wildwoodflower

I was commenting on this on Tumblr the other day Re: elementary's Irene. All these 21st century versions seem so regressive in a way. As someone pointed out there, in the original story Irene was not the bad guy. She just wanted to get married. She was smart, steely, talented and practical. She outwitted him. He liked her for it. The modern versions (all three) have rewritten her into a person undone by love. The suggestion being that love is bad and will make you stupid. Especially if you're a woman. I loved Scandal in Belgravia and I loved the irene arc of Elementary, but damn, men writers of the 21st century, come on! Stop being such scaredy-cats and embrace the wonders that are smart women. (Elementary also has a tendency to have every smart woman in recent episodes be the bad guy, cause you know, can't be a smart woman without an evil agenda.)

I just realized I can't post to this thread because I don't know how to hide spoilers, but suffice it to say ALL three programs were great. And I have watched two of them more than once.

Thank you for being a young modern reader who has done due diligence regarding historical context. I have tried to argue this point about the subtext and what modern readers of the text text (both viewed on screen and read in hindsight) see as proof of a sexual relationship or at least deep sexual longing. ACD would have been shocked (as a manly man of his era with certain prejudices) that anyone could believe he was suggesting such a thing about his characters. I also love the way the modern version plays with these modern sensibilities, winks at them and makes fun a little.. But I also find it depressing that our modern cultural lens has a tendency to view all feelings of tenderness or loving regard or basic friendship as secretly sexual (at least in the US). We sexualize everything as a kind of shorthand indicating intimacy. It's kind of lazy writing. The pressure is really on with Elementary because of their Watson being a woman. I hope they can continue to resist hooking them up. I think it's important to show deep abiding love and respect between human beings is possible - even on television! In real life many of us have friends of both genders, gay and straight, and we're not constantly thinking about how to get into each others pants. Well, not usually.

Oh, I wasn't saying that irene's choice of profession was any sort of statement about her agency and free will to act in her own best interests, I'm all for women making choices about how they want to live (she wasn't a slave to a pimp, she was certianly in charge of her life) - I was only commenting on Moffat choosing the profession for her. I actually thought when I first saw the episode that he'd found the right modern version of Irene Adler (adventuress! tm). What I objected to later (after my excitement over the episode's sheer brilliant had faded) was that he did not stay true to the story. He made her a damsel in the end. (The latent romantic in me found that thrilling but the feminist in me said - wait a minute). Irene Adler was not a damsel in any way. She was an admirable woman.Sherlock Holmes found her to be the most admirable of all women. In the show, he clearly admires her intelligence, he finds her challenging, he is clearly aware of her other parts too. But then she loses because of sentiment. In the story she wins because of sentiment. It seemed more authorial intrusion -Moffat the man decides love is for losers. I suppose the ending could be skewed that senitment saved her, but she didn't win. She just survived. Does that explain my wobbly position?

Well, the choice of Irene Adler's profession for one. Although I thought it worked well in context, and was a nod to the profession of the original Adler ("adventuress" being the code for woman who does not live life according to convention aka actress/courtesan), I was a little disappointed that she didn't actually best him (as she did in the story), That it was deemed necessary to have him rescue her, thereby proving that he is the cleverest of all the clever ones. The actual story (for all it's many flaws and lack of actual mystery) was a lifeline to a nerdy smart girl gorwing up in the 1960's. Sherlock Holmes, the smartest man in the world, was outsmarted by a woman and he's okay with it. He LIKES that she's smart. That was important to me. Also, in the story it's love that motivates her, that makes her strong. In "Sherlock" love makes her foolish and strips her of power. Love is a failing and it makes you lose. Of course we could tie it all up and see that love is a motivator for Sherlock at the end of the the series and he loses everything to protect those he loves. I guess things are different for a nerdy (maybe smart) girl who grew up in the 90s. I don't see the need for Irene to prove anything, I like her better as a damaged individual. I also think she actually won and that the way she's portrayed is not necessarily sexist, but I've gone on about that at length elsewhere and won't repeat myself here. "Love is a failing and makes you loose" is, I think, Sherlock's own bitter attitude and not what the show is trying to convey to the audience. That said, I can totally understand why lots of people were not happy with Irene. I see their point, I just don't agree with it. Btw, what do you think of Molly in this context? The fact that so many people (including me) forgot that Molly was even a doctor is point in case. I love the character and I think she provides a humanizing element in a manner that John cannot. I am so glad for that apology and kiss. The thing is, in the stories, Holmes was very gracious to the women that came to him for help. He was respectful (if somewhat patronizing). Does that mean that he only did that because of growing up Victorian and having it drilled into him from infancy? Is Moffat?Gattiss saying that barring this he would be an asshole to everyone? Regarding how things are for nerdy women, I guess they are different for all you young things born in the nineties. Apparently there is no sexism or discrimination in the world anymore as it doesn't directly affect you. In the US, old white men are systematically trying to inhibit the rights to reproductive freedoms (which us girls in the 60's worked so hard to make possibile for our children and grandchildren). I'm saying just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Mr. Moffat is a human being with flaws. he's a good writer and very inventive but he has blindspots and limitations just like anyone else. One of those blindspots is female characterizations. Even the glorious invention of Professor River Song in Doctor Who was borrowed from a character in the Virgin New Adventures of Doctor Who series a brilliant character Professor Berneice (Benny) Summerfield.(Although Moffat's own character of Sally in Blink is pretty awesome)

This is why I personally can't stand Sally Donovan - the "freak" isn't actually insulting her, at all. He throws all kinds of insults at Anderson (so I can fully understand why he'd hate Sherlock) but he's distant to Sally, nothing worse. He doesn't even snipe back when she calls him freak right when we first see them together in Episode 1. Anderson's reaction is warranted in a way, but Sally's nothing but a petty bully in my eyes. I think there was meant to be more backstory to justify it. Or if there isn't there should be. Probably why fanfiction writers (the good ones not the ones who write punishment scenarios for her) try to give her some justifcation for disliking him so ... personally. She wishes him ill and is a tiny bit glad when the evidence begins to add up (though she dare not show it) because it justifies her feelings. Why does she have those feelings? What has occurred between them that she has those feelings? We don't see him insulting her (except in her choice of men). We can speculate all we want and say oh she feels this way or e feels that way, but we can only really go by the evidence on the screen. What have the characters shown us? What have the writers given them to show us? What did the actors have to bring to the characters themselves?

Well, the choice of Irene Adler's profession for one. Although I thought it worked well in context, and was a nod to the profession of the original Adler ("adventuress" being the code for woman who does not live life according to convention aka actress/courtesan), I was a little disappointed that she didn't actually best him (as she did in the story), That it was deemed necessary to have him rescue her, thereby proving that he is the cleverest of all the clever ones. The actual story (for all it's many flaws and lack of actual mystery) was a lifeline to a nerdy smart girl gorwing up in the 1960's. Sherlock Holmes, the smartest man in the world, was outsmarted by a woman and he's okay with it. He LIKES that she's smart. That was important to me. Also, in the story it's love that motivates her, that makes her strong. In "Sherlock" love makes her foolish and strips her of power. Love is a failing and it makes you lose. Of course we could tie it all up and see that love is a motivator for Sherlock at the end of the the series and he loses everything to protect those he loves.

Or, like you, they read the stories. Doesn't take a genius to borrow and reference another's work. Yikes, I'm grumpy today. Sorry, I "have" to comment on this. No, it takes no special talents just to borrow somebody else's ideas or quote somebody. But what has been done with "Sherlock" in reference to the source is brilliant. It is quite difficult to write any literary adaptation but to make something great out of a huge collection of mediocre detective stories that were written over a hundred years ago by a man who just needed the money and therefore didn't care much for consistency or character development, that would normally only work if you simply took the central idea (a genius and a doctor solve crimes together) and ran off with it in your own direction. Instead, the show is brimming over with not just loving nods to it's source but very intelligent transformations of Doyle's ideas. For example, look at what they did with the main character. Sherlock is more than just a good portrait of Holmes, he's got a depth and complexity to him that the stories only hint at. Yes, they are both very clever men and I always get a tingle when I can spot the references to the originals. It's just there are some things I know about Mr Moffat (regarding Doctor Who, not Sherlock) that make me cringe everytime I see him praised for his brilliance. Personal knowledge not hearsay. A lack of respect for women doesn't help me think well of him either. But I do love what he's done with Sherlock.

Getting all pedantic on you all. Back in the day (when the originals were written) it was common for people to let out rooms in their own homes that offered meals, housekeeping, and laundry service as part of the agreement. As you might expect, single men were the most common lodgers. Holmes and Watson were lodgers in her house. She was both landlady and housekeeper (although she had a girl helping out which is also mentioned in cannon and this tiny mention was the inspiration for my novel). For modern Mrs Hudon to make the distinction is a nod to that I imagine.

Harrison Ford is in Ender's Game which comes out very soon, so that's possibly why he's making the rounds. The first time I saw Harrison Ford was in an episode of Kung Fu when he was a contract actor for one of the big studios. He was one of the very last actors to be hired that way. The system was dead by then and didn't do him much good which might be why he'd gone back to contract carpentry by the time he was hired for Star Wars.

I'm going to GeekGirl con this coming weekend so couldn't jusitfy two trips to Seattle, but I will be going to the sherlock Holmes Exhibit. And BBC Sherlock was mentioned in the local news about it. I got the impression all were represented back to Basil Rathbone and before that the plays. I've been to the Sherlock Holmes museum in London and the drawing room consulting room set up looks exactly the same. I didn't like that one much.

Well, I live in Portland. Isn't that lovely?

I'm actually looking forward to it. I like Elementary. I like the take on Sherlock JLM has chosen. For me it's not a compettion between the two moderns because the more Sherlocks in the world the better the world is. It's all interpretation and with an iconic character like Sherlock it's wide open to interpretation as much as Hamlet or MacBeth or Lear right? Part of the fun is seeing what different actors bring to the role. JLM has pulled out the more, um, humanitarian aspects of Holmes (for all that the character is still an asshole and finds people stupid and annoying). That aspect is there in the stories, his being so often on the side of the little guy, the downtrodden, the most vulnerable in society. JLM's Sherlock still likes a challenging puzzle but frets when he thinks his actions might cause a woman to be permanently separated from her child. He wants to be useful. I'm not a shipper, I'm not the kind of fan who can't handle change (I have loved every incarnation of the Doctor that has ever been and will love this new one just as much if not more). But I love love LOVE BBC Sherlock and am jonesing for it to come back to me NOW, So... Room for all. Room for all.

Well he does seem to get away with it though. Although he's horribly disfigured, the wealthy young woman he was engaged to doesn't leave him (see may never have seen the book) and instead decides to dedicate her life to taking care of him (or something like that) and Holmes burns the book in the stove or fireplace rather than having given it over to the young lady so she'd know what kind of a man she intended to marry. It's the fact that the 'prostitute' had herself been disfigured in the show - that may have been intended so that her act of throwing acid in his face seemed justified.

I just finished re-reading "The Illustrious Client" and realized that the Jeremy Bret Holmes series had changed the story quite a lot. Which, I'm not sure why they did that. The solution - the saving of the young woman from a disastrous (and possibly fatal) marriage involved a book kept by the bad guy (the Victorian version of secret sex tapes made by the bad guy with various young women he'd used and ruined) that Holmes finds and shows to the young lady which proves her fiance was an evil cad. In the story a girl that he has ruined also tries to convince the girl that the man is evil only because she wants him to suffer for what he did to her (which is turn her to prostitution and then abandon her we can assume from the subtle hints in the texts). This girl ends up throwing acid on the bad guys face and he ends up a broken man blind and disfigured and unable to ruin anyone ever again. In the series, the "prostitute" has been disfigured by acid and she does likewise to him. The wealthy young lady ends up taking care of the fiance and presumably marrying him, and Holmes burns the book - I don't remember if he showed it to the girl and she refused to look at it or what - but the results are very different.

I come from Mormon people (though I don't practice and never have) and I think a lot of the offense back then (and even now) had to do with the man they called a prophet and his presumptious ursurping of certain Christian beliefs. It is still considered a religious cult by many Christians rather than an actual religion. Conan Doyle, like many of his contemporaries, had a number of unexamined prejudices that showed up in his work and were accepted at face value by his reading public. Prejudices that I believe a man of logic such as Holmes would not have.

Did A Study in Scarlett have the whole Utal villifying Mormons stuff in it? I'd forgotten. I think it played best when they glossed over some of the more egregious and blatant racist, sexist, and generally (authorial) prejudices present in some of the stories.

This is a long held guilty pleasure of mine. As teenagers, my kids were known to break into "Why don't we all drink some very sexy wine," to distract me when I was pissed off at them. If they could start me laughing then their transgressions were forgotten. I love Gene Wilder so so much. He's one of very favorites Holmes:-)

Hazel eyes changing color according to mood? I have hazel eyes and I am given to many diverse moods (aka moodiness, so I'm told:-) and no one has ever mentioned my eyes appear to be a different color according to whether I'm pissed off or ... more pissed off. What I'm wearing, yes, Lighting, my state of health, all those affect the way the color appears, but actaully changing color according to mood? No.

Well, I like them both and both interpretations are really fantastic (though I agree that BBC Sherlock is a better show and altogether much more fun) but JLM is more physically close to the description of Holmes by Watson in A Study in Scarlet - you know the high-forehead, thin-lips. I think JLM is amazing in the role (even if the show isn't as sparkly).. I also think BC is amazing in the role and I am perfectly content to feast upon any iteration of Sherlock as long as they keep giving them to me.

Which is so strange considering that we can very nearly do that now. Twenty-five more years at most and designer babies are a given (not arguing the morality, only the bioengineering technology. Although I thought the Eugenics Wars that resulted in Khan and his people were supposed to take place at the end of the 20th century). I saw this movie as a period piece with a future world view firmly entrenched in the late 1960's, enlivened with better special effects.

There was a shower scene?

Just saw it on the regular screen and it was lovely. I am an ancient Star Trek girl though. Saw the very first episode with Dad and brothers at aged 11. I love the reboot, embrace it wholheartedly and the concept is delicious for those of us who remember the firsts, the way the timeline alterations have things looping back on themselves but eerily twisted though the characters remain essentially true to themselves. And Ben is very cool as the bad man. All that assurance and charm so you want to sympathize and then - bam! - he crushes your head. Literally. I didn't 3D, but I might go see it at an IMAx theater. .

Elementary went there. I'm not going to spoiler it by even attaching a spoiler.

Or it could be he took no action because he felt that since she, in her own words, "misbehaves" that she was responsible for her own demise. He knew that the American CIA was willing to threaten and maybe even kill people to get the phone, so who else was there out in the big wide world that would be willing to do the same? He told Mycroft that the phone was her get out of jail card. Without it she was in nothing but trouble. And the CIA were onto her before he was. He and John just happened to be at her house in time to save her from them. Ooh. guessing you're a Sherlock/John shipper . But that's what I mean, though. Right there, you are speculating and extrapolating from the information told us by the characters. Sherlock doesn't tell us how he feels about it. We can only speculate about his feelings. Are you suggesting he feels her death was no more than she deserved for "misbehaving" though? Is that what he's implied with his words? What does he imply to the audience with his actions, though? He wonders if there is something wrong with him and Mycroft. He takes the cigarette and lights up. He plays sad music and withdraws. So he may say one thing (and believe it) but what he does iplies something else. I'm not saying I know what his actions imply, only that they are framed in such a way to imply a sense of confusion and loss. That's what makes BBC Sherlock better storytelling than Elementary. IMO. I still like Elementary though:-)