Really? I'm asking this quite sincerely, as I thought that Moffat had considerable creative input into the show, and considerable influence over its direction. Also, at least in the UK, Moffat frequently seems to speak for Gatiss and Vertue when discussing the show.

I see what you mean, and those are fair points. However, "Sherlock" seems to be positioning itself away from "a detective show" to "a show about a detective" (Moffat/Gatiss said this, I believe), so I tend to register criticisms of stale/inconsistent/problematic character dynamics, even if they are mis-ascribed.

Um. You're being facetious, yes? By that reasoning, I might as well ask you if you dislike this reviewer's comments because she's female.

I think that this review contains perfectly valid criticisms. Its grade is generous, if anything- I personally loathed this episode's preciosity and its idolatry of its cruel, preening twerp of a hero.

Very nice!

I largely agree, but it isn't all bad. I don't know if I can offer something comparable to 'Mad Men', but I think there's interesting genre and comedy stuff coming out of Britain.
'Black Mirror'? 'The Office'?, 'Misfits' had truly sublime moments. 'Nathan Barley'? 'The IT Crowd'? 'Peep Show'?

Hmm, my earlier response to your post is being moderated for no doubt excellent reasons, so this may appear twice. Anyway:
I agree with everything you've said, but my overall impression is more favourable, I think, because even if Mary was a femme fatale, she was one without a gratuitously titillating past profession,…

True. I don't care for either writer at this point, of course…

I am thinking that Mofftiss couldn't be arsed to come up with something, and were thinking of using the hiatus to "craft" a "backstory" for Mary i.e. make her some sort of Benjamin Button ninja who still manages to trip over her feet when Sherlock/John needs propping up.

I agree with everything that you've said, and it's all ghastly, but somehow my overall reaction was one of-gratitude, I guess? yes, Mary Morstan's a femme fatale, but she's one with a previous job that wasn't pointlessly titillating, and she didn't seem to be entirely bewitched by Sherlock or John. Yes, she wanted to…

Interesting. I've always thought of River Song as a series of mannerisms rather than a character, whereas Mary genuinely seemed to have some sort of agenda. I thought that Irene Adler was a rehash of River Song: a supposedly brainy, strong female character ultimately shown to be completely in thrall to the hero.

Oh, THAT'S what that was! I never got that.

Oo, that hadn't occurred to me. Maybe my bile at the reveal was premature. If this theory is correct, or if it's actually Moran that we met before, rather than Moriarty, then that could be interesting.

I liked the second episode of Series Two better than I liked the first episode, because I hated, hated, haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated the show's take on Irene Adler.

I'd agree with this review, although I might give the series a SLIGHTLY lower grade. My emotional reaction to it is still considerably warmer than it was to Series Two, not least because of Mary. Huzzah, a female character with an agenda and apparent inner life!

I have to agree. I loathed the first episode with a white-hot rage.

Yeah, I'd go with the B+ too.

Happy birthday, Rowan!
Re: the episode, it's interesting. I see what you're saying, and I largely agree, but there was something so on-the-nose about both Rudy's Freudian "Where we love, we do not desire" response, and Alex's showdown with the Osmotic hugger, that it took away points for me. And while Rudy may no…

(shifts uncomfortably) that sounds like a rather crushing indictment of modern intellectuals.

Heh. Chaps, do you really think that it's only racists who turn their noses up at the festival of stalking, deceit, manipulation and selfishness that is the Olivia/Fitz "relationship"?