snippets of enraged gchat w/friend:
what they did with the irene arc was fucking repulsive and inexcusable
what the fuck was that
that was verging on a species of PORN*, that shot of her at the end
so let me see if i’ve got this straight-haha- irene is a lesbian and a sex worker and a free agent who mucks around with people in power. the mucking around leads her to this thing with mycroft and moriarty and then sherlock, whom she falls for, in a way, and who also falls for her, in a way. but at the end, for sherlock it’s an affirmation of the fact that he has a heart, and her death furthers his manpain factor.
meanwhile mycroft has done a lot of absolutely hideous things but will never be treated like this by show because… he Does It All For The Sake Of Mother England
so there’s an added frisson of Serves That Traitorous Bitch Right in that random, gratuitous, porny shot of her closing her eyes in fear waiting to be beheaded by random terrorist dudes in karachi lololol.
and they also had her BEG. that’s just lovely. that.
* and i didn’t mean the sex-pos kind, oh and while we’re here don’t even try to derail with a ‘zomg you have problems with irene being a sex worker???’
"ups his mainpain factor" is my new favorite thing.
oh did i mention i saw someone in the tag say they were, like, glad sherlock got revenge on her for his emotional pain? without being sarcastic? yaaaaaaaaaaaay- kill me.
irene the sex worker had a lot of potential. i mean, she could have been someone just doing her job and living her life and sherlock gets sent to hassle her by a sketchy client and it turns out she’s just keeping that picture as insurance against the scumbag client is the real jerk of the story, a pretty good parallel with the original story, or they could even have gone the villainess route- even the supervillainess route- without all that gratuitous belittling and humiliation… but as someone else said, “then stephen moffat wrote it.”
I haven’t seen any of the critiques of Scandal in Belgravia or A Game of Shadows cover this, but Guy Ritchie and Stephen Moffat made the exact same mistake with Irene.
And no, it’s not sexualizing her, making her a love interest, or connecting her to Moriarty.
While I utterly disagree with the Ritchie-vs-Moffat assessment for several reasons, I agree wholeheartedly with the central criticism here. Moreover, I am so glad that someone took the time to make what should be a pretty obvious point.
So, I’m seeing a lot of commentary on the Naked Adler Sequence saying that Holmes reads people based on their clothes, and… Look, that’s just not right. He reads people’s clothes, yes. But he also reads their hairstyles, their makeup, their manicures, their body language, their than lines, their tired eyes and drawn-in mouths and nervous ticks and speech patterns and- Her being naked didn’t foil him because he had nothing to read, it foiled him because OH MY GAH A SEXY NEKKID BODY MY BRAIN IS SHUT DOWN, which is totally a valid thing that happens in real life, but it’s not the same as what’s implied by “Sherlock reads people based on their clothes.”
No, but really he couldn’t read her because it was convenient for plot to make her a ~mysterious femme fatale,~ which is what’s really so annoying about Moffat’s writing. I mean, I love mysterious femme fatales, but their fatal and mysterious natures are boring and crap if said natures are transparent and transient plot devices.
In which it is not even Irene’s phone.
Annnd I think that’s as good a place as any to conclude this series of posts.
In which Irene does not develop feelings for Sherlock, but is instead a good role model for cancer prevention.
As a tag pointed out, the story begins with her marrying someone else (and a disguised Holmes being pressed into service as a witness to the ceremony, no less!), but yes. This neatly sums up many of my feelings.