I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere: Margie Clayman

Showing posts with label Margie Clayman. Show all posts

Sherlock and the Infatuation with Fashion

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"all London was interested, and the fashionable world dismayed" [EMPT] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxCux0-5CnL58EGc0JvlT4jP3hCLdkLTmg3ywBFJZw-mijzcX5KsRRMVUU-VCIhXK0NCJgPugvMASWxQCYM9Pjlpoh3h5dOOTaZdKHHtBFY852jBQD9nR73_TtRehfiDNWrcsa3a5KP92U/s1600/sherlock_bbc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="433" data-original-width="768" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxCux0-5CnL58EGc0JvlT4jP3hCLdkLTmg3ywBFJZw-mijzcX5KsRRMVUU-VCIhXK0NCJgPugvMASWxQCYM9Pjlpoh3h5dOOTaZdKHHtBFY852jBQD9nR73_TtRehfiDNWrcsa3a5KP92U/s640/sherlock_bbc.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
I was thinking about <i>Sherlock</i> the other day (as I so often do), and suddenly my muse poked me in the tummy (as she often does). The realization dawned on me that fashion actually plays a fairly large role in numerous episodes of <i>Sherlock</i>, and often in quite a negative way. I am not sure what to make of this trend, but take a look at some of these examples and see if you can find a deep, underlying message.<br />
<br />
Maybe Gatiss and Moffat hate the fashion world. Maybe there is an even deeper meaning that hasn't even occurred to me yet because I'm still recovering from my muse punching me in the belly. Anyway, take a gander and see if anything occurs to you.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>A Study in Pink</b></h3>
The title of this episode plays right into my hands, doesn't it? Actually this is what started my pondering. Even though several other "suicides" occur in the episode, much of the focus is spent on the woman in pink. Her pink outfit and the pink bag are discussed in detail as they give Sherlock ideas about her story. Beyond that though, Sherlock analyzes her wedding band and finds bad news (she takes the ring off a lot).<br />
<b><br />
</b> <br />
<h3>
<b>The Great Game</b></h3>
This episode concentrates on a pair of shoes tied to a very old murder case. Even more pertinent to this argument, however, is that Sherlock makes a rapid and in the end distracting evaluation of Moriarty's character based on how Jim is dressed. Sherlock assumes that Molly has managed to find herself tied up with a gay man based on Moriarty's hair styling and way of dressing. Later we find out that in fact Moriarty did that on purpose to capture Sherlock's attention. Are Gatiss and Moffat playing with fashion to capture our attention or distract us from something else?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>The Sign of Three</b></h3>
Although one of the sweeter and more suspenseful episodes, I'm afraid to tell you fashion also plays a dreadful role here. In this case, belt buckles associated with military uniforms do the damage. Fashion does not seem to be a neutral player, now does it?<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>The Hat</b></h3>
Perhaps all of this is a revolt against Sherlock's hat. Along with a pipe, most people, when they picture Sherlock Holmes, probably picture that cute little hat (I'm a big hat fan). In a way, it has come to define the character in our societal lexicon. In the show, Sherlock of course hates the hat and only wears it at John's pressing (and because the crowds are expecting it). Maybe the whole point is that fashion alone should not be expected to tell the whole story. The hat certainly does not tell the whole story of Sherlock, just as Moriarty's style certainly did not tell the whole story about him.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, maybe this is all just a big coincidence. Maybe my muse was a little drunk the other day, or maybe she is feeling vengeful.<br />
<br />
What do you think?<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />

Sherlock and the Infatuation with Fashion

"all London was interested, and the fashionable world dismayed" [EMPT] I was thinking about Sherlock the other day (as I so...

+ Read more »

by Margie Clayman

Smart Women Don't Have To Be Evil

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<b>"</b>She was as good as she was beautiful, and as intelligent as she was good.<b>" [MISS]</b> </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1QL2BdkUWsYYNe9h2VEUuIuy1TINBPgMJkHIdTzmycqQyYQPQOZQ5rnSGhtnaYvNNj_wi40CIvL_pfOS4izy0DGCW9j9Bjw2cNDzf7YL9e8VtXpXTHBHFAnc9QguyrS9IyuZLRbZ74EE/s1600/Nobl-07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE1QL2BdkUWsYYNe9h2VEUuIuy1TINBPgMJkHIdTzmycqQyYQPQOZQ5rnSGhtnaYvNNj_wi40CIvL_pfOS4izy0DGCW9j9Bjw2cNDzf7YL9e8VtXpXTHBHFAnc9QguyrS9IyuZLRbZ74EE/s640/Nobl-07.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
One of the things I love most about BBC's <i>Sherlock</i> is Benedict Cumberbatch. Sorry, I meant, Benedict Cumberbatch. Darn it all. I need to fix this auto-correct. Let me start again.<br />
<br />
One of the things I love most about BBC's <i>Sherlock </i>is that it has featured some of the most fascinating female characters I have seen on television. You have Mrs. Hudson, the matron of Baker Street, you have Mary, you have Molly, whom I featured <a href="http://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2017/01/molly-hooper-and-romanticizing-of.html">in my last post</a>, Eurus, who came on the scene rather suddenly, and of course you have, well, <a href="http://ihose.co/ihose41" target="_blank"><i>the</i> Woman</a>. There is a problem, though. The smarter the woman on <i>Sherlock</i>, the more likely it is that she has, at best, a checkered past. Maybe more like a crazy quilt past and a checkered present.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-MTgrrefjV61nuxKlSa6j5MROxQ-_rg6l4BdK8fZVj10SCOf0_vYCncFUX8XTg1L2F8zRguoFQeSeYZ6ObpRy__1S7EGgp0x3ueXBDr3hrTEX4fylFRwCwpKcRIFsUG721QjBiGSgPak/s1600/ABOM+-+Mary+Morstan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA-MTgrrefjV61nuxKlSa6j5MROxQ-_rg6l4BdK8fZVj10SCOf0_vYCncFUX8XTg1L2F8zRguoFQeSeYZ6ObpRy__1S7EGgp0x3ueXBDr3hrTEX4fylFRwCwpKcRIFsUG721QjBiGSgPak/s400/ABOM+-+Mary+Morstan.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
<b>"You see, but you do not observe." [SCAN]</b></h3>
Irene Adler is a fascinating female character because she uniquely combines femininity and sexuality with power. This is something many writers, of books and of visual drama, tend to avoid, because, well, that's just too much! Given her uniqueness, the writers could have framed Irene Adler to be a force for good, and it would not have weakened her character in the slightest. With the royal family and other top names at her beck and call, Irene Adler could have used her power to bring warring factions to a peace summit if she had wanted.<br />
<br />
Instead, the writers made the Woman manipulative, weak, devious, and generally a sour character. While I suppose her infatuation with Sherlock is meant to show her complexity, the fact remains that she is one of the few characters in the show who is able to match wits with Sherlock, and she even beats him. Why must she come across as a villain rather than a hero?<br />
<br />
The same sad truth applies to Eurus. The idea of a Holmes sibling even smarter than Sherlock and Mycroft was exciting, but it seems that in this world, the more brilliant a woman is, the more psychotic she must be. In fairness, Sherlock certainly represents a parallel between genius and psychosis, but John is his foil, and as such is very smart but not as manipulative and devilish. Eurus is supposed to be the most brilliant character in the Sherlock universe, but she also proves to be the most disruptive and evil. The writers easily could have had her cast away in a convent instead of a top secret asylum. She could have used her mind control powers for good, or she could have separated herself from her brothers in the interest of being kinder to humanity.<br />
<br />
Finally, there is Mary. While I would not say that she is a genius in the same way as the Woman, and certainly not in the same way as Eurus, she is another woman who can meet Sherlock where he is on his mental plane. She can also confidently call John and Sherlock on their crap. Yet when push comes to shove, even Mary proves to have a dark and shadowy past, complete with a fake identity and mad ninja skills. She is smart, powerful, clever, and more, but in the end she just proves to be another woman with personality issues.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>"I never make exceptions. An exception disproves the rule." [SIGN]</b></h3>
In fact, there are two notable exceptions to this theme of smart women having no choice but to be evil. Molly Hooper must be smart since she works as a medical scientist, but she is presented as being slightly flighty, awkward, unsure of herself, and naive. This is as disappointing as the smart women who must be evil in order to show off their knowledge. It would be wonderful to see Molly rattle off some of her knowledge to shut up John or Sherlock. You get the feeling that she is brilliant, but for some reason the writers do not let her present that way.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlZb4HFwpgguK2tE0WCW-4PrkqDt_2o1GQRMD1crNSUk8-UUDQV8CUWyFPZBkHZJ2E1GQUvvr5vOFqfEFtLuxKigmbOyrZR9i7EKtkZxPL_St1898Kv8fzaHTwswko_PNsRJOG1GGN1Lr1/s1600/ABOM+-+Mrs.+Hudson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlZb4HFwpgguK2tE0WCW-4PrkqDt_2o1GQRMD1crNSUk8-UUDQV8CUWyFPZBkHZJ2E1GQUvvr5vOFqfEFtLuxKigmbOyrZR9i7EKtkZxPL_St1898Kv8fzaHTwswko_PNsRJOG1GGN1Lr1/s400/ABOM+-+Mrs.+Hudson.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The other exception is Mrs. Hudson, who seems likewise to be somewhat flighty and perhaps ignorant of her surroundings, yet she falls more into the miscreant category with her gangster husband and her sordid history. The car introduced at the end of the last series seemed unnecessary, and I am still not really sure what the writers were trying to prove or suggest with that scene. Does Mrs. Hudson need to be "racy" in order to be an interesting female character?<br />
<br />
I would love for the writers of <i>Sherlock </i>to give us a female character who is smart, clever, maybe a little weird, but who is able to match John and Sherlock's wits without being a murderous lunatic. Is that so much to ask?<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />

Smart Women Don't Have To Be Evil

" She was as good as she was beautiful, and as intelligent as she was good. " [MISS] One of the things I love most about BB...

+ Read more »

by Margie Clayman

Molly Hooper and the Romanticizing of Emotional Abuse

<h4 style="text-align: center;">
"You have been cruelly used" [SPEC] </h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBVmLHK7ko7WMYDpvzZBHuYPTyBTqYEPsef_xI-W7GY3_VYIsCAJfwtut7sDvRXwPPolHdbFkrUUmdQ5tcP9sI8XEKiJnQFNNBeti4BgU-_eJpVTYN3-ZhmjMcjORozs8Hysrgwrpz-d06/s1600/Baker+Street+skul+and+wallpaper.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBVmLHK7ko7WMYDpvzZBHuYPTyBTqYEPsef_xI-W7GY3_VYIsCAJfwtut7sDvRXwPPolHdbFkrUUmdQ5tcP9sI8XEKiJnQFNNBeti4BgU-_eJpVTYN3-ZhmjMcjORozs8Hysrgwrpz-d06/s640/Baker+Street+skul+and+wallpaper.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
When I first started watching <i>Sherlock</i>, I was of course taken by Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal. Sherlock was mysterious, outwardly a jerk, and otherwise unappealing, but there were little touches, little hints, that indicated he might be redeemable, at least on the inside. I was able to completely gloss over his obviously manipulative treatment of Molly Hooper, and I think that was the desired effect. Molly was a sort of awkward little mouse of a woman, Sherlock was conniving and an admitted sociopath, so their interaction was bound to not be ideal. <br />
<br />
<div>
After watching "The Final Problem," however, I began to reconsider the treatment of the character of Molly Hooper from the beginning of the series to the unsatisfying and dismal end, and I realized that in effect, Gatiss and Moffat created a scenario in which viewers were tricked into lusting after what was actually an emotionally abusive dynamic between Sherlock and Molly. <br />
<br />
<h3>
"Holmes had, when he liked, a peculiarly ingratiating way with women" [SECO] </h3>
Throughout the first season, you can see clear evidence of this facet of emotional abuse between Sherlock and Molly.  In case you  are not well-versed in the verbiage of emotional abuse, “love bombing” (which can also be called the honeymoon stage) is when the abuser will offer compliments, often directly tied to wanting something. After they get what they want they cycle back to devaluing/demoralizing their victim.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the best example of this occurs in the episode “The Blind Banker.” Sherlock asks Molly to “wheel out” Eddie Van Coon and Brian Lukis so he can reexamine the cadavers, but Molly informs him the paperwork on the bodies has already been completed. At that point, Sherlock notes that Molly has changed her hair and he encourages her by saying, “No it’s good. It suits you better this way.” Molly then proceeds to do what Sherlock wants.<br />
<br />
Sherlock perpetually insults Molly as part of the devaluing cycle. He tells her, for example, that talking is not her strong suit. In “The Great Game,” the episode directly following “The Blind Banker,” Sherlock insinuates that Molly has gained weight since she started dating her new boyfriend “Jim.” This, incidentally, is another tact emotionally abusive people use to keep their victims off guard. Sherlock drops little treats for Molly but never fulfills her wishes. However, he gives her an equally hard time when she tries to form relationships with other men.<br />
<br />
<h3>
"no ghosts need apply" [SUSS]</h3>
Another aspect of emotional abuse that appears in Sherlock is what is known as ghosting. In “The Empty Hearse,” Sherlock asks Molly to work with him, but throughout almost the entire time they work together, he continues to call her John. One could argue that this simply is to re-establish how close he is with John, but in the context of the entire dynamic between Sherlock and Molly, that feature in the episode takes on more disturbing undertones.<br />
<br />
<h3>
“I am bound to say” [WIST] </h3>
This all takes us to that now much-discussed part of the finale, where Sherlock must make Molly tell him she loves him. There are almost too many problems with these scene to explain. To put it succinctly, Molly is encouraged by Sherlock to finally make herself fully vulnerable, even though she knows, after all of the abuse he has heaped upon her and all of the manipulation he has done, that she will not get anything out of it. He forces her to voice her feelings, but she gets no reward for being emotionally brave. Instead, he hangs up, and she is left with the final proof that he does not have the same feelings for her. Her hopes are crushed as just a minor part of the episode, which almost feels like emotional abuse from the writers themselves.<br />
<br />
<br />
Molly Hooper is an obviously clever woman, sweet, thoughtful, and caring. She is the perfect target for a sociopath like Sherlock, but viewers are led to be forgiving, and even sympathetic, of Sherlock. “That’s just how he is.” In the process, we are saying that treating women in this manner is acceptable and something to be shrugged off, especially if the abuser is attractive and clever.<br />
<br />
Do we really want to perpetuate that way of thinking?<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>Image credit: <a href="https://flic.kr/p/FEftYi" target="_blank">Zuza Ritt (Flickr)</a></i><br />
<br />
--<br />
<br /></div>