Mark Watches ‘Sherlock’ Liveblog: A Scandal in Belgravia

Y’ALL SHERLOCK IS BACK. EVERYONE. IT IS BACK. In celebration of the glorious first day of 2012, those of us who have access to the first episode of series two of Sherlock will liveblog the hell out of the episode because you cannot stop me. LET’S DO IT!

oh god how are we going to survive this night SEND HELP

Now, this liveblog is going to be different for everyone, since it’s not airing officially in the United States on January 1st. Like all liveblogs with relative airings, this liveblog starts when you have access to “A Scandal in Belgravia.” Use the comments below as your glorious canvas. In order to avoid spoilers, please try to avoid going back and commenting on comments made on the front page so those of us who are liveblogging can stick to the front page to leave them.

Um, I cannot officially link to any possible source of this episode here in the main blog, but it might appear in the comments. I DON’T KNOW. IT MIGHT. I’M JUST SAYING.

oh god i am so excited OH MY GOD.

About Mark Oshiro

Perpetually unprepared since '09.
This entry was posted in Liveblogs, Sherlock and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

267 Responses to Mark Watches ‘Sherlock’ Liveblog: A Scandal in Belgravia

  1. Graylien says:

    James Bond?

  2. psycicflower says:

    Oh my god Irene, why do you have to work for Moriarty?

  3. psycicflower says:

    Oh you've messed up Sherlock.

  4. Graylien says:

    And by dinner I mean sex

  5. psycicflower says:

    So they get their bomb without releasing the source but no one actually dies. Nice.

  6. Vikinhaw says:

    Well this isn't creepy in the slightest.

  7. Vikinhaw says:

    I really love how awesome Irene is.

  8. VicarPants says:


  9. VicarPants says:


  10. psycicflower says:

    Clever password.

  11. Graylien says:

    I see what you did there.

  12. Vikinhaw says:

    'I am Sherlocked' Sounds dirty.

  13. psycicflower says:

    Oh John, stop being so dense. There's been plenty of proof that Sherlock feels.

  14. Vikinhaw says:

    He totally helped her disappear again. You know it.

  15. psycicflower says:

    Refusing to believe Irene is dead. Sherlock wasn't there to fool you, but what about Moriarty?

  16. psycicflower says:


  17. VicarPants says:

    OH GOD

  18. VicarPants says:


  19. Graylien says:

    Hah, no way they were killing Irene off this soon

  20. VicarPants says:

    <img src="; title="Hosted by" alt="" />

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" />

  21. psycicflower says:

    John's blog has had a massive update

    • fintain says:

      Excellent I when I was watching the quick flash through of cases at the beginning I was just begging to see the Geek Interpreter – reading it is a close second!

  22. psycicflower says:

    At the moment I'm okay with it as I don't think it was ever really made out to be a bad thing that she's a dominatrix, but I'd have to rewatch without the initital yay new Sherlock excitement before having concrete thoughts on it all.

  23. VicarPants says:

    I have to wonder, though–does she actually provide intercourse to her clients or is it just the sexualized domination? It's never really made explicit.

    But I see your point re: Moffat's handling of women in his writing. Will remain wary until further notice.

    • amyalices says:

      Never clear, I think, but does it really matter? In the books she was mistress to a member of a foregn royal power – definitely sex implied in that. I think making whatever services she provides as her living makes sense – there's far less of a power imbalance if she picks her clients rather than relying on just one, and she's clearly intelligent enough to get and hide the information she needs to keep that.

      …Until unfortunate missteps involving Jim Moriarty, but he's like that. :/

      • VicarPants says:

        Ultimately, I don't think it does matter. How she makes her way in the world is up to her; and clearly she enjoys her work on some level.

        • amyalices says:

          *Nods* That's what I really liked about her character – she seemed to really enjoy her job and life, and have got into it with determination, and then have the strength and brains to protect herself.

          • VicarPants says:

            Naturally she doesn't enjoy the part where trained killers are after her, but that hardly comes with the territory, generally speaking.

    • tzikeh says:

      Professional dominatrixes often don't even touch their clients, let alone have sex with them. The point for the client is to be under someone else's control–to have their agency taken from them, to be powerless, and to have to do what they are told. It may be sexualized, but it's a performance, just as Irene says — a costume.

      And even if she had been a prostitute, she's obviously not someone who was forced into the game–she clearly chose exactly what she wanted to do, and does it well. I think Irene's a very sex-positive model, which, considering how terrifyingly badly this could have gone w/r/t Moffat's gender issues, is a minor miracle.

      • eternaleve says:

        I think the key to this first episode is about power. Through her position as a dominatrix she has power over important people by her line of work – but it also shows that she craves power over people personally to work within this sphere. Hence appearing naked when Sherlock and John when they come to her home; by making them uncomfortable she has a power over them. Or at least that's how I saw it. Because then it brings into play the fact that the sub is almost always in control of the situation – and no matter how well she played the game, Irene really wasn't in control by the end.

  24. VicarPants says:

    I've just realized.

    Mrs. Hudson is the Dobby of the Sherlock world.

    Initially irritating but helpful overall and therefore adorable; a true innocent who is cherished and ultimately appreciated by the hero(es).

  25. VicarPants says:

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" />

    <img src="; title="Hosted by" alt="" />

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" />

    Episode download links.

  26. amyalices says:


    Okay, first of all, can I just weep with feels over Sherlock's reaction to Mrs. Hudson being hurt? ALL THE LOVE. That was beautifully acted as well. He cares. <3

    And and and.

    Oh fuck, I can't articulate yet. I'll have to do replies instead.


  27. SCC says:

    I tried to watch it, I really did, but the sexism really bothered me. Ugh.

    • nextboy1 says:

      I didn't notice anything sexist to be honest, sorry you didn't enjoy it though.

    • Tauriel_ says:

      What sexism?

    • tzikeh says:

      Please explain further on what you took from the episode as sexist. I thought that Irene was a powerful and complex foil for Sherlock.

      • jbb says:

        Jumping in.

        I think the main issue that stood out was the trope that a powerful and dangerous woman is also a source of sexual titilation. Danger and female sexuality are really commonly linked, but its done in such a way that the audience gets a sexual tease from it – i.e. she's there to be looked at, naked or almost-naked, and she says outrageous sexual things, because sexy is code for strong and dangerous, apparently. It's done so often on tv it's ridiculous. Did she need to be naked? Did we need the long shot of her in the lingerie? Probably not.

        There's also the issue that most women on Sherlock are really just love-interests, including Adler.

        • VicarPants says:

          Arguably, she DOES need to be naked in that scene. Without having made a personal choice in her wardrobe, which would contain hints of her past actions and proclivities, as shown with other characters, Sherlock cannot even begin to read her as he does others.

          • jbb says:

            Yet he's already seen her website, and he reads facial expressions, make-up, hairstyle, even the state of people's fingernails. The fact that she was naked did nothing to hide her past or personality.

        • SCC says:


          I meant to reply before, but my internet got cut off. that's exactly what I think. All women in sherlock are treated problematically (I think it's a Steven Moffat thing, the man has issues with women) In the Moffat world power for women is linked to sexuality, didn't she also say she was gay? how then is she being treated like a love interest?

          • Jean says:

            Honestly, I don't understand how more people didn't consider this episode sexist, I think it's perhaps because I'm comparing it to the books. Irene Adler was the one woman to ever honestly beat Sherlock Holmes. She was clever, but also kind (helping Holmes out when she thought he was in trouble) and had a sense of honour (she showed both Holmes and the King up when she chose to not publicise the photo despite genuinely having being wronged). And most importantly she did everything herself: the extent of her capabilities made Holmes rethink his misogynistic tendencies. The most significant part of Holmes's reaction to her wasn't that he may have fancied her, it was that he respected her. (cont. below)

            • Jean says:

              This seems to have been lost on Stephen Moffat. She doesn't beat Holmes in this version, instead succumbing to her feelings for him to the extent that she seriosly sabotages her 'protection'. This Irene is also much less sympathetic: as far as I could tell she was going for a straightforward attempt at blackmail, against a woman who hadn't wronged her. She is the opposite of independant- she needs Moriarty to help her, and Sherlock defeats her. She is then made to beg for mercy and only when she is literally on bended knee does Sherlock oh so valiantly swoop in to save her. It is the complete opposite of the story- instead of Holmes's sexism being challenged by a capable woman, here it is reinforced. (cont. below)

              • Jean says:

                There are also multiple issues in Moffat's presentation of female sexuality, and it being linked to danger and destruction (such as in last year's CIN special, which was nothing short of slut shaming IMO). Obviously Irene Adler is using her ~feminine wiles~ to seduce members of government and pass information to Moriarty. This does not strike me as sex positivity. Having a self confessed lesbian (Adler describes herself as 'gay') fall for a man is also problematic, and follows a particularly irritating pattern that is well established in fiction.

                • Jean says:

                  Basically what I am saying is that this episode annoyed me a lot, but perhaps if I wasn't such a fan of the original Irene I wouldn't have noticed so much. It does bother me that out of the entire character of Irene Adler, what Moffat seemed to deem most important was that she was attractive. I just think it would be nice if he could write a prominent female character (maybe even a quasi-love interest like Irene Adler) without her primary trait being that she is 'sexy'.
                  Just my opinion of course, but searching the 'sexism' tag on tumblr and finding a large proportion of posts complaining about the same things shows that other people were bothered too.
                  That wasn't supposed to be so long- sorry! Just a lurker/ Irene Adler fan venting!

                  • jbb says:

                    Thanks for these posts, you've explained it so well. My gut reaction to this episode was that it did a disservice to the character of Adler. But Moffat — like SO many tv writers — thinks that for a woman to be interesting, strong or appealing, she has to be sexy. I don't know if you've seen Doctor Who, but he reportedly wasn't going to cast Karen Gillan as Amy because on her casting tape she looked 'dumpy'. Then he saw her in real life and decided she was stunning, so he would hire her after all. You can see how he approaches female characters…

          • nextboy1 says:

            I would argue against it being a "Steven Moffat thing". It seems this is always used as lazy shorthand whenever he writes female characters, and rather unfairly in my opinion. If anything, it is the characters of Sherlock and Watson that perhaps have a somewhat blinkered view (or more experience) with women, particularly in this episode. The show focuses strongly on the relationship between these two men, and as such we are shown their experiences and their comments towards women. I really do not believe that everything put into a show is purely the writer putting across their own views. The script is there to entertain, and to present various viewpoints, and I think it stayed completely faithful to Holmes and Watson's characters.

            I accept that some people may have a few issues with the prostitution/nudity aspect of Irene Adler, but I don't think this took anything away from her being a strong, intelligent character, and I certainly do not believe Holmes 'defeated' her because she was a woman. She was the adversary, and our hero outsmarted her. Perfectly acceptable and satisfying in my book.

            • jbb says:

              Yet in the original, Adler outsmarted Sherlock. It's a pivotal moment for his character and the way he looks at all women thereafter. He was beaten, intellectually, by a woman. The respect she earns from him at that point is why he gives her the title The Woman. So to have Sherlock defeat her, make her beg for his mercy and then need to be rescued by him is a pretty rubbish treatment of the Sherlock Holmes canon, and of the Adler character.

              • Jean says:

                And it does bother me that so much emphasis is put on being true to the characters of Holmes and Watson, but little to none is put on being true to the character of Irene. I was hoping her introduction could make the characters (and show) a little less 'blinkered', as she did in the canon. Hence my disappointment.
                I'm placing the blame on Moffat rather than Holmes and Watson because, as jjb said, the original Holmes and Watson reacted rather differently. It is Moffat who interpreted the one story in which Holmes is beaten by a woman as a story in which Holmes is almost beaten by a woman, until she succumbs to his charms and he wins, only to play the white knight later. 'A Scandal in Bohemia' made an important point, here completely reversed.

                • nextboy1 says:

                  but surely the show should be focussed on Holmes and Watson? Any secondary character is surely pretty much there as an Easter egg reference for those that know the stories, be they a man or a woman? I don't know, I'll be honest, I've only started reading the original texts recently, but I'm really not troubled by this episdoe in the slightest. Maybe my opinion will change when I've read them. For me, Irene still got the better of Holmes in this episode, she ultimately lives because of the effect she has on him.

                  • Jean says:

                    Yes I think it does depend how you view the show- for me I do watch it primarily as an adaptation, which is helped by the fact that it is so firmly rooted in the source material. But I do understand that probably most viewers haven't read the stories, and so watch it without any preconceptions.
                    The thing is, I've had issues with the shows presentation of women in the past, and so was hoping for more from this episode. It just struck me that Moffat (who definately read the original story) missed the point of a story about sexism.

    • Karen says:

      I don't watch Sherlock, so I haven't seen the episode, but I am a bit troubled by what I've seen on my tumblr dash with regards to Irene and her sexuality.

    • Genny_ says:

      I enjoyed it overall, but THIS, ugh ugh ugh.

      Taking a story about, very specifically about, a woman besting a man- with reference to his sexism being his undoing, even!- and rewriting it so the man wins and then saves her? Writing in a scene where a logical, rational man berates a sobbing woman for being 'too emotional', where her emotion genuinely proves to be her downfall? 'Even lesbians love Sherlock Holmes!', I mean, what?! Doing all of this to aid Sherlock's development, to make him even more awesome, to give him the last word? Just. God. Eisdsl/skvls; UGH.

    • thatnerdygirl says:

      Okay so this really bothers me. I didn't see any kind of sexism at all. It just gets on my nerves that any time anyone tries to treat a female character the same way they would a male character it gets called sexism. "Oh no, a woman is aware of her sexuality and physical appeal and can use it to affect people! Must be sexism!" "Woman who isn't always able to one hundred percent save her self? Sexism." Sherlock didn't save Irene because he was a man, and Irene didn't need saving simply because she was a woman.
      It bothers me immensely when people throw around the word sexism for every little thing, because really it just lowers the value and meaning of the word.

      • Jean says:

        Again, my impression of sexism was based on the alterations in the adaptations. The original story was very much in defiance of sexism– Holmes is beaten by a woman and so realises that women can be capable after all, and that his prejudices actually limit him. To reverse the story/ outxome seemed to reverse the message.

        However, an interpretation of the episode itself as prejudiced isn't necessarily wrong. Your example of 'a woman who isn't always able to one hundred percent save herself' sort of illustrates the point, I think. In the entire show there hasn't been a single woman who has saved herself, despite countless male examples. Nobody wants the women to be superpowered, but a little equality would be nice. Irene being a woman and losing may seem incidental, but when the winners are always incidentally male and the women always lose or have no control it becomes a problem. In my opinion.

      • jbb says:

        I feel like I've posted all over this page so I'm sorry if it's coming across as repetititve, but I did want to just respond to your post. There are a few different things that people are calling sexist in relation to this episode.There are several good posts from Jean and from other blogs on this page that explain what they feel the problem is, if you want to check them out.

        As Jean pointed out, Moffat took a story about a woman beating Sherlock Holmes because he thought she was 'just' a woman and could be easily outwitted, and made it into a story where that woman falls in love with Sherlock and has to be rescued by him as a result. So Adler went from being someone who taught Sherlock about his own sexism, to being a damsel in distress.

        This is why context is important. In the broader context of gender issues in the world, and the portrayal of women on screen, this episode actually reinforces sexist/gender stereotypes. The original story was all about how those stereotypes are stupid. It's a weird change to make, especially in a 'modern' version.

        Of course, I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy the show — I enjoyed this episode and I've squeed over the the other episodes too. It's just that I think it could have been handled better, and maybe done something good with the original story.

  28. VicarPants says:

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" /> <img src="; title="Hosted by" alt="" />

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" />

    <img src="; title="Hosted by" alt="" />

  29. VicarPants says:

    <img src="; title="Hosted by" alt="" />

    <img src="; alt="" title="Hosted by" />

  30. nextboy1 says:

    Honestly? Loved every second. The humour is more confident this series, but so are the actors. The characters have really blossomed and BD knocked this episode out of the park.

    I've recently got the complete Sherlock Holmes stories, and was impressed at how many references from A Study in Scarlet made it into a Study in Pink. The question is, do I read this year's episodes first, or will that completely spoil the episodes for me? I know nothing but the basics about what happens in the original stories of the 2 remaining episodes.

    • Marissa says:

      I read a Scandal in Bohemia before watching this and I found it was really fun to notice the similarities, and really didn't spoil anything big because the writers tend to change or even only reference the original story in ways. The show itself tends to be pretty fresh and surprising even with knowledge of the original. Hope that helps!

      • nextboy1 says:

        Great, thanks! Might give the next episode a bit of a browse this week then, even if I kindo f know what the original is about anyway

  31. Ashley says:

    Will you find links to the episode here?

    Not sure.

    Is the Putlocker link working the best (currently the fourth on the list)?

    You tell me.

    Happy 2012 everyone!

  32. Didgy says:

    Tee hee hee! I got Sherlock for my birthday!

    Also, the house where the boudoir scenes were filmed? Same house as in Blink. Which is my aunt's boss's house. Hell yeah. I AM INCREDIBLY PROUD OF THIS VERY TENUOUS LINK.

  33. Tauriel_ says:

    This episode was PERFECTION. If this is the reason why this year's Doctor Who Christmas Special was a bit sub-par, then I tell you, Mr. Moffat, you are completely and absolutely forgiven. <3

    I will need to sleep on this and rewatch to form a coherent review, but I will say that this episode was better than the whole first series combined. I LOVED IT. <3 <3 <3

  34. Aslee says:

    This might maybe probably be livestreaming Sherlock, and it could have possibly just started, don't look at me I'm just a fangirl. It's also possible that it might hypothetically start over again when this one is done.

  35. enchantedsleeper says:

    For once I'm in the right location/timezone for a liveblog but I missed the episode when it aired xD I'm catching up now on BBC iPlayer (hooray for legal online viewing!)

    Thoughts so far:

    – The beginning was disappointing IMO. I feel like Steven Moffat is continuing his trend of biiiig build-up, crap payoff. (See also: Doctor Who series 6 finale)
    – The women in this series still aren't catching a break 🙁
    – POOR MOLLY T_______T
    – Sherlock is becoming human OMG
    – Am expecting 1001 gifs of Watson slyly looking to see if Sherlock is wearing pants xD Will be disappoint if there are not.
    – Would also like a gif of the moment where Mycroft steps on Sherlock's bedsheet XD Because HOLY ALMOST-NUDITY!
    – The cinematography of this ep is particularly good. I like the "shooting through a window" motif that keeps cropping up.
    – My constant thought whilst watching: I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT MARK THINKS OF THIS

  36. When Irene Adler meets the Doctor, she changes the passcode on her phone:


  37. znachki says:

    This is my new favorite episode of Sherlock. Irene Adler owned it.

    There was a Christmas Miracle..I loved Sherlock and John yelling at Mycroft for yelling at Mrs. Watson, and for giggling. Loved Mrs. Watson being all badass.

  38. msnaddie says:

    I'm late to the party but whee for the internet! So I'm just gonna comment as I watch the ep.

    – LOL way to break the tension with "Staying Alive". "Nah, it's alright, go on, answer that."
    – Oh Sherlock I have missed you so!
    – IRENE ADLER? I DIDN'T KNOW THIS EP WOULD HAVE IRENE. (What, I don't read the episode titles because i like to ~surprise myself~) You guys, you've no idea how much I love A Scandal in Bohemia just because we get a kickass woman in Sherlock Holmes. Irene Adler is awesome. I don't like what Guy Ritchie's Holmes did with Irene in his movies.
    – Wait, she's with a woman? TWIST. (Which, if this is true, will make an awesome episode.)
    – The Speckled Blonde, lol!
    – So all these cases are meant to tease us, right? GET TO IRENE PLZKTHX.
    – Hat Man and Robin? Really, tabloids? Really? (Cos I totally believe this would get published in real life as well.)
    – (But seriously, I've missed Sherlock so much. Why are there only 3 episodes per season, sigh.)
    – "Try not to punch him" LOL, and also, this is a totally valid advice.
    – Oh God Sherlock way to insult someone when they're in the room with you. (See, totally valid advice.)
    – I love the details they've included for Sherlock's observation. Please continue to improve, show.
    – "…Wearing any pants?" "No." Oh, Sherlock. And I love their banter & laughter. Good way to start off the season after the tension with Moriarty.
    – Mycroft, please don't insist on Sherlock putting his clothes on. Why would you ruin our fun?!
    – Oh goodness. I don't know if I will like how they're choosing to portray Irene… 🙁 I think she's cunning and smart, but not conniving. Sigh.
    – Wait, are they hinting that this young woman might be Kate Middleton? (Sorry, I don't have any in-depth knowledge of the royal family.)
    – Heeeee, I love what this script chooses to be. "I always hear 'punch me in the face' when you speak, but it's usually subtext."
    – Oh, Sherlock. Your crying face amuses me. And she knows exactly who you are, really, you shouldn't have bothered.
    – I kind of don't like how they're portraying Irene. I do love that she's still basically kickass.
    – Oh God being killed by your own boomerang 🙁 Not a good way to go.
    – LOL @ Sherlock's ringtone!
    – Sherlock celebrates Christmas?
    – SHERLOCK YOU ARE RUINING EVERYTHING. OH GOD WHY. (Well at least he seems to be sorry about Molly. Even John's surprised!)
    – wait what you're killing irene right after i've declared my love for her FFFFUUUUUUUUUUU-
    – Of course he has a sock index.
    – Not Mycroft. Moriarty?
    – "That was right on my bins." THIS SHOW ASDLFKDJ;LJ'AS MRS. HUDSON I LOVE YOU.
    – Oh Irene's cheekbones. She's so gorgeous without all the makeup and dominatrix stuff.
    – John, you are jealous, come on.
    – Sherlock, you're kind of scary. And you're totally doing that to impress others. (Well, I mean, duh.)
    – Erm. Sherlock did you just basically help your enemy.
    – Mycroft :'(
    – OH SHIT THE SHOW-OFF TOTALLY BACKFIRED ON YOU, SHERLOCK. (God I totally didn't think the whole show-off thing was going to be used to backfire on him.)
    – I don't like you anymore Irene :'( This is not the Irene I loved in the original text, sob.
    – I am Sherlocked.Oh God this is so cheesy tho.
    – Beheaded. Eep D: Also, nice portrayal of the "terorrists" there. I do believe they have guns instead of beheading people. (OK I know that's such a weird thing to point out, ha.)

    This… is such an awesome episode. All that waiting and it's so worth it. BRING ON THE NEXT EPISODE.

    Also, the "1895" glitch on John's website is totally going to come into play again, isn't it?

    • VicarPants says:

      I figured 1895 had to be some kind of date reference to the books.

      • enchantedsleeper says:

        I really wish I could get all these references 🙁 TIME TO GO READ SOME HOLMES

      • msnaddie says:

        Yeah, I kinda figured it was probably a date referring to some kind of event, but I'm too lazy to look it up just now 😛 But I wonder if there's a context being used for 1895 in this episode. Sent by Maxis from my BlackBerry® smartphone

    • ferriswheeljunky says:

      Vincent Starrett, 221B

      Here dwell together still two men of note
      Who never lived and so can never die:
      How very near they seem, yet how remote
      That age before the world went all awry.
      But still the game’s afoot for those with ears
      Attuned to catch the distant view-halloo:
      England is England yet, for all our fears–
      Only those things the heart believes are true.

      A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
      As night descends upon this fabled street:
      A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
      The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
      Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
      And it is always eighteen ninety-five.

  39. nextboy1 says:

    Also – and I must add neither show should touch this idea in the main series with a 10-foot barge pole – how amazing would a comic relief special be of the Doctor meeting Sherlock??? Moffat's head may explode if it happened though, as well as his typewriter melting away under his fingers at the sheer wordiness of the scene.

    • amyalices says:

      I just want, in the background of the scene where Sherlock and the Doctor talk at each other FOREVER, a shot of John and Rory falling into each other's arms and going to the pub to camp out.

      Meanwhile Amy, River and Irene solve the actual plot in five minutes flat and go out for drinks.

    • msnaddie says:

      I would pay for this to happen.

  40. ferriswheeljunky says:

    My head-canon has always been that Sherlock is asexual but not aromantic (because, y'know, it is impossible not to ship him and John on some level, ADORABLE). So I was pretty pleased with how the whole Irene Adler thing went. It's nice to have an asexual character on TV for a change (especially one involved in significant relationships), even if he is also a high-functioning sociopath…

    • Zoli says:

      That's pretty much how I read it. There's certainly an intellectual attraction there and they seriously enjoy out-thinking each other, but I don't think there's really any physical or sexual attraction there, at least on Sherlock's end. Maybe a little on Irene's, but mostly she just seems to enjoy confusing him. (The scene where she appears and he reads '????????" was hilarious.) I really enjoyed their interactions throughout.

  41. SueB says:

    I missed the live blog. But I was so glued to the screen I couldn't have possibly multitasked this one. You really have to pay attention to every moment for Sherlock.

    Loved loved loved the show.

    – Mrs Hudson love!!!
    – An apology to Molly
    – Stole the ashtray for John
    -The mutual fascination b/w Sherlock and Irene. It's an intellectual attraction. Only Irene takes it sexual. But how many women (or men) were cheering when she threatened to make him beg twice?

  42. Audrey says:

    After watching Sherlock again…. I keep wondering if he is autistic.

    Anyone else wonder that?

  43. SCC says:

    If anyone is interested in the Sexism prevalent in this show, there is a great blog here:

  44. ldwy says:

    I can't even actually think critically about this episode yet. I'm just like sherlocksherlocksherlockjohnjohnsherlocksherlocksherlocksherlocksherlockjohnsherlock
    in my head.
    <img src="; border="0" alt="Photobucket">

  45. Albion19 says:

    I loved it and adored Irene.

    Moffat likes his code words:

    Dancing = sex
    Dinner = sex

  46. hilarius11 says:

    Hands down the best episode of television I have seen in years. WOW.

  47. Minish says:

    Flawless episode. Flawless.

    And nty on the offers of "but actually, you shouldn't like it because of all the POTENT SEXISM." Even with my feminist hat on, I had no gripes about this episode.

  48. Camzilla says:

    I just recently got into the Sherlock Holmes stories and this show in particular, and I LOVE the first Guy Ritchie adaption, so my feelings and opinions are all still pretty new compared to people who have grown up reading the stories/watching the movies and/or TV shows, etc. But I DO love 'Sherlock' and was very excited to see "A Scandal in Belgravia" because I was curious to see how they would treat Irene Adler. I mean, in the original stories she isn't a "world class criminal" really; she just takes advantage of the the fact that the King was stupid enough to let himself be photographed with her. The way I read it was that she didn't set the situation up for later pay-off, but at the same time she wasn't afraid to use it when the opportunity arose. She's clever and resourceful, but not necessarily scheming. (I haven't read all the Holmes short stories, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here and Irene Adler is mentioned again as the perpetrator of some complex criminality that isn't explored in the story proper.)

    Now, I'm not trying to say that adaptions which give her a more involved history with Sherlock and have her be behind some really big conspiracies and crimes are bad or anything (like I said I love "Sherlock Holmes" with Robert Downey, Jr.). I just thought it was really overplayed in this episode. In this episode, she's not working FOR Moriarty, she's working WITH him (she even has a direct number to reach him by), and that puts her on the same level of mastermind-ery as him and, for some reason, that rings false with me. Maybe it's because her main feat in "A Scandal in Bohemia" is to leave town that I find it difficult to swallow the idea that, in this adaption, she's this ninja-like femme fatale on the wrong side of the law who can topple governments with just a cell phone. Maybe in the next Sherlock Holmes adaption she'll be a fighter pilot/assassin/pirate queen or something. It all just seems a bit much, is what I'm saying, and I wonder when/if it will stop and why it seems so necessary to ramp up her skills for a modern audience. Anyone else wonder about that?

    • well I didn't see her as a 'mastermind' here either, per se. She was a smart woman who kept herself afloat in the world with information, and then Moriarty came along and manipulated her into trying to actually use that information. She happened to have his number because he was using her (which in of itself is interesting to see how that plays out: will she turn around and try to use him now that she knows who and what he is?)

      (I would love to see her, Moriarty and Sherlock in a room together all trying to outwit each other.)

  49. sodiumsodiumBATMAN says:

    Someone who saw this episode as sexist, please help educate me. I'm feeling like I must have missed something, because I didn't find that much fault with this episode. Possibly because I have no issue with

    -(voluntary) Sex workers
    -Women with fluctuating sexualities (it's a ~spectrum, guys! it's very rare that someone's sexuality is black-and-white)
    -Women as criminal masterminds
    -Sherlock growing as a person enough to start to show care and concern for his friends (apologizing to Molly, comforting Mrs. Hudson, forgiving and helping Irene)

    • jbb says:

      I have no problems with those things either, but that's not what people are calling sexist. Here's a couple of blog posts where people talk about this/different issues they had with the episode:

      From that last link:
      And what makes Irene Adler “the woman”? It’s that she unmasks and defeats Holmes’s own sexist assumptions. Holmes admires her because she kicks his ass.

      Moffat takes Doyle’s story of the flawed genius who is tripped up by his own limitations and turns it into his customary tale of male genius vindicated.

      Holmes does gain access to the phone (either because Irene has fallen for him, or because she has pretended to, overplaying her flirtatious persona’s hand), reduces his female foe to tears, makes her beg for mercy, refuses her, and then, at last, when Irene, abducted, head-scarved, and tied up, is on her knees about to be decapitated by the scimitar of some Karachi-based terrorist thug, comes to the rescue to save her life as the soundtrack cranks up the strings. Moffat’s plot is not only a total reversal of what happens in Doyle’s original; structurally, it in fact celebrates the deconstruction of a triumphant female character — first raising our expectations that this Irene Adler is the Irene Adler we know, only to reveal that beneath all the superficial self-assuredness, the sexual playfulness, the apparent control, lies a weak little girl who can’t survive without a man’s help and who is only to happy to acknowledge that man’s arrival with a tearful face beaming gratitude.

      So Moffat out-Victorians his Victorian source. And in the process, he completely empties out what makes Irene Adler “the woman” for Sherlock Holmes.

      • nextboy1 says:

        Yet she still has a profound effect on Sherlock. It doesn't weaken her character at all. He is still challenged and changed by her. I really don't see any problem with our hero being ultimately 'victorious' at the end of a story, and I don't feel this should change just because he is a man and Irene is a woman. For me, it is only a very specific interpretation of the text that makes this episode seem remotely sexist.

        • jbb says:

          Did you read the blog post? The second link talks about this.

          You say that Sherlock being the victor shouldn't change because he's a man and Adler is a woman. But the entire point of the Adler story is that SHE is the victor. It's important not only for the character of Adler but the character of Sherlock Holmes. Why should that change because she is a woman and Sherlock is a man?

  50. Elyssa says:

    Hey Mark, has anyone ever posted or linked to these Sherlock paintings? They are utterly brilliant, and some even look like photographs.

    A stunning shot of Benedict in the rain.

    <img src="; width="500">

    And my personal favorite, "Late."

    <img src="; width="500">

    And for fans of Doctor Who like me, (there are many more works to enjoy at the link)

    <img src="; width="500">

Comments are closed.