Explaining Molly as a “Mirror”

 (Sherlock meta by o0katiekins0o, mae-jones and mychakk)

o0katiekins0o:

Since I’ve been asked about this specifically a number of times I thought it would be helpful to just make a post.

So “Molly is John’s mirror” not some clever subtext that someone in the tinfoil hat brigade discovered. It is, in fact, a very old trope of the “Ms. Male” or “Distaff counterpart” that certain fans are applying here.

Basically it means taking a male character, slapping a female signifier on him, and voila! Same shit, new character.

One of the most recognizable examples is Ms. Pac Man. In order to appeal to the female market. Media Execs simply slap a lipstick and bow on whatever they happen to be making at that moment and hey! look! inclusivity! Buy our stuff, dumb ladies!

Here are some reasons why this is problematic:

1. It diminishes the female character’s role to her relationship with a male. 
2. It does not leave room for dimension as this character is not her own person. She is merely a “girl version” of someone else. 
3. It reduces female identity to shitty gendered signifiers (pink, frills, sparkles etc…) 

Usually this goes hand in hand with the “Smurfette principle”. Where women are tokenized as the “girl” in an all-male cast. She may be a character that has other qualities but the one given highest import is that she is female in a way that remains very rigidly within the scope of the social gender binary.

This is not how Molly Hooper was written. She’s being read that way by fans who have a lot of internalized misogyny that they are projecting onto her character.

So far the only overlap I have seen is that Molly likes ugly jumpers and she’s nice.

But Molly wears ugly jumpers far more often than John, yet it’s a characteristic that belongs to him by default?

And let’s be honest, John is really not that nice. I mean sometimes kinda, but only if there’s something in it for him. (eg: getting to be the “hero”, flirting with women, looking superior to Sherlock) but apart from that, he’s just kind of a jerk who treats his non-neurotypical friend like some lovable “idiot savant”. Any one of us who met him in person would probably instantly label him as a “fuckboy” because well… the shoe fits.

Molly has a level of kindness that is completely unprecedented. Her kindness and loyalty are her trademark characteristics and I, personally think, that it’s very not good to hand that off to John just to make him seem better or to apply more validation to a fan-made narrative that actively works to erase female characters.

It’s definitely something to unpack and examine.

mae-jones:

@o0katiekins0o this!

I would like to add, if the conspiracy folk looked at actual mirror characters that have been studied, they would see that they usually have a very specific dynamic and are absolutely central to the story. Ie/ Frodo vs Gollum or Harry vs Voldemort and in Sherlock’s case, him vs Moriarty. All of these characters are typically evenly matched in terms of gravitas and share characteristics while being painted as diametrically opposed in motivations.

Molly and John do not fit this idea in any way shape or form. While they share some characteristics, they are not involved in a storyline together independent of the central character. They cannot be mirrors if their actions within the story do not necessitate the other’s presence. Ie/ if you take Molly out of the story, what effect does that have on John’s narrative? The answer is ZILCH because Molly’s presence has nothing to do with John and everything to do with Sherlock. The only mirror in any of this is Molly as a mild antagonist to Sherlock.

Yes, you read correctly! Molly is more of a mirror to Sherlock if you want to go down this road. How is she an antagonist? Well, she prevents Sherlock from being Sherlock at times. A character doesn’t have to be evil to be an antagonist, just someone who opposes the lead. Doesn’t it make more sense to view her this way? She dresses hopelessly while he is flawless, she is kind beyond belief while he is a dick, she cares while he is apathetic, and so on. Molly’s very presence changes his arc in the end. Even Moffat and Gatiss said it, “Sherlock wouldn’t be Sherlock without Molly.” If Molly is a mirror to anyone, it’s Sherlock.

And … thank GAWD he’s in love with his own reflection, amirite?

mychakk:

I love both of your points here. Excellent metas. I’ll also add my two cents here. I think Molly does fill in the role of a mirror in s2. But it’s in the sense you write @mae-jones she’s kind of an antagonist to Irene in A Scandal in Belgravia in her affections toward Sherlock and to John in The Reichenbach Fall in her trust in Sherlock and ability to see the true Sherlock. In both cases, Molly and the other characters do the same thing, are placed in the same position, yet the motivation and ultimately the outcome is different. She and Irene pursue Sherlock, yet it’s Molly’s true feelings that humble him. She and John are there for Sherlock during The Reichenbach Fall, but it’s her support that allows him to win over the Consulting Criminal. Two sides of the mirror. And wouldn’t it make sense to turn to Irene to help him fake his death when she had already done it so well to fool Sherlock? Or wouldn’t it make sense to turn to John his bestie, ‘confidant’ etc? No, Sherlock chooses Molly, the one who counts and whom he always trusted. The one true in her deep affections and in her ability to see him. The one who never intentionally hurt him. Irene and John are those two neon signs in their interactions with Sherlock while Molly is this unassuming little one candle, but it’s her warmth and comforting light that makes him turn to her and make her ‘the one who made it all possible, the one who matters most’.