CuteCumber wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

I thought the whole point of her blackmail was that she had people in sexual situations? 

I was surprised that was still usable for blackmail today, frankly, but I guess, if they're married...

Agreed^ So she has compromising photos of a 'close' member of the Royal family... in light of recent RL pics leaked of Prince Harry and Duchess Kate, all it would do is embarrass the Queen. I thought a Profumo-like situation involving clients with state-sensitve intel would more likely warrant Mycroft's attention.

Also, don't know if it's book canon, but Guy Ritchie's movie Irene is also a pawn of Moriarty, so it's interesting that Moffat would do the same here. Not something I agree with either btw.
 

It is NOT book canon. In book-canon, Holmes is hired by a King who is a former lover of Irene's to retrieve information of their affair, before Irene can send it to the King's fiance, a princess who is so puritanical (so says the King) that she would end the engagement over this PAST affair.

(That suspicious right there: I know this is Victorian England, but weren't MEN allowed to have affairs? Wouldn't Irene have disgraced herself more?)

The story ends with Irene seeing through a trick Holmes used to get into her house in disguise, and getting away with the information, but sending a letter promising not to use it because she's in love with "a better man" than the King.

We are left to wonder if she ever really had any nefarious intentions. There is a strong sense that she was "done wrong" by the King and when we learn that the King has had her abducted to search for the information, we wonder who the real villain is! I hope people reading at the time saw it that way.

But Irene certainly has no romantic interest in Holmes, and it's doubtful if he has any in her. He has more respect for her than for the King and says so to the King's face. The only thing that might suggest attraction is that he asks for her photog

Zatoichi wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

And I guess that's what I really don't like about the Sherlock-Irene ship-teasing. It's not that I think being attracted to a woman means he couldn't be attracted to or even fall in love with John. I actually like the idea that Sherlock isn't locked into being attracted to one gender or the other...it's all about the person... but the fact that Irene can distract him with sheer sex appeal when he doesn't really know or trust her makes him seem more...I hate to say "like a typical guy," but more...fickle? Distractable? Hormonal?

Well, he´s only human after all, but imo Irene´s sex appeal only distracts him for a very short time. Still in her room he says "you take your clothes off to make an impression, stop boring me and think." And he dismisses her very quickly in his mind palace, too. What really puzzled and intrigued him later was her person, her intelligence, the games she was playing and her behaviour towards him..plus her carefully staged drama of "the promise of love, the pain of loss, the joy of redemption".. he can´t resist a good drama, obviously. 

I also like the idea that Sherlock isn´t locked into being attracted to one gender or the other, but to a person.. 
 

But other than sex appeal, I wonder what makes Irene different from CAM so that Sherlock didn't feel the revulsion for her that he did for CAM...they have a similar M.O.

And about Irene's more...outlandish...sexual practices: aren't they a lot like what Sherlock sees in his work? I mean, he isn't routinely kidnapped or tied up by criminals, but it's a danger he has faced. Or he has rescued other people in that situation.  


 

Wiggins wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

Someone questioned on another thread whether Irene's "recreational scolding" involved sex. I thought this line to Sherlock was referring to sex, the idea was that he would beg for mercy because it would be so pleasurable it wouldl be painful (or exhausting). 

Because she was impressed with him at that moment, (or wanted him to think she was.) I didn't think she was literally threatening to hurt him.

And I thought the point of her blackmail was that she had compromising pictures of sexual situations?

I felt that one reason they had Irene say this to Sherlock is that female fans seem to have that reaction, either to Sherlock, or to Benedict.

Someone who posted the scene on Youtube commented that if John hadn't been in the room, Sherlock and Irene would have...that's why this episode is problematic for us Johnlockers.

Sherlock said, "I've never begged for mercy in my life." And not very long afterwards, begged John for cigarettes (twice.)

If Sherlock is attracted to Irene, even after she drugged and beat him (shouldn't that make him see her as an enemy?) than his own...tastes...must be pretty....out there?

 

Of course it's about sex. I think only johnlockers who refuse to see any scene except through the lens of a sherlock Watson love fest could see that.

Maybe people who have never flirted or been flirted with perhaps? High school kids? Sexually uninitiated?

But it's a sexually charged scene-just watch John in it lol. 

Yes, I get what "beg for mercy" refers to. I've actually read that expression, something liked, "screwed him until he begged for mercy" in a different story. Referring to good sex. It's just that, given Irene's particular...varations...and what she actually ended up doing to Sherlock....the object of her interest... might be begging for mercy from her for a different reason.

Yeah, the Sherlock/Irene thing is certainly problematic for us Johnlock-ers. 

Their interaction is minimal in

nakahara wrote:

Thank you for your appreciation, SherlocklivesinOH! 
 
I can′t believe somebody dared to cut out those sweet caresses. I thought we live in a less bigoted society. It was not some improperly sexual scene after all, just a little fluff.
 
That line was quite meaningful, wasn′t it? I also noticed some cheeky little fun with lines like “my bedroom is at your disposal, Holmes.”  The authors of the series were certainly naughty!
 
When I look at Jeremy Brett′s Sherlock I see the man who maintains a facade of coldness and aloofness but who is very emotional and compassionate in his heart of hearts. The way he treats Watson is quite gentle and cute and yes, I really do see Brett′s bisexuality peaking through in such scenes.
 
(By the way, Sherlock portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch also softened a lot in S3 of BBC “Sherlock” and started to reveal a soft heart under his icy exterior which brought him close to Brett′s portrayal. No surprise then, that S3 was thus far the most Johnlocky one.)
 
Yep, no Mary in this version, that′s true. When I watched EMPT as a little child, observing Holmes and Watson′s mutual closeness, it even occurred to me “if they tried to place a female character between those two, she would stick out like a sore thumb”. Mary Morstan in BBC version quite magnificently proves my case, I′m afraid – she had awoken a lot of animosity amid some fanatical Johnlock-supporters before she even appeared. Poor Amanda Abbington! 
 
Still, this is just a further proof that Johnlock is based on canon.
 

Can't believe I forgot the "bedroom" line. Yes, Watson may be being polite, but he's also very enthusiastic about placing his bedroom at Holmes' disposal. [img]http://cdn.boardhost.com/emotic

I actually wonder why Sherlock is so sure of this and why the terrorists (or whoever they are) are so certain to kill Irene. BECAUSE the Holmes brothers felt sure of this, they let her go pretty much unconditionally, so it wasn't like Irene had to testify against someone or lead the British government to the cell, in exchange for leniency?

I know with these kinds of villains it's common for them to fall out and for one to kill the other for "failing," but why had Irene failed? What was to stop her from going right back to doing...her thing...once the Holmes brothers let her go?

Someone questioned on another thread whether Irene's "recreational scolding" involved sex. I thought this line to Sherlock was referring to sex, the idea was that he would beg for mercy because it would be so pleasurable it wouldl be painful (or exhausting). 

Because she was impressed with him at that moment, (or wanted him to think she was.) I didn't think she was literally threatening to hurt him.

And I thought the point of her blackmail was that she had compromising pictures of sexual situations?

I felt that one reason they had Irene say this to Sherlock is that female fans seem to have that reaction, either to Sherlock, or to Benedict.

Someone who posted the scene on Youtube commented that if John hadn't been in the room, Sherlock and Irene would have...that's why this episode is problematic for us Johnlockers.

Sherlock said, "I've never begged for mercy in my life." And not very long afterwards, begged John for cigarettes (twice.)

If Sherlock is attracted to Irene, even after she drugged and beat him (shouldn't that make him see her as an enemy?) than his own...tastes...must be pretty....out there?

 

The "here to see the queen," exchange in SiB might be considered a pun, in that it could refer either to Mycroft representing the British government, or Mycroft being, well, a queen.

And I think "Homeless network" is sort of a pun, too. ("Holmes" and "homes" - another contemporary character based on Holmes was named House.)

And then of course, there is "I am Sherlocked," which refers to the phone being "locked" with a password, but also either "Sherlock has trapped me," (literally) or, "I'm locked into being in love with Sherlock."

Any other puns or plays on words?

 

sherlockskitty wrote:

well I think the writers wanted to SHOW how decisive and cunning Sherlock can be-- In the cannon, he DID offend, sometimes, but He always explained why. In the tv versions, (All of them) we the viewers get to see that. I think that's the difference, from page to screen. And I like it. I do see SOME differences, but I can't really explain it with BBC SHERLOCK since they don't really do a full canon story. But with Jeremy Brett's versions, I did see a difference there. Jeremy's portrayal of Holmes, for instance in the BOSCOMBE VALLEY MYSTERY and THE MUSGRAVE RITUAL stories, were just a bit lighter in tone, than the canon.

There are times in canon (and the Brett series) when what Holmes is saying is pretty socially inappropriate for the time, but we really want to applaud him because he's standing up, either to a villain, or to someone who has behaved badly believing that position brings entitlement (like when he tells the King of Bohemia that Irene is superior to him, or tells the rich American Senator how awful it was of him to try to turn his nanny into his mistress).

And in the Brett series, his performance when the Speckled Band villain invades Baker Street is utterly amazing. Watson later tells the client how amazing Holmes was!

Now, Holmes can be blunt, and even unkind, when pointing out how Watson has failed to make deductions like he does. And sometimes, Watson stands up to him about this. He stands up to him about the cocaine, too, but it comes off as caring.

The first Watson of the Brett series, David Burke, was very hero-worshipy and acted really upset if Holmes criticized him, while Hardwicke was closer to being an equal partner who called Holmes out on some of his more dangerous stunts.

I definitely think there is more love and tenderness in the boys' relationship in canon and the Brett series. They spend time together when they're not on a case, doing very "date-like" things.

And their most violent tendencies come out w

belis wrote:

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

And while I'm no expert, I'm not sure PTSD is the right diagnosis for John...the nightmares would fit, and anger, depression, avoidance of long-term relationships, and even lack of interest in normal life can be symptoms -  but wouldn't someone with PTSD be scared (freaked out) over the kinds of things John and Sherlock jump into? John seeks these situations out...whatever he is, he's not especially fearful.

Sherlock's work is probably enough like combat that it feels normal to John.

Avoidence is a common symptom of PTSD but is not essential to make a diagnosis. Some people avoid anything that may trigger painful memories and others ruminate excesively and constantly think about the event. Paradoxically some will put themselves at risk. For example drive dengerously after a car accident. If avoidence is present the degree will vary considerably. Using a car crash as example again one person may not be able to get into a car again, even as a passanger and another person may only be triggered by that one particular route at a specific time of the day.

What John and Sherlock do is dengerous but it doesn't really resamble active combat in any shape or form. For some reason John never got back to the millitary. I would imagine that they would welcome him back after his limp was resolved as they are always crying for doctors. So there may be some element of avoidence on his part.

 

Well, John and Sherlock's work puts them in situations where they have guns pointed at them, or they might be blown up by bombs. So that's a paralllel with combat. And sometimes John doesn't want to go with Sherlock for some reason (like, he's mad at him, or John is with a woman) he never avoids the situations out of fear. In fact, in TEH, I got the impression when they headed off for the Underground that John was still mad at Sherlock but he couldn't resist the lure of adventure even then.

Presumably Irene was collecting her data before she ever met Sherlock...so "I am Sherlocked" couldn't always have been her password.

Granted, there's no great mystery about this: people change passwords all the time. But he even points out, if she'd chosen something more random, he might not have figured it out. Well, all she really had to do was just leave it the way it was before she was "sherlocked."