I'm completely fine with that direction, and like you said, it's a show about sociopaths and could work really well as one. The problem that I'm talking about is that Moffat still seems to be working partially with the first-series portrayal of Sherlock as a sort of amusingly oblivious Asperger's case, and seems to be unwilling to portray him as somebody who is fundamentally Not A Good Person. Instead, we get him as an anti-hero that we're still supposed to be sympathetic towards, plus the previously-mentioned unwillingness to ever have Sherlock be anything less than completely dominant over the rest of the world.
Hmm, I don't know. Of all the rants I've read about Sherlock and Who, most if not all of them have been from people who are or were fans, who were disappointed with the canon for whatever reason and wanted to express it. I know more than a few people who, like andraste's partner , have been loyal fans for a long time, only to come across something they can't agree with and have decided to share that disagreement in an effort to understand it. I think I'd feel better about your argument if you could provide some examples of BNDs and why you consider them so.
It's telling that out of all of Sherlock Holmes's characteristics, Moffat decided to pick the two that, you know. Involve the most scenes of Holmes being smarter than everyone else, and the most scenes of Holmes being mean to other people. Compare the way Sherlock is shot to the Granada production. Interesting that no one's yet brought up Mrs.
Hudson, who is, in Doyle and in every other adaptation I've seen, a one-dimensional utility background character, and who in this episode was shown turning the "dithery helpless elderly woman" stereotype on its head and, granted, to Sherlock's advantage , and displaying resourcefulness, guile, and physical courage. I'm not crazy about the treatment of Irene Adler here, or of female characters in the series generally, but as a verging-on-elderly woman myself, I do like Mrs.
Hudson being given a bit more depth. I don't know, she does risk her life in the Granada adaptation of the Empty House, and Holmes clearly credits her bravery. Again, taken directly from the original stories. Sherlock is generally very well-written and extremely well-cast, well-acted, and well-directed. Sherlock is generally pretty awesome, flaws and all. My SO and I look forward eagerly to the next episode.
Also, getting back to the article: I'd hardly consider Adler to be "proto-feminist" merely by dint of her having outwitted Holmes. She's a part of Sherlock's world, not the other way around. The fact that her character was clever is no more a proto-feminist statement than the character of Puss in Boots was an early example of the animal rights movement.
But Moffat doesn't have to do that deconstruction himself, overtly in the script. The audience does it for him, when the audience recognizes Sherlock as being callous and cruel.
Hand-holding the audience through this process would be tiresome and condescending. Holmes is engaging because he lacks a good portion of what makes us human - not just that he has remarkable abilities, but because he doesn't fit in. His rabidly antisocial tendencies help make it all the more interesting when he apparently defends Mrs. Hudson, or when he obviously falls for Irene Adler.
This isn't new, either. In 1x01, wasn't he described as being a functional sociopath? In 1x01, wasn't it shown that his passion for solving mysteries almost drove him to an effective suicide, were it not for the intervention of Dr. And wasn't it a surprise when, in 1x03, he's obviously shaken when Watson is threatened?
Well, the show is called Sherlock , not 'Locky and Friends. At the end of the day, he ought to be the center of attention. Watson, et al. For example, I don't want episodes where Sherlock apologizes to Mrs. Hudson for being brusque, tells Dr. Watson that he'll be more considerate from now on of his time and energies, and has a nice, pleasant dinner with his brother where he says that he'd like to bury the hatchet and to recognize the full potential of both their familial relationship and mutual, cooperative respect of one another's professional sphere.
He certainly is cruel, unsympathetic, and fairly creepy. Many people find that interesting. All the various versions of Sherlock Holmes have had him as cold, sarcastic, and bizarre. It makes for interesting stories. To take another angle on it: if you looked at the qualities we would want in our friends, family, fellow citizens of the world, etc.
Most people don't want stories about nice, fair reasonable, level-headed people who basically try to get along with people. We want interesting stories about people who want something but who face obstacles on their path to getting that something. We also don't need hand-holding to learn than we shouldn't act like Sherlock Holmes in real life.
A very good point. Telling of what?
The Intimates of Irene Adler by Richard Russell
Moffat's Sherlock is colder than most other Sherlocks, but it's relentlessly interesting, and he isn't really any meaner than House. Contrariwise, Moffat's Eleventh Doctor is usually cuddlier than most other Doctors, except when threatened.
prod.golftoday.pbc.io/4532.php They're both just angles on existing characters. I think I saw a different piece of TV While I didn't like the way the ending was shot and how it was sprung on the audience , I saw it more as a case of Adler manipulating Sherlock into rescuing her, as she'd been manipulating him all along. After all, he got there somehow. The clear implication is that he'd been searching for her for the intervening time despite his feigned indifference to her - she lost her phone full of information, and got a more valuable form of protection in the form of Sherlock's infatuation with her.
This is clearly something that Sherlock regards as a weakness on his part, since he hides it from Watson. The script even went out of its way to mitigate Adler's nudity - Adler uses it to manipulate people, calls nudity her 'battle dress', and parlays it into control, information, and protection from powerful people.
Sherlock, on the other hand, ends up inappropriately naked in public because he throws a petulant fit at his older and more powerful brother, who eventually scolds him back into his clothes. The entire episode seemed set up, in part, to play Watson off of Ader, and to a lesser extent, off of Molly. And look at us. For Sherlock or for media works in general?
- Love Letters Lingerie – Page 2 – Love Letters Intimates.
- My Instagram.
- Richard B. Russell - Schriftliche Werke;
- Howzat!: Kerry Packer and the Great Cricket War;
I admit that the BND idea is new to me and I'm still trying to get a handle on it myself. I guess some of it comes from an effort to weed out or at least be more aware of the sources of negativity in my life, so have not sought out the snark in some time but have become more aware of it as I find it. I've called the "BND" idea "antifans"--there seem to be a lot of people who develop a fandom on hating on their show at the same time they're writing fanfic for it. It's rather a misinterpretation to look at the final scene as 'damsel in distress' -- which is usually reserved for a hapless woman who is in the wrong place at the wrong time, but still deserving of rescue.
Irene Adler is neither hapless nor in the wrong place at the wrong time. Consider: she had a piece of very important information; she's a woman for whom power means everything, and yet she had no idea how to handle this inscrutable data; she consults a consulting criminal, who advises her on how to proceed. In the end, by getting Sherlock to crack the information, she foils the plans of the terrorists -- so of course they're going to try and behead her. In the context of the situation, it's appropriate.
Granted, she didn't understand what the data meant until nearly the end when she shows up, coiffed and saucy on the plane -- land speed record for grooming, I'd say but she didn't shy away from anything -- she was ready to push all the way to the end. The only thing the data meant to her was more power, more protection.
Sherlock saving Adler from the beheading was disappointing only in that she wasn't worthy of it. While she's no Moriarity yet , neither is she a moral neutral. Sherlock saving Adler reveals his hope that she can be redeemed. I feel like the 'manipulative sexuality' angle is really overplayed, though, Wylla. It makes me really glad for Mrs. Hudson, who is as far as I can tell the only female character on Sherlock who is not defined almost entirely by her sexuality.