sunflowers, at the end of the world

"To love a TV show is to know one of two things: Either it will eventually leave you, or you will..."

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:04:00 -0700

“To love a TV show is to know one of two things: Either it will eventually leave you, or you will eventually leave it. There’s no middle ground for the committed. Once you’re in, you’re in, and you’re going to be in until the thing is canceled or until you lose interest because you’ve either figured out all of the show’s tricks or it’s just not the same anymore. That show you loved more than anything? It will eventually feel sort of old and pointless to you after a while, and you’ll have moved on to some new thing that feels fresher but will inevitably disappoint you somewhere down the line. And so it goes. You’ll someday remember that show you loved with such intensity—it will probably be off the air by this point—and you’ll wonder idly why they don’t make ’em like that anymore. The answer is because you’re not who you were anymore, and you can’t fall for a show like that because you’re no longer the same person.”

- Todd VanDerWerff (The A.V. Club)

Photo

Sat, 18 May 2013 20:02:52 -0700

as if men have a monopoly on murder

Sat, 18 May 2013 19:07:00 -0700

as if men have a monopoly on murder

irene adler + hair porn

Sat, 18 May 2013 14:00:32 -0700

irene adler + hair porn

"But there is one big problem that I haven’t seen anyone touch on. One major change from the canon..."

Sat, 18 May 2013 13:50:47 -0700

“

But there is one big problem that I haven’t seen anyone touch on. One major change from the canon that leads to all of the smaller problems with Irene. One major change that is at the core of what pulls the rug out from under those of us who loved the original Scandal in Bohemia story. One major change that betrays a complete misunderstanding of the point of A Scandal in Bohemia and the real reason Irene Adler could win against Sherlock Holmes and walk away from him scott free holding everything she ever wanted.

Stephen Moffat and Guy Ritchie made the exact same mistake that a million fanfic and pastiche writers have before them. They looked at the Rogues Gallery of Sherlock Holmes for a formidable female villain, someone with potential for romance and intrigue, and picked out the perfect-seeming Irene Adler. This is understandable. She’s popular among fans, particularly female ones. She’s one of his best known opponents, possibly the best known after Moriarty. She looks good in a suit. Her story involves political and sexual intrigue. She’s cunning and resourceful. She won.

There’s just one small problem.

Irene Adler isn’t actually in the Rogues Gallery of Sherlock Holmes.

Look back at A Scandal in Bohemia. She’s not the bad guy. She’s the good guy. Sherlock’s client is the bad guy, wrongly pestering his ex-girlfriend and painting her as a extortionist when all she wants to do is live her life. He lied to Sherlock Holmes. Her explanation for trying to keep a little insurance against future bad behavior from this man is perfectly understandable. The entire story is a misunderstanding.

And that, more than anything else, is why she got to win. Because in addition to being his equal, beating him fair and square, she was also on the side of right and he was the manipulated one.

Listing her among his “villains” is like listing Spider-man as a Daredevil villain.

”

- Ragnell, “How do you solve a problem like Irene?”

This was originally written in response to A Scandal in Belgravia and A Game of Shadows, but I think it applies equally to Elementary’s interpretation of the character.

One other thing not touched on in this section but also pointed out in the article is particularly germain to Elementary’s choices: Irene is memorable because she beats Sherlock. Elementary did a good job of trying to preserve that, but when they turned her into Moriarty, they guaranteed she wouldn’t win, not in the end, not really. She would never be allowed to waltz off into the sunset and live happily ever after, which is her great victory in Scandal. Irene Adler, average citizen, is allowed to show up the great detective. Irene Adler, average citizen, is the person we should feel good rooting for, and the person who deserves to come out on top. But Moriarty?

Moriarty is a villain, and villains have to lose.

(via maegoesfullfandom)

elementary finale spoilers

Sat, 18 May 2013 13:24:24 -0700

iadler:

itsinthetrees:

I have seen people expressing dismay that the iconic figure of Irene Adler was supposedly merged with or ‘rolled into’ another character, essentially subsumed by Moriarty, and I just emphatically don’t think that’s the case.

It’s Professor Moriarty who has been erased or subsumed by this merger, not the other way around. “Irene Adler” may be an alias, but it is The Woman who is Sherlock’s equal — nay, his better, as in the short story — and The Woman who will be his opposite number, his dark half. The name ‘Moriarty’, basically at this point an iconic literary signifier for ‘the most dangerous criminal mastermind in the world,’ is taken from the Doyle character of James Moriarty and given to The Woman instead.

It is Moriarty who is a fiction, not Irene — the only thing fictitious about Irene is the expectation Sherlock placed on her, the pedestal he set her on as The Woman who supposedly eclipses the rest of her sex (this is proven a fiction in Elementary, of course, by Joan Watson).

This is the largest, most elaborate stage Irene Adler has ever been given; she’s taken Moriarty’s place — he hasn’t taken hers at all. He doesn’t even exist except as an armor she created.

I thought this to when I first saw the episode, but then I rewatched it and realized that she really isn’t though and that is the crux of this.

That is not who Irene Adler is. Irene Adler is not Sherlock Holmes’ nemesis or dark half. Irene is Sherlock’s superior not because she beat him because he loved her or because Irene had this whole organization in her command, but only with the wit and to be able to see Holmes’ flaw in time. She beat him fair and square with nothing but that. No manipulation, no organized crime or henchmen, just with her intellect.

My argument that Irene Adler does not, exist, is because Natalie’s character who does take the name “Moriarty” as her protection and explained that she made up the person to get close to Holmes. In was explained in her revelation:

H:”Why would you do this? Seduce me and let me believe that you’ve been murdered?”

M/I: “You’re the detective, Sherlock. You tell me.”

H: “I must have interrupted one of your plans while working for Scotland Yard while I was still working in Scotland Yard.”

M/I: “Try several plans.(a nod the the story “The Final Problem” here) A series of assassinations I had planned meticulously.”

H: “Punishment then?”

M: “My first instinct was to kill you. Quietly. Discreetly. But the more I learned about you, the more curious I became. Here at last there seemed to be a mind that rivaled my own. Something too complicated and too beautiful to destroy. At least without further analysis. So I devised a way to study you in your own environment.”

H: “You became Irene.”

M: “…So I concluded my experiment and went on my business.”[x]

What I got here is that she made the persona of Irene Adler. The type of woman she knew Holmes would be intrigued by and even have feelings for (this, in my humble opinion is the only thing that this show kept about Irene, though I admit that Holmes having feeling for Irene is debatable and not even true, that Irene is someone who would intrigue Holmes is) and see what was his potential and breaking point; to see how he ticks. It was an experiment and a complete and successful manipulation, because that is Moriarty’s business.

What we saw in this finale was that Natalie’s character is ruthless, cold and extremely clever and no apparent tragic backstory for her to be this way. She just sees games in people and likes to see with what she can get away with for the fun of it. She has as far as we can tell nothing to lose. She likes to plan out criminal acts and profit from them. If she ever had a weakness, it is her fascination with Holmes and nothing else. These are all traits of James Moriarty, not Irene Adler. Irene Adler was just a named used to introduce her to us. It was just a mask Moriarty hid behind and it’s not who she is.

They may share many traits both of Moriarty and Irene, but in her purpose and personality, she is completely him which makes me believe that Irene Adler is not Moriarty, but Moriarty is Irene Adler. Irene is just one of the many faces of Moriarty, but it’s not who she is.

For all we know, we don’t know her real name either. Moriarty is a code that she uses to protect her real identity which we may or may not find out, but it is very clear that Irene Adler is not her real name.

But even if they do reveal that it is, it goes back the the problem with most recent SH adaptions with the character of Irene Adler which is she is a criminal or a manipulative woman who tricks Holmes and makes him fall for her and in the consequences she does for him as well. This is not the purpose of Irene’s character at all either. We are going back to what Ritchie and Moffat did with their adaptations. This post says it a lot better than I ever could about that the problem for this is to Canon fans (and might I add fans of Irene Adler) despite that is only makes reference to the first two because it was made last year, it still makes a very good point.

Irene Adler has always wanted to be seen as this female fatale and the villain or close to, because it’s intriguing and we all love to see a woman going on in a male dominated world being her flawless self and kicking ass. I enjoy it immensely and I love seeing Irene in that role as well, but here is the thing about villains: they lose.

What is one of the most knowing things about Moriarty? He dies (which is basically losing here) and Holmes survives when the intent was that either both died or Moriarty got rid of Holmes once and for all. That is Holmes victory over Moriarty and it always has been. Change the scenario, but in the end this is the result and it always will be.

In making Irene Adler “Moriarty” you are guaranteeing she will lose. It might take a while, it might last for as long as the show is on, but it is inevitable. Whatever scenario you put it, Moriarty loses.

Irene Adler does not lose. To anyone.

She does not lose to Holmes (nor Moriarty not even Watson for that matter!), she beats him when she finds the flaw in his view of woman and shove it in his face with her victory, and walks home free to live her life. This is something that has been happening lately and they even add the sentiment of it being “oh but if they both care for each other and have feeling for each other, then they don’t really lose” but again, that is irrelevant because Irene never had feelings for Holmes to begin with! This is it’s own topic, but Irene Adler never lost because of any sentiment to HOLMES and in Elementary they clearly show that, because Watson figured it out, M/I sentiment and fascination for Holmes was the reason she got caught. It’s presented differently, but it’s still the same idea.

It seems that now in days when it comes to Irene Adler, there is no wish to see a normal and extremely clever woman simply have the superior hand to Holmes. It has to be because of sentiment. It has to be because she has a whole army of her own now or the tools for and it no longer can be just because of simple wit and that’s is really sad to see for any fan of Irene Adler.

The problem is not how well they wrote it and believe me when they took of “The Woman” into fiction in Elementary I was quite happy because with a female Watson and even in modern day saying that is very unfair, but if I may point out, that title is Irene’s only because she beat Holmes at his own game, not for any romantic feels (as far as we know). Not even that they gave Irene/Moriarty some uperhand on Holmes and was not screwed up (though she did get caught, not by Holmes but by Watson and though I appreciate and applaud this, I am not very happy with this impression of “good woman, bad woman” here and again, I point out that Irene does not lose to anyone to begin with). What is upsetting is the the accumulation and the result this will have in the long run and the big picture of it all.

Because, as that post I previously shared very well points out: “And so by the rules of the franchise, when we incorrectly position Irene Adler as a supervillain, she loses. And no matter how well you do it(…), you’re going to miss the appeal of the original story when she loses.”

Audio

Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:14 -0700

"I don’t have any time to stay up all night worrying about what someone who doesn’t love me has to..."

Sat, 18 May 2013 10:30:13 -0700

“I don’t have any time to stay up all night worrying about what someone who doesn’t love me has to say about me.”

- Viola Davis

Photo

Sat, 18 May 2013 10:16:14 -0700

Photo

Sat, 18 May 2013 01:11:58 -0700

Photo

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:19:30 -0700

joan watson give me the strength for this all-nighter i’m about to pull

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:13:00 -0700

joan watson give me the strength for this all-nighter i’m about to pull

I just need to say this

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:45:33 -0700

iadler:

This is the reason why I really disliked this Moriarty/Irene twist on Elementary.

Read More

TV Guide: If you sat on the Iron Throne, what would be your first edict?

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:29:01 -0700

TV Guide: If you sat on the Iron Throne, what would be your first edict?
Natalie Dormer: Worldwide emancipation for women, equality for the sexes in all areas.

Photo

Fri, 17 May 2013 20:27:31 -0700

caterinasforzas: “You talked to one of my lieutenants. He has,...

Fri, 17 May 2013 18:12:46 -0700

caterinasforzas:

“You talked to one of my lieutenants. He has, over the years, played the role repeatedly and with great conviction. More often than not, he’s done so to protect my identity. Other times, it was because I suspected a potential client might.. struggle with my gender. As if men had a monopoly on murder.”

#let me explain to you how genius the deconstruction of Irene Adler is #because in making her a conscious manipulation; an artful and purposeful creation by moriarty in order to ensnare sherlock #they have destroyed The Woman; the one individual who eclipsed the whole of her sex and at whose feet Sherlock fell #they’ve taken the goddess down off her pillar and revealed the woman in the fridge was a doll all along #Irene Adler is only a story; can only ever be a story; because there is no Woman #only women #and they are villains as well as heroines and they are clever even when they make mistakes and they can hold the world together #whether to take advantage of it or to save it for the people they love #but there is no Woman #there never could be #and Sherlock had to learn that #elementary #the best goddamn show #your favs could never

medhbh: i sincerely believe that i was put on this earth solely to wear red lipstick and dress in...

Fri, 17 May 2013 16:44:27 -0700

medhbh:

i sincerely believe that i was put on this earth solely to wear red lipstick and dress in all black and trick as many boys as possible into falling in love with me only to laugh in their face as i continue being raw as fuck

cosmo sex tip #76574

Fri, 17 May 2013 16:32:16 -0700

blastmodebeautiful:

name a bee after her.

as if men had a monopoly on murder.

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:28:41 -0700

as if men had a monopoly on murder.

dmkswag: see bbc sherlock was like “love makes people dumb but it makes ladies more dumb sherlock...

Fri, 17 May 2013 12:27:54 -0700

dmkswag:

see bbc sherlock was like “love makes people dumb but it makes ladies more dumb sherlock wouldn’t have been beaten at all if irene didn’t have a dude behind her and she STILL lost in the end”

while elementary was like “love makes people dumb but that’s why you just gotta make sure to have a sassy best friend to tell you when you’re being dumb sherlock would have been straight boned if he didn’t have joan to do basically everything”

and that’s why it’s okay that “irene” lost in elementary

because sherlock didn’t beat her at all