inititally he wanted to be a pirate
Okay, so I did enjoy quite a few things about A Scandal in Belgravia. I liked Sherlock detecting, I liked Watson in his jumper, I liked that Irene was pretty badass and queer and unapologetic about both those things.
However, I have FEEEEEELINGS, ALL THE FEELINGS about pretty much everything else about her portrayal, and I am going to keymash a moment. Any other book-Holmes fans wanting to weigh in, please do.
1. I did very much like that she was still queer even with the attraction to Sherlock, but I wanted to go NO. IRENE DOES NOT FANCY HOLMES, NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL. IT IS A NON-SEXUAL THING.
(I realise this is entirely a lost argument as far as modern remakes go as they all apparently need the best female character in the canon to be the love interest.)
2. Oh my god NO SHE IS NOT A PAWN OF MORIARTY ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Moriarty is a spider at the centre of a web of crime, that does not mean every other baddie has to be under his influence, and especially not the best and coolest female character in the books.
(I really liked the parade of potential clients until they apparently had to make ALL OF THEM part of the same thing, too. I LIKE that Holmes has clients of the week, it's one of the defining features of the books. This is why the Brett serialisation makes more sense than a miniseries with an apparent overall arc.)
3. While I have no objection to her being a sexual creature, or a dominatrix, I actually really like that in the canon, she's... a regular woman. Sure she's an expert crossdresser who beats Holmes at his own game, but she's also a fairly normal woman. She's not in possession of state secrets, she's not in high politics, or necessarily in anything: she's just an awesome woman who took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself, and then dealt with a threat to herself extremely well. The aspects of her life that are socially transgressive are private - I can see why they went to 'sexually transgressive Victorian - right, the modern equivalent is a dominatrix!', but she's not public, she's far too concerned about maintaining her own safety (including her social safety) for that.
4. Relatedly, in the books she BEAT HIM. As in, successfully defeated his plan to capture her, not anything kinky with a whip. I don't mind including the kinky kind of beating as well, if they want to go there, but they replaced her winning with her being a dominatrix, and that's not a bargain I want to make.
5. And that's in both recent adaptations: Sherlock Irene was better than the movie Irene just being fridged so Holmes can have manpain - she does more cool things and is badass and but come on. They could at least have let her get out of the problem at the end without it being Sherlock the whole time, or whatever the fuck we were supposed to take from that.
6. I liked her being queer very much, but I don't really have any confidence that Moffatt realised any of the potential ickiness involved in a plot where a gay woman falls for a man. I mean, while she did say she was still gay (which I appreciate!), it still seemed.... rushed and thoughtless. And I AM a queer woman who's currently with a man. I should be the poster child for loving that plot!
I think, for me at least, it's because there's no actual reason for Irene to fancy Sherlock: she doesn't in the book, and it doesn't even add anything to the plot except the SHERLOCKED pun. The contrast with John, a straight man who also wants to be with Sherlock, would only really work if we were explicitly told that he wants to get in Sherlock's pants as well as his life: then the parallel would be exact, and the story could be about that. It would be an actual thing. But no. John and Sherlock do get referred to as a couple, and Sherlock does get implied to be asexual again, but John is almost terminally straight in this (so many girlfriends even he can't remember which one has the pet dog!) and there's no actual use of the parallel between him and Irene in that regard at all. Or if there is, it's strictly of the 'fancying men takes precedence over fancying women' kind. Eh.
Er, I actually feel less ranty about it than that implies, but yeah.
Other stuff:
This discussion of Dreamwidth's ongoing scaleability is one of many reasons why I like it better than any other blogging platform. ♥
And finally, I am looking into maybe finally going onto a mobile phone contract. I love my Blackberry, and I've done fine with my pay as you go lifestyle so far, but Orange are really hacking me off, and I am seriously considering jumping ship. I HATE the idea of being tied down in an expensive and pointless contract, though! Does anyone have any good ideas? I need a smartphone, but am willing to think beyond my beloved Blackberry if a good enough offer is available.
This entry was originally posted at http://soupytwist.dreamwidth.org/78487.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
However, I have FEEEEEELINGS, ALL THE FEELINGS about pretty much everything else about her portrayal, and I am going to keymash a moment. Any other book-Holmes fans wanting to weigh in, please do.
1. I did very much like that she was still queer even with the attraction to Sherlock, but I wanted to go NO. IRENE DOES NOT FANCY HOLMES, NEVER DID AND NEVER WILL. IT IS A NON-SEXUAL THING.
(I realise this is entirely a lost argument as far as modern remakes go as they all apparently need the best female character in the canon to be the love interest.)
2. Oh my god NO SHE IS NOT A PAWN OF MORIARTY ARE YOU KIDDING ME. Moriarty is a spider at the centre of a web of crime, that does not mean every other baddie has to be under his influence, and especially not the best and coolest female character in the books.
(I really liked the parade of potential clients until they apparently had to make ALL OF THEM part of the same thing, too. I LIKE that Holmes has clients of the week, it's one of the defining features of the books. This is why the Brett serialisation makes more sense than a miniseries with an apparent overall arc.)
3. While I have no objection to her being a sexual creature, or a dominatrix, I actually really like that in the canon, she's... a regular woman. Sure she's an expert crossdresser who beats Holmes at his own game, but she's also a fairly normal woman. She's not in possession of state secrets, she's not in high politics, or necessarily in anything: she's just an awesome woman who took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself, and then dealt with a threat to herself extremely well. The aspects of her life that are socially transgressive are private - I can see why they went to 'sexually transgressive Victorian - right, the modern equivalent is a dominatrix!', but she's not public, she's far too concerned about maintaining her own safety (including her social safety) for that.
4. Relatedly, in the books she BEAT HIM. As in, successfully defeated his plan to capture her, not anything kinky with a whip. I don't mind including the kinky kind of beating as well, if they want to go there, but they replaced her winning with her being a dominatrix, and that's not a bargain I want to make.
5. And that's in both recent adaptations: Sherlock Irene was better than the movie Irene just being fridged so Holmes can have manpain - she does more cool things and is badass and but come on. They could at least have let her get out of the problem at the end without it being Sherlock the whole time, or whatever the fuck we were supposed to take from that.
6. I liked her being queer very much, but I don't really have any confidence that Moffatt realised any of the potential ickiness involved in a plot where a gay woman falls for a man. I mean, while she did say she was still gay (which I appreciate!), it still seemed.... rushed and thoughtless. And I AM a queer woman who's currently with a man. I should be the poster child for loving that plot!
I think, for me at least, it's because there's no actual reason for Irene to fancy Sherlock: she doesn't in the book, and it doesn't even add anything to the plot except the SHERLOCKED pun. The contrast with John, a straight man who also wants to be with Sherlock, would only really work if we were explicitly told that he wants to get in Sherlock's pants as well as his life: then the parallel would be exact, and the story could be about that. It would be an actual thing. But no. John and Sherlock do get referred to as a couple, and Sherlock does get implied to be asexual again, but John is almost terminally straight in this (so many girlfriends even he can't remember which one has the pet dog!) and there's no actual use of the parallel between him and Irene in that regard at all. Or if there is, it's strictly of the 'fancying men takes precedence over fancying women' kind. Eh.
Er, I actually feel less ranty about it than that implies, but yeah.
Other stuff:
This discussion of Dreamwidth's ongoing scaleability is one of many reasons why I like it better than any other blogging platform. ♥
And finally, I am looking into maybe finally going onto a mobile phone contract. I love my Blackberry, and I've done fine with my pay as you go lifestyle so far, but Orange are really hacking me off, and I am seriously considering jumping ship. I HATE the idea of being tied down in an expensive and pointless contract, though! Does anyone have any good ideas? I need a smartphone, but am willing to think beyond my beloved Blackberry if a good enough offer is available.
This entry was originally posted at http://soupytwist.dreamwidth.org/78487.html. Please comment there using OpenID.