Irene "The Villain" Adler

 (Sherlock Meta by thenorwoodbuilder)

Anonymous asked: 

First off, I would like to thank you for all your insightful metas. I always enjoy reading them. I also read your detailed analysis of Irene Adler being saved by Sherlock Holmes is not that she was a damsel in distress but she was a terrible person. She lies, cheats and maybe murdered a woman (the corpse in the morgue), commits treason and blackmails people to get what she wants. I think she is not a character with any redeemable qualities worth saving. If she was a male character doing all of the above, would Sherlock have saved him? Also if someone, male or female, committed the crimes she committed, wouldn't they be arrested and maybe executed? (She was cavorting with terrorists after all). I don't understand why she deserved to be in a witness protection program after all the crimes she has committed, or even deserves to be saved. Love to hear your  thought on the matter! Thank you!

thenorwoodbuilder:

Hallo dear!

Thanks for your kind words, and also for your interesting question!

I think that you are referring to this post, in your ask, but, as I happened to discuss the Irene Adler character in several other posts, in which I, to some extent, touched also the points you mention, I think I’d better start with a list of my previous posts about Irene, in order to proceed, then, to address, in a more systematic way, the four questions which, I think, are at the core of your ask:

1) Exactly which crimes did Irene commit in ASiB?
2) Is she a much more evil character than her canonical counterpart?
3) Is she a totally negative character, one who is not “worth saving”?
4) If so, did the writers decide to have her saved by Sherlock just because she was a female villain?

So, first of all, the list (this time in chronological order, by publication date):

“Sherlock goes sexist?” is a long reply to the theory that ASiB is an episode affected by sexist and/or misogynist stereotypes. An analysis and confrontation of canonical Irene Adler and modern Irene Adler is provided, as well as some hints at how Arthur Conan Doyle can’t be considered a “proto-feminist”. The importance of different historical and cultural context is stressed. There is also a brief analysis of Sherlock’s and Irene’s interactions and relationship in ASiB.

“Can we talk about Irene Adler for a sec?” contains a (long) comment to threebeerproblem’s reply to a post by tookmyskull: here I come back to my reasons for liking the episode ASiB, and for considering the adaptation of Irene Adler by Moffat one of the best, and more “feminist”, ever. A confrontation with canonical Irene Adler is provided, and more reasons are added to explain why the canonical Irene was not at all a proto-feminist character (as ACD was not a proto-feminist himself), while modern Irene is a strong and independent figure, who manages to maintain all the main features of her canonical counterpart and, at the same time, be perfectly modern.

“Sherlock vs. Irene” is actually a further comment to (further comments to) “Can we talk about Irene Adler for a sec?”, and contains a more detailed analysis of the mutual attraction Sherlock and Irene develop to each other in ASiB, with a clarification about the differences between “attraction” and “love”, and an analysis of the intellectual and narcissistic features of said attraction. In defence of BBC’s Irene.

“Why did Mycroft let Irene go?” is actually a prosecution of  “If you’re feeling kind, lock her up, otherwise let her go”, but focuses on the reasons why Mycroft finally decided not to be “kind” to Irene and to instead release her, at the end of ASiB, so practically sentencing her to death.

“Why BBC Sherlock is not sexist: A re-evaluation” contains a few comments to an interesting post by wellingtongoose, with a particular focus on the characters of Mrs. Hudson and Irene Adler. It costed me the loss of some followers, so you might be interested… albeit I think some of my previous posts about Irene should have been more unpopular…

“Mirror! Mirror!” contains a further analysis (complete with an apposite photoset) of the strong narcissistic element on which the attraction between Sherlock and Irene Adler is grounded in ASiB.

“Favourite screencap of the day - Realization” contains a brief note about the (presumable) moment when Irene Adler fully realized how (much) Moriarty had actually used her - instead of simply acting as her consultant - and about her presumable reactions to this…

“Moriarty & Irene Adler” is an answer to the question, posed by a kind Anon, whether Moriarty dictated every step in Irene’s strategy to deal with Sherlock, in ASiB, or it was Irene, instead, the main author of her own plan to defeat Sherlock, apart from the initial information and indications about how to approach the British Government that Moriarty gave her.



And now, to the first of the specific questions at hand: exactly which crimes did Irene Adler commit in ASiB?

I must preliminary say that I’m NOT an expert in British criminal law: I happen to know something about it, but only with regard to general principles and to specific topics about which I happened, in my professional life, to have a need to do some research. So don’t take this as a technical appraisal of the matter… We’re all here for fun, basically.

Is there anything illegal in Irene’s daily job? No, not per se. She, as a dominatrix, works in the business of entertainment, we might say - she is not even properly a “sex worker”, as Mycroft quite uncorrectly labels her, as dominatrices usually don’t have sexual intercourses with their clients and, for many of said clients, the relationship with a dominatrix has not an IMMEDIATE sexual meaning. In any case, her job, albeit peculiar, is not per se illegal - so much so that she openly advertises on the Internet and apparently is a character known, to some extent, to the British gutter press. Her job is just - at least for many people still - socially “scandalous”, but not illicit.

The first legal line she crosses, is when she takes and keeps - apparently without their knowledge and consent - embarassing and/or compromising pictures of her clients, in order to have something to use as “protection” should the need ever arise. Even before making any further use of these pictures - for blackmail or other purposes - she has already committed an offence - whether criminal or administrative or civil in nature I couldn’t tell, as I don’t know well enough the British law. Anyway, the illicit (i.e., without the consent of the entitled person) retention and handling of personal data is generally considered illegal under the vast majority of national jurisdictions, even if it’s not generally treated as a major offence (it’s not even a criminal offence under many jurisdictions).

I think that, when she says that she “makes her way into the world by misbehaving” Irene is mainly referring to the socially scandalous nature of her work; but she is also perfectly aware of the illegality of her habit to acquire and store away very private information about her clients.



Even when she lets the Government know she has a number of compromising photographs of a Royal Highness, Irene is still not committing any further - and more severe - offence: as Mycroft remarks, she doesn’t ask anything, nor she threatens to do anything. Thus, she is NOT indictable either of the crime of blackmail, or of criminal threatening.

This is the reason why Mycroft and “all the Queen’s men and the Queen’s horses” can’t touch her, from a legal point of view, and thus the reason why they have to engage a private agent - Sherlock - to COMMIT A CRIME (because in ASiB, as in Canon, the first crime we SEE actually being committed is committed by Sherlock Holmes…) in order to steal Irene’s camera phone containing the pictures.

So, actually, the first CERTAINLY criminal offences (and not minor ones…) we are shown to be committed in the episode are committed by Sherlock: fraud in identity, housebreaking, theft… Not bad a record for less than an hour of work, isn’t it?



(Oh, well, yes, she was probably culpable of illicit gun possession - for the handgun she kept in her safe - but we cannot be sure she had not a license for that, and besides John and Sherlock are constantly in the same condition, through the whole show, so… no big issue.)

As for the killing of the CIA guy, it actually was self-defence, or at least any good barrister would have obtained a verdict to this effect, should the case have ever appeared in tribunal….

Her drugging Sherlock to retrieve her phone could possibly be considered assault, of course. But even in this case, considering that she acted in a clearly not lethal way in order to retrieve a property which had just been stolen from her and against the author of the theft, I think that self-defence could, again, be applied.

And so - lo and behold! - the first clear and unquestionable CRIMINAL offence Irene commits in the episode is… breaking and entering, when she climbs into Sherlock’s room to return his coat while he is laying, still drugged, in his bed.

A crime she appears fond of, as she commits it at least two more times: in order to leave her phone to Sherlock, at Christmas, and in order to reach him to ask for his help a few months later.

Anyway, quite apparently she never gets charged by her “victims” with it - which settles the matter.



And so we have come to that fatal Christmas and to the “incident” of the fake Irene’s body. Is it likely that she killed someone - or had someone killed - to provide that corpse? Well, I don’t think so.

And this not so much because I think it wouldn’t be “in character”: actually, I don’t have enough information to judge whether or not Irene would have been capable of such a thing - even if we must say that one thing is to kill a man in self-defence, and a completely different thing is to cold-bloodedly murder a person just to get a corpse to use.

No, the point is: she DIDN’T NEED to. So it would have been foolish to commit a murder without any need. And think what you want about Irene’s moral fibre, she is NOT at all a fool… She wouldn’t have needed to, because she wasn’t working on a strict schedule: she played the trick of her fake death when she was ready to - that is, three/four months after the “incident” at her home - that is, when she finally got to know - presumably through her agent in the morgue, the same person who switched the DNA test’s results for her - that a body had been found, which was suitable to her purposes. In a city of more than 8 million inhabitants, she could be quite confident that, sooner or later, this was going to happen. And, in fact, in a few months it DID happen. Thus, she certainly committed a fraud - at least one fake death certificate was issued on her behalf - but she is NOT a murderer.



Apart from the further breaking and entering I’ve already mentioned, what comes next is her inducing Sherlock to “decode” the MoD man’s e-mail and sending the information to Moriarty.

For this act, she would most certainly have been indictable of breach of State secret. She certaily wouldn’t have been indictable of treason as defined by modern British law (and anyway, even if this had been the case, she would never have been sentenced to death and “executed”, as Britain abolished death penalty UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES in 1998). In fact, she only passed that information to Moriarty, but she had no way to know how he was going to employ it - or, at least, it’s very dubious it could have been PROVED in a trial that she KNEW that he was going to pass that information to terrorists. She didn’t even have any reason to SUSPECT that the information was relevant to any terrorist group, in fact. If you rewatch the episode, you’ll notice that Sherlock explains the value of the information in relation to a “Coventry-like conundrum” only hours LATER: when Irene sends her text to Moriarty, she only knows the literal meaning of the e-mail (i.e.: that it pinpoints a certain flight), and NOT that the “Bond Air” is linked to a secret operation against terrorist cells!

And as any crime requires INTENT to be punished, she couldn’t be indicted either of conspiring with terrorists or - even less - of treason.

Yes, she is a ruthless and unscrupolous person, who doesn’t care about the trouble she might cause in pursuing her own purposes, but she is NOT a terrorist or an accomplice of terrorists under any legal perspective.

And even under a moral perspective, even if she is certainly not a commendable person, we must aknowledge that she DIDN’T KNOW that the information she “extracted” from Sherlock was going to end up as a help to terrorist groups, when she sent it to Moriarty. The fact that she appears unperturbed once she learns about it makes her certainly a cynical and callous person enough, but still NOT a person capable of willingly help crimes of terrorism.



The further crime Irene commits is - this time yes - blackmail. But, mind you, the real victim(s) of her blackmail are not the people she collected information about, or the British Government… No, the real victim(s) of her blackmail - this is the not-too-obscure subtext of her whole conversation with Mycroft on the Bond Airplane - are actually Mycroft himself (and Sherlock, of course)!

As I’ve already had occasion to write in several posts, the real reason why Mycroft was ready to accept to give Irene a queen’s ransom, as well as the real reason why Mycroft HAD to let Irene go, and - finally - also the real reason why Mycroft and Sherlock had no way to have Moriarty prosecuted for HIS involvement with terrorists in the Bond Air case, is that Irene, had she been formally arrested (or even “unofficially” held captive) and questioned, would have revealed, without any hesitation, Sherlock’s role in the whole Bond Air debacle, in a way which would have certainly ruined him (and possibly Mycroft too, but certainly him). Whether Sherlock could be, in the end, also sentenced under one or more criminal charges (for instance, breach of State secret as well, aiding and abetting and/or condoning a felony, obstruction of justice, and so on), and thus also have to suffer a prison term, or not, his reputation would IN ANY CASE have been totally and irreparably destroyed, and any possibility to practice as a consulting detective - that is, all what was is his very LIFE - forever precluded to him. Not to mention the potential fuel to “unofficial” acts of revenge by men from the various Secret Services involved… Mycroft was perfectly aware of all this, and was ready to go to ANY lenghts to prevent it, as we have seen.

So, in the end, apart from some minor offences, all the crimes Irene actually committed basically amount to a breach of State secret and a blackmail against private citizens. Not really such a boss of crime, is she?



And now let’s come to the second question, that is, whether modern Irene Adler really is such a much more evil character than her canonical counterpart.

Now, it’s perfectly true that canonical Irene had suffered her own amount of crimes: the King of Bohemia, once received Ms. Adler’s threatening message, had had her robbed and searched and finally had hired another private agent - Sherlock Holmes - to deceive her and steal from her the precious photograph. Again, canonical Sherlock Holmes is the first - and, properly, the only - we actually SEE committing any crime in SCAN, as, when we get to be acquainted with Irene, all she does is to fly abroad with her new husband. And yet, the sympathy we might experience for her - which is also the sympathy that Doyle, and Holmes himself, display for her - doesn’t make her an unreproachable character.



As I’ve already observed in many of the above listed posts, Ms. Adler’s profession of opera singer and “adventuress” was, for the Victorian Era, as much, or even more, socially scandalous than modern Irene’s job as dominatrix. And as for the ACTUAL criminal offences canonical Irene Adler appears to have committed, we must consider first of all actual blackmail (or at least criminal threatening) against the King of Bohemia. Yes, she did it, presumably, in revenge for having been dumped by the King himself without so much as a gracious word, and yet it remained a severe criminal offence. But even more so, if we consider that AT THE TIME to blackmail or threaten a member of a Royal Family DID actually fulfill ALSO the criminal offence of high treason!

So, our canonical Irene was culpable of both a crime against a person, AND a very serious crime against the State. And these kinds of offences were not leniently dealt with, at the time. The only thing which saved her was that the King had much to lose, in therm of reputation, if he ever had decided to actually have her arrested and prosecuted for her crimes.

Now, all these things considered, could we really say that modern Irene is so much more “evil” than her canonical counterpart? I’d dare say “no”.

Yes, to some extent she appears more unscrupolous, more ruthless; her actions certainly have more severe repercussions (the majority of which, however, as I’ve said, were not really foreseeable by her); she is possibly more hard and cynical. And yet I’m under the impression that all of this is just part of that greater degree of “cruelty” (better: greater degree of OPENLY DISPLAYED cruelty; because the Victorian world was a world FULL of cruelty against each and every person who was not male, white, well-to-do, and perfectly integrated in society…) which characterizes our modern fiction when compared with XIX Century - or even early XX Century - one.

A fact that I’ve already had occasion to mention in several of my ramblings, and which got confirmation also through my analysis of “criminal statistics” of BBC Sherlock when compared to "canonical" "criminal statistics": not only in the modern BBC adaptation the “criminal density” is much higher, but even modern Sherlock commits much more crimes, and more violent (never once in Canon Holmes beats someone, if not when directly attacked or to disarm him, while in ASiB. Sherlock beats a tied man into a pulp and even throws him out of a window simply in revenge for what he had done to Mrs. Hudson); even more, Sherlock is depicted as a ruder, less sensitive, and to some extent more cruel character than his canonical counterpart through the whole show.

I’m afraid Irene’s greater callousness, as well as Sherlock’s greater harshness, is just a sign of the times.



And this, I suppose, also implicitly answers to the third and fourth questions.

If we abandon the easy temptation to manichaeism, if we stop seeing the world all in black and white and aknowledge that it’s mainly a vast expanse of grey in all its possible shades, we must aknowledge that not only modern Irene, given the DIFFERENT CONTEXT, is not so much different from - and not so much more “evil” than - her canonical counterpart, but also that we have no more reason to discuss whether she “deserves” to escape without any serious consequences than we had to discuss whether canonical Irene “deserved” to escape without any serious consequences, too (and even re-gaining a “respectable” social position by marrying a respectable lawyer, actually!).

Apart from the fact that, in evaluating literary works and characters, moral categories are rarely useful, and quite often dangerous, Irene is no unblemished character in either version. But, as canonical Irene, despite all her “crimes”, probably didn’t deserve the treatment the King of Bohemia inflicted (and presumably had in store) for her, in the same way modern Irene wouldn’t have deserved to be punished with death for whatever offence she had committed.

When the punishment is disproportionate, it becomes per se unfair and unjust. And EVERYBODY deserves to be saved from an unjust and unfair punishment.

And this is - also - what Sherlock came to understand in ASiB, and one of the reasons why he decided to let Irene win the final hand by going and rescuing her before she was killed in Karachi.

Sherlock saving Irene, in the end, has nothing to do with the fact that she is a female character - a female villain. Instead, it has EVERYTHING to do with what Irene is AS A PERSON, with the nature of her and Sherlock’s RELATIONSHIP (about which, see the above listed posts), with the TRUE seriousness of what she did and the DISPROPORTIONATE NATURE of the punishment she was going to suffer, and finally with the LESSON Sherlock learned through this whole case.

At least, this is my take on it. ;-)

Cheers!