tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post5027932404594258662..comments2024-03-21T19:12:24.778-04:00Comments on Fangirling Daily: The Curious Case of Irene AdlerKerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10132852904500153199noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-42450415169444468292012-05-31T14:14:48.713-04:002012-05-31T14:14:48.713-04:00Respect and admiration above all else as the ideal...Respect and admiration above all else as the ideal one lone foundation of a relationship is something I can agree with whole heartedly, and It is regrettable that we don't see this too often in not only fiction but reality as well.<br /><br />I have a theory about why that is called "the social obligation" where popular consensus is that love is guaranteed and that finding someone and marrying them is a matter of coming of age, or perhaps success is the better term. You are expected to have a relationship the same way you are expected to go to college or get a job or retire. It's a chapter, and if you don't accomplish that something is wrong with you. The problem there should be evident: it is dehumanizing, puts a banal spin on what ought to be miraculous, and, yes, gets in the way of respect because it makes us possessive of one another. You possess your career and you possess your education in that you control them, if you define a relationship in the same terms you only objectify your partner. love becomes a means to an end when pursued thoughtlessly.<br /><br />Both Sherlock and Irene exist outside of conventional society and are two people who wouldn't really care if someone thought them to be "unsuccessful", and perhaps that helped them escape the stigma of "the social obligation" when Doyle was fleshing them out, and also why these adaptations feel the need to linger on the moment. It's what "ought" to happen in a narrative. Miracles should never have such expectations.Sergio J. A. Ragno IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616139610159632698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-76215504292718071072012-05-24T17:57:01.756-04:002012-05-24T17:57:01.756-04:00I'm glad so many online commentators are speak...I'm glad so many online commentators are speaking up for the stronger version of Irene in the Conan Doyle story, and you did a particularly thorough and cogent job of it. Alas, you can't download the first four books of the series. I'm converting them to e-book as soon as I can, but they won't be ready until September, due to book deadlines. I put up the novella e-book as a "place holder" until then. The second set of four are in e-book, though.<br /><br />I agree that Watson's take on Irene in "Scandal" is a bit obtuse compared to Holmes's. You'll see that disparity revisited in the first chapter of "Good Night, Mr. Holmes" at the end of "Private Wife."<br /><br />I'm glad your interest has been stirred!Carole Nelson Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01431995799842117842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-15490322497169333092012-05-24T17:03:26.416-04:002012-05-24T17:03:26.416-04:00My goodness, your comment has gone all off into th...My goodness, your comment has gone all off into the biological and metaphysical and I have no idea what I am supposed to make of it. You write as if my brain did not short out while reading. I mean that as a compliment, of course.<br /><br />I did greatly enjoy your discussion of "A Scandal in Bohemia" being truly an isolated moment of a brief encounter. I distinctly remember picking up my copy of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" for the first time and being stunned that "A Scandal in Bohemia" was only a short handful of pages. I had heard of Irene Adler before reading the story and had assumed, based on her apparent importance to Sherlock Holmes, this would be some epic story. It's really not. It's as straightforward a mystery as you can get and like you said, Sherlock and Irene do not truly and resolutely interact.<br /><br />Perhaps that is why in the adaptations I mentioned, an entire backstory is often invented for the two of them or a profound relationship is created. These adaptations do not focus on the minute elements of this story but try to elaborate on a non-existent love story that even romantic Watson dismisses. We seem to forget that Sherlock Holmes is, at the end of the day, a very strange, eccentric and by all account, non-sexual or asexual, man and therefore, his ability to place incredibly importance on a barely known woman is not out of the ordinary for him. His respect is hard to come by but when he is impressed with you, he will bestow it on you unconditionally. <br /><br />I suspect that is why, as a feminist, I adore Sherlock and Irene so fervently. I should rather have an astonishingly impressive man's complete respect than anything else. Sherlock can be very belittling to women, but at the end of the day, his respect is willingly given to all who deserve it, regardless of sex.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10132852904500153199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-35328049608351305082012-05-24T16:52:22.008-04:002012-05-24T16:52:22.008-04:00Thank you so much for your thoughtful response! No...Thank you so much for your thoughtful response! Now I absolutely have to check all of these out (and thank goodness you told me before I left for my trip to Ireland - I can download them all on my e-reader for the plane ride!). <br /><br />You're absolutely right, of course. The only contemporary Holmes novels/stories I have heard of are Neil Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald," Stephen King's "The Doctor's Case" and Laurie R. King's Mary Russell series (which I always found rather alarming, though I must admit I have never read them and therefore, shouldn't really judge). For some reason, my snobbery tends to be focused predominantly on literature and therefore I rarely seek out other Holmes novels. That is a major shortcoming of mine that I need to rectify.<br /><br />I'm so happy that you also focused on Irene in your own work, not only because she's so fascinating but also because one gets the impression in the original Conan Doyle story that Watson does not fully grasp the true complexity of this dynamic woman, while Holmes clearly does. Watson, of course, is the model of the traditional, heterosexual, Victorian male and for a woman to be as cunning or independent as Irene is simply unheard of and therefore, cannot fully be expressed. Holmes, as Watson repeatedly tells the reader, is Bohemian and not a little bit outré and thus can recognize and appreciate (rather than feel sexual attraction to) the atypical nature of a fellow intelligent eccentric. <br /><br />Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to read and comment on this post. Having completed the entire Conan Doyle canon, I am hungry for more Holmesian stories and your comment has definitely inspired me!Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10132852904500153199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-81893762060955504842012-05-24T10:28:06.552-04:002012-05-24T10:28:06.552-04:00I suppose it isn't surprising that the only se...I suppose it isn't surprising that the only series of novels to make Irene Adler a protagonist is entirely unknown to debaters of the recent controversial film presentations of her. The first novel, "Good Night, Mr. Holmes," was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year in 1990 and the last book of eight was published in 2004. <br /><br />As the Irene Adler series author and the first author to make a female character from the Holmes stories a protagonist of her own adventures (and the second woman to write in the Holmes Canon at all; the first used gender-concealing initials), when reading the lively discussions of what COULD HAVE been done with Irene Adler as a character, I want to jump up and down and say, "I did all that already! Look, look!"<br /><br />"Good Night, Mr. Holmes" retells "A Scandal in Bohemia" from Irene's point of view, with added flourishes, but mostly it tells of how she became the only woman to outwit Sherlock Holmes through a previous stint moonlighting as a private inquiry agent while building her singing career. So she is a rival as well as one-time opponent. She and Holmes cross cases and swords throughout the series, but she is the star of the show and Holmes in his proper place as a recurring secondary character.<br /><br />The other books in order are "The Adventuress, A Soul of Steel, Another Scandal in Bohemia," the Jack the Ripper duology (three women on the Ripper's trail after Whitechapel) "Chapel Noir" and "Castle Rouge," and "Femme Fatale" and "Spider Dance."<br /><br />It's amusing to flirt, as Watson did, with the idea that these larger-than-life personalities might have generated some emotional spark, but that just doesn't play. <br /><br />In e-book is "The Private Wife of Sherlock Holmes," a novella, along with an essay on how the piece developed and the first chapter of "Good Night, Mr. Holmes," which sets up the entire Irene Adler series foundation.<br /><br />I too bemoan the opportunities lost in the Robert Downey, Jr. films and the "Sherlock" series, but I wish more dissatisfied readers and film fans knew about the fully substantial Irene who is already there.<br /><br />"Setting herself the task of creating a heroine worthy of Sherlock Holmes, Douglas...succeeds smashingly. In providing an inventive, believable past for Irene Adler, the one woman (and an American at that) who ever duped Holmes, Douglas writes in a voice that resonates of Dr. Watson's (or Conan Doyle's) when appropriate, and links Adler's adventures with information offered about her in Doyle's "A Scandal in Bohemia." Narrated with credible Victorian style and sensibility by Penelope "Nell" Huxleigh, a parson's daughter, this lively caper establishes Adler's sleuthing skills as she solves cases that involve Oscar Wilde and Bram Stoker...The novel has more going for it than the usual Holmesian pastiche, presenting a truly original perspective of the one whom the great detective himself dubbed "the woman." She's a superior woman at that; readers will doff their deerstalkers."—Publishers WeeklyCarole Nelson Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01431995799842117842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4810945672343071659.post-9528783594863343212012-05-24T03:34:56.085-04:002012-05-24T03:34:56.085-04:00That was very thought provoking, thank you.
I fou...That was very thought provoking, thank you.<br /><br />I found myself most interested in the point you make (admittedly not the central focus) regarding the quality of the relationship between Adler and Holmes.<br /><br />I believe that our existential perplexity regarding love to stem from unintuitive particulars in the exact nature of the phenomenon to the point where we don't really know what it is, a problem severely exacerbated by a history of observing this from only one homogenous perspective, something indicative in the immaturity of our culture's intellectual artifacts. That's why, I think, something like this makes so much sense but is rarely seen, it proves an incredible obstacle to look past the romantic paradigms and see love as banal where thought grandeur, rare when thought guaranteed, liberating where thought possessive.<br /><br />In a way I would argue that the relationship crafted is indeed love, and in a near true form... near being the key word.<br /><br />Simple where thought complicated. Respect. Respect and admiration for everything that an individual is to the degree where none can find peer within that respect, that is how I would define love, or to borrow a phrase "There was only one woman."<br /><br />That respect can only be found in the mind too, mind you. Our physical make up are all owed to genes and whenever we look upon another in terms of sex, genes are what we see. By definition, genes are common and shared, and do not make an individual more so than any other chemical in their body. You cannot respect a gene. The mind, however, is crafted by experience and will, two things that are impossible to replicate or emulate, there can and only will be one instance of an individual's mind, thus a relationship founded upon and limited to mind games and duels is indeed perfect. I can accept that...<br /><br />...except that there is no communication between the two past their brief encounter, no opportunity to allow the reflection of the other to craft their own experience, to grow, and to learn. It is an instant, and an instant can't be life affirming, no matter how miraculous. Love should be few things, but life affirming is one of them. The tale has an aura of isolation, of an inherently binary system through the eyes a solitary cog. In that regard, the relationship suffers the same weak foundation as its peers despite itself.Sergio J. A. Ragno IIIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616139610159632698noreply@blogger.com