Irene Adler aka you're doing it wrong

[sundae_sweet]

Who wants to play a game? It’s called Who Would Make A Better Irene Adler Than Irene Adler?

I guess I have to confess the truth: I hate Irene Adler from Sherlock. There are many reasons to hate Irene Adler. Sexist depiction, canon derailment, getting in the way of the fan-preferred OTP…but these are not the reasons I hate Irene Adler. No, I despise

Comments

Quite perplexing

[ext_1277258]

This is something i'm coming across more often, people who are either reactionary or genuinely contemptuous of Stephen Moffat's writing. I'll take your point on Irene Adler, she was a quite unlikeable and cold character, but having seen the episode not nearly deserving of all that bile, but i know never let reason get in the way of a good rant. Sometimes characters earn your hate for their meer existence and everything they do with it, it's a well thought critique but one that is also covered in untapped rage because the character is so unlikeable no fucks are given in trying to sympathize or understand their motivations.

By why so much hate on the Moff? I've watched enough of his work to know hey this guy is actually deserving off the praise he gets. It's very nuanced, compelling stuff from the film The Second Coming, his Doctor Who work and Sherlock. However it seems he gets the most stick for his female characters, but i've enjoyed Amy Pond and River Song, even people like Nasreen or Sally Sparrow were fascinating.

Perhaps his female characters arent as well realised as other shows, but i can't deny A Scandal in Belgravia was an episode i enjoyed, and i find Moffat's writing very good. So it is probably that you just get annoyed when characters you hate are liked or not equally despised, which is fine, just got to realise people dont have the same readings you do. Good quote, but i dont applies to Moffat, from my conclusions it's split between people who like his writing and those who don't.

Re: Quite perplexing

[sundae_sweet]

"it's a well thought critique but one that is also covered in untapped rage because the character is so unlikeable no fucks are given in trying to sympathize or understand their motivations."

One of my problems with Irene was that I had no clear clue of what her motivations were. I think Moffat wanted us to think that she was in it for the game as well as the chance to screw around with the Holmes boys and get a load of cash in the process. But then by the end, she's in tears, trying to convince Sherlock and the audience that her life is in danger and that she's in need of protection. For me, it just sort of derailed her character and felt like a last minute gambit for our sympathy so that it would be morally more acceptable for Sherlock to save her at the end. After all, better a damsel in distress than the pseudo-terrorist she actually is.

And I do agree that Moffat is a talented writer, there is no denying that. But there is also his tendency to make his "strong" female characters feel more like gimmicks ('oh look, she's got a gun and has a whacky timeline' or 'she's a dominatrix!), who no matter how allegedly brilliant and amazing they are, are still nothing more than a focal point for the hero rather than a character in their own right. But you've probably heard this before.

And my main problem with Moffat is that when he's told of how his female creations are percieved, he has a tendency to put his fingers in his ears, rather than looking at his work and trying to understand why people would have that perception and would be so vocal about it. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who's actually thought this. Instead his response is to tell them their wrong, his view is absolute, and that such criticisms are idiotic. And it galls me that, just because he is indeed a talented writer, people believe he can do no wrong and would protect his writing despite its glaring flaws in the messages it puts out.

I think stfu-moffat.tumblr.com put it best: "Because some people shouldn't be allowed to have their shit gone unquestioned.

But hey, you love Moffat, good for you. Don't let my opinions get in the way of enjoying the show or his characters. Just like reason never gets in the way of a good rant, some won't let it get in the way of devotion to a writer and his work, no matter how questionable that work is.

I love Sherlock. I really do and will continue to watch it. But after Irene Adler, the rose colored glasses are gone as well as any notions in Moffat's infallibility as a writer.

Re: Quite perplexing

[ext_1277258]

Thank you Sundae for taking the time to reply to my message on your thread about Irene Adler, you have very salient points on the issue and about Stephen Moffat's writing in general. Your critique of Irene Adler was very good about why we shouldn't symapthize with this cold, arrogant, aloof woman who would sell out her country to a sociopath like Moriarity for a fortune, but her feelings for Sherlock and her the vulnerability she shows to him are meant to garner it. It's not the best work of Moffat but i understood it was his attempt to show the best Sherlock could do at being in love, someone who was his equal.

As for Moffat himself, i understand that he's not untouchable, not all of the Moff's work is the best and yes he is worthy of being taking to task for his weaknesses, which are not always fully formed female characters. However i do think he gets it right probably 80 to 90 percent of the time, there's a reason why RTD had full confidence when ever Moffat wrote a DH script, no oversight needed whatsoever. I think the Tin Tin film copped him alot of flack and this episode also got him sprayed in the Daily Mail or whatever. I dont agree with woman who wrote the piece blasting Moffat, but i understand why his female characters can be construed as sexist or caricatures. His responses to tell people their wrong probably wont help endear him to people but i also get he's defending the validity of his work and if feels someone's offbase about it, he'll say it.

I'm a fan but i certainly dont just blindly like a writer regardless of their faults, but i also have confidence the quality of their work will outweight their misfires. Like with Joss Whedon, David Benioff and Dan Weiss or Alan Ball, great writers but all with their faults and reasons to criticise them for it despite being respected and revered names in Nerd culture.

Thank you Sundae for giving me a response in a respectful and understanding way, good robust discussion like this i feel is becoming a lost art on the internet. Have a good day and look forward to Sherlock season 3.

Re: Quite perplexing

[ext_1277258]

P.S Sorry for the typos and grammatical errors, i've been feeling mentally drained for the past day or so, so i'm not at my sharpest intellectually, but anyway thanks for the reply and good day, Sundae.