I don't think Molly had to save Sherlock in order to redeem herself, but I think - in the end - her doing so showed a strength of character that we needed to see. People could argue with me, of course, because it's a woman who is helping a man who usually pushes her around - and that's hardly a good thing...but at the same time, it's her saying "You're mean to me, and you overlook me, but your not going to make it out of here alive without my help and I'm going to help you, because I'm not petty or vindictive...I'm a good and intelligent person, and you will regret ever saying a mean word now that you've realized it."
And no, the Christmas scene is still horrendous to watch - not only for Molly's embarrassment, but also for Sherlock's...and nothing that comes afterward will ever make it easy to watch, unless we had found out that Molly was secretly an arch-nemesis in league with Moriarty and it was all an act. And then I STILL wouldn't be able to watch the Christmas scene without cringing, because I'd still feel embarrassed for Sherlock and everyone else in the room.
Personally, I think part of the issue is also that she's not ACD canon, and people judge her more because she's been added. The other characters are different from ACD canon but still have some basic traits, especially your central people, so we judge them for their differences. But when they add her (and Donovan, because let's face it- ACD's time didn't have many female cops and coroners) it makes us think- why? what purpose does she have?...And if she is just there to represent women, why not judge her as such?
Well, let's face it, the way modern day looks, it wouldn't have made sense if they didn't have women around...and they NEEDED those roles, because it's hardly as though Sherlock could have Lestrade bring up dead bodies to 221B (like in the RDJ films). So, I think, when Gatiss and Moffatt had to add a (possible) recurring character, they made sure to add them in equal parts male and female...so you get Molly and you get Sally...and yes, you can certainly charge them for representing women - but they don't represent women anymore than Irene or Mrs Hudson do, just because they are non-canon. And if you are going to charge them with representing all women, then you must charge John, Sherlock, Anderson, and Lestrade with the task of representing all men.
And, I mean, if you were just going to look at the non-canon recurring characters...I'd guess you'd just have Anderson representing men. Wow. The cheating husband cliche. In my experience that does represent a lot of men, my father included (though my father is much more charismatic, I must say.) It's not a nice representation though.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of different women in the world, and we should not only be showing the ideal ones. I think we should be honest - and honestly, there ARE a lot of women like Molly, and a lot of women like Sally...and a lot of men like Anderson.
Ideally, we'd all be badass women who control our own sexuality and bodies. We'd all be clever. We'd all easily stand toe to toe with the genius in the room...we'd all be able to outwit that genius if we wanted. But we're not like that...some of us are embarrassingly pining for unattainable wankers - some of us our resentful that some man thinks he can come into our job and boss us around, just because he thinks he's smart...and we're perhaps going to be a bit petty about it. And we might not like those things about ourselves, but that doesn't make them not true.
On a completely unrelated note: I don't watch Downton Abbey, so I don't know anything about it...but I get a bit of a kick out of the way Merlin casts it's actors. Because, although Merlin is set in medieval Camelot - they cast actors of colour regardless about whether it makes "historical" sense, or any sense at all. I think this is a strategy that Brits use a lot when they decided that historical accuracy doesn't matter...because it was the same in the Frankenstein play that BC did...his father was played by a black guy, and that was really the first time I had ever seen casting that completely ignored logic - I must admit it threw me a bit, but after watching Merlin, I've really warmed up to it.
no subject
And no, the Christmas scene is still horrendous to watch - not only for Molly's embarrassment, but also for Sherlock's...and nothing that comes afterward will ever make it easy to watch, unless we had found out that Molly was secretly an arch-nemesis in league with Moriarty and it was all an act. And then I STILL wouldn't be able to watch the Christmas scene without cringing, because I'd still feel embarrassed for Sherlock and everyone else in the room.
Personally, I think part of the issue is also that she's not ACD canon, and people judge her more because she's been added. The other characters are different from ACD canon but still have some basic traits, especially your central people, so we judge them for their differences. But when they add her (and Donovan, because let's face it- ACD's time didn't have many female cops and coroners) it makes us think- why? what purpose does she have?...And if she is just there to represent women, why not judge her as such?
Well, let's face it, the way modern day looks, it wouldn't have made sense if they didn't have women around...and they NEEDED those roles, because it's hardly as though Sherlock could have Lestrade bring up dead bodies to 221B (like in the RDJ films). So, I think, when Gatiss and Moffatt had to add a (possible) recurring character, they made sure to add them in equal parts male and female...so you get Molly and you get Sally...and yes, you can certainly charge them for representing women - but they don't represent women anymore than Irene or Mrs Hudson do, just because they are non-canon. And if you are going to charge them with representing all women, then you must charge John, Sherlock, Anderson, and Lestrade with the task of representing all men.
And, I mean, if you were just going to look at the non-canon recurring characters...I'd guess you'd just have Anderson representing men. Wow. The cheating husband cliche. In my experience that does represent a lot of men, my father included (though my father is much more charismatic, I must say.) It's not a nice representation though.
I guess my point is that there are a lot of different women in the world, and we should not only be showing the ideal ones. I think we should be honest - and honestly, there ARE a lot of women like Molly, and a lot of women like Sally...and a lot of men like Anderson.
Ideally, we'd all be badass women who control our own sexuality and bodies. We'd all be clever. We'd all easily stand toe to toe with the genius in the room...we'd all be able to outwit that genius if we wanted. But we're not like that...some of us are embarrassingly pining for unattainable wankers - some of us our resentful that some man thinks he can come into our job and boss us around, just because he thinks he's smart...and we're perhaps going to be a bit petty about it. And we might not like those things about ourselves, but that doesn't make them not true.
On a completely unrelated note: I don't watch Downton Abbey, so I don't know anything about it...but I get a bit of a kick out of the way Merlin casts it's actors. Because, although Merlin is set in medieval Camelot - they cast actors of colour regardless about whether it makes "historical" sense, or any sense at all. I think this is a strategy that Brits use a lot when they decided that historical accuracy doesn't matter...because it was the same in the Frankenstein play that BC did...his father was played by a black guy, and that was really the first time I had ever seen casting that completely ignored logic - I must admit it threw me a bit, but after watching Merlin, I've really warmed up to it.