Moot Point

Steven Moffat - Elementary has changed Sherlock Holmes too much

orbitingasupernova:

sophistory:

ivannikolayevich:

bannerout:

I don’t know who’s more annoying: The Sherlock Fandom or Moffat. 

SAYS THE GUY WHO WAS LIKE, “THEY BETTER NOT USE TOO MANY RECOGNISABLE ELEMENTS OR WE WILL SUE THEIR AMERICAN PIGDGOG ASSES.”

UGH JUST GO THE FUCK AWAY YOU FUCKING ASS TWAT

(That is the greatest GIF ever and so applicable to every time Moffat opens his mouth.)

(Source: rockbelled)

Steven Moffat Furious with Sexist Claim

I rarely respond either but I would like to clarify two points: 1) I am not the writer of the original Guardian article, and 2) I have no problems with the idea of Irene Adler as the creators of Sherlock conceived her; it’s how the narrative TREATS her that I find extremely problematic, and yes, sexist.

The problem of Irene is similar to the problem of River Song, whom I love as a character: an older, sexually forward woman, who is smart and clever and who I THOUGHT had her own adventures outside the Doctor, but no…her agency is undermined and stripped away by narrative constraints. (How sad is it that the woman who is supposedly an equal to the Doctor ends up waiting her nights in a prison cell for him to take her out on dates?)

Similarly, Irene’s agency is undermined by the very fact that her criminal mastermind plan is dependent on Moriarty’s advice, which strips the narrative power away from her hands and places it in context of the on-going cockfight between Sherlock and his “biggest fan”. She becomes a pawn on the chessboard, not the queen as I had initially thought. Here is yet another universe in which a women’s power is re-contextualized to serve the male narrative. This is not me being misandrist; I am not positing individual men are responsible, or even men as a whole, but the societal mechanisms that condition us to consider the male narrative superior to the feminine one.

I have no problems with Irene being a sex-worker; I disagree with the writer of the article here. Like River, she is a woman who is confident of her sexual appeal and I really like that, especially as too often women who take control of their sexuality are demonized as “sluts” or worse. Again, it’s not the character of Irene, but her function in the story and how the narrative treats her. Personally, of all the female characters Moffat has written, Irene might be my favourite, or at least the most interestingly complex.

But the impact of all her independence—her sex work, her sexuality, and her incredible intellectual prowess—is undone by the end of the episode: she is quite literally brought to her knees, and moreover, she fails to outwit Sherlock (she outwits him in the original story). He still wins. This is terribly disappointing. And is also terribly sexist. Intentionally so? I doubt it. But disappointing all the same.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

my-kind-of-stuff:

I have a vague feeling that this argument is just gonna go on forever, and the smart thing to do would be to just stay the hell away from it… but I can’t because that’s not me.

Actually in your article you are implying that Moffat is sexist and I believe (i might be wrong) that you did it intentionally.

I had no problem with Irene being a …dominatrix, I have no problem with women working in the sex industry Because They Choose to do so, I think it’s empowering, and not degrading. A woman choosing to do what she wants with her body, and not what people, society expects her to do with it!

”[..] Adler’s power became, in Moffat’s hands, less a matter of brains, and more a matter of knowing “what men like” and how to give it to them”

I’m sorry, are implying that in knowing what men want and giving it to them does not require “brains”?  I think it requires a lot more than you think, and also to me that is a sign of her smarts and even, if you like, feminism… knowing how to get what she wants from men, using them basically.

“Her masterminding of a cunning criminal plan was, it was revealed late in the day, not her own doing, but dependent on the advice of Holmes’s arch nemesis, James Moriarty.”

Actually she was the one that gathered all the information, using Her brain and Her skills, Moriarty was the one the Helped her  put two and two together.

The thing that I did have a problem with was the fact that Sherlock broke her code. I would of liked if that didn’t happen, but then again I usually don’t like the bad guys to win, and in this case the sakes were a lot higher than in the book.

One could choose to bitch about this or could choose to see things in a different light, as I see them, I think that in the game of hearts between Sherlock and Irene there were no winners! 

Irene might have fallen for Sherlock but he also fell for her and his last statement “The woman, THE woman” made that clear to me.

“And, at the same time, our hero miraculously appeared to save his damsel in distress. […] Symbolically speaking, it was really quite impressive. But for those of us crazies who like to think that women are, y’know, just regular human beings, it was, politically, really quite regressive.”

I don’t think that’s the case, I think that Sherlock following her and saving her was a win on Irene’s part, and not just because she got to keep her head, but because she managed to make Sherlock, a “highly functioning sociopath” care enough about her and her well being to save her. In this game they played, she was the one that got the last word in!

Would you have preferred if Moffat killed her off? I think that would of been more sexist “If you mess with Sherlock, you get your head chopped off”

Anyway those were my 2 cents…

I think there is a fine line between feminism and misandry and you are jumping from one side to the other! - I think the goal here is to be equals and not fight over what sex is better, smarter, nicer et. etc.!

sjaejones:

Oh god, Moffat. You are shooting yourself in the foot. 

“I think it’s one thing to criticise a programme and another thing to invent motives out of amateur psychology for the writer and then accuse him of having those feelings,” he said. “I think that was beyond the pale and strayed from criticism to a defamation act.”

I would like to point out that nowhere in the article does it say that Moffat is sexist; it posits that Moffat’s Irene Adler’s ROLE in the story is deeply problematic. If you want to argue that the Author is Dead, sir, you might want to reread that article again.

“I’m certainly not a sexist, a misogynist and it was wrong.”

Dear Moffat, your privilege is showing. While I don’t think you believe yourself to be personally sexist or misogynistic (I mean, who does, really?), but your actions can be read in that way. Very few people are intentionally gross, and I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say I don’t think you’re aware of the problematic things you write. But instead of being all butthurt about what you interpret as defamation, why don’t we take a step back and examine our privilege, hmmm?

“It’s not true and in terms of the character Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting. He has been referred to as being a bit misogynist. He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”

UR CRITICAL READING SKILLZ, U DO NOT HAS IT, SIR. Again, please to be rereading the original article—nowhere does the writer imply that the CHARACTER of Sherlock is sexist—it’s that the show comes across that way. Also, getting incensed about cruelty toward women doesn’t automatically make you not misogynist, you know.

Why do I even care about this? It’s probably because I think Moffat is a talented writer; if he were shit I wouldn’t bother. Le sigh.

Link the original Guardian article here.

Steven Moffat Furious with Sexist Claim

Oh god, Moffat. You are shooting yourself in the foot. 

“I think it’s one thing to criticise a programme and another thing to invent motives out of amateur psychology for the writer and then accuse him of having those feelings,” he said. “I think that was beyond the pale and strayed from criticism to a defamation act.”

I would like to point out that nowhere in the article does it say that Moffat is sexist; it posits that Moffat’s Irene Adler’s ROLE in the story is deeply problematic. If you want to argue that the Author is Dead, sir, you might want to reread that article again.

“I’m certainly not a sexist, a misogynist and it was wrong.”

Dear Moffat, your privilege is showing. While I don’t think you believe yourself to be personally sexist or misogynistic (I mean, who does, really?), but your actions can be read in that way. Very few people are intentionally gross, and I like to give you the benefit of the doubt and say I don’t think you’re aware of the problematic things you write. But instead of being all butthurt about what you interpret as defamation, why don’t we take a step back and examine our privilege, hmmm?

“It’s not true and in terms of the character Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting. He has been referred to as being a bit misogynist. He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”

UR CRITICAL READING SKILLZ, U DO NOT HAS IT, SIR. Again, please to be rereading the original article—nowhere does the writer imply that the CHARACTER of Sherlock is sexist—it’s that the show comes across that way. Also, getting incensed about cruelty toward women doesn’t automatically make you not misogynist, you know.

Why do I even care about this? It’s probably because I think Moffat is a talented writer; if he were shit I wouldn’t bother. Le sigh.

Link the original Guardian article here.

Is Sherlock Sexist? Steven Moffat's Wanton Women

From the Guardian.

Many quotes in this article that I find so very apt, and why I think I find Sherlock more enjoyable than Doctor Who (despite its problems—ahem, The Blind Banker) is neatly summarized thus:

In many ways the Holmes stories are a perfect fit for Moffat’s skill-set. The puzzle-box plotting, the 24/7 bromance, the fetishisation of “masculine” reason over pesky “feminine” emotion, all suit him right down to the ground. In the case of his stewardship of Doctor Who, Moffat’s tendency to write women plucked straight from a box marked “tired old tropes” (drip/scold/temptress/earth mother to name but a few), and his consequent failure to sketch a compelling central dynamic between the lead and his companion, has seriously affected the show’s dramatic power. But no such trouble with Sherlock.

Remove women from Moffat’s work and it becomes less objectionable (despite the problematic issue of REMOVING OR NOT HAVING WOMEN IN THE FIRST PLACE) because there are no female characters to fuck up. It’s the age old question, I suppose: is it better to have shitty representation or no representation at all? Personally, I’d rather the latter, but of course, your mileage may vary.