Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[gerry]

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?

I don't feel sorry for her. You reap what you sow. If you spend your life treating people poorly like blackmailing people a la CAM, why would anyone care about you? That's why they teach you as children to treat others as you want to be treated.

[Boton]

 

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.

 

 

 

Actually, I have.  I typically read show reviews after each episode on shows I really like, and sometimes that's enough to make me pick up something I hadn't thought of or realize a plot didn't hold together as much as I thought.  I guess maybe I'm just invested enough in Sherlock that I've committed to watching each episode multiple times before I get other opinions, making it more likely I would defend my own rather than altering it.

 

Van Buren said, regarding BDSM:

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.

 

 

I have trouble with the idea of selling sexual pleasure for money, but I don't have any trouble with the idea of some people enjoying BDSM. Pleasure and pain are very closely linked, moreso for some people than others. And, to the best of my understanding, these kinds of "scenes" are carefully planned and have safety measures in place to let a person enjoy the game.  In the right hands, the only potential damage would be the blackmail angle, which is what Irene has threatened to exploit. 

 

 

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?

 

 

Exactly this.

 

I think we neglect the fact that Irene has to have a really disreputable job in order for her to square up with the original Irene.  And, for Sherlock to square with the original Holmes, he has to be bohemian enough to be fascinated by that and not repelled.  

 

I've never bought the idea that Irene, in her original incarnation, "beat" Holmes.  To the best of my knowledge, that's constructed from a fan theory based on some other quote where Holmes says he's only been beaten twice (?), and people assumed Irene was one of those times. That's fine.  But I think, at best, Irene "gets the upper hand" rather than achieving a definitive victory, and I think this Irene is very well written.

 

I like this Irene. She's sort of an amoral version of what I would like to be, if that makes sense.  I'm not about to be a domin8trix or a blackmailer, but I'd like to walk into situations confident of my effect on people and willing to give as good as I get in any sparring match.  To me, she's not a villain; she's a troublemaker, at best. I like her.  

[gerry]

It's an odd concept to me to like a character you consider amoral but do you mean like in a fictional world sense or also if you met someone like her in real life?

[Boton]

It's an odd concept to me to like a character you consider amoral but do you mean like in a fictional world sense or also if you met someone like her in real life?

 

That is a great question, gerry!  

 

I really mean in a fictional world sense.  For me, I spent a lot of my life not liking fictional characters who did not behave the way I would or who did not have my morals.  I still am like that sometimes; a few months ago, in fact, I was reading a Sherlock fan fiction, and I was really enjoying it until Sherlock did something or other that I just found morally repugnant, and I actually cried -- I was so disappointed, because I had been identifying with him in that story all along, and here he was doing something that I just found reprehensible.  (And I'm not trying to be coy here -- I blotted the story out of my mind and don't really remember the specifics.)

 

However, over the past few years, I have become more and more fascinated with characters who aren't restricted to a moral code, and I like to watch them live out a life I never could or never would want to. We were talking about Breaking Bad on the other TV show thread; I love that show, and I wouldn't do 3% of the things Walter White does. But I love him and rooted for him the whole way and I felt like I got to live a bit of that experience in a very safe way.

 

It's the same with Irene. I wouldn't be any kind of a s*x worker, under any condition (unless you can come up with some scenario where that was the only way to save my family, and then that gets dark and depressing). But, oh what fun to watch Irene do this and use the money to have a closet full of clothes and Louboutins on her feet and a house in Belgravia!  And imagine the fun of seeing the most powerful people in your country paying you to domin8te them!  Heck yes you'd take pictures!  And absolutely you'd use those pictures to get what you want.

 

I don't much like the consorting with terrorists angle, because the people who (hypothetically) would have been on that flight had Mycroft not intervened did not enter into a business relationship with Irene.  But for those who did, hey, they get what they get.  And that includes whoever "her highness" is.   :D

[Pseudonym]

I'm sure there are loads of TV shows and movies set up with an amoral character that you actually root for (Breaking Bad is a brilliant example as Boton mentioned), and as I said previously I find something very cathartic in watching a character who will happily say something I might be thinking, or do something I wish I had the guts to. Bad characters can be fun, which makes them likeable. Yea, I'd hate them in real life, but not as a character. 

[gerry]

maybe I'm different or it's just semantics but I know what you mean in a sense. I watch the blacklist and reddington is really amoral or at least he has his own code but I don't like him, I just find him interesting in a voyeur sort of way while trying to decipher his motivation for which blacklister he's going for next and why. there aren't really any innocents, everyone is amoral in his world. In either case I don't root for him. In the end I hope he bites the dust actually. I was actually rooting for mr Kaplan against him but I do like the show. That show is more the exception than rule for me though. I generally prefer shows where it's good against evil and good wins lol. I'm a traditionalist I guess.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

Hmm, you've got a point there.  So she's not only threatening to release some embarrassing photos if anybody messes with her -- she's also prepared to do some rather more serious things, and in fact has that set up as a negative option.  I'll buy into that.  After all, Moriarty did something along those lines in Reichenbach -- "Your friends will die unless you do."

 

However, it would have been easy enough for Irene to outline that in a sentence or two ("Unless somebody gets a pre-arranged signal from that phone at regular intervals, they'll see to it that somebody dies").  Because she did not, I rather suspect that Moftiss had not thought of that possibility, and were hoping that if they rushed past that point, no one would notice the plot hole.  Good headcanon, though!

 

Come to think of it, I do have one problem with that scenario -- in my opinion, it takes Irene across the line from antagonist to genuine villain, which makes it hard to for me to justify Sherlock's continuing fascination with her.  I'd kinda rather leave her in the naughty-girl category.

[gerry]

I'm curious why those of you don't consider her a villian. Based on how much trouble we know she got into, that she was willing to blackmail the royal family and she obviously is involved in some way with terrorists and evil characters like moriarty, how is she just a naughty girl?

[Boton]

I think I place her somewhere between "villain" and "naughty girl."  That's why I keep using the word "antagonist," but I'm not sure that's quite right either.

 

Basically, I don't give a toss if she blackmails the royal family.  While I have absolutely no problem with someone having a taste for BDSM, once you pay for the service and take it outside your own home, you're opening yourself up to exposure.  You get what you get.  And, as far as I know,  all that happened is she got into a brush with the law where her little "recreational scolding" business came to the attention of the cops, and she made a well-placed phone call to the palace reminding someone that she did have photos, and it would be nice if she were still able to operate her business in peace, hint, hint.  That doesn't bother me in this context.

 

I've never really thought that she was truly involved with the terrorists; Moriarty was. Irene was the conduit for information. She didn't really arrange any of the potential deaths, as best as I can tell; she was an accessory.

 

And, ultimately, Moriarty is a cartoon villain.  His schemes are so big and so dangerous that they are just hard to take seriously.  Moriarty doesn't bother me all that much.  CAM bothers me.  If Irene were funneling photos to CAM to appear on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper, ruining lives and reputations, I would wind up disliking Irene as well.  But I just never really take Moriarty all that seriously as someone to find onerous. {shrugs}

[T.o.b.y]

I think Moriarty is scary. But yeah, he's also kind of fun. Irene is a more benign version of that I guess. And btw, Sherlock was more fascinated than repulsed by Moriarty too.

[Arcadia]

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!

Oh, I don't mean to imply doms and the people who hire them are violent otherwise. I don't think that. 

 

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.

Hey, I did fumble my way into this conversation (way back there, somewhere) by saying I liked her too ... I just don't like what she does. I like her personality; her sass, her independence, her boldness. I love that she was able to make Sherlock Holmes, of all people, stutter. I hate her hairdo, though. :P

 

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.

And because being a freelance assassin who did wet jobs for the CIA would be just too normal. XD

 

 

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.

 

Me neither. Those are the times I want to slap him. I think those moments are why Moftiss calls him  "a bad man."

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Actually, I have.  I typically read show reviews after each episode on shows I really like, and sometimes that's enough to make me pick up something I hadn't thought of or realize a plot didn't hold together as much as I thought.  I guess maybe I'm just invested enough in Sherlock that I've committed to watching each episode multiple times before I get other opinions, making it more likely I would defend my own rather than altering it.

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure there's a few times where I've had a different perspective on something after discussing it with other people. That's a bit different than liking or not liking it, though. E.g., I never liked Salvador Dali's paintings. But after getting someone else's perspective on them, I can appreciate why he's considered one of the greats in a way that I never could before. But I still wouldn't hang one of his works in my home.

 

I think we neglect the fact that Irene has to have a really disreputable job in order for her to square up with the original Irene.  And, for Sherlock to square with the original Holmes, he has to be bohemian enough to be fascinated by that and not repelled.

Because being best buddies with a woman who shot you to protect her lies from your other best buddy would just be toooo normal. :P

 

I've never bought the idea that Irene, in her original incarnation, "beat" Holmes.  To the best of my knowledge, that's constructed from a fan theory based on some other quote where Holmes says he's only been beaten twice (?), and people assumed Irene was one of those times. That's fine.  But I think, at best, Irene "gets the upper hand" rather than achieving a definitive victory, and I think this Irene is very well written.

 

This, I did not know. Interesting. Guess I should finish reading those ACD stories some day, who knows what I might learn?

[Arcadia]

Ooops, hit my quote limit with that last one. You all have been busy today! Meant to add this last:

 

I'm curious why those of you don't consider her a villian. Based on how much trouble we know she got into, that she was willing to blackmail the royal family and she obviously is involved in some way with terrorists and evil characters like moriarty, how is she just a naughty girl?

Good question. I think in the context of a different, more reality based show, I probably would think of her as a villain. But in Sherlock-world, I would describe her more as an adversary. People's lives don't depend on the outcome of her actions, as far as we know, and that sort of seems to be the dividing line for Sherlock. Moriarty and CAM actively want to ruin lives, but Irene just wants to live her own with no regard for how it affects anyone else. So she's far from admirable, but not quite a villain either, in my mind. I agree that she's a bit more than naughty, though.

[J.P.]

A side note: her contacting the royal family was actually only meant to catch Sherlock's attention. She didn't actually want anything.

[gerry]

I've never really thought that she was truly involved with the terrorists; Moriarty was. Irene was the conduit for information. She didn't really arrange any of the potential deaths, as best as I can tell; she was an accessory.... If Irene were funneling photos to CAM to appear on the front page of tomorrow's newspaper, ruining lives and reputations, I would wind up disliking Irene as well.

If she did something to tick off terrorists enough to be beheaded from which she needed to be rescued how can anyone think she wasn't heavily involved in terrorist activity? If all she did was give information to others who did the dirty work how is that she needed to be killed? And she faked her death to avoid the people that wanted to kill her like the CIA and terrorists. These consequences don't strike me her being a passive conduit/observer.

 

I also have never bought the idea that if you don't pull the trigger that you're automatically not culpable. If she's as brilliant as Moffat claims, she had to know what would be done with the information she was selling given the people she was dealing with. She clearly didn't care. That's like saying the wives who manipulate their boyfriends into murdering their husbands aren't guilty of murder too. In the US, both parties go to jail.

 

Moriarty and CAM actively want to ruin lives, but Irene just wants to live her own with no regard for how it affects anyone else.

Given the games she plays and the types of people she consorts with, I'm not sure how you can think she doesn't actively ruin lives. If she released the compromising photos I'm sure many careers and relationships would be ruined. She certainly enjoyed foiling Mycroft's plane diversion.

[Carol the Dabbler]

If she did something to tick off terrorists enough to be beheaded from which she needed to be rescued how can anyone think she wasn't heavily involved in terrorist activity?

I was just thinking about that scene yesterday, wondering how she'd gotten into that fix, and what I came up with was this:  She had gone to Pakistan on business -- to provide "recreational scolding" to some rich guy -- and the local sharia vigilantes found out.  I would assume they'd take a dim view of such activities.

[Van Buren Supernova]

@d0minatrix stuff

@Arcadia I get your point that it's probably dancing around a thin line once someone is familiar with hurting people, although I still see it as something totally different. I think consensual is very important, as long as both (or more) parties are in the right mindset in what they are getting into without involving unwilling participants, and without blackmailing or using it for greater scheme of course. In fact, I don't even question their morality, as I believe that is just another form of preference, just like so many other diversity in the world. Just because it's sexual, it's viewed as much more controversial.

 

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.

Like Sherlock, she deduced the boomerang without being on crime scene.

She faked her death and fool Sherlock and Mycroft.

She said something that makes Moriarty changed his mind.

She manipulated and arranged her interaction with Sherlock that leads him into the deduction of Bondair.

She knows what dress to wear to catch Sherlock off guard.

She escaped from Sherlock and he failed to keep her phone.

 

Those are some of the reasons why I think she is brilliantly compatible to Sherlock.

The one you mentioned, the Sherlocked, yes, that is not one of it. I won't say that is stupid, you didn't say it's stupid as well (before you feel the need to make that clarification). There is an element of Irene being too arrogant and thought Sherlock, seemingly clueless on that area, wouldn't able to deduce that. (Come to think of it, one can argue that is actually smart in a way). It makes sense, after all, Sherlock wants everything to be clever. I'd also say that is unfortunate result of thinking by the heart. Not smart, but not exactly stupid, it's just something that comes naturally to human. If we count that as stupid, the whole world is full of stupids. So it's not, it's merely defect.

 

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.

Me neither. Those are the times I want to slap him. I think those moments are why Moftiss calls him "a bad man."

Right. I shouldn't use 'we' and probably make some exclusions of what Sherlock did instead of saying it generally.

 

Personally I don't mind too much about what he did. Fake crying in front of Ian Monkford's wife, fake engagement, fake compliments. As said, I believe everyone had done some manipulations in certain level to get what they want, I won't believe anyone who says they haven't.

 

The needs and justification escalate depend on situation, purpose for greater good and whether the receiving parties are seriously harmed.

 

For all above, not to me, I just shrug them off as part of his character and okay with it, didn't say he is a saint, and I don't see him going around doing just that just to be mean without purpose. He is working for cases, he exposes liar, Janine manipulate him back and seems fine with it, and I believe Molly is smart enough to know and let him. So yah, I have no problem and that is also why I thought coffin scene is tough because I think that is when it gets serious and have damaging impact.

 

I generally prefer shows where it's good against evil and good wins lol. I'm a traditionalist I guess.

Well, each to their own and nothing wrong with that.

 

For me, I love watching villains in TV and movie, and I do root for villains quite a lot. Enjoy getting into their heads, especially when they have rich backstory that explains why they are the way they are.

 

Since longggg time ago, I have stop believing that something can be pure good or pure evil. To see transformation, grey character, anti hero, it's much more realistic to me and I enjoy it tremendously when it's done right. Same that I enjoy heroes with their flaws and struggles. And the fact that people can try to do good and mess it up, end up being villain and vice versa.

 

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, and it's hellah interesting. Good always wins is fairy tale to me, and who defines good? And what really defines winning?

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

If she did something to tick off terrorists enough to be beheaded from which she needed to be rescued how can anyone think she wasn't heavily involved in terrorist activity?

I was just thinking about that scene yesterday, wondering how she'd gotten into that fix, and what I came up with was this: She had gone to Pakistan on business -- to provide "recreational scolding" to some rich guy -- and the local sharia vigilantes found out. I would assume they'd take a dim view of such activities.

Hey that makes sense to me. I do wonder a bit about how she gets involved, why she wears that and why it's beheading. I buy your explanations.

There are some area with sharia law that whip couple just for holding hands or riding bike together when they are not married, so I don't find that out of stretch, although I'm not sure how culturally and religiously accurate it is.

 

 

 

Actually, I'm thinking about something else while discussing Irene.

 

Do you guys think there is connection in any shape and form, about how Sherlock reacts to Irene's 'death' with how he expects John to react to his own fake death?

 

When he finds out about her being alive, he retreats, but then for the first and last time, replies her text. Of all thing, the text is very precious and I see it as him being glad that she is back. And he is receptive to her when she finally shows up again.

 

Yah. I get that Sherlock-Irene and Sherlock-John have different relationships. Just want to point out that there is no angry bone from him whatsoever and he is so quick to understand her reason for faking her death.

 

And yah, I get that it's arguable that he probably unleashes his anger to the CIA agent, but anyone who dares to hurt Mrs.Hudson deserves no less than that regardless whatever mood Sherlock has when he reaches the flat.

[gerry]

 

If she did something to tick off terrorists enough to be beheaded from which she needed to be rescued how can anyone think she wasn't heavily involved in terrorist activity?

I was just thinking about that scene yesterday, wondering how she'd gotten into that fix, and what I came up with was this: She had gone to Pakistan on business -- to provide "recreational scolding" to some rich guy -- and the local sharia vigilantes found out. I would assume they'd take a dim view of such activities.

That's fun headcanon i guess but considering she faked her death and was scared to death when her blackmailing of Mycroft didn't work for protection, I think it's far more likely that the people she was running from caught up with her.

[gerry]

So yah, I have no problem and that is also why I thought coffin scene is tough because I think that is when it gets serious and have damaging impact.

This is exactly why I don't buy Molly empathy in the coffin scene. If you spend the majority of your time manipulating people with no guilt whatsoever, don't be surprised when people don't believe you when you claim you do care.

[Arcadia]

 

If she did something to tick off terrorists enough to be beheaded from which she needed to be rescued how can anyone think she wasn't heavily involved in terrorist activity?

I was just thinking about that scene yesterday, wondering how she'd gotten into that fix, and what I came up with was this:  She had gone to Pakistan on business -- to provide "recreational scolding" to some rich guy -- and the local sharia vigilantes found out.  I would assume they'd take a dim view of such activities.

 

To be honest, I always just figured they were going to kill her because they were terrorists and she was a woman. In other words, generic bad guys, they didn't need much of a motive.

 

I think I've said this before, but imo the reason Sherlock (mostly) gets away with being manipulative is because it's (mostly) played for laughs. We're not meant to take it seriously. I still want to punch him when he fake smiles at Molly, but ... not seriously.

[Arcadia]

Actually, I'm thinking about something else while discussing Irene.

 

Do you guys think there is connection in any shape and form, about how Sherlock reacts to Irene's 'death' with how he expects John to react to his own fake death?

 

When he finds out about her being alive, he retreats, but then for the first and last time, replies her text. Of all thing, the text is very precious and I see it as him being glad that she is back. And he is receptive to her when she finally shows up again.

 

Yah. I get that Sherlock-Irene and Sherlock-John have different relationships. Just want to point out that there is no angry bone from him whatsoever and he is so quick to understand her reason for faking her death.

 

And yah, I get that it's arguable that he probably unleashes his anger to the CIA agent, but anyone who dares to hurt Mrs.Hudson deserves no less than that regardless whatever mood Sherlock has when he reaches the flat.

You mean, he didn't realize how upset John would be, because he wasn't upset by Irene's faking her death? But why would he be, unless you believe he'd actually fallen in love with her? Which I have trouble believing, tbh.

 

I suppose there could be a connection, in that he just failed to realize how much John cared for him. But I don't really think so.

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

 

So yah, I have no problem and that is also why I thought coffin scene is tough because I think that is when it gets serious and have damaging impact.

This is exactly why I don't buy Molly empathy in the coffin scene. If you spend the majority of your time manipulating people with no guilt whatsoever, don't be surprised when people don't believe you when you claim you do care.

I don't think he is surprised when people don't have empathy with him, I believe it's the other way around, he can't really grasp when people have too much empathy for him, which, weirdly, is a very endearing flaw to me.

He is also more surprised when Molly asks him to say it.

 

"He spends majority of his time manipulating people", you really think that? Do you believe that or is it just passing remarks? No wonder you think he is over the top and overbearing character, or maybe you prefer the fundamental selfish and egocentric. Or it's just how I think you think, I don't want to put words into your mouth.

 

I see him does that to get something done, cases most likely. Other times I imagine him playing violin, learns new stuffs, spends time in the lab, bolt holes, or

gives Mycroft something to do by dissappearing out of grid, you know, those introverted thingy, he doesn't really like people after all.

 

You mean, he didn't realize how upset John would be, because he wasn't upset by Irene's faking her death? But why would he be, unless you believe he'd actually fallen in love with her? Which I have trouble believing, tbh.

 

I suppose there could be a connection, in that he just failed to realize how much John cared for him. But I don't really think so.

Of course not, I don't think he's fallen in love with her.

But yes, he probably never expect John to be that angry and quick to see his reasoning, failing to gauge the intensity of the impact and most probably, putting himself too much in John's shoes. Just that.

[Arcadia]

I've always thought that he just figured John would be "rational", the way he thinks he himself would be. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... what I came up with was this: She had gone to Pakistan on business -- to provide "recreational scolding" to some rich guy -- and the local sharia vigilantes found out. I would assume they'd take a dim view of such activities.

Hey that makes sense to me. I do wonder a bit about how she gets involved, why she wears that and why it's beheading. I buy your explanations.

 

As to why she was wearing that outfit for her beheading, I've always assumed that her executioners supplied it so they wouldn't have to look at a woman wearing "sinful" clothing.  I suppose it'd be easy enough to come up with a different explanation, though -- e.g., she had wanted to blend in.

 

That's fun headcanon i guess but considering she faked her death and was scared to death when her blackmailing of Mycroft didn't work for protection, I think it's far more likely that the people she was running from caught up with her.

Good point.  On the other hand, what are the odds that she was running from Pakistani terrorists?  I had assumed that her threats came mostly from closer to home, where she apparently did most of her business.

[Pseudonym]

Sorry to go off topic a sec, but was this the thread we were talking about Sherlock/Janine fanfic? I should have saved the links and didn't, and I don't want to go digging back through the wrong thread.