I thought Irene Adler was, in many ways, a very admirable character in the book whereas this one consorts with terrorists, particularly Moriarty, and has no issues giving away a secret that will, apparently, set back anti-terrorism efforts decades. There was a fundamental change in her character that bothered me and had nothing to do with her dominatrix-ness.
I agree, and in my opinion, this is really the only valid criticism of BBC's Irene. That being said, I do understand why they did it. It's a modern retelling, and in today's world a singer who just so happens to not want to part with a photograph isn't a very compelling story. They needed to make Irene a mirror for Sherlock - and they did, in looks, dress, carriage - and they needed to put her in Sherlock's world...and Sherlock only consorts with A)people that fight crime, and B)people that commit crime.
It's why Ritchie!verse Irene is a career criminal (which I loathe)...so, I was happy that they left it fairly vague as to how much she knew about Moriarty's game plan.
But, all that aside - yes, I agree with you. I'd have preferred it if they had thought of a way to keep her separate from Moriarty and terrorism, even though I understand why they didn't.
But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this...Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.
I can totally see your point on this, but I actually disagree. Not that they didn't bring up Sherlock's asexuality - because they OBVIOUSLY did...but I didn't see it as "shaming." YES, the CHARACTERS shamed Sherlock (Mycroft and Irene especially), but each time they did, there was a clear message of "it is not okay for them to do this to Sherlock." IMHO
So, yeah, I actually think that the message of the episode was that there was nothing wrong with Sherlock for being a virgin - that it didn't make him lesser or weak. Even his line at the end, "I'm sure John Watson believes love's a mystery to me..." Is an indication that Sherlock understands that highly sexual people (like John) equate love with sex...or equate having sexual experience with having experience with love...but that's not the case. Sherlock can understand emotions perfectly well, and still not have any desire to sleep with someone - and it doesn't make him deficient in anyway.
I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it...
I think we saw a little bit of it with her assistant, for two seconds at the beginning...but yeah, I agree...I also agree about Torchwood, the whole Jack/Gwen thing always annoyed me.
I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.
I didn't have any issue with Irene "falling for" Sherlock though - because she quiet clearly states that it's not about sex. It's one of my favourite moments of the episode, where her and John talk between the lines about how much they both love Sherlock, even though they don't want to sleep with him. Irene, I think, wants to possess him - and John wants to marry him...but neither of them want to have sex with him.
But would I have liked to see Irene make out with some chicks? yes, sure, that sounds nice!
So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)
Stalking me is alright! (as long as it's on my journal, and not in real life - my mother worries sometimes ;) While I don't agree with all your points, I totally understand why you have them - and thanks for jumping into the discussion. :) Also, I'm glad you are liking my demented'verse so much!! I love that thing too. :)
Re: Okay I had issues with the way sexuality was portrayed in this episode
I agree, and in my opinion, this is really the only valid criticism of BBC's Irene. That being said, I do understand why they did it. It's a modern retelling, and in today's world a singer who just so happens to not want to part with a photograph isn't a very compelling story. They needed to make Irene a mirror for Sherlock - and they did, in looks, dress, carriage - and they needed to put her in Sherlock's world...and Sherlock only consorts with A)people that fight crime, and B)people that commit crime.
It's why Ritchie!verse Irene is a career criminal (which I loathe)...so, I was happy that they left it fairly vague as to how much she knew about Moriarty's game plan.
But, all that aside - yes, I agree with you. I'd have preferred it if they had thought of a way to keep her separate from Moriarty and terrorism, even though I understand why they didn't.
But there were problems with the portrayal of sexuality. I felt that there was a constant shaming of Sherlock in this...Asexuality is a valid choice, and it fits on the spectrum of sexuality that should be respected and appreciated, IMHO.
I can totally see your point on this, but I actually disagree. Not that they didn't bring up Sherlock's asexuality - because they OBVIOUSLY did...but I didn't see it as "shaming." YES, the CHARACTERS shamed Sherlock (Mycroft and Irene especially), but each time they did, there was a clear message of "it is not okay for them to do this to Sherlock." IMHO
So, yeah, I actually think that the message of the episode was that there was nothing wrong with Sherlock for being a virgin - that it didn't make him lesser or weak. Even his line at the end, "I'm sure John Watson believes love's a mystery to me..." Is an indication that Sherlock understands that highly sexual people (like John) equate love with sex...or equate having sexual experience with having experience with love...but that's not the case. Sherlock can understand emotions perfectly well, and still not have any desire to sleep with someone - and it doesn't make him deficient in anyway.
I also became annoyed with the sort of cop-out that they did with Irene Adler's alleged homosexuality. I say alleged because we never really saw any evidence of it...
I think we saw a little bit of it with her assistant, for two seconds at the beginning...but yeah, I agree...I also agree about Torchwood, the whole Jack/Gwen thing always annoyed me.
I would have respected the writers much more if she had just been ironic in her password choice.
I didn't have any issue with Irene "falling for" Sherlock though - because she quiet clearly states that it's not about sex. It's one of my favourite moments of the episode, where her and John talk between the lines about how much they both love Sherlock, even though they don't want to sleep with him. Irene, I think, wants to possess him - and John wants to marry him...but neither of them want to have sex with him.
But would I have liked to see Irene make out with some chicks? yes, sure, that sounds nice!
So yes, I had issues with sexuality as discussed in this episode, but different ones from those you discuss. I completely agree with you about your points! And yes, I am stalking you, but I am kind of on my third re-read of random chapters of your demented verse and always feel the need to pop-in and tell writers that ;)
Stalking me is alright! (as long as it's on my journal, and not in real life - my mother worries sometimes ;) While I don't agree with all your points, I totally understand why you have them - and thanks for jumping into the discussion. :) Also, I'm glad you are liking my demented'verse so much!! I love that thing too. :)