(I also feel the pedantic need to point out that the parts of the plot directly lifted from ASiB ended with Sherlock drugged, defeated, and in bed. For the record.)

Obviously. Wait...are people not getting this?

One of my favorite games to play with Sherlock is "canon". It's a simple game: you say, "canon" when something is lifted directly (or near enough) from the Doyle. This is one of those "other people aren't like us" things, isn't it?

Occasional? As you know, when I get into a pedantic rage black out, my hands fly all around and my eyebrows are all over the map. I'm very animated in my irritation.

I was savoring the image of you in a slow burn - perhaps in a SH fanfic involving Irene Adler at a horse race. You'd get to a passage that tangled poor Victorian research, a complete absence of any knowledge of horse anatomy, wrong-headed reading of the original text, and white-het privilege into a ghastly knot of spelling errors. Then you reach the section on Scottish history that conflated Scotch with Bourbon and your eyebrows would knit together so fiercely that your brain would lock up as sputtering noises started to erupt from you as it became impossible to prioritize what needed yelling at first.

This is what I do for fun.

One of my favorite games to play with Sherlock is "canon". It's a simple game: you say, "canon" when something is lifted directly (or near enough) from the Doyle. This is one of those "other people aren't like us" things, isn't it?

Yeah, but that's ok. Totally worth a mental wound.

I was savoring the image of you in a slow burn - perhaps in a SH fanfic involving Irene Adler at a horse race. You'd get to a passage that tangled poor Victorian research, a complete absence of any knowledge of horse anatomy, wrong-headed reading of the original text, and white-het privilege into a ghastly knot of spelling errors. Then you reach the section on Scottish history that conflated Scotch with Bourbon and your eyebrows would knit together so fiercely that your brain would lock up as sputtering noises started to erupt from you as it became impossible to prioritize what needed yelling at first.

Ahahaha. Yeah, generally, if I'm reading ACD canon stories, I'm reading stuff that I'd be ashamed to admit I'm reading. *cough* (Look, there are sections of it that line up with my collection of a certain type of Victorian and Edwardian book.)

If I'm reading BBC stories, I'm most like to fly off the handle at people who assume that a cocaine overdose is just like a heroin one. Poor drug research is my biggest irritation there.

I'm reading stuff that I'd be ashamed to admit I'm reading

t raises eyebrow Given what you admit to reading (and writing), I find this hard to believe.

a certain type of Victorian and Edwardian book.

Would the author be "Anonymous"? Would the most famous title be the nacreous byproduct of a bivalve's irritation?

Oh, there's a LOT of stuff I don't admit to reading. Or writing.

Would the author be "Anonymous"? Would the most famous title be the nacreous byproduct of a bivalve's irritation?

I always thought that was properly capitalized as a Certain Type of Victorian and Edwardian book.

You know, Theoretically Speaking.

Yeah, but still wrong about the original Scandal.

Social context was not as simple as outlined in your post. Lillie Langtry and Lola Montez were both popular with some segments of the population. And the problematic nature of Victorian double standards was part of Victorian popular consciousness, enough so that The Importance of Being Ernest included a shot in passing at this theme having become a cliche in popular melodrama. Also, King Ludwig of Bavaria, upon whom the "King of Bohemia" was probably based was far from a well regarded figure.

Further, when Scandal opens with Irene Adler always being "The Woman", there is at least a hint that the ultimate evaluation of her is not going to be negative. Of course the phrase "The Woman" can be taken many ways, not all of them complimentary, so it is only a hint.

But I think the interpretation most supported by the text, is that the opening scene where Irene Adler is described as an "Adventuress" and will to destroy the future marriage of royalty is supposed to read as you read it - as a courtesan undermining the future of Europe. But even at this stage there are (far from overwhelming) hints to the contrary. But it is pretty core to Sherlock that by the end of most (probably all) stories things prove not to be what they seemed at the beginning.

And by the end of this story it seems overwhelming that really Irene was a good woman threatened by an evil king, giving a nice reverse twist to the ending. A nice an unexpected twist According to her note, she did not know the clergyman was really Sherlock until after she had shown considerable kindness. And she was threatened by the King rather than the other way around. The note would be kept in the future only in self-defense, and there was no reason to think it had been kept for any other purpose in the past, though the note does not explicitly say that. Should be believe her? According to every source we are given we should.

"On the contrary, my dear sir," cried the King; "nothing could be more successful. I know that her word is inviolate..."

Now word being inviolate is not the same as never lying when word is not given. But we've seen the King lie extensively. So at this point the Kings own words are reason to take her word over his. Further (also from the king) "What a woman -- oh, what a woman!...Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen?" So the King thinks, even aside from her word being good that she awesome with awesome sauce. And Sherlock has the same opinion:

King: "Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?"

"From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly

Further, Holmes takes a photograph of Irene Adler as something more valuable than an expensive ring. And from then on:

He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of The Woman.

Watson pretty clearly agrees with Holmes, if you want a third witness. And a clever Solicitor (a profession difficult to fool by Victorian conventional wisdom) is who finally falls in love with her, if you want a fourth witness.

So yes, at the beginning, the story sets low expectations for Irene Adler based upon her being an "adventuress", euphemism for "courtesan", "mistress" or worse. But the Victorianism of the day already included substantial questioning of the conventional wisdom that "courtesan" equaled "wicked", and quite clearly the story played to that questioning by reversing the situation so that at the end the King was a douchebag threatening a good woman who (probably) was a courtesan. Irene's notes says this. The two most reliable witness Holmes and Watson believe her. The King 90% admits this. Short of the story being written in Author Omnipotent, I don't see how we could get better evidence.

The text supports other interpretations, but much (continued...)

( continues...) more weakly.