Just that it hints that she is worthy of respect on some level. In Victorian times, describing someone as an "adventuress" by conventional wisdom was not a compliment. Referring to her as "The Woman" at the beginning was a hint that this might be 100% right. Not proof. Just a bit of foreshadowing.

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.

"As to the photograph, your client may rest in peace. I love and am loved by a better man than he. The King may do what he will without hindrance from one whom he has cruelly wronged."

I find it hard to read that without thinking that she had plans for the photo that she scrapped after getting a better offer. If he'd wanted her dead and gone and out of the way, which is really the only threat I can see that she'd have been worried about, given the givens, he'd have sent assassins after her instead of retrieval experts.

As for the clergyman, before knowing he was Holmes, he *CAME TO HER DEFENSE* when a fight had broken out around her. And then, when asked if he could be brought in, she brought him in. Basic courtesy and all.

Plus, hell, you can be kind and still scheme. These are not mutually exclusive, Watson's lens aside.

Again, not just Watson, but Holmes seems to disagree with you. And yes we have very imperfect evidence. But I'd take it as evidence of kindness over not. as to what she intended with the photograph. She had it a long time without using it. Absent any evidence but the King's opinion, why belief she had plans for it? And he could not send assasins while the photo might turn up after death. Who knows what orders the burglars he hired before Holmes had once they found the photo? Anyway you don't have to believe he would do that. You just have to believe that she, knowing him, feared the possibility. Or maybe he would have her framed for some crime, or declared insane and put away. All sorts of possibilities, none of them much good until he had the photograph.

Anyway you don't have to believe he would do that. You just have to believe that she, knowing him, feared the possibility. Or maybe he would have her framed for some crime, or declared insane and put away. All sorts of possibilities, none of them much good until he had the photograph.

Doubtful. He's not that clever. Plus, generally speaking, such things are more difficult and have too many moving pieces, especially with no legal connection and her in another country.

But I'd take it as evidence of kindness over not. as to what she intended with the photograph. She had it a long time without using it.

Dude, he'd only just decided to get engaged to his uptight bride. Why would she use it when there was still a possibility that he'd have given her a title, or married her, or whatever it was she felt he should have done that he didn't, seeing as she was cruelly wronged?

Again, not just Watson, but Holmes seems to disagree with you.

Holmes finds her clever and amusing, and admires that she defeated him (arguably with a head start, mind). No doubt there. Not seeing how this goes against my reading, which I've said has the truth somewhere in the grey zone of he said, she said.

The original canon Irene Adler is all mixed up in my head with Carol Nelson Douglas' books about the character, the recent movie version, and now the Sherlock version. Even as I'm rereading the story, my minds pulling in allusions that Doyle never intended, given that they lead to writings from 2,000 or so.

I was at the bookstore last night, and the woman who rang me up was reading this: The House of Silk, by Anthony Horowitz. He was apparently commissioned by the ACD estate to write this new Holmes novel.

Calli, the showrunners have said that they consider all previous incarnations are part of their source material (c.f.--Mycroft), so you're not off-base there.

(c.f.--Mycroft)

What source material besides Doyle did they use for Mycroft?

They cite Christopher Lee's portrayal.

Calli, the showrunners have said that they consider all previous incarnations are part of their source material (c.f.--Mycroft), so you're not off-base there.

Wow. That's a lot of incarnations. Heck, Gaiman just wrote a Holmesian short story a couple of months ago and, as Amy mentioned, they're even putting out new novels. Still, more power to the showrunners.

I wonder--can anyone else think of a Victorian literary work that's been worked, reworked, and expanded upon the way Doyle's Holmes stories have? Maybe Dracula, but that had a folktale base going in that Holmes doesn't. (Maybe I should take this question to Natter.)