The Return of Irene Adler?

Laura Pulver hinted more than once that Irene Adler may return to BBC's Sherlock. She was quoted in April saying she might be back in series 4, and again five days ago here.

I'm torn. Laura Pulver was wonderful in the role that was written, and the script for Scandal in Belgravia was brilliant, but it was a horrible depiction of Irene Adler. Horrible.

As I've commented many times, it seems to be a modern issue that writers (male) can't seem to let Irene Adler beat Sherlock Holmes, despite the fact that it's the primary description of her. She's the person who outwitted Sherlock Holmes. A Victorian gentleman could imagine that scenario and write it, so what's the problem with writers in this century? I don't get it. Simply can not fathom what's going on with this persistent lack of respect for the character. (If you write for the Sherlock Holmes movies or BBC's Sherlock, kindly drop a private line to me and explain your issues. A note from your therapist will also suffice. The writers for Elementary are exempt from this request.)

I won't get into the absolute stupidity of the person (probably male) who decided that Sherlock could change Irene from a lesbian to a bisexual with his all powerful cheekbones or purple shirt of sex or whatever. That's so obnoxious I can't even comment on it. Or the clueless person who decided that because her pulse raced (a sign of sexual arousal) that she was in love with Sherlock. Seriously guys? Sexual desire  =  love? *long sigh* In what weird little fantasy world of yours is that true?

There are many other issues I have with the way Irene was handled in that script. So if they do bring her back to Sherlock, I really hope the writers check their personal issues and treat her with the respect she's due. If they do, I'd be so pleased to see Laura Pulver reprise the role she played so well.

Which brings me to Elementary, winner of the 'Best Modern Depiction of Irene Adler This Decade' contest amid a dismaying lack of competition. Will they bring Irene back on Elementary? Technically, she doesn't exist except as an alias, which annoys the heck out of me. Why do modern adaptations feel the need to intertwine Moriarty and Adler? To the point where Elementary made her the same person. Ugh. Why would you do that? Two exciting characters to play with, and you waste them in the same story arc. *whimpers* Why, writers? Why? But Moriarty does exist, and she's not beaten (yay!) although they had Sherlock "let" her win (BOO!). She could return. I look forward to that.

Elementary season 2 starts soon! As that winds down, Sherlock series 3 should start. This is a good time to be a Sherlock Holmes fan.  

Is Irene Adler Elementary's Moriarty?

I realized I never explained why  think Irene Adler is Moriarty on Elementary. After seeing this week's show, where she reappeared alive, I'm even more convinced. And am I ever going to feel stupid if I'm wrong.

One of the worst things about being a writer is that I can't stop analyzing stories. Sometimes, even if I dislike an aspect, I have to admire the way a story is told. A prime example is BBC Sherlock's Scandal In Belgravia. While I loathed the closing scene where Sherlock saved Irene's life, the annoying 'you can tell a man wrote this delusional scene' where Sherlock deuces that Irene is in love because she's sexually attracted to him, and was really unhappy with Irene being demoted to Moriarty stooge, the script itself was a work of art. Smart, challenging, well paced, wonderfully acted and oh so beautiful to look at, it easily would have been my all time favorite episode/film originally airing on tv. But most of the time instead of being amazed by the storytelling, I'm picking apart the dialog and trying to figure out why the writers made certain choices.

In an hour show, there's probably forty minutes of actual screen time. That's not a lot of time to set up the mystery of the week, gather the clues, solve the mystery, and move the story arc of the series along. That means that everything the audience sees and hears is a potential Chekhov's gun. (Or a red herring)  In a really well written show, the Chekhov's gun might not even be for that episode. Irene Adler in Elementary struck me as a delayed Chekhov's gun.

Irene Adler is one of the most important villains in the Sherlock Holmes canon, eclipsed only by Moriarty. So why would the writers of Elementary waste her on a stupid dead girlfriend meme? I didn't think they had, so I immediately suspected she was still alive. In the episodes following the initial mention of Irene, she was brought up a few more times. In marketing, you're told to mention a product's name three times to fix it the audience's memory (assuming some of the audience wasn't already well aware of the character). Otherwise, why bring her up at all? Her fate wasn't important to the immediate mystery any of the times she was mentioned, so she could only be important to the longer story arc.

Then Moran told Sherlock that Irene was the only victim he hadn't killed. The scene of the crime was similar to the murders he'd committed. That suggested that the 'murderer' was well acquainted with the other crime scenes.  Did Moran say he thought Moriarty was behind Irene's death or disappearance? I don't remember, but the suggestion was there. The absence of a body wasn't a concern because they hadn't found all his other victims. But a missing body is really suspicious when you're already convinced that Irene is still alive. Current horrible real life events aside, it's really hard to keep a prisoner hidden for a long period of time (much less move them to a different country). And if Irene was held prisoner by Moriarty, why didn't she announce to the world that she was alive as soon as she escaped? Are we supposed to believe that Irene was a prisoner in that house?

I adore Lucy Lui, so originally I watched the show because of her. I had no problem with the Joan Watson take on canon. But then Ms Hudson was written into the script as a genderqueer character. There was no real reason for her to be in that episode except possibly to remind the audience that the writers are willing to play with gender. I felt that pointed to other gender switches to come. 

Last night's episode strengthened my conviction. When they got the phone call from Moriarty, Joan Watson commented that they didn't know that they were hearing Moriarty's voice. Since I pick apart dialog, my first question was "Why did the writers have her say that?" And she hit on that point a few more times probably to make sure the audience had that possibility in mind. Then Sherlock asked a question that should have had an obvious answer to him. "Why now?" Dude, you've been sober a year now and you're back at the top of your game. You're a real threat to Moriarty again. Stop asking stupid questions.

The final thing that convinced me was when Sherlock admitted to Joan that he's in the middle of the puzzle and that's affecting his vision. Emotionally compromising Sherlock seems to be the game with Moriarty. (This also points to Joan being the one who will have the clarity of vision to figure out Moriarty's real identity.)

I'll know soon if I'm completely wrong. I hope not. Not just for my ego, but because Irene as Moriarty would be the best treatment she's had in a modern take on the Sherlock Holmes' stories. But mostly for my ego.




 

The Revenge of Irene Adler

I love Sherlock Holmes now, but it wasn't love at first read.

I don't remember the first story I read when I was eight or nine, but I definitely remember being angry after I finished it. How on earth was I supposed to solve that mystery along with the detective? Did the writer expect me to know what a smear of brick dust meant? Well, no, Arthur Conon Doyle didn't expect anyone to solve the mystery. Anyone except Sherlock Holmes. And that was the point of his stories. You were supposed to sit back and marvel at how brilliant Sherlock was.

Well, Pffffffft to that.

However, I'd read almost every other mystery novel in the library and I was desperate for a fix, so I gritted my teeth and decided to give ACD another try. It was either fate or luck that the next Sherlock Holmes story I read was A Scandal in Bohemia. There wasn't much to solve, except where the picture was hidden, but it hooked me because of the character Irene Adler.

Irene was the first female character I met with a career. Better than that, she didn't behave properly, didn't play fair, and she got away with it. Oh, she was a lovely revelation. She was the smartest person in the room, and the smartest man - Sherlock - not only acknowledged she'd outwitted him, he admired her for it. Even Moriarty, the Napoleon of Crime, couldn't manage that! That's what made her The Woman. How sad that she only existed in one short story, but I carried her as a silver of hope in my heart. 

While I'm a fan of  BBC's show Sherlock, the Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey jr, and I'm even okay with Elementary, I have a huge issue with how they handle Irene Adler. Both BBC Sherlock and the movies for some odd reason decided to intertwine her character with Moriarty. Worse, they made her his subordinate. Irene isn't The Woman if she doesn't outwit Sherlock, but in both the BBC series and the movies, Sherlock and Moriarty outwit her. Wait! What? Oh no. (We'll see how Elementary handles her. I suspect that in their version, Irene is Moriarty. Not sure how I feel about that. We'll see if I'm right.) Here's a strong female character created by a Victorian gentleman, but modern (male) writers demote her to henchman? What the hell, guys? 

 I had already written Devil's Concubine and the first draft of Devil Incarnate before I saw the second SH movie or any episodes of the BBC series, so DC and DI aren't a rebuttal to them. I didn't even plan to write a character that could, in some light, be seen as Irene Adler fanfic. I simply wanted to write a story about an interesting woman. I'd already 'met' QuiTai, but as I filled in her background, the similarities between her and Irene were clear to me. So I asked, "What if Irene Adler were born on a different planet?" She'd have adventures that tested her brilliant mind. She'd be cunning and resourceful and never once apologize for being herself. She certainly wouldn't have to lose just to make Sherlock look good. Really, writer dudes, what is your issue with Irene?

QuiTai’s final words in The Devil Incarnate are, “I win.”

Yes, you do, because you are The Woman. 

Always.

Love, Me.