In Defense of Irene Adler

 (Sherlock Meta by francesca-wayland)

I’ve frequently seen charges of misogyny directed at Steven Moffat for how Irene Adler is depicted in the Sherlock episode A Scandal In Belgravia, as well as the claim that she’s regressed as a character since the Victorian-era canon story A Scandal In Bohemia. They point to her initial appearance in the nude, the magical penis trope (in which a lesbian turns straight when she meets the ‘right’ man), that she has been made a dominatrix, she was working ‘for’ Moriarty, she’s calculating and has selfish as opposed to altruistic motives, and that she is ultimately beaten because she lets her (‘typical female’) emotions get the best of her. They also state that Moffat reduces her to a damsel in distress in the end, who needs Sherlock to save her life.

I’ll be honest: I’ve spent a little over two years loving this character and considering her actions and motives, and so by this point I’m not sure whether I’m looking deeper than people who just dismiss her character for the above reasons, or I’ve devised explanations that let Moffat off the hook for misogyny because I think Irene is such a badass. But let me give my perspectives on each of the above complaints.

 -       The fact that she shows up to their initial meeting naked. People seem to be upset that the original Irene bested Sherlock without ‘resorting’ to this sort of extreme, and accuse Moffat of using her to pander to the male gaze.

I think this is a bit simplistic and detracts from Lara Pulver’s excellent performance. In that scene Irene Adler is in full control—she even asks John if he’s feeling exposed, because she is using her body as a very deliberate tool; she is not some passive vessel for the male gaze. In fact, her nudity is not even particularly sexual. It’s a calculated way to fluster Sherlock by completely confounding his expectations, and depriving him of data. Essentially she is pre-emptively beating him at his own game, which she is able to do because she did just as much due diligence on Sherlock as he did on her (more, I’d wager). She has come to understand how he operates, and she uses this knowledge to her advantage in order to maintain the upper hand from the start. This scene is all about showing how much the character has full agency and is willing to use any tools at her disposal, and how much she understands Sherlock and can match and even best him. To diminish it by saying that it’s just gratuitous nudity for the sake of male consumption is inaccurate and actually harmful because it’s so reductive. (And on a very minor note, she’s in her own home for God’s sake.)

-       The magical penis trope. A lot of people dislike that Irene self-identifies as gay (sort of…), and then turns around and falls for Sherlock, not just intellectually but physically, since he notes all her signs of attraction. I can see why people would be frustrated—gay characters, especially gay female characters—don’t get nearly enough representation. However, I think it’s meant as an illustration of how they are each the other’s exceptions in that way. Sherlock subverts his sexuality into his work, and Irene isn’t usually interested in men. There are so many points in the episode which deliberately and directly show them as reflections of one another (cinematography, story-line, costuming and hair styling), and I think that this is another way to emphasize that. Also, the term ‘gay’ can cover an array of queer orientations, and it is noted earlier in the episode that she ended the marriage of a prominent novelist by having an affair with both participants. Since England didn’t have marriage equality at the time, I think we can assume that the marriage consisted of a man and a woman. And to take it further, I wouldn’t use the term ‘affair’ to describe any arrangement a dominatrix has with a client. ‘Affair’ insinuates a more personal and sexual relationship, which would suggest that she’s bisexual or at least occasionally becomes involved with men.

-       The fact that she’s a dominatrix. I think this point is the best mirror for determining if someone is projecting his/her own internalized misogyny onto the character of Irene Adler. People will call her all sorts of gender-based slurs like a slut, hooker, or whore and use such labels to dismiss or belittle the character’s worth, whilst bemoaning the fact that Moffat is so sexist for making depicting her that way. So ironic. The fact is, I think making her a dominatrix was a brilliant update. In the original story she has a slightly questionable reputation, which makes the fact that Holmes comes to respect and admire her far more than he does the king much more meaningful. She is an ‘adventuress,’ a term which at the time did have certain implications. It could be used as a euphemism for courtesan, but it wasn’t so vulgar as to suggest anything like a common prostitute.

Back to modern day, being a dominatrix is a type of sex work, but as a rule there is no actual intercourse involved. It has much more to do with exploring power dynamics and giving people a safe place to discover and push their personal boundaries, and having Irene in a profession that allows her to read and manipulate people is a fantastic parallel to the way Sherlock can read situations and crime scenes. Just like the canon character, BBC Irene is on the fringes of society but she’s not a ‘fallen woman,’ and she uses her sexuality in an empowering way and to improve her station in life. And also just like in the original, Sherlock looks past conventional morés and becomes captivated by her intelligence and savvy. So when people ‘slut shame’ Irene, I feel that they’re using it as an easy, crude crutch to deride her character, and it says far more about them than Moffat. (Note: this is not to say that all people who are upset or disappointed that she’s a dominatrix are guilty of slut-shaming, but it is what I see most often).

-       That she was working ‘for’ Moriarty. I feel like this is a misconception. She approached Moriarty so that he could help her. His quid pro quo for consulting was to have the MOD code in her posession cracked. Everything she did was not in service of Moriarty, but a means to secure her ends. He was just another tool for her to use to get that. And some people might not like that either, but it does bring me to:

-       She was calculating and had selfish as opposed to altruistic motives. Yes. And I love that about her! I think it’s a great twist on the character. Her motives weren’t discovered to be noble; she wasn’t just attempting to be married without hassle and be made an ‘honest woman’ - she was unapologetically pursuing her own, individual agenda, and I think that’s fascinating and compelling. Why does a woman have to meet some set of moral standards to earn our approval? How boring. Why can’t she just be complex and human, as we so frequently allow male characters to be (and love them for it)? She’s conflicted, and inhabits the moral gray area, and it’s fantastic. What’s even more incredible is that the episode shows that despite the fact that she’s so flawed, despite what she did, Sherlock still appreciates her and still feels enough sentiment to risk his life for her. She is depicted as being admirable despite these moral ‘shortcomings,’ because she has other qualities - cunning, audaciousness, intellect - that give her worth.

-       The fact that Sherlock was able to undermine Irene’s plan by exploiting her feelings for him. I think that for me, this is the one potentially problematic issue with the character – not that she has fallen for Sherlock in and of itself, but that it directly contributes to the failure of her plans. In that moment he has beaten her, and in this case the fact that she has developed feelings for him is explicitly stated to be a weakness. I don’t like how it contributes to the concept that a woman who has romantic feelings towards someone else is in any way weak (See: Molly Hooper below).

BUT. The story is not over. And what people think is the coup de grace of Sherlock beating her (his rescue of her) I see as the reverse: her ultimate victory.

-       The rescue. People are most upset about this, because they claim that she has been reduced to a damsel in distress, while she was the clear victor in the original story.

I disagree: I think that this brings the narrative of A Scandal in Belgravia a full circle, and further illustrates how these two are counterparts. In the beginning, Irene’s phonecall to Moriarty probably saves Sherlock and John’s lives. At the end, Sherlock intervenes to save her life. But there’s more to it than that, and it’s to do with sentiment. The thing that brought Irene down before is what then secures her triumph, because the only reason Sherlock would fly half way across the world, infiltrate a terrorist cell, risk his life, and possibly kill for her, is due to sentiment of some kind. They are reflections of each other in all but one, complementary way: he is the brain and she is the heart, and the heart won in the end. She got to him in a way that no other person had, and if she hadn’t managed that, she would’ve died. She secured her own rescue, through Sherlock.

So Moffat isn’t entirely blameless in this portrayal, but I think that the amount of criticism he gets regarding Irene Adler is unfair to him, and unfair to the character herself. Many of the complaints I see are projections of individuals’ problems with and judgment of someone involved in any type of sex work, or - in my opinion - they stem from a lack of more in-depth analysis of the narrative structure of the story and the parallels between Sherlock and Irene.

I would be more prepared to accept that I’m giving too much credit to Moffat by creating headcanons which ‘compensate’ for problematic issues (and this still might be the case to some degree), except that I see the way the fandom treats other female characters, as well:

-       “Molly is pathetic doormat and needs to get over Sherlock.”
….Oh except that when Sherlock is supposedly ‘yearning’ for John then it’s poignant and tragic. Also, Molly stands up to Sherlock all the time, and he takes her criticisms seriously and actually apologizes to her. He clearly trusts her and cares for her a great deal.

-       “Donovan is a fucking bitch.”
…Who was just doing her job as she’s supposed to, and has every reason to dislike the entitled civilian who swans around crime scenes and ignores every protocol.

-       “Mary is so evil, I hate her.” …Oh, but Moriarty is a fan favorite despite the fact that he blew up an entire block of flats in his ‘game’ with Sherlock, and then tried to coerce Sherlock into committing suicide.

You see my point! So in conclusion not all, but many, of the problems I see with women characters in the fandom stem from the way the audience filters the content, as opposed to from the original content itself.

And Irene is a BAMF.

[Post originally inspired by this question.]