Sherlocked – the humiliation of Irene Adler
It is hardly news that Steven Moffat, lead writer on Doctor Who, co-creator of the critically acclaimed Sherlock, has a tendency to fail a bit when it comes to talking about women. This quote is quite gloriously awful, with its double whammy of being misogynistic itself and implying that misandry is a serious problem in “civilised” countries. Smooth. A wonderful blog post here discusses the representation of women in Series 1 of Sherlock.
Despite that, and the fact that I have felt uncomfortable with his writing of female characters in both Doctor Who and in Sherlock, I love both shows. And I naively hoped that last night’s episode of Sherlock, A Scandal in Belgravia, would perhaps redeem him a bit in my eyes. Irene Adler, in the stories by Conan Doyle, was one of the few characters ever to get the better of Holmes. She was an opera singer, witty, with “the mind of the most resolute of men” according to the King who brings the case to Holmes in the story. She outwits him, the way in which she gains his respect.
In Sherlock, she is turned into a sex worker who is humiliated and brought down by Sherlock, and betrayed by her emotions. (Note: I am not intending to demean sex workers at all; my issue is with the fact that Moffat could apparently only conceive of a woman’s strength and power being conveyed sexually.) This episode of Sherlock upset not me not just in its portrayal of Adler as a woman, but with the dismissal of other women, and also the way Irene’s sexuality is explored. Or not explored, rather.
Irene in Sherlock is portrayed as a high-end dominatrix, engaged in the kind of “classy” sex work which exists in male-fantasies: it can be pointed at to show that some women like being sex workers; it’s fine, really. It’s their choice. Being a dominatrix is also, in Sherlock, the way women can apparently exercise power; there are no female politicians, just girlfriends (interchangeable in the eyes of Sherlock and Watson), mother figures (Mrs. Hudson), and whores. This is the female role. There is also Molly, of course. Constantly humiliated by Sherlock, she is shown as being needy and desperate. We don’t sympathise with Sherlock’s actions, it’s true, but we’re invited to pity Molly, not empathise. Like Irene, her emotions are shown as robbing her of her dignity. Every woman in last night’s episode of Sherlock was humiliated in some way. John’s girlfriend was treated as being a generic accessory by both Sherlock and John; this may have been to show the nature of Sherlock and John’s relationship, but the way neither of them respected the woman enough to remember details about her was presented as amusing. It is no defence of the show to say that it is just a portrayal of a misogynistic character, Sherlock; apart from the way he treats women, they are cast constantly in roles which humiliate them, need them to be rescued, or fetishise them (the Orientalism in the last series a case in point.) Mrs. Hudson is better written, but she is still a mother figure, taking care of boys who never seem to grow up.
A defence given on twitter when I raised these issues was that Sherlock humiliates everyone, no exception. The problem is that the humiliation of women in the series is highly gender specific. Molly is humiliated for her attempts to be attractive; Sherlock displays a hard, cold version of the male gaze, criticising her mouth, her breasts, her lipstick. Irene is humiliated because she fell prey to emotions; quite often presented as the “weakness” of women. In the last series, a female police officer was humiliated publicly by Sherlock because she’d had sex with a fellow male police officer. These aren’t generic humiliations; women are made to feel ashamed for “feminine” actions or character traits.
I was no more impressed by the portrayal of Irene’s sexuality. It was ambiguous; she described herself as gay, but was attracted to Sherlock and was recorded as having affairs with men and women. Either way, I was unhappy. If she was indeed supposed to be a lesbian, quite apart from the disappointing fact that she was another TV lesbian who was clearly designed to appeal to the male gaze, the fact that she fell for a man throughout the episode was pretty much a male fantasy come to life. If she was intended to be bi or pan-sexual, she handily fell into the old “bisexuals are sluts” cliche, in an extremely literal way. Her sexuality seemed to be a pasted on character trait to make her more sexy, more appealing. As with many portrayals of female sexuality in the media, she seemed less to experience sex, but perform it. She came across as a straight man’s fantasy of a lesbian or bisexual sex worker. What better than a femme looking, conventionally attractive woman, who might be up for a threesome?
The ending of the episode was so awful it barely needs criticising again. The sexually active and controlling Irene faces execution in a Middle Eastern country; she cries. (Those silly women with their emotions again). She’d be killed, were it not for Sherlock saving her life at the last minute. The archetype of the lying seductress, the Delilah, is transformed instead into the damsel in distress. Nice work, Moffat.
The police officer in the last serious wasn’t humiliated for having sex- her make colleague was also humiliated for the same reason- they were having an extra-marital affair
And yet, if I recall correctly, the critique was aimed at her, along with a comment about her being on her knees.
He first criticised Anderson for the fact that he brought her around while his wife was away and that they both had the same deodorant on.
Christ on a fucking bike. It’s fiction. It’s entertainment. Get the hell over yourself. God, you must be so much fun at parties.
Get a damn life. This is so petty it’s beyond belief. On this basis, you’d presumably also complain that Ermintrude in The Magic Roundabout is badly written because she was a bit slow on the uptake.
Yes, it’s fiction. Unfortunately, although it may be news to you, fiction can be reflective of writers’ opinions and mindsets, and also influence people’s opinions and mindsets. I believe that the portrayal of women in fiction, particularly in film and TV, is part of a wider misogynistic mindset in society.
But thank you for your subtle and incisive comment.
And your blog post is reflective of your derangement. The holmes brothers are constantly in conflict with their humanity (cold, emotionless, etc); he’s not insulting Irene for having emotions because she’s a woman, he’s convincing himself that his emotional decrepitude is an advantage (though from the morgue scene & the watson+mycroft cafe scene at the end that he secretly wishes to be more “human”)
Trying to make everything about feminism doesn’t make you a more enlightened man, just a moron.
Simone- I couldn’t agree more. How are underlying attitudes of the misogyny still worryingly present in our society communicated more regularly or all-pervasively than through the ‘innocence’ of television and fictional characters? The fact that the only strong female in the entire Holmes canon, Adler, was reduced to such an extent by Moffat is offensive, disappointing, frankly lazy and even less subtle than the sly misogyny we have come to expect.
And to you, ‘Woman With A Life’- since you clearly aren’t interested in reading the works of Conan Doyle, perhaps you should satisfy yourself with one by Jordan instead. Reading your comment, I’m sure that these would at about the right level for you.
But I find this sort of thing more fun than the actual episode! I love analysis as a way of ‘enjoying’ a story, even if it’s really negative. You can’t tell other people how to use their leisure media.
(sorry for butting in, OP, but I’ve been having a perversely fantastic time reading Sherlock feminist crits in the last couple of days! I agree with all of them but I have to admit it’s also a kind of enjoyable raging. Hmm)
I can’t agree with all of this, as I think the problem with people’s reactions – in general, not just yours – is they don’t touch on crucial points within the writing itself that address these very issues.
Firstly, I’m glad you acknowledge that being a sex worker is fine; I have found some comments seen on this distasteful & actually hypocritical in some respects … prostitution should be legalised, yet equating sex = whore is just plain wrong. Women are allowed to be sexual beings as much as men are.
Also, it’s necessary – what was scandalous in the original setting is not deemed so now; sex sells, as it were, and so whilst the act itself is not a problem, people are easily swayed by the idea of royal scandal.
The John issue re: girlfriends is one which is a nod to the original source; if canon confuses how many wives he’d had, it’s acceptable for it to be mocked. Literary Easter eggs, if you will.
My biggest problem, however, is this issue of emotion. To reduce it to that completely misses the point of the plot; namely, both character’s defences are challenged and pushed. Both are intelligent, cool, almost emotionally detached – probably the very reason they are drawn to one another and keep pushing in their own way.
Neither of them are bested; they both lose and win simultaneously. Mycroft pointing out Sherlock has been played by the oldest trick in the book is testament to this – he didn’t expect a connection of himself so became part of the problem. For him to be considered a weak link is the ultimate destruction of what he is.
Not only that, but men have emotions too.
John and Irene’s conversation is also key; he’s not gay, she is, and yet they both love and care for Sherlock against the grain … I actually like the fact they make it clear that love isn’t necessarily sexual; backed up by her detachment of sex from emotions.
Of course, the usage of Molly is more a problem, but balanced out by the presence of Mrs Hudson, who was used to subvert the stereotype in her case.
I didn’t like the ending much, either, as I felt it wasn’t necessary (I would’ve chosen to fade out after the text, still ambiguous) – but then, it felt a bit ‘friends on an adventure’ to me, with Sherlock getting one over on his own brother.
My problem with Irene being gay, although you make a good point about the love/sex separation, is that there was absolutely no real exploration or treatment of her sexuality. It seemed very much added on. I didn’t get a feeling of her as an LGBTQ character, or even for me much of a character at all. She was a tool to explore Sherlock’s character.
I disagree that it was necessary for Irene to be so sexualised; she could have been a sexual being without it being the core of her entire plot. I have no problem with the character as a sexual being; as I said, my problem was that she was performing sexuality; everything about her sexual experiences was an act and facade, expressed in the way she described nakedness as “her battle dress”. This wouldn’t have been so bad if it had been brought out as a point more, but I felt the writing and direction was more concerned with showing the audience how hot she was naked.
Of course men have emotions too, and that’s important to show. But there’s a strong thread throughout literature and media portrayals of women that women have a particular emotional weakness, or if not weakness, are certainly more emotional than men; it seemed to me as if Adler’s femininity was her downfall.
I like the literary Easter eggs, but I’m still not sure that makes me any more comfortable with the interchangeable girlfriend effect…
See, I thought of her nudity being used to point out that Sherlock could not read her AT ALL in the beginning, and she was smart enough to realize that he read people through clothing and other things like that. It was her first move against him–giving him nothing about herself, as clothing would give her away.
I do really agree with the sexuality issue, because it was trying to point out a love/sex idea, it failed miserably. I also didn’t like that she had to be saved by Sherlock at the end. I’m sort of hoping she comes back to beat Sherlock later, and this was a set up for that. Hopefully not wishful thinking on my part. I would feel so much better about this episode (even though I unashamedly loved it because I thought there were so many good things done that it sort of balanced out) if they resolved it later with her winning.
Stackee-
‘Firstly, I’m glad you acknowledge that being a sex worker is fine; I have found some comments seen on this distasteful & actually hypocritical in some respects … prostitution should be legalised, yet equating sex = whore is just plain wrong. Women are allowed to be sexual beings as much as men are.’
Ahh! So women turn to prostitution as a means of exploring their sexuality, not through desparation at all!
What’s so worrying is TV’s repeated efforts to make sex work appear as a glamorous lifestyle choice. A woman can be portrayed as sexual without being a sex worker.
Not only were there no female politicians in last night’s episode, there were no female ranking police officers (no female police officers at all that I recall), female thugs from the CIA or female diplomats.
There was the Queen, of course, but we never saw her. Why was she not allowed to meet Sherlock?
Even Mrs Hudson was slavishly devoted to Holmes and Watson, and when Mycroft insulted her Holmes only got annoyed because he wanted to be the one to control her.
I did enjoy watching the episode, but it would be nice if Moffat updated the show’s attitude to gender from the 1800′s, given that it’s set in the modern day.
Actually, having read Dreams of a New Day by Rowbotham, there were probably more females in politics in the 1800′s than there were in Sherlock.
I agree with a lot of this, but not all. I feel there are a few issues you haven’t addressed – particularly the fact that the episode was concerned with Irene and Sherlock as an intellectual relationship. The back-and-forth of their interactions was sexualised, certainly, but the content was not. Thinking about their interactions as a two-way relation, furthermore, enables one to see that both lose and win at certain points, and indeed, as a commenter has pointed out above, sometimes simultaneously. It is less the two individuals separately than the association between the two which is the subject of the story. I think it is only a partial reading (viewing?) to suggest that Adler is humiliated – the fiery back-and-forth of her and Sherlock’s interactions lead to victory, success, failure and loss at various points for both. Perhaps a high-scoring game with Sherlock nicking an injury time winner, if I’m going to use a footballing metaphor. The scene in the Middle East appeared to me less the rescue of a damsel in distress (that is, a triumph of Sherlock over Irene) than the release of tensions between Sherlock as an outsider and the British establishment (that is, a triumph of Sherlock over Mycroft). Saying that, I have no trouble with your interpretation, I simply didn’t consider it that way. I did feel the scene was necessary to satisfactorily conclude the story though.
Certainly the characterisation of Adler as a straight man’s fantasy I cannot really dispute – there is little doubt in my mind that this is precisely what Moffat intended. Nevertheless, it seems a trifle unfair to generalise from Irene’s position as a high-class sex worker any further conclusions about an authorial attitude to female sexuality – for one thing, the episode dealt with only powerful people (intellectually, socially, sexually and in every other way) – a sense of arrogance and superiority over others was visible in Sherlock, Mycroft, Moriarty and Adler. Power is the construct that is sexualised and fantasised, not so much masculinity directly (though, of course, they are greatly linked).The Molly Hooper’s present scene I did consider unnecessary and unhelpful, and John’s girlfriend wasn’t really explored enough to be anything other than a device to suggest Sherlock’s disinterest in most human beings, and to hint at homoeroticism between John and Sherlock, so I’m not sure too much can be extrapolated from them, except that Moffat was not very concerned with peripheral characters.
To conclude, there is little doubt that Moffat is at least in some ways a misogynist, and his treatment of female characters is often based on his explicitly male sexual eye. But I think where Sherlock is concerned, being primarily a story about high-tension, powerful intellectual games and the characters that play them, rather than gender considered in itself, it is possible to overstate a case. I enjoyed both Conan Doyle’s and Moffat’s versions of this story, despite their differing views of of Irene, as I felt both were twisty, high-stakes and tense, in precisely the way Sherlock Holmes should be.
That’s a good point about Irene and Sherlock as an intellectual relationship, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was sexual attraction and emotions which were her downfall: Sherlock guesses by her dilated pupils and faster heart rate that she’s attracted to him. I believe she is humiliated: as a dom in her sexual and personal life, she is forced to submit to him. In the scene where he rescues her, she is quite literally on her knees before him, relying on him for her life. He holds the sword: if he wanted to, he has the power to kill her himself.
To me the fact that Sherlock isn’t “gender considered in itself” isn’t all that relevant. It is quite possible for there not to be authorial intention towards misogyny, but for that misogyny still to exist. And again, I wouldn’t mind if there was one female character for whom sexuality was just performative, but it seems that way for all the female characters.
More or less my problem with the episode was the missing of Godfrey Norton. He (or, as Moffat himself pointed out in a Reply as I asked him about the man, she) played a crucial role in the original story, and bringing her into it would have solved several problems – first, the last part in Irene’s story would not have ended like this, we would have Irene winning and being even superior to Sherlock by following her emotions AND being as clever as the man himself (following the original story). We would have had a Lesbian relationship on the show. Yeah! Two people who are not afraid to show their emotions, who are still awesome, and we even see that relationships are not doomed to fail.
Thanks for the link! I’ve just finished blogging about this episode, too, if you’re interested: http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-scandal-in-belgravia/
I agree with virtually all of this. As far as Sherlock’s gender politics go, Irene’s metaphorical and then literal kneeling before Sherlock was essentially a matryoska of misogyny porn – not only is she defeated by Sherlock because she’s a silly woman who can’t resist indulging in those ~emotions~ of hers (depsite this being a massive departure from her original character), but the execution scene was breathtakingly skeevy in a) exoticising female punishment on several uncomfortable levels, b) confirming Sherlock as the centre of her character (her last thoughts being of him – again, in a massive departure from her original character) and c) acting as an excuse to have her entirely at Sherlock’s mercy AGAIN and for NO REASON AT ALL. The plot of the original Scandal in Bohemia suggests that Irene ending up as the woman who “brought a country to its knees” would be the most logical resolution for the episode – the fact that Irene’s victory was taken away not once but twice, as a deliberate modification to her storyline, was deeply unpleasant to watch.
Since “she’s gay” was previously given as a reason why Irene/Sherlock wouldn’t be happening as a “mundane” love story, it would seem that we were intended to read her as lesbian rather than bisexual – which makes shoving her into a heteronormative narrative totally inexcusable and offensive. If she was intended to be bisexual, giving an extreme benefit of the doubt, then while Irene/Sherlock mightn’t be offensive on an individual story level, it still highlights the ongoing trend of bisexual TV characters being presented as juuuust queer enough to titillate, but still unfailingly heterosexual in their most important attractions and relationships, which feels very marginalising when it’s an overwhelming pattern.
In light of Sherlock apparently being her only ~real~ love interest, the handling of her sexuality does come across as being a straight man’s fantasy, although I have some quibbles over complaints about her being too male-gazey and obviously written for men because she’s a coventionally attractive femme – using the term “male gaze” in this context always bothers me a little because it erases the possibility that any women would be attracted to her femmeness (which was totally untrue for me, at least), thereby placing a sense of arbitrary limit on female sexuality and sort of implying that the only possible reason for a woman to be femme is so that men will find her attractive. Looking at how Irene’s character was written overall, it does seem as though her particular kind of attractiveness was chosen for a specific audience – which is problematic – but… idk, I’m still somewhat torn about equating femininity with ~doin’ it for the patriachy~ through personal experience of being femme/attracted to femmes in spaces where it’s heavily implied that ~real women~ don’t like lipstick and lace and heels (or the women who wear them), because they’re just artifacts of male fantasy. *shrugs*
Oh, I see what you mean about the femmeness; I didn’t intend to imply that no woman would be attracted to her – I certainly was – but just that she was constructed by a man with the intention of titillating men. I think that femininity is complicated; I believe any woman should be able to behave how she wants, whether butch, femme, or outside that dichotomy entirely, but the way the world is also affects women’s choices.
Thanks for writing this – sums up exactly my frustration and disappointment with this episode.
I watched the episode after reading this. First time I’ve seen any of the Sherlock programmes.
Can’t help but think that you’re expecting something deep out of something that’s deliberately shallow. I’m slightly at a disadvantage having never read the original Sherlock Holmes stuff – but I suspect most people these days haven’t. Also I find the whole idea of sub/dom sexuality a little bit stupid. If someone in black leather knickers wanted to accuse me of being a naughty boy I’d be tempted to say “Look if I want to stay on twitter all day I will OK ?”
For me Sherlock is characterised by the popular image of him as a “flawed genius” rather than by reference to Conan Doyle’s character. In this the character resembles no one quite so much as Gregory House – and like House he is meant to be not just flawed, but a total twat as well. He is still nevertheless an undisputable genius, and the whole point of the portrayal is that we’re left to wonder – could he still be such a genius if he wasn’t such a twat ? To which the answer will alway’s presumably be no – but we’ll always get tantalising glimpses of the more human side of Sherlock – but this will be when he lets his guard down and “weakens”.
We’re not meant to pity Molly – we’re meant to fancy her – it’s Sherlock that we’re meant to pity – because for all his genius he ain’t never had a girl – or for that matter a boy. Watson on the other hand sees through the stupidity of Holme’s misogyny and general misanthropy – and has no trouble finding partners. His problem is keeping them since he invariably falls prey to the same faults which he can so easily identify in Sherlock, but can not eradicate in himself. Again we’re meant to be crtical of him, not to have sympathy with him.
To my mind the female characters come out looking rather more stable and admirable people, than the male ones.
The Una Stubbs role is just a comic book Mum role. I don’t think there’s much beyond that – the character serves to remind us that Holmes & Watson may will be able to outwit villains and save the world, but are nevertheless pathetic little boys who would be lost without a Mumsy to shout at them and make them tidy their room once in a while. the casting is interesting – Una the squeaky clean girl from Summer Holiday who became the deliciously gorgeous Aunt Sally who mistreated poor old Worzel more than any high class dominatrix ever could . She is Uni Queue !
Where I think that you’re probably right though is in respect of Irene Adler – but I don’t understand why you’re so quick to defend the choice of role as “sex worker”. It’s a ridiculous departure from her role as an Opera Singer in the original – and I suspect it’s been done to up date the idea of her as a “Scarlet Woman” – a woman who had affairs would hardly be seen as shocking in the current age. To me though it’s offensive to think that the only role they could think of for a powerful woman is that of a prostitiute – and to have her as a dominatrix only adds a level of ridiculousness to that.
That said, her sparring with Sherlock is pretty tame really – they are both portrayed as being devoid of any human feelings – and “stronger” because of this trait – a trait which would be a weakness in most people. The duel between them thus becomes a contest in who can be the coldest and most calculating – and this is what they admire in each other. In admiring the quality of another of course they open up the chink in their armour,
In the final scene I didn’t notice that she cried, and if she did it could only have been a symbolic tear rolling down her face (Compare with Mary Tyler Moore in Ordinary People). She didn’t cry out for help – she was resigned to her fate – but she nevertheless received help. Which could of course be seen as reinforcing a patriarchal view of society, You could also argue that by the strength of their common endeavours they achieved more than they could alone – which I think is on the back of my Labour membership card.
Or you could say it was a nice way to have a happy ending.
In response to “@Woman with a life” – the whole point of discussing television programmes like this is so that you can explore ideas and concepts in as much depth as you want to without getting bogged down by the emotions and hardships that real life brings. It’s what fiction is for – to help uis enjoy thinking.
Nice blog Simone – I should stop by here more often.
You start out with a 7 year old quote that was taken out of context.
Because she is a sex worker, that must mean the only way Moffat can see a woman as powerful is to make her one? What? Could that not just be her job? Could she not just plain enjoy it?
You completely ignore the part where Molly yelled and got upset at and called Sherlock out for his behaviour, and he actually backed down and apologized, something he rarely does. Donovan was not humiliated because she had sex, she was humiliated because she was part of an affair.
” If she was indeed supposed to be a lesbian, quite apart from the disappointing fact that she was another TV lesbian who was clearly designed to appeal to the male gaze, the fact that she fell for a man throughout the episode was pretty much a male fantasy come to life. If she was intended to be bi or pan-sexual, she handily fell into the old “bisexuals are sluts” cliche, in an extremely literal way. Her sexuality seemed to be a pasted on character trait to make her more sexy, more appealing.”
Where in the complete 90 mins of this show did they in anyway imply that she was “just another tv lesbian”? She mentioned it for like 15 seconds and then no one said a dang thing about it at any other point. Gay people do sometimes like people of the opposite sex. It happens, sexuality can be fluid. Her servicing men and women both is a part of her job, and just like anyone else her sexuality would not a should not have anything to do with it. That scene was all about showing two people who should not or otherwise would not be attracted to sherlock, BEING attracted to sherlock. John as a straight man and her as a gay woman. And if she is bi/pan, again HOW did they imply that she was some bi slut?? She was not portrayed to randomly go about having sex willy nilly, but took her job seriously, chose her clients, got “insurance”, etc.
And I’m sorry, but if anyone is NOT crying when their about to be BEHEADED they have some serious issues. I can’t believe you think that is a criticism.
Sherlock saved her, not because she was a poor woman, but to show that he has some level of feeling and emotional attachment to other humans.
Moffat has written some of the greatest female characters ever to grace tv. I developed a life long attraction to smart witty women thanks to Lynda Day. Sexuality is a big part of the stories he writes, much like say, Joss Whedon. Both have women often saving the day. How great is Amy Pond and River Song as role models?
Both Irene and Sherlock are flawed. Lots of references to Sherlocks stunted sexuality. Why must you make it about ALL women. I find it ludicrous that the Molly scene, you take it that audiences would think Molly was stupid. I think most people not looking for a fight would see Sherlock was wrong. I think that was the point of the scene. Does Sherlock represent all men?
I’m sad that you can’t see past fiction, and to enjoy the great show. As a writer, I often write view points that I study but don’t subscribe to. It is the essence of writing character, as opposed to being say a singer songwriter or comedian that just writes about themselves.
And that’s my reasoning. In the end though, I think this is a terrible, reactionary, misunderstood piece that says far more about your insecurities than anything you are trying to critique
Just to say, Irene successfully beat Sherlock twice in the episode (escaping to begin with, and would have won if she hadn’t sent the phone to him. Later, tricked him into breaking the code); Sherlock won once due to something Irene couldn’t control. I think it’s also worth pointing out there was no romance between her and Sherlock: Sherlock’s asexual, Irene’s a lesbian, so how could there be? Moffat himself also explicitly stated that it’s a ‘non-love story’, more of a meeting of wits. It probably links to her seeming sexualization in the episode: Sherlock has always been asexual, how better to put him off guard? Holmes could read nothing from her. Only Moriarty (the classic nemesis himself) achieved as much.
The key thing about Moffat, is that things are always more than they seem. On Doctor Who and Sherlock, there are the incredibly complex (possibly too complex) storylines, He does the same with characters: Irene is gay, Sherlock is not attracted to her. Still, they admire each other (not romantically, admiration can be for either gender regardless of orientation); Sherlock saved her at the end for the same reason Moriarty didn’t just shoot him. They like the contest; and no doubt it’s the same reason Irene enjoyed matching her mind with Sherlock’s.
Two more things. First, the quote referenced comes from The Scotsman if I’m not mistaken, yes it sounds misogynist, but only if it can be trusted. It’s hardly a reliable source; take Neil Gaiman, he did an interview with them, and they wrote down the exact opposite of what he said for the scandal. The quote says men try to avoid marriage: which is immediately questionable as in Doctor Who, the men are always the keenest to get married: few exceptions.
Finally, Moffat may not be perfect when it comes to writing women, but he’s not misogynist because of it. he treats every character, male or female, the same way: Jack Harkness (of Doctor Who) is just as sexually open as Irene and the like, and Sherlock’s nudity in Buckingham palace as well as several scenes involving the Doctor are far more common than the nude scenes involving female characters.
Watched as a one-off episode with no context, yes, A Scandal in Belgravia can seem sexist; yet Moffat treats his female no characters any worse than he treats his men. It’s worth noting that in every single story he’s written for Doctor Who, with just two (questionable) exceptions, a woman has been instrumental in saving the day. (In order: Nancy, Reinette and the fireplace, Sally Sparrow, CAL and River and Evangelista, Amy, Amy, [two-parter excluded here as no one was responsible for saving things], Amy’s memory and River, Abigail, [first exception], [no one again], [second possible exception], Madge).
This is why we can’t have nice things!
Very persuasive, thought-provoking article which has made me reassess my own views on the episode to some extent.
I’m still not entirely convinced, though, that Moffat has taken an iconic feminist work and ruined it. For me, the original ACD story is highly problematic in itself. Yes, Watson does say at the end of it that Holmes “used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late”, which suggests that being bested by Irene has made him change his hitherto poor opinion of women. However, the “The Woman” sobriquet conferred on Adler by Sherlock itself suggest that she is the exception, not the rule – the ONE woman who stands out because she’s not stupider than men. Watson also says “In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex”, which again suggests that she is not proof that women are as intelligent as men, but a freakish aberration from the norm which more or less confirms that most women aren’t that bright (I do, incidentally, wonder if it was that line “predominates the whole of her sex” which gave Moffat the idea of a lesbian dominatrix). I always saw ACD’s portrayal of Adler as being the rare woman who can be considered an honorary man, rather than a ringing endorsement of gender equality.
Several people gloss over this by saying, “Yes, well, but we have to make allowances for him, because he was writing in the 19th century! Surely work written now should be more progressive, not less!” A case could also be made, though, that “Women can be as clever as men!” is not exactly a scoop headline in 2012 – does anyone of intelligence seriously doubt that anymore? – so it’s less important to show the great male hero being beaten by a woman.
Plus, in the original story, Adler’s “amazing” victory over Holmes pretty much amounted to her realising that Sherlock had tricked her with his rather pathetic vicar ruse (I was so glad that in Moffat’s version she wasn’t stupid enough to fall for it in the first place! This was one of a few places where I felt TVAdler was a great improvement on ACDAdler) and now knew where the photograph was, so she *drum roll* moves it. IMO Pulver’s Adler defeated and humiliated Sherlock in a far more comprehensive and sophisticated way than in the book in the first half of the programme, even if it was (I agree) unfortunate that he ended up evening the score by the end and having to rescue her damsel in distress.
Yes, I agree the “Sex work is so glamorous, empowering and fun!” thrust of the programme was embarrassing and offensive (although it is difficult to see where they could have gone to find a situation which would be blackmailworthy in 2012 without wandering into dubious sexual waters. And BookAdler is described by Watson as “the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory”, which suggests that she is someone Middle England would find perverse and shocking. I think Moffat made a bad call with the dominatrix thing, a very bad call, but I can understand why, taking the source as his starting point, he went that way. I don’t think it was just him dying to write about a dominatrix for misogynist kicks.) And don’t get me started on her shifting sexuality!
I’m so glad you mentioned the “knees” line from series one, because it makes me angry every time I watch it.
But was TVAdler “humiliated and brought down by Sherlock, and betrayed by her emotions”? I felt that Sherlock’s lines about sentiment being a weakness of the losing side and the chemistry of love being very simple were intended to show HIS continuing weaknesses – total social ineptness and a fatal tendency to undervalue emotion – not hers. This is a man who is presented as being emotionally and sexually immature and is, indeed, savagely mocked in public by his own brother for being so. I do not believe that Shelrock’s opinions on emotion=weakness should be taken as those of the author.
I agree that too often Sherlock’s humiliation of women is played for cheap laughs, which is obviously crass and offensive, but I also think that there’s an underlying sense that what he is doing is wrong and that part of his character arc will be to grow out of doing it (which I think is already starting to happen, with his apology to Molly).
Anyway, sorry for going on.
Irene Adler IS dead! The execution at the end of the episode was Sherlock’s fantasy. It is his attempt at clinging onto the only person whom ever came close to besting him. and the only person whom could ever be permitted to see his true feelings. The way the fantasy plays out in his mind proves both his sexual bias towards women and he ashamed love for women.
Woah this weblog is magnificent i love reading your articles. Stay up the good work! You know, a lot of people are looking round for this info, you could aid them greatly.
Good one. I do like most of the episodes and the way Moffat and Gatiss extend the story lines beyond the original conclusions by Conan Doyle , but this time around it did leave a little bitter taste in the mouth to have the story extended only to have Irene sherlocked. It felt like the writers gave it the conclusion of their childhood fantasies – of their ultimate hero remaining unbested and shrinking away from having to show the softening of Holmes’s ego which added that extra layer to the character in Conan Doyle’s series. But apart from that I actually feel a lot of the women characters in this one are more evolved than in the original series, especially in the scenes like where Mrs. Hudson hides the camera phone and is cackling away remembering her own howling-act or Molly sharply reprimanding Sherlock for always saying ‘Horrible things’ – where Sherlock has to admit silently that his deductions had indeed been wrong, forcing him to actually apologise to her. It also comes across that Sherlock actually loves and respects Mrs. Hudson – in the way he measures her wounds and makes the American personnel pay for it by throwing him off the window and in the way he hugs her in the end and says ” Mrs. Hudson leave Baker Street-England would Fall !” And he also later accepts Molly’s superior observation power of him being sad and lets her see his emotions -I really liked that small scene of him dropping his barriers in front of Molly – especially after it is clear he often emotionally manipulates her himself.
I totally agree with your analysis. Another damning point to me was Moffat’s decision to affiliate Adler with Moriarty. Irene states in the reveal that she was not the one to plan out the scheme to outwit Sherlock — it was Moriarty who did. So, in this version, Irene Adler only succeeds as much as she did because she was under the tutelage of another male genius. It was an addition of hers to the plan — the passcode — that brought her to ruin.
Sherlock’s final reasoning of her affection didn’t make much sense to me anyway. His analysis of her physical response to him in his flat could easily have been followed by her saying, “It’s not just a job.” Her successful seduction and controlling of him could have aroused her dom nature, and not meant she’d developed a crush.
See what TV tropes has to say on the subject:
For all her (alleged) intelligence, Irene is actually laughably incompetent. First off, she manages to piss off people who are capable of getting her killed, she pretty much requires Moriarty to do her planning for her. Not to mention that the plan that they come up with is ridiculously, inexplicably convoluted; far easier just to say: “help me or I’ll blackmail you. Then, just as she is on the verge of triumph, decides to indulge in some Evil Gloating just because she can even though taunting Sherlock is not the smartest thing to do. She ends up getting outsmarted because she didn’t have the foresight to choose four random numbers instead using her crush’s name as some sort of Pun resulting in her devolving from Magnificent Bitch to groveling Damsel in Distress in one fell swoop. Well done, Adler. Way to live up to your reputation as The Woman!
Thanks for such a great review, Simone.