You are viewing jemck

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Flight of fantasy
I’ve very much enjoyed both the movie A Game of Shadows and the series opener to the BBC’s updated Sherlock. Despite – and please do not underestimate the strength of my feelings here – the truly appalling way both stories ripped up (and worse) the character of Irene Adler as depicted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.



In A Scandal in Bohemia, she is beautiful, a supremely talented singer and – this is the crucial bit – she outwits Holmes and departs to live her own life on her own terms. Now she is a pawn of Moriarty, to be killed off in the first instance, and in the second facing death only to be saved by Holmes’ melodramatic intervention. Yes, in the original story, she is ‘an adventuress’ in her youth, but at this point, she is devoted to the husband of her own choosing. Not some dominatrix whose power over men and women apparently begins and ends with her naked body.

This really pisses me off and I am not the only one. See here for CE Murphy’s reaction – and please do read the comments as well . Also this from Another Angry Woman and from The Guardian, Jane Clare Jones on ‘Is Sherlock Sexist?’.

These are only the pieces that have caught my eye, I imagine there are more. What I’d be very interested to know is if there are any similar expressions of outrage from men. Because it’s women I see getting really incensed by this, online and in person.

Why is that? Why am I so thoroughly and lastingly annoyed, tarnishing all my other enjoyment of both film and TV programme? I’ve been giving that some thought. Well, I first read the Holmes books in my early teens. Looking back I don’t think I consciously noticed the lack of female characters with any authority and agency; the realisation of such absences in ‘classic’ fiction and the misogynist implications when such patterns are followed unthinkingly by contemporary writers came later. But I’ll bet I noted it subconsciously, because I really loved those stories. The classic teen response to beloved fiction is to identify with the particular character whom one imagines is most like oneself, maybe even imagining oneself into the milieu in fan-fiction fashion. That’s really hard to do for girls reading Holmes – until we encounter Irene Adler. The Woman. A Woman we can all aspire to be, even if we don’t yet realise it.

Not in these two recent stories. Not any more. And for no compelling reason in either case. Not for plot purposes that couldn’t have been achieved in some other way. Thus betraying the enduring and infuriating blind spots when it comes to male film makers and script writers writing women characters – the way in which even the strongest so often end up defined by their relationship to men. Grrrrrr.

And I’ve realised something else that reflects back on just what a lasting impact this one character, only appearing in one early Holmes short story, had on me and ultimately, on my writing.

I’ve been doing one of those email interviews where we swap questions and answers (and I’ll post a link when it’s available for reading). One of the questions is about influences and I’ve said how I always find them impossible to identify. For instance, a good while ago, when conversation turned to the works of Alan Moore, someone, I forget who, remarked on the clear influence of Halo Jones on my first female protagonist Livak. I looked at them in astonishment. Not because they were wrong. Because they were so right – and I would never have seen that for myself.

With that in mind, and thinking about Irene Adler this morning, I’ve just realised what a major element she is in Charoleia’s character-DNA. For those of you who haven’t yet encountered Charoleia, she’s an ‘information broker’; which is to say, she gathers and trades information about the rich and powerful, profiting handsomely in mostly unspecified ways, thanks to her extensive network of contacts from highest to lowest in political and criminal circles (especially where those overlap) across all the countries that once made up the Old Tormalin Empire – and beyond. And here’s something crucial; she isn’t a kiss-and-tell, pillow-talk merchant. Yes, she’s strikingly beautiful and will use her allure as and when that’s the most effective tool to hand. But she’s no whore, nor even a courtesan. When Charoleia takes a man to her bed, it’s on her own terms, of her own choosing and not for coin.

She and Irene Adler have a lot in common, in my writerly subconscious at least. So that’s definitely one element in why I am quite so cross – though by no means the only one.

Comments

( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
clanwilliam
Jan. 4th, 2012 11:11 am (UTC)
I was fairly frothing too - Adler is such a wonderful character. A friend of mine linked me to this - http://fengirl88.dreamwidth.org/65409.html - a couple of drabbles on Adler. The second one is nicely telling.
la_marquise_de_
Jan. 4th, 2012 11:33 am (UTC)
I have never been sure that Moffatt can be trusted to write real women: much though I loved Coupling, none of the female characters in it felt real -- they were all male-gaze products in one way or another. (Susan: adorably promiscuous until she meets Him; Sally: neurotic, unbalanced and clingy; Jane: just plain psychotic.)
littleonionz
Jan. 4th, 2012 01:15 pm (UTC)
When I was little I was Conan, I was Sherlock. Then I was told I was a girl:) So I continued to read the genres that I loved and hunted out the Valerias and Belits airbrushed out their weak female foibles male writers had burdened them with. I rooted for Storm and the Xmen Raven, Swordsmistress of Chaos and fell in love with halo Jones and Judge Anderson. I took what I could, and ignored the rest,it was all one could do.


It irks when people like Moffat (who does really well for some minorities), does such a hatchet job on the character of Adler. It's not like there is a proffusion of strong, interesting female characters in the series - why trash one of the few there is? It's very disappointing (bit like the series as a whole).
(Reply) (Thread)
heleninwales
Jan. 4th, 2012 03:41 pm (UTC)
Count me amongst the annoyed too. :( I do like the modern Sherlock as simply a bit of froth, but why why why, when Conan Doyle actually wrote Irene Adler as clever enough to outwit Holmes did a version done in the 21st century have to have him win after all?
aberwyn
Jan. 4th, 2012 08:06 pm (UTC)
In the original Holmes admired her for outwitting him. Too bad the film makers don't rise to his level.

green_knight
Jan. 4th, 2012 09:24 pm (UTC)
I didn't mind so much in the film because I'm unconvinced that she really *is* dead - but everything I've heard about the TV (I didn't take note of the articles, there were too many of them, and most of them were by women) just annoyed me. I'm not in favour of the prostitute trope anyway - women can hold power without bringing sex into it and by making every powerful woman a seductress, you're *still* saying 'she has power given to her by men' because, men led by their cocks is natural-if-regrettable; women who happen to be leaders that men voluntarily and out of their free will want to follow just can't happen. Bleh.

marypcb
Jan. 5th, 2012 07:50 am (UTC)
because it's just so Hard for men to write a woman who isn't a Bitch or a Mother or a Slut or a Shy Nerd; oh wait, it's not that hard for the good writers, is it? The amount of slash fanservice in the BBC Sherlock was embarrassing (ditto the Tinker Tailor movie) and viewers should not be shouting at the screen telling Holmes what he's missing as I was for most of episode one, so to me it felt rather of a piece - amusing and bravura adaptation that couldn't sustain its ambition. It's like the ITV Cadfael adaptations; Jacobi is the perfect Cadfael but the script writers had to distort the stories to make the 'innocent accused who shows a flaw but is innocent' character Peters puts in almost every story another villain in nearly all of them. It was so far from the redemptive grace she put in every story I couldn't watch them. Or the adaptation of Tamara Drewe where Jodie doesn't die of sniffing glue and instead it ends with her getting a cuddle from Ben at the funeral. if you're going to miss the point, change the characters and spoil the plot, why do an adaptation in the first place? I'm feeling splenetic generally about even the adaptations I enjoy because they lose so much depth and nuance...
jemck
Jan. 5th, 2012 08:51 am (UTC)
Yes, and also, I felt exactly the same about the Cadfael adaptations - such a waste of opportunity, talent, etc.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2013
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel