Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[J.P.]

Must be the days John "loses" without even noticing.

 

BTW, Sherlock went to Ukraine for quite boring case, so it's probably normal when he travels.

[Pseudonym]

Yea, I never got the Ukraine thing. Surely he would know that case was boring and pointless before he even got there, my headcannon is he was there/passing through for another case and decided to drop in to see if it was worth taking. 

 

Oh, the idea of John being drugged whenever Sherlock goes away is darkly hilarious. I set up an automatic cat feeder, people might arrange for someone to walk their dog, Sherlock drugs John so he won't miss him. 

[gerry]

Funny, I never really viewed Sherlock's attraction to Irene as a sexual one. I suppose it could be, but I thought of it as mostly an intellectual attraction. A little more complex than that maybe, but still intellectually based.

But then why did Moffat add in all the sexual innuendo? There was Irene telling Sherlock she'd do him 4 times on the desk, checking her pulse, Sherlock assessing the chemical reactions of attraction at the end, her being a dominatrix, being naked meeting them, asking him out to dinner and the I'm gay conversation. Moffat is the only Sherlock writer that adds in sexual innuendo for Sherlock in his solo episodes so he must do it intentionally. I guess you could argue like someone else did in another thread it is still ambiguous because other characters are the ones saying things and not Sherlock but I don't think it was a coincidence the type of scenes Moffat wrote.

[Boton]

I don't understand why Sherlock goes to save her. I don't get A - why he even cares, B - why he would try to save someone who manipulated and played him. 

 

OK, I might just be writing fan fiction for myself, but I always thought that Sherlock was mesmerized less by Irene and more by the fact that she created the feeling of sexual attraction in him, which previously he had ignored. I imagined him feeling really compelling sexual attraction for the first time ever, of the sort where you think about the person when they are gone and you tingle when they are in the room.  Maybe he can't quite figure out if it is the intellectual sparring (which, face it, isn't all that high level) or the physical appearance or the S and M aspect, but this is a whole new side of himself that fascinates him.

 

 

 

 

Irene's comment, "What if the lives of British citizens are at stake?" makes no sense

Maybe she can keep control over someone who could be dangerous.

 

 

I absolutely would not put it past Moriarty, at least, to have a fail safe in place that would doom real passengers on a plane if the data fell into the wrong hands.  It wouldn't be that hard (for an international man of nefarious intent, at least) to rig an attack on the same flight every day unless someone were given a code generated randomly by something seeded on Irene's phone.  If Irene or her phone disappear, so do British citizens. (And let's assume she had access to this code generation by another redundant system while her phone was in Sherlock's hands.)  Something like that.

 

 

​

I think it's clear by the end of TLD that he has some feeling for her. Whether it's "true love" or simple sexual attraction is something else ... personally, I find it hard to believe in the former, given what they're both like. Maybe the reason he stays away from her is because it is merely sexual, and he thinks he should be above that? At any rate, I just figure she means something to him, and that makes her worth saving. To him.

 

Agree.  There's a whole range of emotion available before you get to "true love." Frankly, I hope it isn't true love; that's something soft and caring and respectful and reciprocal. Instead, I hope they "get on like a house afire," all bruises and stubbed toes and ripped clothing and "what the heck did we just do?" every time they are alone together in High Wycombe.  I hope this is the relationship for Sherlock that makes him think what a phenomenally bad idea it was on paper, but how irresistible it was in person. In fact, I highly recommend this to everyone.  ;)

 

Yea, I never got the Ukraine thing. Surely he would know that case was boring and pointless before he even got there, my headcannon is he was there/passing through for another case and decided to drop in to see if it was worth taking. 

 

Oh, the idea of John being drugged whenever Sherlock goes away is darkly hilarious. I set up an automatic cat feeder, people might arrange for someone to walk their dog, Sherlock drugs John so he won't miss him. 

 

I always thought he came back after dismissing the man with the hideous grammar (does he have a name?) and helped him get life in prison or something.

 

I love the idea of John drugged when Sherlock goes away.  But I really imagine that John logs into his laptop and leaves it open all weekend, orders that curry dish that Sherlock can't stand the smell of, walks around in his underwear, and generally does all the things you do when your roommate is out of town.  And then, just before Sherlock goes home, he creeps into Sherlock's room and moves the black silk/bamboo blend socks over in between the linen and cotton tropical weight black socks and the pima cotton daily wear black socks and waits to see Sherlock have a fit.

[Artemis]

 

Funny, I never really viewed Sherlock's attraction to Irene as a sexual one. I suppose it could be, but I thought of it as mostly an intellectual attraction. A little more complex than that maybe, but still intellectually based.

But then why did Moffat add in all the sexual innuendo? There was Irene telling Sherlock she'd do him 4 times on the desk, checking her pulse, Sherlock assessing the chemical reactions of attraction at the end, her being a dominatrix, being naked meeting them, asking him out to dinner and the I'm gay conversation. Moffat is the only Sherlock writer that adds in sexual innuendo for Sherlock in his solo episodes so he must do it intentionally. I guess you could argue like someone else did in another thread it is still ambiguous because other characters are the ones saying things and not Sherlock but I don't think it was a coincidence the type of scenes Moffat wrote.

I donno, why is there sexual innuendo in anything/everything on television? Like I said in my earlier post, I think it was intended to be fun (for the writers and audience both) and attract viewers. Sex sells, as they say. People like to ponder the possibilities, as we can plainly see from the extensive "shipper" groups, and writers know that. Additionally it opens the door for future drama surrounding the exploration of relationships, which they called upon at the end of TLD. I don't think it's always meant to be read into.

 

The sexual innuendo came mostly from Irene, not Sherlock, and he met most of it with silence. We know much less about the kind of feelings Sherlock experienced, at least in terms of sexual attraction. We don't know if his pulse was also elevated or if his pupils dilated. (Since he was busy using that situation to test her and count the beats of her pulse, I don't know if anyone can say how into the moment he truly was.) He momentarily fumbled his speech, but that's about the only clue we get that he might have been sexually attracted to her. I think he was intrigued and liked her in some way, and liked being liked by her in some way (using the word "liked" loosely), but that doesn't necessarily conclude that he was lusting after her.

 

*Shrug*, that's just the way I saw it. It's obvious from this thread that everyone reads this episode very differently, lol. I just didn't see enough there to warrant many assumptions.

[Arcadia]

Annnnnnd, I think that's exactly why the script is written exactly the way it is ... so we can read anything into it, or nothing into it. That's the whole point. We don't know and we're not supposed to know, we can only guess. I think it's brilliant. But sometimes annoying. Rather like Sherlock himself. XD

[Artemis]

^ Exactly! And I prefer it that way.

[Boton]

I prefer it that way too, but I also think the incredible flexibility of interpretation of some of the scripts is a bit of a downfall.  After TFP, it is clear that there is enough open-endedness there for any perspective, any ship, or any desired outcome for any character (except, sadly, for Warstan shippers and Mary lovers). We each get to have our own perspective, but we've lost a little bit of the shared experience, if that makes any sense?

[Arcadia]

I don't know, tbh I felt like the "shared experience" didn't start bleeding out until certain conspiracy theorists loudly insisted their interpretation was the only right one.

[Boton]

I can see that.  In any event, something happened that allows us all to retreat into our silos if we so desire.

[J.P.]

To me it's funny how they use their usual MOs against each other, and both bite on granite.

[gerry]

Not sure in the long run that's a good idea because in the end you make no one happy since it will never be onscreen so viewers won't know if they are "right" based on the signs they're sure they see. Ultimately there will be no onscreen payoff for many so there will be lots of complaints from those that end up disappointed and feel toyed with.

 

I do think they rely too much on viewer interpretation and then wonder how people cant possibly see things as they intend.

[Pseudonym]

I can see that.  In any event, something happened that allows us all to retreat into our silos if we so desire.

 

That's not a term I've heard before. But here is me in mine. 

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Silos is something that happens in business. Think grain silos from farming. Each silo represents a different group, either departments in a company or the company, its suppliers, & its customers. A good setup has good interaction between the groups so that no one group is left to itself. Bad or low interaction leaves 1 or more groups to themselves. Any group left to itself would be considered in a silo. Each shipping group is its own silo. Unfortunately some people in the groups are on the far side of things and overly vocal about it stirring up strife in the process leading to a silo approach that was not intended by the creators.

[Boton]

Ditto to everything SherlockedCAMPer said.

 

In cases like this, we (American English) often use "silos" to indicate that someone has purposefully or accidentally gotten locked in a single perspective.  For example, if I am a Johnlock shipper, I can make sure to follow only Tumblr blogs and other fora that discuss the inevitability of the pairing.  I can make sure to only look at metas that support the idea of my OTP and can dismiss input from anyone who expects any different resolution.  Maybe I even go so far as to block or unfriend people on Facebook or Twitter that see things differently. Then, if the show doesn't turn out like I expected, I will be shocked, because "everyone I know" saw the same signs and clues and symbolism, and it was obvious how it would turn out.

 

This form, thank heavens, does not foster a great deal of siloing behavior.  For that, I am grateful.

[T.o.b.y]

I think Sherlock saved Irene because he fell in love with her. In his own weird way, at least. He was fascinated, intrigued, in many ways aroused by her presence. And rushing to save her is such a dragonslayer, pirate-y thing to do, it fits right in with Sherlock's secretly very romantic personality.

 

Btw, I like Moffat's idea that as soon as her captors were out of the way, Irene pointed a gun at him, made him give her his clothes and left him naked in the middle of nowhere. And I wouldn't put it past Irene to run into trouble on purpose, just to see if her power over Sherlock was strong enough for him to rush to the rescue.

 

As for High Wycombe, I personally do not believe Sherlock and Irene ever had sex. Not like ordinary people would anyway. I think she plays a constant cat and mouse game with him that involves various vaguely sexual situations but never the real thing.

[Arcadia]

I can't remember what I was looking at ... a fanfic, maybe ... but I suddenly had the thought (unusual for me, I know :P) that if they ever had sex, that would be the end of their fascination with each other right there. Of course, that assumes they're not actually "in love", but simply ... fascinated.
 
Which makes part of me wish they'd just do it, and get it over with, so Sherlock could get on with his life. :D

[gerry]

I donno, why is there sexual innuendo in anything/everything on television?

It might just be the shows I watch but typically innuendo like that is generally foreshadowing for what's going to happen between two characters and not pointless. With this show there seems to be many pointless threads so maybe that's the case.

 

Unfortunately some people in the groups are on the far side of things and overly vocal about it stirring up strife in the process leading to a silo approach that was not intended by the creators.

I think there will be always be a set of extreme fans no matter the show given human nature but it think it's a fallacy to assume the silos you reference are just shipper fans. Given the lack of clarity the writers intentionally use, how would fan silos not be an inevitable consequence as the people in each silo could fanwank anything they want and they couldn't be proven wrong?

 

In cases like this, we (American English) often use "silos" to indicate that someone has purposefully or accidentally gotten locked in a single perspective.

Doesn't this reflect human nature? How many people actually change their opinion on a show/characters based on what's on the internet or social media? Typically a person's initial instinctual feeling doesn't change.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

Unfortunately some people in the groups are on the far side of things and overly vocal about it stirring up strife in the process leading to a silo approach that was not intended by the creators.

I think there will be always be a set of extreme fans no matter the show given human nature but it think it's a fallacy to assume the silos you reference are just shipper fans. Given the lack of clarity the writers intentionally use, how would fan silos not be an inevitable consequence as the people in each silo could fanwank anything they want and they couldn't be proven wrong?

Agreed that it is not limited to the shippers and that many fandoms have similar issue with extreme fans.

 

As for the silos, they are definitely likely to happen. It's a matter of recognizing what's happening and not locking yourself into a silo so that you can maintain your beliefs (e.g. Johnlock should happen here's my reasoning) while having healthy discussion (e.g. I don't agree with your evidence, but I understand how you can see that).

[Carol the Dabbler]

Regarding silos, same thing happens with politics.  People tend to hang out with (in real life and/or online) people who share their political views, and then when a candidate they did not support wins an election, they hurl accusations of voter fraud.

 

Just human nature, I suppose.  It's more comfortable to hang out with people who see things the same way you do.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Late for discussion, I made my post yesterday, I but didn't have chance to post it.

So, update: basically I agree with Artemis and she said it much better.

 

To me. It's interesting that many of you dislike Irene, especially the morality reasons.

I don't like but don't hate her. Indifferent I guess, I enjoy her because of Sherlock, Mycroft and John's reaction and interaction. Molly, Moriarty, well, everyone. She is coming as a confident character and stir the pot that produce interesting dynamics.

 

I don't ship them, in fact, I felt safe enough that Sherlock wouldn't fall for her in ordinary way that could endanger the plot and make it into something cheesy. I like that they are attracted to each other's brilliance that makes it really intriguing for people like them to meet their match. It's probably like the excitement of finding someone to play games with with equal opportunity of winning and losing, a compatible match.

 

I believe Sherlock feels that way and he is impressed. Irene being seductive probably makes him think and trying to understand the science of attraction and whether he needs that/good for him. They portray him as still thinking clearly and on his guard, yet part of it clouds his judgement about her, which I think is very interesting and very human.

 

I see one of his reason for saving her is that he doesn't want to lose a compatible opponent, at the same time by coming to his rescue he gets a competent point that I believe is important for him, it's some kind of showing off as well to prove that he is capable of deducing the situation, whereabouts of her, and save her if he wants to. It's not knight in shinning sword movement, but more like power play, a game that is enjoyed by three of them; Sherlock, Moriarty and Irene. They admire each other in a way and constantly trying to 'impress' in wits area, that's what they do.

 

 

 

 

 

Now about Irene morality.

It's surprising to see how many of you and your reasons not to like her. Well, surprising is not the correct word maybe.

 

I agree that the blackmailing, being smug, play victim at the end. Not good. No.

Serve you right, see you. Bye. I like how Sherlock crushed her at the end.

 

However, on manipulating Sherlock's feelings, although it's not good, of course, I think it's interesting grey area. Everyone has certain level of manipulation in real life, trying to access people soft spot, weakness, method, view and how to infiltrate them. Sounds elaborate, but I believe we have been doing that, whether consciously or not. Simple example is like how to request good seats, food customization, getting certain priority or good treatment as customer, getting someone to help you, how to address and get to someone by judging their acceptance level and what pushes their buttons, getting your points across, making someone understand your reason, and effort of being accepted/noticed/liked/trusted.

 

Imho, there are some levels of manipulations in all of them, some are good, bad, sophisticated, some are minimal, even when you are genuine. And people like Irene uses it to full advantage by the way she sets Sherlock up, the textbook: the promise of love, the pain of loss, the joy of redemption; then give him a puzzle ...... and watch him dance. (loveee that quote and will repeat it to death)

 

I see it as her using everything she thinks she knows about Sherlock to get him do what she wants without realising it. It's masterful long game, and she is not playing against clueless opponent, so 1-0 there. In fact, we cheer for Sherlock and have little problem with it when he does that to others. So I don't hold it against her in this one, up to the plane scene.

If I had chance to manipulate Sherlock Holmes, I'd give ot a try too.

 

Other though, I am curious about this:

..Really the only thing I don't like is the domin8trix aspect. I don't like the idea that it's okay to make money giving people pain for their sexual pleasure; or giving people pain for any reason. There's enough pain in the world without yet another person profiting off of it.

I don't know anything about that area, but to my understanding, when there is a demand, there are supplies. And to those people, it equals recreation, I suppose. As long as they don't break the law, consensual and don't hurt others, to me it's fine. And that is arguably totally different kind of pains we see in the world. I'd rather there are professional outlet/service/whatev than them looking to get it from people who are not willing too. I believe there are many more questionable fetishes too.

[Arcadia]

True, it's a different kind of pain. I guess I just think if you find one kind of pain okay, maybe it's just a little step to finding another kind okay. Then another little step to finding another kind okay ... you see where I'm going. No one exists in a vacuum, everything we do as human beings affects someone else in some way. Maybe it's the selfishness of it that bothers me ... everything's okay as long as it's all about you. 
 
That's why I love the line about suicide in TLD. What we do to ourselves does affect others. It does matter. That's a reality I bump into every day. (Hard to believe that scene was written by the same man who declared murdering a man was perfectly okay, isn't it? )
 
Before someone jumps on me ... I really don't take this show that seriously. That is, I don't look to it for moral guidance (!) But when the subject comes up, I like to explore it, all that morality and ethics and such stuff is an interest of mine. And I believe even pop art illuminates the human condition to some extent. Soooo ... there's that. I'm not sure where I'm going with my argument. I'm not sure I even believe it, check back with me later. :P

[Pseudonym]

Ah well, I like my version of the silo best. Plus it was an excuse to slip in a pic from Logan. 

[T.o.b.y]

True, it's a different kind of pain. I guess I just think if you find one kind of pain okay, maybe it's just a little step to finding another kind okay. Then another little step to finding another kind okay ... you see where I'm going. No one exists in a vacuum, everything we do as human beings affects someone else in some way. Maybe it's the selfishness of it that bothers me ... everything's okay as long as it's all about you.

 

That's why I love the line about suicide in TLD. What we do to ourselves does affect others. It does matter. That's a reality I bump into every day. (Hard to believe that scene was written by the same man who declared murdering a man was perfectly okay, isn't it? )

 

Before someone jumps on me ... I really don't take this show that seriously. That is, I don't look to it for moral guidance (!) But when the subject comes up, I like to explore it, all that morality and ethics and such stuff is an interest of mine. And I believe even pop art illuminates the human condition to some extent. Soooo ... there's that. I'm not sure where I'm going with my argument. I'm not sure I even believe it, check back with me later. :P

I am not going to bore you with an essay on bdsm, but rest assured that people who like to experience and/or give pain as part of their sexuality are not more violent than anybody else in other aspects of their lives. Being a "domin8trix" is just Irene's brand of sex work. What is morally reprehensible of course is that she uses her knowledge of her clients' preferences to blackmail them. But hey, it's Irene. I like her a lot but I certainly wouldn't call her a good person!

 

Yup, that's right, I like Irene. I think she's a fun character, an interesting antagonist and she's hot and I get why Sherlock is intrigued by her.

 

They just made her a queer bdsm sex worker to translate her being a scandalous person into our era. She'd hardly be able to scare the royal family into hiring Sherlock Holmes by singing a few arias for anybody.

 

As for morals, I'd say Irene doesn't have any. She could probably never afford them. And if she needs a phone full of dirty pics and state secrets to feel protected then she must lead one hell of a dangerous life. We don't know how that happened but I doubt she woke up one morning saying mwahaha, I will blackmail people who pay me to beat them with a riding crop.

 

I feel sorry for her. She would scorn the idea that she's to be pitied of course but she doesn't strike me as very happy or as having many friends. Besides Sherlock, how many people do we think care for more than her body or would come to rescue her if she got in trouble?

[gerry]

I like that they are attracted to each other's brilliance that makes it really intriguing for people like them to meet their match.

How brilliant can she be if "i am sherlocked" was her phone code? That's something you'd expect from a love sick teenager not a 30 something brilliant criminal mastermind. In the end I didn't see much of an intellectual battle of equal minds.

 

In fact, we cheer for Sherlock and have little problem with it when he does that to others.

This isn't true for me. Moments like Sherlock manipulating Molly to get into the lab in TBB are not times I cheer for Sherlock.