Bloody hell! 10,000 views?! I never thought this little video essay would be so popular. Thanks for everyone who watched it and I hope you'll enjoy my future endeavours into video essay territory ^_^
It was never romantic or sexual attraction, what Holmes felt for Adler. It was respect. Respect for her intelligence, respect for the fact that she was a woman far beyond her time.
The other thing that bugs me about screen adaptations of Irene Adler is how she's portrayed as a some sort of criminal -- a Catwoman to Holmes' Batman, as it were. In the original story, the only remotely criminal thing she does is engaging in a bit of blackmail in order to protect her own reputation and marriage.
I absolutely agree! In a way, Sherlock acts more as a villain than she does. He breaks into her home, lies to her, sets her house on fire, and tries to steal from her. The story could work as a great example of proving that Sherlock isn't always right.
I sometimes like to think of him calling Irene "The Woman" as not only a form of respect, but as a reminder to himself, that this is who all women can be. To make her at once more exceptional and less - to remind him that women are not naturally below men
Not all... there is one who is has earned the title of The Woman, so literally every other other woman is lower as she is the exception which proves the rule.
@@nationalsocialism3504 I never understood how an exception could prove the rule It literally doesn't Ut doesn't break the rule, yes, but it can never prove it lol
Such wasted opportunity for adaptations that always portray Irene as Sherlock's love interest. It would be more interesting to see character development as Sherlock face his prejudice against women through Irene.
I guess, creators are scared to portray Sherlock as too unlikable by having him be sexist. I absolutely agree with you that it would be interesting to show his character development in that regard, but alas... Maybe one day there will be an adaptation like that.
@@eventide-owl6743 THATS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY!! You can't just make a lesbian attracted to men, thats not how it works. Also the best friendships there is are gay men and lesbians so
Great video and well done! Irene Adler's chosen love is Godfrey Norton... who Sherlock Holmes thinks is tall dark and handsome and yet adaptions keep trying to erase his existence.
Side note: Holmes didn't say he thought she was pretty. He was quoting the description views of other men to Watson. It wasn't Holmes personal view of her and he hadn't seen her yet. I think the only view of her from Holmes was that she was intelligent.
Because it's boring and Adler isn't boring and Sherlock Holmes shows a clear appreciation of her even keeping her photograph which shows sentiment. Meaning he has feelings of sort for her. Maybe not sexual but we never really know his sexual appetite from the original stories.
@@arunkumargupta4564 also the Coules radio adaptation! That one is honestly so incredible. Granada used to be my favorite but then i listened to Coules and while i still love Granada with all my heart, Coules is just on an another level entirely
My brother lives in a house on a street called Sherlock Close in Gosnells , Western Australia. I just realised that he lives in one of the Sherlock Homes.
Finally found someone who shares my views. Its criminal how everything has to be romanticized. Thats why I love Jeremy Brett's series interpretation. True to the original source.
Yup, I never liked it when people who never read the original books refer to Irene as SH' lover. Holmes was disgusted by the notion of romance, and a cloud to his deductive prowess. Irene is a model woman. I love how Sir Doyle portrayed her.A head strong woman. Holmes admired her, but not Romantically. Only respect because she's the only woman who had defeated him.
Someone finally talked about it! That's why I didn't watch any Sherlock Holmes movie because I was so fed up with them making these two as love interest. I rather stick to the book. Even as a teenger, when I read the story, I understood that Shelock just respected Irene for her intelligence. There was nothing romantic between them.
I am one of those few people knows and always knew Sherlock and Irene were never involved in any romantic relationship and had no such interest in each other that way either. Sherlock is pretty much asexual and aromatic. The only emotion he is ever shown to feel is for Watson and that is purely in a friendly manner.
I would like to say. She doesn't even blackmail the king. She just have the photo and he's scared, that she will blackmail him or worse ruin his repution and upcoming profitable marriage. The king is typical powerfull man who thinks he can do anything he wants and get away with it. Holmes even makes a point at the end, that he kinda pathetic and terrible.
All 3 contemporary Irine Addlers are very well done Laura Pulver and Natalie Dormer even Rachel McAdams all three Irine Addlers are very different but equally compelling.
I’ve been looking for someone who thinks the same way as me about Irene Norton (ne Adler)! It’s so disappointing how consistently she is diminished to merely an oversexualized bad girl to tempt Holmes and show him up. (BBC Sherlock and RDJ movies I am glowering at you.) Her character was profoundly revolutionary for the time she was portrayed in by sir ACD, and it was a testament to him as an author that he depicted such a strong independent woman who gave herself autonomy over her romantic affairs and her own life. Granada Holmes was the first instance of an Irene portrayal that properly reflected her character and Holmes’ admiration for her. He really did hold her in very high esteem for her intelligence, wit and integrity, and that’s why he made a point of keeping the photograph she left and giving her the title of “The Woman.”
I always saw it as it doesn't matter if they do or don't because how the characters themselves see it is that they don't and even if they did, neither would realize or acknowledge it. And that is why the interpretations can vary into the fact that they do in more modern adaptations. But at the end of the day adaptions of anything are canon unto the adaptions and not the source material and trying something new expands the universe so it works for me even if I don't like it.
Just love your video , i just read ASIB after watching guy richie's holmes movies and bbc sherlock and i seriously don't know why shows and movies not only destroy the significance of adler in holmes life by turning into a stupid romantic story but also entirly destroyed adler as a character . Adler in story is a kind and intelligent woman whose words even the king trust but these adaptions has turned her into some evil villain who is not trust worthy and maupulate feelings to get what she want and also a pawn in moriarty's games . These adaptions just reduce her status from THE WOMAN to a common evil character whom you can't think as even a proper villain but just a messanger of one man to another .
@@TheGeekyFanboy can you make one on bbc version as well . That was really misleading characterization of adler for soemone who didn't read the story before like me . I really can't find that adler version to be for nor a normal intelligent woman neither an evil villain .
Absolutely love this video. I always had my opinions on this sort of portrayal of Adler. It's fine to do a twist on a characters relationship- but it feels like every writer does this, and it feels like an interpretation. I'm a huge Holmes (Book Canon) fan and will be checking out all of your other videos on Holmes. Thanks. 😊
Scandal in Bohemia has been my favorite of the original Holmes stories since childhood (I lay a lot of the credit with Wishbone), at least partially because of Irene Adler. It blew my mind as a young girl (who wanted to be an actress) to see Holmes bested by an actress. (Plus the fact that she also disguised herself as a man at one point probably helped, now that I'm looking back as a bigender adult.) Basically every adaptation does Irene so dirty and it sucks.
One of the reasons why I like BBC's addition of Molly Hooper in their adaptation is that this gives Sherlock a good love interest without the need to have it to be Irene ... Sadly I have the feeling that BBC Sherlock still tends towards Irene more than Molly (putting Molly in the friend zone where Irene should be). I still enjoy Dormer, Pulver and McAdam's incarnations of Irene ...
That alone is a big flaw of Sherlock's character. it doesn't matter who, Sherlock denies that notion of romance. it clouds his deduction and reasoning.
In the original story, Irene Adler is in love with a mostly unremarkable lawyer, Godfrey Norton. Holmes is hired by a former love interest of Adler’s in order to recover some compromising photos she could use against him at a later date if she so chose (or to protect herself because her ex is a very powerful man who could easily do her harm if he so chose). While in one of his trademark disguises, Holmes unwittingly finds himself as a witness at a quiet marriage ceremony between Irene Adler and Godfrey Norton. Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes were never in love, although it’s fun to imagine them in this way as they have so much in common, intellectually. In another life, perhaps there might have been something between them if they’d crossed paths. We can only speculate.
Definitely never romantic, one of respect and the one only time Adler ever appears in Holmes's life. She left such an impression on him that he holds a photograph thus earning the title The Woman.
I dont mind the play on making her a love interest, bc there are some pretty enjoyable ones to see, but I just wished more new adaptations would portray their interactions more similarly to the books'. And considering that the introduction of this character addresses and showcase a notable change in Sherlock's mindset towards women, it makes me wonder what Doyle was going through himself for him to focus on this aspect at all.
If the Holmes-and-Irene relationship is adapted, it’d be a professional relationship. He respects her and would likely ask her for help on a case if they were on working terms. He could possibly end up needing her help, learning to respect her skills even more.
The thing is that Irene Adler is a side character in the canon, having appeared in only a single story. In fact, everyone but Watson, Holmes himself and perhaps Mrs. Hudson is: including Mycroft and Moriarty. The problem is that screen depictions like to have a 'steady' cast so they promote these side characters to the main cast, and with Irene Adler being the only woman the scene for a romantic relationship between her and Sherlock is set - since by Hollywood's logic every story HAS to have a romantic element.
If anything, Irene Adler should confirm Holmes's idea of women being secretive, manipulative and dishonest. She is all of that. As she is, however, intelligent enough to even challenge him in his field of passion, of course it attracts him to her like a challenging case attracts him. There may even be a sexual, clearly not a romantic, aspect to this attraction, regardless if personified in a woman or abstract like a case. At least in a Freudian sense. Nevertheless, this attraction would cease as soon as she ceases to provide this kind of challenge.
There is a romantic component to his relationship with Watson and a strong romantic tension in his relationship with Moriarty, not with Adler though. There is a clear "we" in those two relationships, an aspect of reciprocity, synergy, growth and co-dependence. Especially with Moriarty, the potential of synergy and bigger greatness in their duality than in the mere sum of the individual beings gives the audience a sensation of an intense romantic quality. A weak sexual component may be present temporarily with moriarty during the chases, however I put in question wether Sherlock really feels this sexual need of pursuit for discharge/closure with him. I believe he himself feels the romantic desire of perpetuation in regards to their very special duality. Adler, on the other hand, clearly provides the sexual motive of passionate pursuit for discharge and closure to Sherlock whilst never truly becoming part of a "we".
@@IIIIIawesIIIII no. In the books, Sherlock feels no sexual attraction to Irene Adler, or Watson or Moriarty. Leave the desire for sexual discharge to the shippers, Sherlock has nothing to do with it.
My personal theory is that many (not all) contemporary writers who adapt Scandal in Bohemia, seem to believe that Irene can't be a strong, feminist character if she still gets married at the end. Which is rubbish, of course, because marrying for love (instead of a rich monarch) in a society in which women didn't have that option most of the time, is still a power move.
@@TheGeekyFanboy You make a good point. I would also like to point out that although we don't know much about the character of Godfrey Norton, I would wager that he was probably not on the same intellectual level of Sherlock Holmes, since virtually no one is. Maybe modern feminist theory also believes that a woman as smart as Irene should only logically be with a character like Sherlock Holmes, instead of a man who might be only ordinary. What if it was the other way around? What if a strong female character like Irene Adler actually DIDN'T feel the need to be opposite Holmes? What if she found something in Godfrey Norton's character more admirable--even if compared to Holmes, Norton was only an "ordinary" man. That would actually be feminist, since everyone expects a powerful woman to be attracted to a powerful man. Funny how all these new interpretations of the character which are supposedly so "liberated" actually set women back a hundred years. The Irene Adler of the book was a true feminist, if anything.
@@nuclearpiano2684 I absolutely agree! Especially since the whole point of the story is to point out that Sherlock Holmes himself isn't always the good guy, and neither is a powerful, well-to-do person like the King of Bohemia. Why should either of those men be attractive to Irene? Just because they're intelligent or powerful? Like you said, why shouldn't Irene find happiness with a "simple" man? An ordinary man is just as worthy of her love as someone like Holmes would be. And if Norton is the man she loves and wants to marry, then what is even the point in saying that she actually "needs no man" or "needs a different man"...
Great essay. It’s nice to have the record set “straight” on Holmes and Adler. Not that subsequent versions are awful. I enjoyed the Downey Jr. Holmes, for example. But neither the self-evidently heterosexual (esque?) Holmes nor the heavily hinted homosexual Holmes of Sherlock are, as you remind us, a product of Holmes’ origins. Whether by force of will or act of nature, the original Homes seems to me asexual, or at least, he tries his best to function as if he was. (I feel compelled here to point to Jeremy Brett’s masterfully nuanced performance.) That Holmes is so much more interesting by default; writers setting out to insert sexuality into his psyche always have an uphill climb if parity with the original is their goal. The projection of heterosexual proclivities onto Holmes leaves the door open to the unexpected, confusing, and even otherwise inexplicable - which is always hugely engaging. Of course it’s perilous to project 21st century concepts onto a fictional character of the 19th. But it seems to me that Holmes’ disregard of women, and particularly their intellectual capacity, is of a kind to how the real-life polymath Benjamin Franklin regarded people of African ancestry. Both Holmes and Franklin, almost preternaturally intelligent and accomplished, were nonetheless men of their times, and susceptible to the unconscious control of powerful cultural programming. Adler changed Holmes’ opinion on women, thanks largely to him having an open mind. Franklin, after seeing for himself (in a Philadelphia school for Black children) that they were the equal in every way to white children, admitted that he had his whole life been wrong. He eventually became a leading abolitionist, and the last public essay he released attacked slavery by demolishing its justifications. Holmes was powerful, in part, because he maintained an open mind, and it’s so interesting when we see the brilliant apply their legendary capacity to their own perceptions. It’s amazing to learn to think clearly for ourselves. It’s all the more so when we think clearly about ourselves.
That's the way to tell the more colorful and romanticize the character and story. In fact, Irene was the one who make the development of Holmes's character. She was very special to Holmes. It is easy to romanticize her as lover. However, that quite a bit of ooc. Because in the nearly last story, Holmes still convince to the reader that he did not interest in women. (BUT STILL APPRECIATE Them.)
I strongly disagree. Sherlock Holmes was definitely in love with Irene Adler. Asking for, keeping, and displaying a photograph of her is proof of that. He sees her as an intellectual equal. This was the late 1800s, the turn of the century England. Photographs were not common for everyone to have. Sherlock did not even display photographs of his Father, Mother, or Brother.
Idk if there's a word for it but, I feel like Sherlock Holmes the character represents what were considered the norm at the time. I feel like if you're going to adapt the Sherlock Holmes stories, while adapting them faithfully is great, I think you cam create something special if you add a modern twist. Sherlock Holmes is quite progressive for its time, with stories like this one with how women were treated. Having modern politics and modern progressive themes probably would add to the stories since some of them involve stuff while still prevalent today, are not as big of an issue. There's a story of an interracial marriage where the couple had a kid for example, this story on its own can still work today, but you can change a few details and still keep the core themes. Like instead of an interracial marriage, it could be a gay marriage (tho this change does have problems of its own cus in the Story, the wife remarries and is worried what her second husband will think of her black child, something you can't really do with gay marriage easily).
Except that it works in the movies so why not? It's like making a big deal about Tobey's Spider-Man shooting webs from his wrist instead of using a webshooter...
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be a couple in the series. After Arthur Conan Doyle, some writers wrote that they even had children. I mean, not only in the series, but in many books, the idea that they have a relationship and that they have children is put forward. You might be right if only the first Sherlock series is considered and other writers are not considered. But this is just fiction and can be written in different ways by different writers.
I'm no where near as Big of a fan as you are, but yes l remember when l read the story featuring THE WOMAN a few years ago that there was no love interest between Sherlock and Irene. That being said, we have to remember that a movie adaptation is not a copy-paste of a book. It is a new project in which, as long as the film makers demonstrate enough respect to the source materials by not "disfiguring" it, they sure can take certain liberties that allow them to explore new avenues. And from that point, the only thinh they have to display is consistancy. I haven't watched all the TV adaptations, but based on Elementary's and the Robert Downey jr portrayal of the character, the main liberty they took was to give him a sex life (displayed or implied) whereas the original Sherlock was pretty much asexual. From that point, it is not a stretch to imagine that a sexual Sherlock would be interested by a woman whose intellect marvels him. I even find it pretty normal. Benedict Sherlock is not openly interested (though a bit intrigued), but that's because he is closer to the canon, i.e. eunuch (figuratively). And the reason why Irene falls for him is plausible. Media. The book lrene wasn't as much exposed to Sherlock's fame as the modern one, who follows John's blog and all. And her, not being devoid of sexual desires nor married, there's nothing inconsistant with her developping feelings for such a bright mind. As she puts it herself: Intelligence or smart is the new sexy! So for me, all this is fine. And these are all the TV adaptations l've watched. So l cannot tell for the many others.
Bloody hell! 10,000 views?! I never thought this little video essay would be so popular. Thanks for everyone who watched it and I hope you'll enjoy my future endeavours into video essay territory ^_^
It was never romantic or sexual attraction, what Holmes felt for Adler.
It was respect. Respect for her intelligence, respect for the fact that she was a woman far beyond her time.
The other thing that bugs me about screen adaptations of Irene Adler is how she's portrayed as a some sort of criminal -- a Catwoman to Holmes' Batman, as it were. In the original story, the only remotely criminal thing she does is engaging in a bit of blackmail in order to protect her own reputation and marriage.
I absolutely agree! In a way, Sherlock acts more as a villain than she does. He breaks into her home, lies to her, sets her house on fire, and tries to steal from her. The story could work as a great example of proving that Sherlock isn't always right.
I sometimes like to think of him calling Irene "The Woman" as not only a form of respect, but as a reminder to himself, that this is who all women can be. To make her at once more exceptional and less - to remind him that women are not naturally below men
That's a great sentiment. I had a similar idea too ^_^
Not all... there is one who is has earned the title of The Woman, so literally every other other woman is lower as she is the exception which proves the rule.
@@nationalsocialism3504 fuck off, Nazi. Who has "national socialism" as a username?
@@nationalsocialism3504 100% bzc John said : "In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex."
@@nationalsocialism3504 I never understood how an exception could prove the rule
It literally doesn't
Ut doesn't break the rule, yes, but it can never prove it lol
Such wasted opportunity for adaptations that always portray Irene as Sherlock's love interest. It would be more interesting to see character development as Sherlock face his prejudice against women through Irene.
I guess, creators are scared to portray Sherlock as too unlikable by having him be sexist. I absolutely agree with you that it would be interesting to show his character development in that regard, but alas... Maybe one day there will be an adaptation like that.
@@TheGeekyFanboy yeah. A sexist modern adaptation could probably only work if they create an antihero Sherlock.
Sherlock Holmes is the most developed character. But the developing are himself and relationship with Dr.Watson.😊
Keeping a platonic relationship would also be fun to explore.
Yeah, especially a male and female platonic relationship because I can never hang out with a dude without people thinking we're dating.
Maybe some mlm wlm solidarity? ;)
@@eventide-owl6743 THATS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY!! You can't just make a lesbian attracted to men, thats not how it works. Also the best friendships there is are gay men and lesbians so
@@julianamagoncia9380 Hell yeah!! Completely agree
I love how everyone forgets that Irene gets married halfway through the one story she appears in
RDJ's Holmes actually acknowledged it in the first movie
And holmes signs her wedding certificate as a witness, comes home and laughs at the irony 😂
Great video and well done! Irene Adler's chosen love is Godfrey Norton... who Sherlock Holmes thinks is tall dark and handsome and yet adaptions keep trying to erase his existence.
Side note: Holmes didn't say he thought she was pretty. He was quoting the description views of other men to Watson. It wasn't Holmes personal view of her and he hadn't seen her yet. I think the only view of her from Holmes was that she was intelligent.
Because it's boring and Adler isn't boring and Sherlock Holmes shows a clear appreciation of her even keeping her photograph which shows sentiment. Meaning he has feelings of sort for her. Maybe not sexual but we never really know his sexual appetite from the original stories.
I think you should give Granada version a try, in it, Irene is wonderful and NOT in love with Holmes, and they even have Godfrey Norton.
@@arunkumargupta4564 also the Coules radio adaptation! That one is honestly so incredible. Granada used to be my favorite but then i listened to Coules and while i still love Granada with all my heart, Coules is just on an another level entirely
My brother lives in a house on a street called Sherlock Close in Gosnells , Western Australia. I just realised that he lives in one of the Sherlock Homes.
Finally found someone who shares my views. Its criminal how everything has to be romanticized. Thats why I love Jeremy Brett's series interpretation. True to the original source.
I can only agree!
Yes, it's criminal how everything HAS be romanticized including the JL bullshit
I agree!!
I agree, why must companies pander to women viewers to make more money in the box office?!
In Granada series, they cut of Watson 's marriage too.
Yup, I never liked it when people who never read the original books refer to Irene as SH' lover.
Holmes was disgusted by the notion of romance, and a cloud to his deductive prowess.
Irene is a model woman. I love how Sir Doyle portrayed her.A head strong woman. Holmes admired her, but not Romantically. Only respect because she's the only woman who had defeated him.
Someone finally talked about it! That's why I didn't watch any Sherlock Holmes movie because I was so fed up with them making these two as love interest. I rather stick to the book. Even as a teenger, when I read the story, I understood that Shelock just respected Irene for her intelligence. There was nothing romantic between them.
I am one of those few people knows and always knew Sherlock and Irene were never involved in any romantic relationship and had no such interest in each other that way either. Sherlock is pretty much asexual and aromatic. The only emotion he is ever shown to feel is for Watson and that is purely in a friendly manner.
I agree 100%! I still plan on working on a video essay about Sherlock being asexual
100% agree
I would like to say. She doesn't even blackmail the king. She just have the photo and he's scared, that she will blackmail him or worse ruin his repution and upcoming profitable marriage. The king is typical powerfull man who thinks he can do anything he wants and get away with it. Holmes even makes a point at the end, that he kinda pathetic and terrible.
Thanks for pointing that out again! I think that's an important detail a lot of people often forget about.
What would be great is keeping the platonic relationship and having all characters hoping for something to become
All 3 contemporary Irine Addlers are very well done Laura Pulver and Natalie Dormer even Rachel McAdams all three Irine Addlers are very different but equally compelling.
Natalie Dormer was Moriarty..
I’ve been looking for someone who thinks the same way as me about Irene Norton (ne Adler)! It’s so disappointing how consistently she is diminished to merely an oversexualized bad girl to tempt Holmes and show him up. (BBC Sherlock and RDJ movies I am glowering at you.)
Her character was profoundly revolutionary for the time she was portrayed in by sir ACD, and it was a testament to him as an author that he depicted such a strong independent woman who gave herself autonomy over her romantic affairs and her own life.
Granada Holmes was the first instance of an Irene portrayal that properly reflected her character and Holmes’ admiration for her. He really did hold her in very high esteem for her intelligence, wit and integrity, and that’s why he made a point of keeping the photograph she left and giving her the title of “The Woman.”
I always saw it as it doesn't matter if they do or don't because how the characters themselves see it is that they don't and even if they did, neither would realize or acknowledge it. And that is why the interpretations can vary into the fact that they do in more modern adaptations.
But at the end of the day adaptions of anything are canon unto the adaptions and not the source material and trying something new expands the universe so it works for me even if I don't like it.
Just love your video , i just read ASIB after watching guy richie's holmes movies and bbc sherlock and i seriously don't know why shows and movies not only destroy the significance of adler in holmes life by turning into a stupid romantic story but also entirly destroyed adler as a character . Adler in story is a kind and intelligent woman whose words even the king trust but these adaptions has turned her into some evil villain who is not trust worthy and maupulate feelings to get what she want and also a pawn in moriarty's games . These adaptions just reduce her status from THE WOMAN to a common evil character whom you can't think as even a proper villain but just a messanger of one man to another .
I'm currently working on a big video essay about the Guy Ritchie films and I'm definitely gonna talk about Irene Adler there as well.
@@TheGeekyFanboy can you make one on bbc version as well . That was really misleading characterization of adler for soemone who didn't read the story before like me . I really can't find that adler version to be for nor a normal intelligent woman neither an evil villain .
@@mg-cx5tv there will definitely be one on the BBC series as well at some point
@Raylan Givens 💯
Absolutely love this video. I always had my opinions on this sort of portrayal of Adler. It's fine to do a twist on a characters relationship- but it feels like every writer does this, and it feels like an interpretation. I'm a huge Holmes (Book Canon) fan and will be checking out all of your other videos on Holmes. Thanks. 😊
Scandal in Bohemia has been my favorite of the original Holmes stories since childhood (I lay a lot of the credit with Wishbone), at least partially because of Irene Adler. It blew my mind as a young girl (who wanted to be an actress) to see Holmes bested by an actress. (Plus the fact that she also disguised herself as a man at one point probably helped, now that I'm looking back as a bigender adult.) Basically every adaptation does Irene so dirty and it sucks.
One of the reasons why I like BBC's addition of Molly Hooper in their adaptation is that this gives Sherlock a good love interest without the need to have it to be Irene ... Sadly I have the feeling that BBC Sherlock still tends towards Irene more than Molly (putting Molly in the friend zone where Irene should be).
I still enjoy Dormer, Pulver and McAdam's incarnations of Irene ...
That alone is a big flaw of Sherlock's character. it doesn't matter who, Sherlock denies that notion of romance.
it clouds his deduction and reasoning.
In the original story, Irene Adler is in love with a mostly unremarkable lawyer, Godfrey Norton. Holmes is hired by a former love interest of Adler’s in order to recover some compromising photos she could use against him at a later date if she so chose (or to protect herself because her ex is a very powerful man who could easily do her harm if he so chose). While in one of his trademark disguises, Holmes unwittingly finds himself as a witness at a quiet marriage ceremony between Irene Adler and Godfrey Norton. Irene Adler and Sherlock Holmes were never in love, although it’s fun to imagine them in this way as they have so much in common, intellectually. In another life, perhaps there might have been something between them if they’d crossed paths. We can only speculate.
Definitely never romantic, one of respect and the one only time Adler ever appears in Holmes's life. She left such an impression on him that he holds a photograph thus earning the title The Woman.
I dont mind the play on making her a love interest, bc there are some pretty enjoyable ones to see, but I just wished more new adaptations would portray their interactions more similarly to the books'.
And considering that the introduction of this character addresses and showcase a notable change in Sherlock's mindset towards women, it makes me wonder what Doyle was going through himself for him to focus on this aspect at all.
Thank you for pointing it out. I get irrationally angry when people treat Irene Adler as some sort of love interest to Sherlock Holmes.
If the Holmes-and-Irene relationship is adapted, it’d be a professional relationship. He respects her and would likely ask her for help on a case if they were on working terms. He could possibly end up needing her help, learning to respect her skills even more.
The thing is that Irene Adler is a side character in the canon, having appeared in only a single story. In fact, everyone but Watson, Holmes himself and perhaps Mrs. Hudson is: including Mycroft and Moriarty. The problem is that screen depictions like to have a 'steady' cast so they promote these side characters to the main cast, and with Irene Adler being the only woman the scene for a romantic relationship between her and Sherlock is set - since by Hollywood's logic every story HAS to have a romantic element.
Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler relationship reminds us of the Barnabas Collins relationship with Josette!
Thank you for this. I really hate how heteronormativity has made that relationship as a romantic one over and over again.
@Raylan Givens Ah, yes. That’s why it’s been adapted that way in every single version.
Natalie Dormer was Moriarty..
6:28 Nareszcie ktoś to powiedział, czuję się wzruszona :')
THIS! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
She's obviously a compelling chracter
If anything, Irene Adler should confirm Holmes's idea of women being secretive, manipulative and dishonest.
She is all of that.
As she is, however, intelligent enough to even challenge him in his field of passion,
of course it attracts him to her like a challenging case attracts him. There may even be a sexual, clearly not a romantic, aspect to this attraction, regardless if personified in a woman or abstract like a case. At least in a Freudian sense.
Nevertheless, this attraction would cease as soon as she ceases to provide this kind of challenge.
There is a romantic component to his relationship with Watson and a strong romantic tension in his relationship with Moriarty, not with Adler though. There is a clear "we" in those two relationships, an aspect of reciprocity, synergy, growth and co-dependence.
Especially with Moriarty, the potential of synergy and bigger greatness in their duality than in the mere sum of the individual beings gives the audience a sensation of an intense romantic quality. A weak sexual component may be present temporarily with moriarty during the chases, however I put in question wether Sherlock really feels this sexual need of pursuit for discharge/closure with him. I believe he himself feels the romantic desire of perpetuation in regards to their very special duality.
Adler, on the other hand, clearly provides the sexual motive of passionate pursuit for discharge and closure to Sherlock whilst never truly becoming part of a "we".
@@IIIIIawesIIIII no. In the books, Sherlock feels no sexual attraction to Irene Adler, or Watson or Moriarty. Leave the desire for sexual discharge to the shippers, Sherlock has nothing to do with it.
I am looking forward to more video essays by you.
Interesting how the character of Godfrey Norton never makes it into any of these adaptations. I wonder why that is. 🙄
My personal theory is that many (not all) contemporary writers who adapt Scandal in Bohemia, seem to believe that Irene can't be a strong, feminist character if she still gets married at the end. Which is rubbish, of course, because marrying for love (instead of a rich monarch) in a society in which women didn't have that option most of the time, is still a power move.
@@TheGeekyFanboy You make a good point. I would also like to point out that although we don't know much about the character of Godfrey Norton, I would wager that he was probably not on the same intellectual level of Sherlock Holmes, since virtually no one is. Maybe modern feminist theory also believes that a woman as smart as Irene should only logically be with a character like Sherlock Holmes, instead of a man who might be only ordinary. What if it was the other way around? What if a strong female character like Irene Adler actually DIDN'T feel the need to be opposite Holmes? What if she found something in Godfrey Norton's character more admirable--even if compared to Holmes, Norton was only an "ordinary" man. That would actually be feminist, since everyone expects a powerful woman to be attracted to a powerful man. Funny how all these new interpretations of the character which are supposedly so "liberated" actually set women back a hundred years. The Irene Adler of the book was a true feminist, if anything.
@@nuclearpiano2684 I absolutely agree! Especially since the whole point of the story is to point out that Sherlock Holmes himself isn't always the good guy, and neither is a powerful, well-to-do person like the King of Bohemia. Why should either of those men be attractive to Irene? Just because they're intelligent or powerful? Like you said, why shouldn't Irene find happiness with a "simple" man? An ordinary man is just as worthy of her love as someone like Holmes would be. And if Norton is the man she loves and wants to marry, then what is even the point in saying that she actually "needs no man" or "needs a different man"...
Wow I completely forgot about Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, thank you for the reminder!
Great essay. It’s nice to have the record set “straight” on Holmes and Adler. Not that subsequent versions are awful. I enjoyed the Downey Jr. Holmes, for example. But neither the self-evidently heterosexual (esque?) Holmes nor the heavily hinted homosexual Holmes of Sherlock are, as you remind us, a product of Holmes’ origins. Whether by force of will or act of nature, the original Homes seems to me asexual, or at least, he tries his best to function as if he was. (I feel compelled here to point to Jeremy Brett’s masterfully nuanced performance.) That Holmes is so much more interesting by default; writers setting out to insert sexuality into his psyche always have an uphill climb if parity with the original is their goal. The projection of heterosexual proclivities onto Holmes leaves the door open to the unexpected, confusing, and even otherwise inexplicable - which is always hugely engaging.
Of course it’s perilous to project 21st century concepts onto a fictional character of the 19th. But it seems to me that Holmes’ disregard of women, and particularly their intellectual capacity, is of a kind to how the real-life polymath Benjamin Franklin regarded people of African ancestry. Both Holmes and Franklin, almost preternaturally intelligent and accomplished, were nonetheless men of their times, and susceptible to the unconscious control of powerful cultural programming. Adler changed Holmes’ opinion on women, thanks largely to him having an open mind. Franklin, after seeing for himself (in a Philadelphia school for Black children) that they were the equal in every way to white children, admitted that he had his whole life been wrong. He eventually became a leading abolitionist, and the last public essay he released attacked slavery by demolishing its justifications. Holmes was powerful, in part, because he maintained an open mind, and it’s so interesting when we see the brilliant apply their legendary capacity to their own perceptions. It’s amazing to learn to think clearly for ourselves. It’s all the more so when we think clearly about ourselves.
That’s a really great approach. Nicely done.
Amazing video! Nice presentation ;)
I would say that Jeremy Brett's Holmes did Irene Adler best
That's the way to tell the more colorful and romanticize the character and story. In fact, Irene was the one who make the development of Holmes's character. She was very special to Holmes. It is easy to romanticize her as lover. However, that quite a bit of ooc. Because in the nearly last story, Holmes still convince to the reader that he did not interest in women. (BUT STILL APPRECIATE Them.)
Thank you.
That was amazing. Do make more of these essays!!
Awesome video, KEEP GOING!!!!!
Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson were best friends forever
Watson tells us Holmes has no romance toward her. That and him having none are two entirely different things
This is great, please make more videos!
Great thanks!
Really excellent analysis! I appreciated this a lot
You’re now one more subscriber close to a 1k subs
Thanks! ^_^
I strongly disagree. Sherlock Holmes was definitely in love with Irene Adler. Asking for, keeping, and displaying a photograph of her is proof of that. He sees her as an intellectual equal. This was the late 1800s, the turn of the century England. Photographs were not common for everyone to have. Sherlock did not even display photographs of his Father, Mother, or Brother.
Idk if there's a word for it but, I feel like Sherlock Holmes the character represents what were considered the norm at the time. I feel like if you're going to adapt the Sherlock Holmes stories, while adapting them faithfully is great, I think you cam create something special if you add a modern twist. Sherlock Holmes is quite progressive for its time, with stories like this one with how women were treated. Having modern politics and modern progressive themes probably would add to the stories since some of them involve stuff while still prevalent today, are not as big of an issue. There's a story of an interracial marriage where the couple had a kid for example, this story on its own can still work today, but you can change a few details and still keep the core themes. Like instead of an interracial marriage, it could be a gay marriage (tho this change does have problems of its own cus in the Story, the wife remarries and is worried what her second husband will think of her black child, something you can't really do with gay marriage easily).
Except that it works in the movies so why not? It's like making a big deal about Tobey's Spider-Man shooting webs from his wrist instead of using a webshooter...
as an aroace i love this sm ty
The best woman for holmes in my opinion is marry russel, not canon but their relationship in the Laure R king series is quite enjoyable
Isn't there a 38 or something year gap between the two of them?
I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be a couple in the series. After Arthur Conan Doyle, some writers wrote that they even had children. I mean, not only in the series, but in many books, the idea that they have a relationship and that they have children is put forward. You might be right if only the first Sherlock series is considered and other writers are not considered. But this is just fiction and can be written in different ways by different writers.
Read my mind. Awesome video!
IRENA NOT Irene .Read the original book
Please, go and read “The detective and the woman” series by Amy Thomas and be happy
I'm no where near as Big of a fan as you are, but yes l remember when l read the story featuring THE WOMAN a few years ago that there was no love interest between Sherlock and Irene. That being said, we have to remember that a movie adaptation is not a copy-paste of a book. It is a new project in which, as long as the film makers demonstrate enough respect to the source materials by not "disfiguring" it, they sure can take certain liberties that allow them to explore new avenues. And from that point, the only thinh they have to display is consistancy.
I haven't watched all the TV adaptations, but based on Elementary's and the Robert Downey jr portrayal of the character, the main liberty they took was to give him a sex life (displayed or implied) whereas the original Sherlock was pretty much asexual. From that point, it is not a stretch to imagine that a sexual Sherlock would be interested by a woman whose intellect marvels him. I even find it pretty normal. Benedict Sherlock is not openly interested (though a bit intrigued), but that's because he is closer to the canon, i.e. eunuch (figuratively). And the reason why Irene falls for him is plausible. Media. The book lrene wasn't as much exposed to Sherlock's fame as the modern one, who follows John's blog and all. And her, not being devoid of sexual desires nor married, there's nothing inconsistant with her developping feelings for such a bright mind. As she puts it herself: Intelligence or smart is the new sexy! So for me, all this is fine. And these are all the TV adaptations l've watched. So l cannot tell for the many others.
Jakby, to mój 1 z 3 sapio szipów soo
At this point every time I find out that Irene Adler is in a Sherlock Holmes adaptation it feels like a threat
Haha yeah, I know exactly what you mean 😅
disagree with you 👎👎👎👎
Please. He’s just stating facts.
@@TalsonHacks yes
@@TalsonHacks reread the last paragraph of the book. Sherlock clearly is supposed to have a romantic crush on her.