I just came across this blog article by Jaime Grover about Sherlock’s Molly Hooper character and I agree wholeheartedly with her insight into the only character in BBC’s Sherlock that’s not actually in the original books.
“There are so many different types of women in the world that a character like Molly’s against the often more prominent powerhouse females is like a breath of fresh air. ” Read more at http://whatculture.com/tv/sherlocks-molly-hooper-the-woman-that-counts.php#PYEqSB36lkBdwMyL.99
I mean, pitted against a woman like Irene Adler, oozing with sexuality and self-confidence, Molly seemed like an insignificant little character who’s a step above a prop to move the story forward. But Louise Brealey played the character so brilliantly that the creators of the show had no choice but to allow her to continue developing the Molly character. And develop her, she did.
In the first season, we see her wear her heart on her white lab coat sleeves. Time and time again Sherlock humiliates her but she doesn’t balk and stay away. If “friends-when-he-needs-her” is the only role required of her by Sherlock, then that’s what she will be. My feminist self feels for her sometimes but I’ve got to admit, for the most part of my own life, I am a Molly Hooper.
The only difference is that I don’t have the guts she showed in Season 2. In a heartbreaking scene when Sherlock humiliated her in front of everybody, she showed grace and honesty that made Sherlock feel like a cad he is. And in that final episode, Riechenbach Fall, Molly was the unflinchingly mirror to Sherlock’s inner self. I would have been intimidated by the man, but Molly has had enough and had to say her piece.
Molly became one of my favorite characters in Sherlock. I like her better than Irene and somehow, she’s now more interesting to me than the femme fatale who stole Sherlock’s heart. Molly’s not your regular Mary Sue, though she could’ve been. The character is ever evolving and I hope in season 3, she gets to kick ass with Sherlock and Watson.