[ SECRET POST #3217 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3217 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #460.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

So the most she accomplishes is being a temporary roadblock for Sherlock?

I love Irene Adler. I don't think this version of her was any good at all.

[(Anonymous)]

But Doyle's version where she yanks his chain a few times and then gets married is totally cool? I think you're forgetting how little there was to Irene in ACD canon.

[(Anonymous)]

She wasn't a particularly deep character study or anything but neither is the Sherlock version. She was clever and resourceful as a character, and the narrative logic didn't require her abject failure and submission to Sherlock's superior wit and intellect, so she was better.

[(Anonymous)]

You're really harping on BBC Irene submitting when she did no such thing. If anything she played Sherlock like a fiddle and used him for insurance and protection. She got him to crack the codes on the documents she'd stolen so they could be used to ruin Mycroft's Bond Airline project.

Contemporary Irene is quite formidable in her skills and talents.

[(Anonymous)]

You're listing all the things that happened before she failed and the ending happened

[(Anonymous)]

Because female antagonists must succeed 100% of the time or there is no point in writing them? That's just silly. The guy in The Baskerville Hound one failed too. Does that make him a pointless character as well?

[(Anonymous)]

They took a character who succeeded, and they chose to make her fail. And in a completely abject way as well. It's not like the character has some being apart from the storylines the creators write about her. They took a good female character and they made her less interesting and less strong. It is bad if you look at it comparatively.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS. Take no notice of the shirty Sherlock stan above.

[(Anonymous)]

Yep, this. Not sure why it's proving such a contentious issue here, because it's not like Sherlock created this character out of nothing. If they had... well, frankly, she'd still not be a great character, but it wouldn't be quite as insulting as what they actually did.

The Ritchie version is also guilty of taking Irene Adler and reducing her down until she's not as smart, independent or successful as she actually was. I don't quite understand why they'd do that but it feels pretty ugh to me.

[(Anonymous)]

She defeats him in a battle of wits and marries the man she loves. Are you suggesting that's not an accomplishment, when you have both Sherlock Holmes AND a the Bohemian government on your tail, intent on messing with your life?