I think John's response at the end of Study in Pink also has bearing on how he relates to killing people (even if they aren't very nice). I agree with the assessment that it's more on-par with Sarah.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself.

I do think that Mrs. Hudson is not entirely free of Bit Not Good herself

Mm-hm. We just haven't seen it yet. And, really, the stuff I like best is often stuff I wouldn't go for in real life. Defenestrating prisoners, even those that torture little older ladies? Sorry--trial and sentencing, please. On Sherlock ? Totally satisfying and comedy gold.

Adler's specifically called out as an adventuress in ASiB.

She's called that by the king initially, and he's portrayed as a self-important douche. If he genuinely thought she was just a malevolent social climber, his reaction of "Oh, she promised not to use the photo? Problem solved!" makes no sense.

She's called that by the king initially, and he's portrayed as a self-important douche. If he genuinely thought she was just a malevolent social climber, his reaction of "Oh, she promised not to use the photo? Problem solved!" makes no sense.

But if she doesn't have any aspect of that, then her threat in the first place to use the pictures makes little to no sense. I never got the sense that he thought she was *just* that--he makes too many comments about what a rocking queen she'd have been, had she been of his social class for him to think that's all there is to her.

She took both the king and Norton as lovers. (Well I can't prove Norton, but I'm pretty sure she was sleeping with him before marriage. ) At the time that was enough to get her labeled an "adventuress" and worse. Especially if, horror of horrors, these were not the only lovers she took. But at the end it seems that the King, Holmes and Watson all three agreed that she rocked. Given diverse personality types, that at least one was an expert at seeing through bullshit, another at least bright and fairly conventional, and the third a douchebag, but a douchebag with a strong interest in not getting that judgement wrong, I would say that we are justified in believing them.

My preceding post was well supported. This one is just a possible interpretation: the King was never sure she was a threat. But she had evidence that could bring him down. Minus a promise from her not to use it, he intended to secure it. She said in her letter at the end that she kept it only as protection from the King. That was only in the future, but possibly she never intended to destroy it and held on to it only for protection all along.

King Douche's intent may have been to get the photograph, and then have her murdered just to be on the safe side.

her threat in the first place to use the pictures makes little to no sense

In the story we don't know what happened between them. According to the king, she threatened to send the photo on the day his engagement was announced. When she has a voice, she says she kept the photo as protection and describes herself as "cruelly wronged" by the king. So they're calling each other liars and you can decide who to believe... But in the end she says he's a dick but it doesn't matter, and that she's only keeping the photo to protect herself. And he's fine with that. Which is suggestive.

I just don't think Doyle intended readers to believe she was out to ruin men for her own social advantage. There's no hint of blackmail for profit. She's presented as a heroine, not a villain.

If anyone wants support for what Strega and I have been saying,here is a link to the actual story on-line. [link]

It is worth reading the whole thing, but if you don't have time, scroll to the end. Then scroll up a few paragraphs, past the illustration to the note Irene Adler left. And read the three paragraphs past the note. Pretty clear that Adler is, as Strega, says intended to be heroine.

I have read the story. Many times. As I said, the most recent time while eating pizza on Monday. The first time when I was about five.

I have dog-eared copies of all the Holmes stories, plus electronic versions on all my devices. It's a thing. I was *leery* of watching the modern update because of my attachment to the canon.

You don't need to link me to it. I'm still going to have a slightly different interpretation of the text, and think that the truth is halfway between the claims of the king and the claims of Irene.

Most of us who are arguing the other side of the point have, in fact, read the bloody text. I've got into this argument on Tumblr already, where there's this assumption going that if we disagree with people, we haven't read the supporting text. No, we just don't agree with the conclusions. Which is fine. Everyone reads with their own lens. I'm sure my lens is informed by my reading way too much Victorian English cultural history, and my Gram being a kept woman for much of my childhood. (And I maintain that being a mistress with benefits such as it is implied that Irene got, and that I know Gram got, cause I inherited some of it, is still sex work. I'd rather be a pro domme, thank you kindly. I find it more honorable, in its way. Plus, way more personal freedom.)

Things not answered in ACD that I ponder a lot: who clued Irene into the fact that, if the king hired an agent, it would be Sherlock Holmes?

I maintain that being a mistress with benefits such as it is implied that Irene got, and that I know Gram got, cause I inherited some of it, is still sex work

But being a wife with benefits isn't? I don't think it's inherent to the situation, it's about how it's implemented/considered by the people involved.