Sherlock: A Scandal in Belgravia
Jan. 2nd, 2012 05:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwaterspark(Warning: Unpopular opinion ahoy)
I...was disappointed. Sure, there were plenty of funny moments and absolute gems, but Irene Adler's depiction was a letdown. "A Scandal in Bohemia" is (so far) the only Sherlock Holmes story I've actually read in its entirety, and with that in mind, Sherlock's Adler just couldn't hold a candle to the original.
First of all, I personally dislike the idea that women can only gain power through their sexuality. This, however, is not the main focus of my rant.
In the original story, Irene Adler is the only person who can outwit Sherlock Holmes, and the story ends with him losing, but gaining a newfound respect for women. In A Scandal in Belgravia, however, Irene Adler loses because she fell in love with Sherlock, and in the end, he has to rescue her. I'm not against Irene Adler and Sherlock having a sorta-of romantic relationship; I'm against said romantic relationship being used as Adler's ultimate weakness vis-à-vis Sherlock. And while Adler comes off as a powerful "dominatrix" in the first part of the episode, she's completely marginalized by the end. She's also not really a player in her own right, as she's working for Moriarty this entire time (which begs the question of why does Sherlock trust her?).
Now, I say that I'm not against Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes having feelings for each other...in theory. But it didn't really make sense to me that Sherlock would become depressed after finding out that she had "died." The first three episodes had clearly established that Sherlock, while not completely devoid of feeling, clearly does not understand many emotions on an intuitive level. So if he did feel sad after Adler's death (and again, I feel that there should have been some explanation as to why--maybe because she was the only person who could challenge him, or something), I think he should have been puzzled, that he should not have understood why he felt sad.
I also think the writers couldn't decide how to portray Sherlock. In the first season, he's brilliant but "sociopathic" (I use this word unhappily, but I'd prefer not to discuss semantics here), and we're constantly reminded that he may be a great man, in the words of Lestrade, but he's not always a good one. In A Scandal in Belgravia, however, his callous behavior alternates with magnanimity, and so we're not sure what to make of him anymore.
I...was disappointed. Sure, there were plenty of funny moments and absolute gems, but Irene Adler's depiction was a letdown. "A Scandal in Bohemia" is (so far) the only Sherlock Holmes story I've actually read in its entirety, and with that in mind, Sherlock's Adler just couldn't hold a candle to the original.
First of all, I personally dislike the idea that women can only gain power through their sexuality. This, however, is not the main focus of my rant.
In the original story, Irene Adler is the only person who can outwit Sherlock Holmes, and the story ends with him losing, but gaining a newfound respect for women. In A Scandal in Belgravia, however, Irene Adler loses because she fell in love with Sherlock, and in the end, he has to rescue her. I'm not against Irene Adler and Sherlock having a sorta-of romantic relationship; I'm against said romantic relationship being used as Adler's ultimate weakness vis-à-vis Sherlock. And while Adler comes off as a powerful "dominatrix" in the first part of the episode, she's completely marginalized by the end. She's also not really a player in her own right, as she's working for Moriarty this entire time (which begs the question of why does Sherlock trust her?).
Now, I say that I'm not against Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes having feelings for each other...in theory. But it didn't really make sense to me that Sherlock would become depressed after finding out that she had "died." The first three episodes had clearly established that Sherlock, while not completely devoid of feeling, clearly does not understand many emotions on an intuitive level. So if he did feel sad after Adler's death (and again, I feel that there should have been some explanation as to why--maybe because she was the only person who could challenge him, or something), I think he should have been puzzled, that he should not have understood why he felt sad.
I also think the writers couldn't decide how to portray Sherlock. In the first season, he's brilliant but "sociopathic" (I use this word unhappily, but I'd prefer not to discuss semantics here), and we're constantly reminded that he may be a great man, in the words of Lestrade, but he's not always a good one. In A Scandal in Belgravia, however, his callous behavior alternates with magnanimity, and so we're not sure what to make of him anymore.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-01-04 02:47 am (UTC)I definitely like the idea of Sherlock being more "human" over time because of the people he meets, but the difference between The Great Game and this episode was so huge. It was kind of off putting, even though Sherlock was rather endearing in many ways this episode (and annoying).