Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

Hey guys,
The official debut of Sherlock's second series/season was last night and I was hoping some of you might want to chat about it!
Jen

How bout Moriarty! That opening scene picking up from last season was really terrifying...the actor's eyes were so expressive...scared me!

I wish I could have recorded it or had subtitles...because I couldn't understand much of the rapid banter between Holmes and Watson.

I love the 21st century inclusion of texting--the cell phone apps play an enormous role in all of the episodes...I love the way this modern incarnation of Sherlock has embraced the technology.

Yeah Canon Holmes was always sending telegraphs-just a natural progresion. And I loved the asides "The Geek Interpreter" and "The Navel Treatment"!

I had watched it in January on my computer, but it was so much better on my nice TV, and I caught a lot more the second time watching it. I think I'm going to buy the DVD set, because PBS edited a lot of great scenes out. :(

The pulse scene was so hot. And this time around, I noticed that when Sherlock was chiding her about the dangers of sentiment and whatnot, that his eyes were as dilated as hers!

I see DVD's in my future too...Cumberbatch! Who'd have thought that name could sound so sexy.

I just watched my DVR recording of the episode, and enjoyed it just as much as the first couple times I saw it from the BBC. This episode is full of myriad subtle (and not so subtle!) modern touches that make this series unique. And the ending with the multiple fadeouts was extremely well written. A magnificent start to a spectacular season; the next two episodes are even better than this one!!

John.

I'm so glad you've finally seen it Jen! I've been waiting AGES for you to see it! :D

Sorry for being such a pain until I was able to see it!
Amy, did this episode seem a lot like a Dr. Who? So very frenetic! I know that it hangs together but the details are as sharp as a knife's edge. I can not even remember if I used my captions or not. I don't know if there'd have been time to read them...And I was not prepared for my reaction to this "romantic" turn of events! Neither the lesser "Molly fiasco," nor the many sides of the "Woman." I always thought of this Sherlock as a super brain with a nice human form playing a supporting role...Sherlock, a virgin? It's just not something I ever envisioned in the same sentence...
Jen

Oooo there are so many things I could say top that but I'm at work! Will write a longer message for you later!!

* to that even :-)

Amy,
Please do not forsake this duty of yours to talk to me. I have been waiting months. Months to talk about some new Sherlock and I am really flummoxed by this turn of events...I have been told that perhaps this is not a literal turn of events but well...
Jen

I'll write a critical review of what I thought of it for you! May have to watch it again, it's been a while! Tell me what's flummoxing (?) you and I'll try and deflummox! :-)

I was on a Qantas flight to Australia, so missed the U.S. airing of "Scandal in Belgravia," but to my delight found that Qantas was showing "The Hounds of Baskerville," so watched that! Great fun, with some wonderful interplay between Sherlock and John.

Amy wrote: "I'll write a critical review of what I thought of it for you! May have to watch it again, it's been a while! Tell me what's flummoxing (?) you and I'll try and deflummox! :-)"
I think I need to watch it again because everything going on between Sherlock and Irene sort of sped by. And I think I am flummoxed by the role he actually played in all this. Wasn't he just employed by Mycroft and Irene as a useful idiot? A pawn? He did all the heavy solving it seems. But then Mycroft blamed him for the failure of the Coventry mission...See all the details are swirling in my head, never mind could he really be a virgin....And I am showing my cards but somehow that matters to me!
Jen

Jen,
Right, thoughts on Sherlock. I really liked Irene, I think Laurie has mentioned this on her facebook page but the whole dominatrix thing is perhaps an evolution or development of the theme, of the Victorian 'adventuress' which the orignal Adler was - and let's face it,no angel! I think Steven Moffett just played on the fact that no ordinary woman would interest Sherlock.
I agree that it went very fast and the deductions were lightening speed and sometimes hard to follow. The way he played her at the end, letting her think she'd won and then revealing that he 'knew her heart' was pure class!
I think originally Sherlock was there to keep Irene out of the way, to make sure she wasn't going to use the incriminating photos she had on her phone, or to take them if possible, but Irene was clever and wouldn't give 'her protection' up so easily. Neither Mycroft nor Sherlock knew who she was working for so the 'Coventry mission' came as a shock to both of them because technically she shouldn't have known or been involved, they had no way of knowing she was involved with Moriarty. Mycroft blamed him for deducing potentially (well definitely) secure and dangerous information in front of someone he doesn't know or trust purley to show off and impress her, which IMO he was trying to do. Irene used her feminitity and her brazeness to knock himoff balance, she maniuplated his need to show off and be in control by getting him to deduce what she wanted to feed back to Moriarty. The scene on the plane where she effectively humiliates Sherlock does, I think, force him to rethink her motives and work back to how she behaved and what she wanted, all in all helping him to deduce the real motives of her closeness. Taking her hand by the fire I think may have been in order to take her pulse and see how she reacted to his touch, he is after all, naturally curious,and even if he was interested in her I think the curiousity over her motives for being close to him would take over, I think it would have been more difficult for him to think of her motives as purely sexual, for him there had to be something more behind it - which in the end, he deduced there was.
As to the virgin thing, I think it's entirely plausible. Intimacy doesn't, I think, scare him or confuse him, I think he just doesn't have any interest in it. Even someone who he found as interesting as Irene, in the end he can't trust someone enough to give over to that sort of intimacy, so in all liklihood is a virgin. The canon Holmes is also more than likely a virgin, but the choice to remain celibate back then wasn't such a curious lifestyle choice as it seems now. Overall, I think Cumberbatch plays Holmes perfectly, aloof, fiercly intelligent, calm and aware of emotion and feeling but not all that interested in partaking in any relationships himself. Hope that helps! Just my thoughts :D

Very nice summation, Amy! I can't disagree with any of your comments, and I think you nicely wrapped up a beautifully complex and plausible relationship between Adler and Holmes. As a side note, watching Watson's reactions to several of the Adler/Holmes vignettes, and his sorry attempts to interject himself as something more than just a bystander, were priceless.

John.

Hey Amy,
While what you have said helps me a lot, I hope it's not unusual to still feel it's all a bit of a muddle. The mixing of the sexual interplay and the "case" still makes me very confused. I am going to see it again Thurs. night so I will study what you wrote and try to watch as carefully as possible. Does it make sense that this episode sort of keeps you off your mark? As soon as I thought I knew what was happening, it seemed to slip through my fingers like water...The back and forth between Sherlock and Irene was like a lightning speed chess match...And I can completely accept the idea that Sherlock is still a virgin. Let me see if I can explain it. I have said before above that I always thought of him as a super brain being supported by a not unpleasant body (or physical plant, as Vicki said in a note...) and so, to introduce this whole area was most disruptive. It's like finding your bike needs a drink of water. Bikes don't need water...Sherlock can't be manipulated by a sexy dominatrix...Just not in the world view...Not cricket. Not fair. I guess that is what makes me disoriented. So when I was exclaiming over it, I was not bemoaning the fact that he may very well still be a virgin but that Sherlock and "virgin" need ever appear in the same sentence...Thanks for the long discussion. More please...
Jen

That was a nice summary, Amy!

I like that this episode echoed my thoughts on the Canon Holmes. Canon Holmes does a lot of talking. He tells Watson that Love is grit in his finely tuned mind (or something like that), he tells him he doesn't pay attention to the Universe, he makes grand, sweeping statements about his ideals, but his actions are often contrary, and in some cases, I think he says stuff to irritate or toy with Watson. And IMO this episode reinforced that thought with his reaction when Mrs Hudson was harmed, his dilated pupils while he was telling Irene how destructive sentiment was, going out of his way to rescue her at the end, and then to seal the deal, Mycroft asking John what it says about Sherlock's heart when he uses his brilliant mind to work as a Detective.

I loved Sherlock's reaction to Mrs Hudson being harmed as much as his interactions with Irene. Logically, there was no reason for Sherlock to harm the CIA agent, which he did to an extreme. Beating up the CIA agent and tossing him out the window was pure vengeance, which showed us how deeply he cared for Mrs Hudson.

And similarly, how completely without feeling he was able to treat Molly was also notable. I was relieved that at the very least, he could feel some level of shame and regret. I couldn't help but think that either the Molly scene was extremely cruel and unusual on Steve Moffat's part or we have not seen the last of Molly (please, no one tell me...).
And I have heard so much about these dilated pupils. I must admit my lack of sophistication and say I didn't see them and I was not aware of their meaning...I will be seeing the same episode again Thurs. night (and dvr-ing the thing!) so someone elaborate a bit. I realize you will all know exactly what a slow coach I am but pride be blowed...
Jen

Jen don't be daft! That's what we're here for! To help and explain away any confusion! :-)
I agree with what you are saying, that really 'Sherlock' and 'virgin' need never be on the same sentence and in the Victorian era that was very probably true but in the 21st century, for whatever reason, we need to know the reasoning behind a man not being interested in women or sex, to our modern sensibilities it's a strange state of affairs and bringing in a sexy woman like Irene only adds to our curiosity - which after all is why we're all still so interested in Sherlock Holmes, he's such a closed book and we HAVE to know more.
I'd forgotten about the Mrs. Hudson episode! I think that demonstrated brilliantly Sherlock's depth of emotion and how tightly reigned inthey are, it's not that he doesn't care, it's perhaps more that he's afraid of caring too much in case he loses control, I feel this Holmes is all about the control, over Irene, over his feelings for her, and hers for him and his feelings towards Mrs. Hudson. He's a passionate man but as with everything in his life, he needs to be in control...
I like Molly, I think she's an important reminder that occasionally Sherlock can be cruel and he needs to reign in his intelligence and think before he speaks, as Steven Moffett has said previously this Holmes is still very NYC in the development stage, he's growing into the man we know and love - he's brash and arrogant and he hasn't yet learnt how to treat people...hence the need for John...

Still very much in the development stage not still NYC - stupid autocorrect...never type on an iPod before going to bed!! Incomprehensible things happen! :-)

Jen wrote: And I have heard so much about these dilated pupils.

I didn't notice until second time around, but it was while he was telling Irene about how he understands love, because it's just another chemical reaction or some such, and he was telling her about her elevated pulse and dilated pupils, but his were too. I can't wait to buy the DVDs, they cut out a number of funny things, along with another reference to his virginity.

I agree with the comments about current views vs Victorian views of virginity. Today's world is saturated with sex, and love seems to be largely misunderstood. Back then, someone who was a virgin might be viewed as virtuous, responsible, and self-controlled, but nowadays it's often used as an insult and people are made fun of for it.

For instance, GB Shaw had a "white" marriage if you want to drag some poor unsuspecting Victorian playwright into it. His wife (like my brilliant T.E.Lawrence) found the whole idea of the body abhorrent and found an agreeable spouse in GBS. Of course she gave him leave to conduct his affairs with impunity but they were a happy couple it seems. So that Canon Holmes had put that aspect of the body far from his mind and his actions isn't a bit shocking. And when people adapt his character, as LRK did, they are very free to go which ever way they prefer. But I have to say that had LRK not been as restrained as she was in Holmes and Russell's married life, (and I consider her restraint to be a brilliant demonstration of her understanding of Holmes' character)her books might not have achieved such a level of believability. But Sherlock is an entirely different animal it seems. But the kernel of truth I need to get at is this: did he love her? In his sad twisted way, did he feel affection for her or more like disturbance?
Jen

I don't think he loved her, I think he found her attractive and interesting and I think that disturbed him, worried him when he couldn't read her.

I'm not sure on the whole love thing, but I'm willing to be swayed either way. One thing that PBS cut out was additional scenes of Sherlock after Irene's first death, which emphasized his loss more, at least from what I remember five months ago. My question is, why did he go out of his way to save her at the end and why was Mycroft so concerned about protecting Sherlock's heart during that last scene in Speedy's?

I think he was initially intrigued by her, she caught his attention, and then he was attracted, and possibly fell in love with her mind. There was a whole lot of mental foreplay going on between them. Their bodies might not have done the deed, but their minds definitely did!

Have pity yet again on a poor benighted individual who's only see the episode once. Why is it that Sherlock could recognize the body of the first death as Irene's and the beat up face didn't spark any question in him? I know, he saw her nakey, but was there any other reason? It really went by fast...
Jen

Sabrina wrote: "I'm not sure on the whole love thing, but I'm willing to be swayed either way. One thing that PBS cut out was additional scenes of Sherlock after Irene's first death, which emphasized his loss mor..."

That's a ridiculous part to cut out! Yes, I think it does emphasise his loss more, but again it could be argued that he felt the loss of an equal rather than the loss of a lover.
Jen, I think that maybe he was disconcerted by the 'fact' she was dead and by the fact her face was so badly beaten that his own judgement became somewhat clouded and it was that revelation (that his mind could be made less than perfect by the presence of a woman) that led him to want to, not forget her, but move past the feelings he had for and focus on her alterior motives.
I think at the end Mycroft was protecting his brother from any more hurt, because regardless of what he felt for hre, Sherlock did experience something when he thought she had died, Mycroft knew Sherlock's judgement could potentially be clouded by this woman and he wanted to protect him from further blunders - and he knows the extremes of Sherlock's character and perhaps thought that the knowledge of her death could tip him either way...
Sherlock wanted to save Irene because she affected him in a way no other person had, and in the same way he wants to protect John and Mrs. Hudson, he wants to protect her. In a cyncial way, you could say in case he needs her again or to keep an eye on her activities, the romantic among you might say it's because he loved her ;-)

In an interview with Cumberbatch, he described Holmes as a sociopath. Sociopaths have no capacity for love.

I think Sherlock certainly has elements of a sociopath, but to describe him completly as such is narrowing his personality considerably.

Not that I'm daring to disagree with Mr. Cumberbatch! ;-)

Amy,
In your entire discourse I kept thinking of phrases you used such as "the way she affected him" and all I could think of is that doesn't sound like love or affection. It does sound like some virus or disease to be controlled, quarantined. And that's where I thought I saw something really dangerous in Sherlock, vulnerability. That is not something I ever dreamed I would see in this particular character. And you all can tell me I am nuts and that wasn't the case but it seemed like I was seeing not a man but a confused kid, briefly of course.
And this sociopath thing, I know it's somewhat a device to make this particular character dangerous but it seems we throw around terms pretty cavalierly. I don't know if I have ever met a sociopath but I can not imagine they think of others before themselves. So I find it hard to see Sherlock as truly sociopathic. Cruel at times, sure. Self-centered, yes. But he has a conscience. Isn't that what sociopaths lack?
Jen

Amy wrote: Sherlock wanted to save Irene because she affected him in a way no other person had, and in the same way he wants to protect John and Mrs. Hudson, he wants to protect her. In a cyncial way, you could say in case he needs her again or to keep an eye on her activities, the romantic among you might say it's because he loved her ;-)

LOL, I think that's my problem. I'm a romantic at heart. Your comment about mourning the loss of an equal was a good one, especially because later on (in Canon at least) we know he is almost mourning the death of Moriarty, because the challenge has gone away.

But, in regards to wanting to protect someone to the point that you put your life on the line, I can only think of one motivation for that. People that don't care about others, well... they just don't care, they will walk right by someone in trouble, or injured and look the other way.

I just found the American version on line and started again. This time I could pay very close attention and was shocked and thrilled to see the boomerang in the upper corner of the shot as the camera drew away from the dead hiker lying near the stream....This is the sort of thing I expected. Not dilated pupils and coded ways of saying "I love you!"
Jen

But it's so much more fun than boring old murders!! ;-)

I seem to be seeing a great deal of confusion, just plain old confusion in Sherlock at his first meeting with Irene Adler. What ever possessed him to show up with barely any knowledge of this Adler woman, dressed as a vicar? I know that's Canon but that was totally useless in this situation. He looked a fool! I find it excruciating to watch!
Jen

Jen wrote: "I just found the American version on line and started again. This time I could pay very close attention and was shocked and thrilled to see the boomerang in the upper corner of the shot as the came..."

Oh, nice catch Jen. I will definitely be looking for that next time. Speaking of the boomerang, do you guys think that it was a nod to 'Silver Blaze' and the hoof to the head? LOL, I can't read 'hoof to the head' without adding a Kungfu noise after it.

I never would have thought of that connection and I have to say that I think after all that I am wrong. I saw the later bit where in his drugged state, Sherlock is on the scene with Irene and you see the boomerang. It's dark red and the "thing" I saw was light colored. I believe I engaged in wish fulfillment...But again, while all the references to Canon are darling mostly, showing up acting like a clueless parson at Irene's doorstep was an awful and uncharacteristic miscalculation! Preying on the good nature of an opera singer, as adventurous and brave as the original was, is a whole different matter from taking on a dominatrix/sex worker...
Jen

I totally just stumbled on link with Steven Moffat about the very things we've been discussing. If the link doesn't work you can just google 'Steven Moffat Interview with Alyssa Rosenberg.

http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/05/07/479306/steven-moffat-on-sherlocks-return-the-holmes-watson-love-story-and-updating-the-first-supervillain/?mobile=nc

Here are my favorite lines from the interview:

I was pondering when I wrote that, why is sex so important? And has it always been this important to ever previous era of humanity? I bet it isn’t. I think we’re obsessed with it, to the point where I know a lot of people are saying ‘Well, John and Sherlock clearly love each other, they must be having sex.’ But you can love someone without fancying them. If your’e not wired to fancy someone, you just won’t. But what’s that got to do with it? Really, what’s that got to do with the important relationships?

What Mark and I always say is our Sherlock is twenty years from being Basil Rathbone. And our Sherlock is twenty years younger than Basil Rathbone. The accomplished version would never be that cruel, would never be that silly. Probably isn’t a virgin. I can’t imagine that man as a virgin. Something happened, somewhere. I think Sherlock would have to, somewhere. He’s a man with a past…You see more of this in Baskerville, where he encounters fear, and doubt, and loss in Reichenbach Falls. These are the fires in which the great hero is forged. He’s not the Sherlock Holmes we know and love yet.

I love his comment about growing, because as I read Canon in order that is one of things I notice, that Holmes grows as a character and ages, which makes the Mary Russell books totally believable IMO.

I LOVE that comment, thank you so much for posting it! That last paragraph is exactly how I feel and what I've been trying to get across, obviously in a much less eloquent fashion!

These are the fires in which the great hero is forged.

Love that line :-) I'll stop getting all fan girl on you now...

The way 'A Scandal in Bohemia' starts is pretty amazing though 'To Sherlock Holmes she is always THE woman...in his eyes she predominates and eclipses the whole of her sex.' A pretty awesome statement...even without the implication of sex!

It's a measure of his belief in his intellectual powers that the woman he most admires, the one who eclipses all of womanhood is the one who outsmarted him...
J

Jen wrote: "After seeing it all again (and deciding that taping it wasn't worth it given the missing scene...) I have a better handle on the story and I am troubled. I end up with more questions than answers. ..."

Jen,

Alice posted this interview on Letters_Of_Mary. It's really great, and Moffat talks a little about his motivation behind Adler for one question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MltF5...

He read Canon as a 12 year old boy and basically said what Amy did, that Scandal starts out really amazing... So he thought, wow, there must be something really special about The Woman, but then as it goes on, all she does is at the end is runaway and marry a man. So he was disappointed.

I think it works for present day, considering the norms, and that there had to be some sort of sexual scandal per the original. She was basically a Courtesan in Canon and by today's standards a woman sleeping with a man out of wedlock is not considered scandalous.

No, the sex part isn't my concern. When I say she was without honor it's more a remark aimed at her trying to play both sides. The original Irene, courtesan though she might have been, wouldn't have tried to involve Moriarty in her troubles. To me, that added an extremely dangerous and needless aspect to the story. In our modern way of telling stories, it seems it all has to be of a piece so Moriarty had to be involved.
Jen

I think that's a good point Jen, I think normally, even Steven Moffett had had time, Irene may have been aforce to be reckoned with under her own steam. I agree that she didn't really need to be tied to Moriarty and that was a pointless plot point that was never really explained. I think it did spoil her appeal a little by having her tied to a man, that and the fact she used her feminine appeal rather than her brains to get the better of people seemed to me to be a bit of a let down...

The whole "dominatrix" thing seems like a wonderful way to combine brains and sex in a dark edgy way. Pizzaz! How else could they work in so much skin? I really hadn't thought about that Amy. It does kind of rely on a sad stereotype, an unworthy device. And it seems clear that Sherlock would have been as intrigued by her had she been wearing clothing upon their first meeting. Were we supposed to get the clear message that he was capable of interest in a naked woman? Seems unnecessary. And by the way, doesn't his criminal activity keep Moriarty busy enough? That he has time to sit around and speculate about Sherlock's status seems to cheapen Moriarty too!
Jen

Jen wrote: "The whole "dominatrix" thing seems like a wonderful way to combine brains and sex in a dark edgy way. Pizzaz! How else could they work in so much skin? I really hadn't thought about that Amy. It do..."

Jen, I don't think that Sherlock would have been immediately intrigued by her with her clothes on. What caught his attention was that his internal deductive abilities, based upon visual cues, were totally disabled by her nudity. His glance over to John to make sure he could still read visual cues, and then back to Adler with the question marks, lets us know that Sherlock was a little nonplussed at not getting an immediate read on her, and I think that was the hook which caught him.

John.

Jen wrote: "No, the sex part isn't my concern. When I say she was without honor it's more a remark aimed at her trying to play both sides. The original Irene, courtesan though she might have been, wouldn't hav..."

Oh, I see what you were getting at, Jen. This is what happens when I post before my caffeine fix! I agree with you, it would have been way cooler if Irene had been a one woman show and was truly trying to protect herself or after some nobler purpose.

One thing that irritated me was that neither Moriarty or Irene could decipher the string of letters that revealed Mycroft's plan, but then again, maybe Moriarty knew all along and just wanted to humiliate Sherlock by having him inadvertently betray Britain?

Amy, Sabrina
Several things bothered me and that string of letters was one. How could it not have been at least somewhat obvious to someone who's business it is to break codes (which IA claimed to have employed?) and again, the fact that he showed up at her door as a parson. In the original, Holmes staked out her home and took the lay of the land. Sherlock looks at some photos and decides that appearing as an injured clergy wouldn't seem fishy. Not up to his usual style. I think you make a good good point that coming out naked just threw him. He didn't have clothing to help him make deductions but then again...I could make a lot of deductions about a woman meeting me for the first time in the altogether...Just none that could go on camera. I do think his looking around was very cute. I can hear the little voice in his head "I got nothin'..."
And about Moriarty, you have to be right. He's supposed to be a mathematical genius. There is no way he couldn't have broken that code in his sleep, is there? Humiliation, plain and simple..
J

John wrote: "His glance over to John to make sure he could still read visual cues, and then back to Adler with the question marks, lets us know that Sherlock was a little nonplussed at not getting an immediate read on her, and I think that was the hook which caught him.
"

You've nailed it!