Answer: Adler-pated. (For “adlepated.”)

Where do you get the impression Irene’s a virgin? In fact, her reaction to Sherlock’s virginity strongly suggests otherwise.

“a woman who is as brilliant as Holmes and Moriarty”

You mean the man who outwitted her and the man she had to get her ideas from?
I saw NOTHING about the BBC Irene that was close to “brilliant”.

“To Sherlock’s asexuality she flusters him with OTT hetero displays”

It doesn’t take a lot of brains for a woman to see a guy is uncomfortable when she shoves her tits in his face, and use that against him. This is just the typical “vamp” crap we’ve seen from plenty of “bad” women for ages.

“John Watson with her confession of being a lesbain”

A “lesbian” who falls in love with a man. Let me be clear: Irene is a fictional woman written (by a straight man) to say she’s a lesbian; then written, BY THE SAME PERSON, to fall in love with a man.

“an ending to give satisfaction”

Not if you thought she was a terrible person, it doesn’t.

“without full answers to her future”

Honestly, I think one of the reasons Irene irks me is that, since she’s still alive, I’m afraid Moffat’s going to try to bring her back next season. At least we seem to have finally gotten rid of Moriarty (who I also can’t stand).

I think we will have to disagree where Sherlock’s “the woman” is concerned. I do find your interpretation compelling, and if I had seen it from your point of view, I would probably have been thrilled with the episode. Unfortunately, I did not interpret her actions as those of a “danger girl”. The woman you describe is a brilliant creation and one I would have gladly cheered. But she is not the woman I saw on my screen. Perhaps this is bias. I have too long had quibbles with Moffat in his writing of women, so I can’t help but assume misogyny is at play in his writing. It colours my views, unfortunately.

Again, though, back to the CBS version. We do not have enough information to form an opinion. It could be you are right, but it could be you are wrong, and I for one intend to take a wait and see approach. I’m a strong advocate of “never judge a book by its cover” and that seems to apply her. I’m saddened that you’ve already made your decision on the series without giving it its due, but I understand. I remember the outrage ramped inside the Holmesian community when someone dared to conceive a modern Holmes. Sherlock, we shouted, was doomed to failure. How could it possibly hope to capture anything of canon. The era is part of what made it so charming. It’ll never fly. Alas.

As a collector and minor academic writer of popular fiction of the late victorian/early edwardian period, it became clear that in the literature of the period Holmes could only be a woman or a foreigner (much as Christie’s early work was full of ‘English Pluck’ ahead of actual brains, and only bringing in a foreigner like Periot(sic), justified the overt deduction. For a female in the military, there are so many accounts, of those published or famous in other ways in the civil war of the similar time period that a military watson, as a doctor, when the highest decorated US civil war doctor was also a woman is hardly a stretch. A female/female Holmes and Watson is not one I had envisioned and would be of interest.

Holmes breaks so many conventions (just the amount of single females he interviews in his flat, and worse yet working, low class females, would be a scandal to Victorian society, enough to keep him far from police or Royalty).

I enjoy the slash aspect of the BBC version, because it exists, as the complaints from certain Christian organizations have completely changed the FCC fine and complaint system and have driven active or implied LGBTQI and true androgynous characters into paid shows like HBO and off of ‘public television’ in the US.

I hope we can agree to disagree regarding female portrayal in Sherlock, as Scandal reminded me of Ghost Talker’s Daydream (which also has a dominatrix virgin - who also happens to be albino and intersex, but that is the Japanese, who have no issue with a blending of genderplay, fetish, desire, determination and development of characters on social fringe. As a person who has been used to advertise a sex film, and involved in discussions on ’sex work which never involves taking off your clothes’, BBC’s portrayal was delightful, not just because it went beyond a box which the CBS never will, a woman who is as brilliant as Holmes and Moriarty (who seemed to have taken dull pills between season 1 and season 2) and liked reactions. Her dedication to one-up-manship was in how she is first shown; if Sherlock goes wrapped in a sheet, she is confident naked, and enjoys how breaking to social convention distracts those who had just that morning done the same. To Sherlock’s asexuality she flusters him with OTT hetero displays while confusing the bisexual/in denial John Watson with her confession of being a lesbain. The game, as Sherlock enjoys, is to raise the level of danger and see if Sherlock is smart enough to solve it: a private gaame of Russian Roulette. And if you aren’t familiar with this, then you haven’t dated a ‘Danger Girl’, or been one. To me, the whole ending was yes, an ending to give satisfaction without full answers to her future, but also that in some odd worldwide game of ‘Do or Dare’ she and Sherlock played on, ever raising the stakes. She engages him intellectually, tugs and rips at his social British upbringing that his own brilliance can’t surpress, and of course, cares nothing for money (the demand for money was the false note in the episode), or fame, merely someone to play with, much as Sherlock wants as well.

Sadly, I simply don’t think the level of writing, the education of the writers, the desire and ability to push the boundries of us, as viewers, socially or sexually will be allowed with a female Watson. Instead, thrown into a writers pool, Watson will likely be a shadow, not even the ‘plucky but fairly dim’ good english hero of the Canon. Not that it is bad, as characters of the time were always assuring readers that they were not bright at all. So in that, I am confident the US, bounded within the strange social norms of this post century period, will replicate that one step behind thinking. Alas.

I think one reason for the genderswapping is that granted that plenty of gender stereotyping and ideas about roles still exist, today there is more interest in / acceptance of women as active participants in adventures, (or at least lip-service to it - I’m by no means saying that I accept how Hollywood portrays women now).

I do rather enjoy the possessive/almost stalkerish aspect of Sherlock. It’s very in keeping with the source material, because Holmes was very protective/possessive of his Watson. It was lovely. It worked well with the last episode, too, as you say, because we really get to see just how attached Sherlock is to John, and just how devastated the thought of losing him leaves Sherlock. It was heart breaking.

I’m amused by how often John passes Sherlock’s lips. Especially when John isn’t even around, like he’s simply become an extension of Sherlock and Sherlock expects him to ALWAYS be there. This neediness/dependency I didn’t see much in canon, but I find it an interesting take on a modern Sherlock Holmes. Also, it’s believable.

I suspect Sherlock will spend the next 3 years (if the series leaves it that long) following John around London until it’s finally safe to come out of hiding. I’d love to see them explore Holmes the stalker in the opening of season 3.

One of these days I will see an adaptation in which Irene is not played off as the love interest. You’re right, Granada did a fairly good job, but I think it could have been taken even further. Although, I will certainly agree Irene in SIB did create some interesting parallels with Sherlock/John. Still, she’s such a fantastic character; why pigeon hole her into Sherlock’s love interest?

I yet to re-watch the series (time constraints I’m afraid) but I think I’ll have to pay attention to the nuances between them the second (actually, it’ll be third) time around. I found myself distracted because of my irritation, so I’m certain I likely missed something. I did catch the significance of the factory scene, and the Auld Lang Syne scene, but I’m sure there are others that escaped my attention.

I love Mary, I really do, and I don’t mind her factoring into adaptations, but I’m glad they decided to explore what Sherlock’s “death” would mean to a single John who now essentially has no one. It’ll be interesting to see what they do next (will they marry him off?). This series is shaping up to be quite suspenseful in that respect. These characters have taken on new life.