Molly Hooper

[Hikari]

I don't ship Sherlock with Molly; I don't ship Sherlock with anyone, as I've said before.  But if I absolutely had to ship Sherlock with someone, it would be Janine before Molly, because I thought their chemistry was more balanced.  She can keep up with him, she is quick and better suited to his personality.  Molly is too wholesome and mild-mannered for Sherlock's acerbic wit and dark psychology.  She shares his scientific interests, and has insight into a different side of him that is normally concealed to everyone else: The sad side, because she identifies with it.  But she has a harder time following him intellectually and playfully, and realistically I think he would need that.  (Speaking of the sad side, one could speculate that he's often so callously dismissive of Molly because he's also dismissive of the side of himself she perceives and identifies with.)

 

At any rate, I'm with Toby and Hikari on this, and I identify with Molly, which lends realism to her character for me.  I understand what it's like to have no friends or family around (if indeed that is her situation), and in no way do I find it difficult to believe, or even surprising; kindness and probity don't guarantee either.  In regard to the clothes, since that seems to be a big thing: It's not all that uncommon for an awkward, nerdy, cerebral type to pay little mind to the clothes on their body.  I actually am that walking cliché, so it's real to me, lol.  It's a stereotype, but not really a caricature; we are out there.  Growing up, all my clothes came ill-fitted and in ugly patterns from garage sales.  My parents never taught me how to dress.  As an adult, I still don't do it well, and I still forget to give it attention, because clothes were never anything more than functional to me.  They existed to make sure I wasn't naked, and that's it.  The one thing my parents did make sure to do was have me dress up for special occasions (Christmas with friends would count).  So Molly's Christmas outfit didn't strike me as anything overdressed or out of place, I would have thought it was normal.  (Her earrings were gaudy for my taste, but that's purely subjective.  I liked her little Christmas bow barrette.)  It's easy to become oblivious to social conventions if there was no one who took an interest in explaining them to you.  Not to mention, if we were going to criticize someone for being overdressed for the occasion, we could just as easily turn it towards Sherlock.  I wouldn't expect to see a man in a suit coat (or whatever you call that) in most environments.  (I'm not criticizing the way Sherlock dresses, just to be clear. ^_^ I think it's spiffy.)

 

Artemis,

 

Re. this post about Molly . .I gave you a Like earlier and wanted to say how insightful I think it is.

 

The Christmas Drinkies scene is one of the reasons I rate ASiB so highly--it's one of the standout scenes of the entire series, in my opinion (along with Tea in the Palace) . .and as we note, Adler is in neither, except as a reference.  'Christmas Drinkies at 221b' could be the title of this little one-act play-within-a-play.  Sherlock is really at his caustic and dismissive worst in this scene, and Molly gets the brunt of it.  I chalk it up to SH being uncomfortable/angry about having his inner sanctum invaded by People! . . despite the fact that everyone in the room for this very small party (with the exception of Jeannette, Watson girlfriend-du-jour) counts as 'his closest friends'.  SH has to set the terms in order to be sanguine about interactions with People, and in this case, it's very obvious that the drinks party was John's idea, no doubt egged on by Mrs. Hudson, so he could introduce his new girlfriend 'round to the most important people in his life. 

 

Sherlock is being a spectacular b*tthole, not even ripping his eyes away from the laptop while he issues imperious declarations ('Don't make jokes, Molly.', or status updates about Lestrade's marriage: "No--she's sleeping with the P.E. teacher.)  Though the observant viewer will take note that Sherl is wearing his very best shirt (the purple one) for the occasion.  I am surprised that he made the effort.  We see that while SH is perfectly unfazed about being naked at Buckingham Palace and--potentially--in front of the Queen of England, he's not brave enough to go around in a sheet in front of a roomful of his inner circle.  But he puts off his Beast-like lack of couth when he realizes that he's really gone and done it--hurt Molly--and redeems his humanity with an apology.  By the look on John's face at that moment, he telegraphs that Sherlock Holmes Apologizing happens somewhat less frequently than a full solar eclipse--and the person that inspired this extremely rare event was Molly--who, as far as she knows at this point, 'doesn't count.'

 

Molly hopes in the face of--despite--bitter experiences to the contrary that her hope is not justified.  Maybe not just in Sherlock's wished-for reciprocated feelings, but perhaps everything in her life has gone this way.  In S4 we see that 'sometimes inappropriately bubbly trying-too-hard' Molly is gone.  That scene at her door where she gives Sherlock the letter from John and tells him 'you don't need to read it now' (ie,. 'Please leave my sight immediately because it hurts too much to keep looking at you')--it's like something has died behind Molly's eyes.  Her hope has been a casualty of knowing SH just a bit too well.  Would she be able to work collegiately with him at the lab after events between them in S4?  That would require more bravery or more masochism than I think I possess.  I think it'd be far too awkward to continue to work together.  Maybe SH could forget it and move on, but I think that telephone call was the coup de grace for Molly's quest to be more to Sherlock Holmes than the wallpaper.

 

[Boton]

 

 

Depending on how pathetic you think Molly is will likely influence how you interpret that line.

I wouldn't say that. I don't consider Molly pathetic by any means, regardless of how alone she is (or isn't). I think it more depends on how much emotion you read in the presentation. If you see it as a matter-of-fact statement, then sure. I just see something more than that.

 

But yes, like you say, either way of looking at it has merit.

That’s true. When watching that scene I didn’t sense any sadness in the way the line was said so I did see it as a matter of fact statement rather than any underlying subtext or meaning behind it.

 

 

I always hear that line as sad, and, yes, pathetic. There she stands, her hair and makeup still done but her fancy dress off and another of her horrid shapeless sweaters, and, to me, she's clearly thinking that she was hoping that this evening would end with her staring into Sherlock's eyes, but she's doing it over the dead body of a woman he clearly has seen naked. (And maybe, I hope, has already slept with.)

 

 

 

This is exactly what bothers me most about BBC Irene.  In the original story, Holmes held her in such high regard not only for her intelligence, but also for her moral character.  The fact of her being morally incorruptible says something not only about her, but about Holmes as a principled man.  What he respects in others points to his own moral character as well, and I didn't like that that aspect was omitted in the BBC Sherlock/Irene relationship.

 

 

Damn, I'm 0/2 today then, because I don't read the original as Holmes holding Irene in particularly high regard.  Or, more to the point, the reason that he does so is that she is a Bohemian like him, not quite acceptable in polite social circles.  And I hope he slept with her here, too.   :D

[T.o.b.y]

 

I always hear that line as sad, and, yes, pathetic. There she stands, her hair and makeup still done but her fancy dress off and another of her horrid shapeless sweaters, and, to me, she's clearly thinking that she was hoping that this evening would end with her staring into Sherlock's eyes, but she's doing it over the dead body of a woman he clearly has seen naked. (And maybe, I hope, has already slept with.)

 

Awwwwwww, this just makes me want to swoop into the morgue and invite Molly out for hot chocolate and gingerbread! And I would use a variation of Sam's line from "The Perks of Being a Wallflower": Come on, let's be pathetic together!

 

[Artemis]

Irene never used her "camera-phone" for communication. It was in her safe all the time, then she sent it to Sherlock.

Oh right, I forgot she used another phone.

 

I just thought of something. Wasn't it Irene's camera-phone that Sherlock was reading all the old texts on at the end of the episode, after John gave it to him (and after which he set it "lovingly" inside the drawer)?

 

That part always confused me too, because John said it had been stripped, so why would the texts still be on there?

[Boton]

 

 

Irene never used her "camera-phone" for communication. It was in her safe all the time, then she sent it to Sherlock.

Oh right, I forgot she used another phone.

I just thought of something. Wasn't it Irene's camera-phone that Sherlock was reading all the old texts on at the end of the episode, after John gave it to him (and after which he set it "lovingly" inside the drawer)?

 

That part always confused me too, because John said it had been stripped, so why would the texts still be on there?

 

 

Yeah, I think you're right.  But I think you can invent a couple of plausible excuses:

 

1. The only things stripped were the data that would compromise national security. So, the texts were on there along with her half-played games of Bejeweled or whatever.

 

2. John doesn't know squat.  He was given a baggie that contained the file on Irene; it should actually have information in it about what Irene was up to, and that would include anything on her phone. 

 

I think John was probably trying to invent a reason for Sherlock not to keep the phone, because he thought it would bring up bad memories for Sherlock. Honestly, the whole scene makes very little sense, because if the file as a whole contained anything important, Mycroft wouldn't have let it out of his sight, and also there was no reason for John to bring it all upstairs, say "hey, I just ran into Mycroft and Irene's in witness protection, and by the way, Mycroft is waiting downstairs for me to return this file I just walked upstairs with. But he won't notice a missing phone."

[bedelia1984]

 

....This is exactly what bothers me most about BBC Irene.  In the original story, Holmes held her in such high regard not only for her intelligence, but also for her moral character.  The fact of her being morally incorruptible says something not only about her, but about Holmes as a principled man.  What he respects in others points to his own moral character as well, and I didn't like that that aspect was omitted in the BBC Sherlock/Irene relationship.

 

 

I'm not a Holmes purist, in fact I prefer the series to the ACD books (sorry!), but this is exactly why I dislike Irene's character- because I think Sherlock showing admiration for her actually cheapens him. The whole saucy dominatrix bit seems so bog-standard men's magazine material, that it makes me think a bit less of Sherlock to see him fall for it- and especially to fall for her blatant manipulation of him too. And, most of all, the fact that she doesn't have a strong moral character. Maybe our Sherlock isn't made of the same stuff of the original morally, but we do see glimpses of goodness and a belief in what is right in other episodes, so it's disappointing to see him so taken by somebody more on Moriarty's side of the game.

 

Maybe one aspect of all this that bothers me is the implication, by the series putting this new spin on Irene, is that in 'modern times' morals have become sort of outdated- which I don't believe is true, and I don't think is an aspect of Sherlock  as a characterthat needed change or updating.

 

 

The Christmas Drinkies scene is one of the reasons I rate ASiB so highly--it's one of the standout scenes of the entire series, in my opinion (along with Tea in the Palace) . .and as we note, Adler is in neither, except as a reference.  'Christmas Drinkies at 221b' could be the title of this little one-act play-within-a-play.  Sherlock is really at his caustic and dismissive worst in this scene, and Molly gets the brunt of it.  I chalk it up to SH being uncomfortable/angry about having his inner sanctum invaded by People! . . despite the fact that everyone in the room for this very small party (with the exception of Jeannette, Watson girlfriend-du-jour) counts as 'his closest friends'.  SH has to set the terms in order to be sanguine about interactions with People, and in this case, it's very obvious that the drinks party was John's idea, no doubt egged on by Mrs. Hudson, so he could introduce his new girlfriend 'round to the most important people in his life. 

 

 

I completely agree, it is one of the scenes that made me fall in love with the show. I think it is because of how much we learn about the characters through their interactions- it is uncomfortable to watch and yet almost perfectly constructed, so well written and acted- how often does television actually make you squirm when you watch it?

[Artemis]

Yeah, I think you're right. But I think you can invent a couple of plausible excuses:

 

I think that could answer the second part of my question, but then how do we make sense of some of the things I was asking about earlier, such as how the "Mantelpiece" text was sent to Sherlock from her camera-phone as it was sitting there on the mantelpiece? Is there an app for that? :P Seriously though, I could probably invent some plausible excuses for that too, but it's starting to seem awfully convoluted. :/

[Boton]

 

Yeah, I think you're right. But I think you can invent a couple of plausible excuses:

I think that could answer the second part of my question, but then how do we make sense of some of the things I was asking about earlier, such as how the "Mantelpiece" text was sent to Sherlock from her camera-phone as it was sitting there on the mantelpiece? Is there an app for that? :P Seriously though, I could probably invent some plausible excuses for that too, but it's starting to seem awfully convoluted. :/

 

Actually, hubby and I were looking for just such an app a week or so ago: something that would let you pre-schedule a text to be sent at a later time.  Surely, if you can schedule social media posts, you can schedule texts somehow.

 

But to your larger point, yes, it gets convoluted.  And I am guilty of the fact that, unlike many, I like the flirtation and the give and take between Sherlock and Irene, and I enjoy the unconventional romance enough that I don't care one whit about whether or not the mystery makes sense. One of the little gifts that Moftiss gave to me is the smart-aleck mention by John of Sherlock meeting Irene in High Wycombe or wherever.  Man, I have a whole fan fiction written in my head of what that looks like whenever they meet.  This fan fic will never see the light of day, by the way.   :D

[Artemis]

I'm not a Holmes purist, in fact I prefer the series to the ACD books (sorry!),

 

Don't be sorry, neither am I. ^_^

 

Maybe one aspect of all this that bothers me is the implication, by the series putting this new spin on Irene, is that in 'modern times' morals have become sort of outdated- which I don't believe is true, and I don't think is an aspect of Sherlock as a character that needed change or updating.

 

Interesting point! That's something that bugs me too but I wasn't able to pinpoint before.

[Artemis]

Actually, hubby and I were looking for just such an app a week or so ago: something that would let you pre-schedule a text to be sent at a later time. Surely, if you can schedule social media posts, you can schedule texts somehow.

 

Yeah, I assume there is something like that out there now, or at least it could be hacked to do so. But what about in 2012, with a BlackBerry? (That was a BlackBerry, right?) I donno, I'm not all that familiar with phone stuff.

 

I know it's not all that important, but I like things to make sense, lol. That's part of the enjoyment for me.

[Hikari]

 

 

 

Depending on how pathetic you think Molly is will likely influence how you interpret that line.

I wouldn't say that. I don't consider Molly pathetic by any means, regardless of how alone she is (or isn't). I think it more depends on how much emotion you read in the presentation. If you see it as a matter-of-fact statement, then sure. I just see something more than that.

 

But yes, like you say, either way of looking at it has merit.

That’s true. When watching that scene I didn’t sense any sadness in the way the line was said so I did see it as a matter of fact statement rather than any underlying subtext or meaning behind it.

 

 

I always hear that line as sad, and, yes, pathetic. There she stands, her hair and makeup still done but her fancy dress off and another of her horrid shapeless sweaters, and, to me, she's clearly thinking that she was hoping that this evening would end with her staring into Sherlock's eyes, but she's doing it over the dead body of a woman he clearly has seen naked. (And maybe, I hope, has already slept with.)

 

 

 

This is exactly what bothers me most about BBC Irene.  In the original story, Holmes held her in such high regard not only for her intelligence, but also for her moral character.  The fact of her being morally incorruptible says something not only about her, but about Holmes as a principled man.  What he respects in others points to his own moral character as well, and I didn't like that that aspect was omitted in the BBC Sherlock/Irene relationship.

 

 

Damn, I'm 0/2 today then, because I don't read the original as Holmes holding Irene in particularly high regard.  Or, more to the point, the reason that he does so is that she is a Bohemian like him, not quite acceptable in polite social circles.  And I hope he slept with her here, too.   :D

 

 

"To Sherlock Holmes, she is always THE Woman.  I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name.  In his eyes, she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex".  (JHW, A Scandal in Bohemia)

 

Dr. Watson goes on at some length (a whole paragraph) about how SH jibed and scoffed at 'the softer passions', how he'd have been in a false position as a lover, how love and all that squicky stuff was the 'grit in a sensitive instrument, the crack in the lens, yada, yada . . .And yet, writes the Doctor . . 'And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler.'  (Instructively, Watson closes his sentence and his whole meditation on Adler by calling her 'of dubious and questionable memory'.)

 

Since the actions and words of Adler that follow this pronouncement show that Irene is a forthright person with no stain on her character, that's a bit of sour grapes from Watson, think I.  Tinged with a sort of possessive jealousy, perhaps, Doctor?  Because the intrepid Irene had, by employing Holmes's own methodology to beat him, earned the Great Detective's admiration, and that was not something Watson, who admired so many ladies in his time, could say about his friend, that he made any habit of admiring women.  With her canny mind, her resourcefulness, her artistic temperament and her bohemian sensibilities, Adler was far more like Holmes than Watson was.   SH's acknowledgement of her specialness and primacy of place (*The* Woman) points to this, so I can only imagine that Watson felt a bit threatened, perhaps, by Adler.  That if Holmes had wished to make a domestic partnership with a woman, rather than with him, Watson, it was obvious that Adler would have been the only candidate in contention, and, had these two unconventional bohemian great intellects joined forces, the very conventional, bourgeois Watson would have been out on his ear.

 

Of course, that never happened.  Though one of the extra-canonical nuggets close to the Sherlockian heart is the belief that Holmes and Adler *did* meet again, after the death of her husband, Godfrey Norton, and they had a brief but all the more passionate for it love affair that resulted in a love child . .who grew up to be Nero Wolfe.  Nero obviously inherited his father's gift for deduction, his uncle Mycroft's metabolism, and art in the blood from both his parents.  In Nero's case, the artistic beauty comes out in his gift for horticulture (orchids).

 

I guess what is 'dubious' or 'questionable' is the exact nature of SH's feelings or memories about The Woman, but the why Watson (writing through the Literary Agent) phrased it, it seems like he was casting some doubt or question upon the lady's character.  Kind of makes me wonder if ACD did not at first envision Adler as more ofa villainous hussy than she ended up being--closer to the BBC version, in fact, before he pulled back and at the end of the story presents a cool-headed but quite admirable woman instead.  Doesn't JW sound a bit like a jealous boyfriend when writing that opening paragraph, though.

 

However Sherlock Holmes came to remember The Woman in later years, my money's on a torrid month in Paris, circa 1894, when as far as Watson knew, Holmes was dead.  But before SH came back from the dead and returned to London, he and The (only) Woman (for him) created new life . . .Nero Wolfe was born in 1895, they say, at the apex of his pater's Very Good Year.  Works for me.

 

Of course Watson never mentions any of this.  He wouldn't, based on his historical animosity toward Adler. 

[gerry]

Molly hopes in the face of--despite--bitter experiences to the contrary that her hope is not justified. Maybe not just in Sherlock's wished-for reciprocated feelings, but perhaps everything in her life has gone this way. In S4 we see that 'sometimes inappropriately bubbly trying-too-hard' Molly is gone. That scene at her door where she gives Sherlock the letter from John and tells him 'you don't need to read it now' (ie,. 'Please leave my sight immediately because it hurts too much to keep looking at you')--it's like something has died behind Molly's eyes. Her hope has been a casualty of knowing SH just a bit too well. Would she be able to work collegiately with him at the lab after events between them in S4? That would require more bravery or more masochism than I think I possess. I think it'd be far too awkward to continue to work together. Maybe SH could forget it and move on, but I think that telephone call was the coup de grace for Molly's quest to be more to Sherlock Holmes than the wallpaper.

 

first to answer your question I never updated the favorite episode questions in my profile. Whatever is showing is the default when you create a username. My favorite ep of series 2 is TRF. I dislike ASIB for the same reasons people here like it: the end which I explained in the villian thread, Irene in general and the xmas scene. Sherlock is so unnecessarily cruel in the xmas scene that I find no enjoyment or appreciation in the scene nor do I find his apology remotely close to making up for what he said/did. It’s one of the scenes that makes me come very close to hating the character.

 

I do agree about s4 Molly though and have wondered why Molly would want to be Sherlock’s friend post ILY call. This of course is why happy Molly in the TFP montage made no sense to me.

[Hikari]

 

 

....This is exactly what bothers me most about BBC Irene.  In the original story, Holmes held her in such high regard not only for her intelligence, but also for her moral character.  The fact of her being morally incorruptible says something not only about her, but about Holmes as a principled man.  What he respects in others points to his own moral character as well, and I didn't like that that aspect was omitted in the BBC Sherlock/Irene relationship.

 

 

I'm not a Holmes purist, in fact I prefer the series to the ACD books (sorry!), but this is exactly why I dislike Irene's character- because I think Sherlock showing admiration for her actually cheapens him. The whole saucy dominatrix bit seems so bog-standard men's magazine material, that it makes me think a bit less of Sherlock to see him fall for it- and especially to fall for her blatant manipulation of him too. And, most of all, the fact that she doesn't have a strong moral character. Maybe our Sherlock isn't made of the same stuff of the original morally, but we do see glimpses of goodness and a belief in what is right in other episodes, so it's disappointing to see him so taken by somebody more on Moriarty's side of the game.

 

Maybe one aspect of all this that bothers me is the implication, by the series putting this new spin on Irene, is that in 'modern times' morals have become sort of outdated- which I don't believe is true, and I don't think is an aspect of Sherlock  as a characterthat needed change or updating.

 

 

The Christmas Drinkies scene is one of the reasons I rate ASiB so highly--it's one of the standout scenes of the entire series, in my opinion (along with Tea in the Palace) . .and as we note, Adler is in neither, except as a reference.  'Christmas Drinkies at 221b' could be the title of this little one-act play-within-a-play.  Sherlock is really at his caustic and dismissive worst in this scene, and Molly gets the brunt of it.  I chalk it up to SH being uncomfortable/angry about having his inner sanctum invaded by People! . . despite the fact that everyone in the room for this very small party (with the exception of Jeannette, Watson girlfriend-du-jour) counts as 'his closest friends'.  SH has to set the terms in order to be sanguine about interactions with People, and in this case, it's very obvious that the drinks party was John's idea, no doubt egged on by Mrs. Hudson, so he could introduce his new girlfriend 'round to the most important people in his life. 

 

 

I completely agree, it is one of the scenes that made me fall in love with the show. I think it is because of how much we learn about the characters through their interactions- it is uncomfortable to watch and yet almost perfectly constructed, so well written and acted- how often does television actually make you squirm when you watch it?

 

 

Ah, Christmas drinkies . .completely squirm-worthy holiday fare, yes.  But I think the Brits like their Christmases squirm-worthy--they always air such unsentimental programs at that time of year.  If a beloved major series character is going to die, it will be on Christmas Day (Inspector Morse, Matthew Crawley, future Lord Grantham) . .or else it will be a grisly, mayhem-filled extravaganza like 'And Then There Were None'.  The Brits have been serving up murder for Christmas for eons . .what's a little family dysfunction? 

 

What's so great about that scene isn't even the scene-hogging misanthropy exhibited by Sherl . . it's the finely-calibrated reactions of the supporting players, in some blink-or-you'll miss 'em moments. Witness the bravura micro-acting going on in the background as Rupert Graves shows that Lestrade has registered Sherl's comment about the P.E. teacher and his wife and knows that SH is right and he's living in a fantasy land.  Or Lestrade's reaction to the dressed-up Molly.  *He doesn't think her endowments are insufficient.  And of course, in the background, Martin Freeman's parade of reaction faces to Sherlock's behaviors.  John intuits that Molly dressed up for Sherl and comes bearing gifts for Sherl, so as SH winds up his rant about ''Miss Hooper having lurve on her mind", John's face is saying 'Oh, Sh*t, Oh Shi*t!' in patented MF fashion.

 

'Scandal' is also the first introduction of 'That Hat' and the 1895 motif . . what's not to like? 

 

P.S.  An online correspondent said, in reaction to 'Christmas Drinkies', that she had an autistic son and watching Sherlock, she got a preview of future Christmas parties, at which she predicted he would act just that way.  It was both funny and sad.

[Hikari]

 

 

....This is exactly what bothers me most about BBC Irene.  In the original story, Holmes held her in such high regard not only for her intelligence, but also for her moral character.  The fact of her being morally incorruptible says something not only about her, but about Holmes as a principled man.  What he respects in others points to his own moral character as well, and I didn't like that that aspect was omitted in the BBC Sherlock/Irene relationship.

 

 

I'm not a Holmes purist, in fact I prefer the series to the ACD books (sorry!), but this is exactly why I dislike Irene's character- because I think Sherlock showing admiration for her actually cheapens him. The whole saucy dominatrix bit seems so bog-standard men's magazine material, that it makes me think a bit less of Sherlock to see him fall for it- and especially to fall for her blatant manipulation of him too. And, most of all, the fact that she doesn't have a strong moral character. Maybe our Sherlock isn't made of the same stuff of the original morally, but we do see glimpses of goodness and a belief in what is right in other episodes, so it's disappointing to see him so taken by somebody more on Moriarty's side of the game.

 

Maybe one aspect of all this that bothers me is the implication, by the series putting this new spin on Irene, is that in 'modern times' morals have become sort of outdated- which I don't believe is true, and I don't think is an aspect of Sherlock  as a characterthat needed change or updating.

 

 

The Christmas Drinkies scene is one of the reasons I rate ASiB so highly--it's one of the standout scenes of the entire series, in my opinion (along with Tea in the Palace) . .and as we note, Adler is in neither, except as a reference.  'Christmas Drinkies at 221b' could be the title of this little one-act play-within-a-play.  Sherlock is really at his caustic and dismissive worst in this scene, and Molly gets the brunt of it.  I chalk it up to SH being uncomfortable/angry about having his inner sanctum invaded by People! . . despite the fact that everyone in the room for this very small party (with the exception of Jeannette, Watson girlfriend-du-jour) counts as 'his closest friends'.  SH has to set the terms in order to be sanguine about interactions with People, and in this case, it's very obvious that the drinks party was John's idea, no doubt egged on by Mrs. Hudson, so he could introduce his new girlfriend 'round to the most important people in his life. 

 

 

I completely agree, it is one of the scenes that made me fall in love with the show. I think it is because of how much we learn about the characters through their interactions- it is uncomfortable to watch and yet almost perfectly constructed, so well written and acted- how often does television actually make you squirm when you watch it?

 

 

Bedelia,

 

You raise a good point . ..in 2012, the best the writers could come up with for 'adventuress' to echo the original was to make Adler a high-class hooker and part of the seamy (illegal) sex trade.  The aim was to titillate and it was distressingly banal to go this route.  In fact, I got my S2 copy of the DVD cheap from a disgruntled viewer who hadn't even watched a third of it.  Compared to the original, it is pretty tawdry.  And I think we have examples all around us of the moral relativism which is so prevalent in our age, in which adherence to moral codes is 'old-fashioned' and therefore irrelevant to our modern age.  When ACD wrote the story, merely being photographed with a woman not one's wife was enough of a scandal to topple a royal house . . being seen even speaking once too often to a gentleman not one's husband or fiancée or even the intimation that she had done so were enough to ruin a woman's reputation.  A stainless character, sexually speaking, was a woman's most precious possession.  The rules were, as ever, considerably looser for the lads, but it was still important to be *seen* to be a gentleman of impeccable behavior.

 

Being a theatrical type or an artist, especially unmarried, was not a job undertaken by conservative, conventional women, because the tacit (sometimes not tacit) belief was that they were all women of low virtue and easy, even if they didn't accept money for sexual favors, which many actresses and theatrical folk did do.  I guess 'dominatrix' is our 21st century equivalent for scandal quotient. 

 

I don't think our 21st century Sherlock wants to have sex with this Adler.  She's hot for him, obviously.  For someone with no sexual experience, to take up with a professional prostitute would be hitting above his weight . . I think the prospect would be intimidating, and SH does not get involved in situations unless he's sure he can master them.  Adler does intrigue him, though . . on a more intellectual level.   He cannot read her or easily deduce her plans.  She has him wrong-footed, and it's a novel sensation.  He's attracted to her in the sense of being a puzzle without an easy solution, and this not-knowing drives him to try and 'solve' her--which he does, in the end.  In the area of her expertise, he has less interest.  He dismissed her with some fairly scathing words about "You cater to the whims of the pathetic and take your clothes off to make an impression."  Ouch.  But she still shows up in his Mind Palace years later.  Humans are complicated creatures and that goes double for Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just thought of something. Wasn't it Irene's camera-phone that Sherlock was reading all the old texts on at the end of the episode, after John gave it to him (and after which he set it "lovingly" inside the drawer)?

 

That part always confused me too, because John said it had been stripped, so why would the texts still be on there?

 

According to Ariana DeVere's transcript, when John hands Sherlock Irene's phone, he puts it into his pocket.  After John leaves, he picks up his own phone from the table and reads the text messages.

 

... how do we make sense of some of the things I was asking about earlier, such as how the "Mantelpiece" text was sent to Sherlock from her camera-phone as it was sitting there on the mantelpiece?

 

Somebody else may already have answered this, but I'm not seeing it now.  Irene had two phones, the camera phone (which she kept in her safe) and her regular phone.

 

[Artemis]

Oh good, that answers that then at least. I was wondering why Irene's texts were shown as being from "The Woman" in her own phone, lol. I know that's how she's known professionally, but still, would be kinda weird of her to label herself that in her phone.

 

I should rewatch this episode sometime soon. It is a Christmas episode. :P

[Arcadia]

Hey, what a brilliant idea. I could do a Christmas marathon! Scandal, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and the Nightmare Before Christmas. Sounds like fun!

 

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

Hey, what a brilliant idea. I could do a Christmas marathon! Scandal, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and the Nightmare Before Christmas. Sounds like fun!

Don't forget His Last Vow! :-D

[Arcadia]

Oh yeah, right! The perfect bookend. Thanks, Tobe!

[Boton]

 

Hey, what a brilliant idea. I could do a Christmas marathon! Scandal, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and the Nightmare Before Christmas. Sounds like fun!

Don't forget His Last Vow! :-D

 

 

That's the ticket!  I've been looking for something to get in the spirit, and it sounds like SiB and HLV it is! 

[Van Buren Supernova]

According to Ariana DeVere's transcript, when John hands Sherlock Irene's phone, he puts it into his pocket. After John leaves, he picks up his own phone from the table and reads the text messages.

Thank you!

I was biting my nail reading through posts waiting for someone to point it out.

Because I was ready to pick on it long time ago, but upon rewatching the scene, they didn't get this wrong.

[Artemis]

Lately I’m seeing a lot of comparisons of the Sherlock/Molly relationship to the Jane Eyre/Rochester relationship.

 

Link

[Hikari]

Lately I’m seeing a lot of comparisons of the Sherlock/Molly relationship to the Jane Eyre/Rochester relationship.

 

Link

 

That is apropos.  Especially when you see Louise Brealey in Victorian attire, she has that very classic Eyre look.

 

Jane is described as 'plain', but once she is ignited by the love of her grumpy Byronic hero, she becomes incandescent.  Molly would be the same.

 

I wonder if Ben has a hankering to play Mr. Rochester . . . he'd be good.

[T.o.b.y]

Louise Brealey could play a fantastic Jane Eyre.

 

But I don't see that big a resemblance between Sherlock and Mr Rochester. Or between the relationships. Rochester was positively besotted with Jane. The same can't really be said about Sherlock in regards to Molly...

[Arcadia]

I have trouble picturing Sherlock as any kind of traditional romance figure at all. He's too ... flamboyant.