine has been going full-tilt on THAT topic since January 1 on fan fic sites.  This is not Holmes making himself cry to coax a reaction out of a widow or being sweet to con Molly.  This is just Sherlock with no other window dressing.

As to the sexuality issue, particularly in Irene's scene with Watson:  again, ambiguity is the goal.  However, the scene can also be interpreted as how "exceptional" Sherlock is.  Irene suggests that for both of them, Sherlock could be the one exception to their normal behavior.  This subject somewhat tackled in Brokeback Mountain. Jake Gyllenhal's character, Jack, was gay But what about Heath Ledger's Ennis?  He didn't have a string of male lover -- just Jack.  He could never get him out of his head.  Is there that one exceptional man that makes him break all the rules?  In one of my favorite films, Orlando starring Tilda Swinton, there is a distinct possibility that the person you fall in love with is simply that -- a person.  You can worry about what bits they have later.  Additionally, Irene does not make it a point to fall in love with clients or rivals; Sherlock may be an exception for her that way, but the best way to illustrate is using the sexuality thing.  However, the point is not what Irene and John are; the point is what Sherlock is to them.  And he's the one that just makes them fall over themselves.  He makes them feel alive - that isn't necessarily sexual, even for Irene. 



I found this opening episode delightful and very true to the character of Irene.  As to Sherlock -- well, he was a bit ambiguous in the original books in some regards, but I also think that in the books he was much more savvy and well-mannered than our latest versions.  Jeremy Brett was the last "polite" Holmes I can think of.  Being a gentleman was the norm, and Doyle's Holmes complied with that.  Recent versions have had him being ill-mannered, but with the excuse that he has a brilliant mind, and that makes it all peachy.  This version is no exception, though I do give credit to Cumberbatch and the writers for portraying the character as a self-acknowledged sociopath. 

Below is a small write up I did 3.5 years ago to vent my frustrations over the misrepresentation of Holmes in fan fiction and other media. 

"Holmes is not some misogynistic, insensitive, boorish, self-centered prima donna.

"He's a Victorian.  He is two-faced and multi-faceted.  He disapproves of drinking and drug to excess, but partakes of cocaine when driven to boredom and ennui.  He understands the class system and enjoys his aloof position in it, but constantly ignores it when pursuing a case.  He has friends all over and makes sure they do not mix -- it's not because he is embarrassed.  It is because the social differences in Victorian England were enough to be other countries.  To mix them would be unwise and unprofessional.  The rich and the poor gap was fairly wide, despite the rising middle class.    And he does not discriminate who he takes cases from.  His fees are flat, unless he decides not to charge at all -- he gets paid enough to keep his mouth shut by the royals to do charity work at his discretion.  If anything, the royals bored him and he'd refuse their cases, and yet spend weeks working on some poor person who would never pay him. 

"Holmes thinks women are overcomplicated creatures (as do I), but he would never disregard them or their problems right off.  He is a gentleman, first and foremost.  It is not because he thinks they are horrible or useless -- he's the eccentric genius and while charming in his own way, he's no Casanova.  Let Watson deal with the niceties.  He admits in Doyle's canon that he has never loved anyone -- but if he did, he would be in the same position as one of his clients, desperate to avenge his beloved's death.  He is a consummate professional, and while his female clients can give him a good chase and an intriguing puzzle, once it is solved, they are not integral to his life.   Neither are the men.  He treats them the same -- non-entities after the job.  Recognition, yes, but beyond that would be unprofessional. 

"Read the Veiled Lodger case, however.  Of all the cases, this is the one where Holmes breaks the rules and touches a woman to comfort her.  She'd gotten her face ripped off by a lion.  Even Holmes cannot help but be affected by her.  He feels compassion for her and is willing to help her.  Irene Adler is the only woman to ever stir anything more than that passing, intellectual interest in him -- he keeps her dirty photograph in his private files.  Even then, there are no hints that he ever pursues her, one way or another.  As to his treatment of Mrs. Hudson, Holmes was always an ideal tenant -- minus horrible smells from chemistry, shooting VR into the wall, and tacking up his post using a knife in the mantle.  However, he always repaired and paid for his misdeeds and never sassed the landlady. 

"I'm not going to say Holmes loved kids, but they had their uses (and not the ones you're thinking of, you sicko).  Baker Street Irregulars ring a bell?  In an era of well-meaning social reform, children were still uneducated and locked out of factories; school was too expensive now that there were only parents working in the factories rather than having the eldest three work in there while the youngest three got a basic education.  Now nobody could work, and nobody could afford school.  Boys became pickpockets and petty thieves.  Girls, much the same, with the addition of prostitution.  Holmes did spend time with his contacts in opium dens and other houses of ill repute, but he hardly endorsed the corruption of children.  Holmes used the street children as informers and spies -- small size, inconspicuous in a crowded London street, and smart as whips, many of them.  He paid them better than a John would, on the Victorian scale.  It was better to be in Mr. Holmes' employ and find odd bits and bobs of information and get fed by Mrs. Hudson rather than be completely on the streets minus the point where the family would regroup. 

"One man's petty theft is another's grand larceny -- do not forget the class scale differences.  When children and women were threatened, Holmes was generally pissed off.

"Should someone get in his way during a case, yes, he'd bite and be an absolute jerk.  Yes, he was intelligent and flashy at times, but despite his confidence and almost arrogance, he often let Scotland Yard take credit for the good he'd done -- better to have confidence in the police than in one man. 

"Sherlock Holmes himself was created because of a lack of confidence in Scotland Yard; he was birthed in the middle of the Jack the Ripper serial killings.  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle made the ultimate detective.  A gentleman, a brilliant man, a man who was not corrupt or lured by prostitutes, a man who had no professional grudges and would not pervert justice for his own gain.  He was the answer to the Jack the Ripper problem.  Sherlock Holmes the myth was a powerful enough creature back in those dark times that almost immediately, post was directed toward 221B Baker Street in the hopes that Holmes would get it and save them all from this menace that walked among them.  Saucy Jack knew their streets, their hours, their churches, and their children.  He walked among them during the day, killed the women by night."