Sherlock: His Last Vow
Jan. 19th, 2014 10:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI just got around to watching the last Sherlock. I'm afraid I have to agree with much of tumblr: That was stupid. Also, sexist. Also, stupid.
If the women in that story were competent people with their own agendas and agency, then it would have been a different story, and, in parts, much shorter. As it was, it doesn't work.
I studied Sherlock Holmes stories for one unit at college, and one of the things that made them popular and caught the central concerns of the era was the way they wrote about women. They often centrally featured women's concerns and the perils of their place in society. It was why I was interested in that bit of that unit. A woman beat Sherlock Holmes, a woman's motives were opaque enough to Sherlock that he got another story entirely wrong, a woman sniped the story out from under him, women did things and were people.
Moffat and Gatiss somehow haven't understood that. They think Sherlock Holmes stories are about Sherlock Holmes.
Incidentally, the comments about how women like Sherlock because they want him? Miss the point. Like the stories because they're in them.
... having referred to college I feel I should be citing sources and holding this rant to a higher standard of proof. Actually, fandom in general encourages that. But I'm not actually interested enough to go poking around for quotes.
Sherlock's solution was inadequate. If the man kept absolutely everything in his head, what were the letters? Bait? What kind of idiot could run that kind of scam and be all nyah nyah I'm the only one who knows? Proof on a deadman switch is blackmail 101. It's stupid this way.
Also, while I can buy Mary's motives for not shooting the bastard after Sherlock got there, I simply cannot buy her standing around with her face showing with the other guy on his knees, especially with his chair still warm. If she's supposed to be that good then he dies at his desk, never knowing he's threatened. And why wear all that gear, if she's going to roll the balaclava up? Why wear all that gear at all, given that it makes most urban plans harder to look like an actual burglar? How was she supposed to have got in? Or out? And why was there no investigating an actual crime section to this story?
Also, last but actually kind of biggest, wtf is up with turning the stories of Sherlock Holmes, where one man applies science to enforce order, into the stories of Sherlock, a spoilt brat addict who can break whatever laws he wants and get away with it?
The reason they turned the plane around and brought him home... I'm bored now. I'm actually properly bored. I don't actually believe they've got a solution. They're playing silly buggers now. That's entirely missing the point.
Detective stories are about restoring order, which means they're about the socially significant tension points. Where you get social change, you get detective stories, nudging things into acceptable order. What social themes does Sherlock deal with?
They're boring and they miss the point.
If the women in that story were competent people with their own agendas and agency, then it would have been a different story, and, in parts, much shorter. As it was, it doesn't work.
I studied Sherlock Holmes stories for one unit at college, and one of the things that made them popular and caught the central concerns of the era was the way they wrote about women. They often centrally featured women's concerns and the perils of their place in society. It was why I was interested in that bit of that unit. A woman beat Sherlock Holmes, a woman's motives were opaque enough to Sherlock that he got another story entirely wrong, a woman sniped the story out from under him, women did things and were people.
Moffat and Gatiss somehow haven't understood that. They think Sherlock Holmes stories are about Sherlock Holmes.
Incidentally, the comments about how women like Sherlock because they want him? Miss the point. Like the stories because they're in them.
... having referred to college I feel I should be citing sources and holding this rant to a higher standard of proof. Actually, fandom in general encourages that. But I'm not actually interested enough to go poking around for quotes.
Sherlock's solution was inadequate. If the man kept absolutely everything in his head, what were the letters? Bait? What kind of idiot could run that kind of scam and be all nyah nyah I'm the only one who knows? Proof on a deadman switch is blackmail 101. It's stupid this way.
Also, while I can buy Mary's motives for not shooting the bastard after Sherlock got there, I simply cannot buy her standing around with her face showing with the other guy on his knees, especially with his chair still warm. If she's supposed to be that good then he dies at his desk, never knowing he's threatened. And why wear all that gear, if she's going to roll the balaclava up? Why wear all that gear at all, given that it makes most urban plans harder to look like an actual burglar? How was she supposed to have got in? Or out? And why was there no investigating an actual crime section to this story?
Also, last but actually kind of biggest, wtf is up with turning the stories of Sherlock Holmes, where one man applies science to enforce order, into the stories of Sherlock, a spoilt brat addict who can break whatever laws he wants and get away with it?
The reason they turned the plane around and brought him home... I'm bored now. I'm actually properly bored. I don't actually believe they've got a solution. They're playing silly buggers now. That's entirely missing the point.
Detective stories are about restoring order, which means they're about the socially significant tension points. Where you get social change, you get detective stories, nudging things into acceptable order. What social themes does Sherlock deal with?
They're boring and they miss the point.
no subject
Date: 2014-01-20 01:28 am (UTC)~