BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » How Mary could have shot Sherlock and everyone forgave her for it

Willow · February 11, 2014 12:19 pm

I find it exceedingly improbable that a couple who are living together should do all of their wedding planning in someone else's home; particularly when that person hates people messing up his stuff.

Dispatching Sherlock out of his home gives an excellent opportunity to search it...

Tinks · February 11, 2014 12:42 pm

Willow wrote:
I find it exceedingly improbable that a couple who are living together should do all of their wedding planning in someone else's home; particularly when that person hates people messing up his stuff.

Dispatching Sherlock out of his home gives an excellent opportunity to search it...

Yes, it could've just been for ease of filming that they shot the scene there, but given what happened afterwards, you do doubt everything that happened before the shooting.
Mary is so worried about Sherlock being scared of the impending wedding that she sends John off to spend time with him, yet after the shooting, she's incredibly snarky and cold towards Sherlock, for the most part.

I can't figure out what she may have been looking for, though, if she searched his home?

Last edited by Tinks (February 11, 2014 12:44 pm)

February 11, 2014 12:44 pm

Yes, I honestly doubt that she likes him. I don't trust her. She has been an assassin who probably (as far as we know) killed for money. Who likes Sherlock at first sight? Practically nobody. And why would she like him after she learned minutes ago that he played a deception with John whom she is supposed to love. And, yes I think it is also improbable that she wants to include Sherlock. With this odd personality? What happens in real life is that the girlfriend of a person's best friend wants to spend the time with her boyfriend and not with the third wheel. If everything works well the third person can be included from time to time but a triangle is very improbable. If Sherlock had a girlfriend the situation would be different. See what Janine said about meeting for dinner. There are four people then, two couples are what works for the most people. At least I am very suspiscious when somebody acts against the balance of probability.

And I don't believe that she is actually an orphan. We don't know much about her. What we know is that CAM mentioned the family. "Wish your family could see that" or "could have seen that". What's the actual quote?
Is there a possibility that she has a family and that this family wouldn't approve of her marriage? A subtle threat there in the telegram?

ancientsgate · February 11, 2014 12:45 pm

Willow wrote:
I find it exceedingly improbable that a couple who are living together should do all of their wedding planning in someone else's home; particularly when that person hates people messing up his stuff.....

Well, when you get right down to it, the whole darned show is improbable, so where do we start? As my husband likes to say, when I point out something that makes no sense, in a show filled with things that make no sense, is that the only thing you question about this show? *smile*

I just finished watching 3.3 again-- I've seen my fave parts several times now and have watched all the way through 3 times, and I'm STILL hearing new dialogue and noticing new things, every time I watch. It seems as though almost every line of almost every scene has hidden depths built right into them; no wonder we're still discussing everything.

But this last time through 3.3, it struck me all over again-- I believe the answer to this thread's original question, how could Sherlock and John have forgiven Mary, is quite simply: they love her. Easy to say, but there are hidden depths even in that simple statement-- love, a little four-letter word that explains so much of human behavior, both good and evil. Inexplicably, in spite of everything, they love her, and the three of them have formed a tight little band of psycopathic misfits. John has killed to protect Sherlock, and now Sherlock has killed to protect Mary (and John). And all because, simply put, he loves them both.

ancientsgate · February 11, 2014 12:51 pm

Be wrote:
.....There are four people then, two couples are what works for the most people. At least I am very suspiscious when somebody acts against the balance of probability......

Well, one thing we can say with utmost certainly, S, J and M [both M's-- both Mary and Mycroft] are not "most people". And the whole entire show has been filled with things that make good entertainment, but based in reality? I don't see much reality. I mean, it's all couched in reality (tea must be made, cabbies must be paid, showers must be taken and clothes changed once in a while, etc) but there are lots of things that happen in every episode that are far, far removed from what "most people" have ever experienced or ever would.

February 11, 2014 12:53 pm

I am more and more uncomfortable here with this new Sherlock who apparently killed CAM for sentimental reasons. Who is this Sherlock anyway?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is wrong? (John's quote, btw)

Willow · February 11, 2014 12:54 pm

Tinks wrote:
Willow wrote:
I find it exceedingly improbable that a couple who are living together should do all of their wedding planning in someone else's home; particularly when that person hates people messing up his stuff.

Dispatching Sherlock out of his home gives an excellent opportunity to search it...

Yes, it could've just been for ease of filming that they shot the scene there, but given what happened afterwards, you do doubt everything that happened before the shooting.
Mary is so worried about Sherlock being scared of the impending wedding that she sends John off to spend time with him, yet after the shooting, she's incredibly snarky and cold towards Sherlock, for the most part.

I can figure what she may have been looking for, though, if she searched his home?

I don't think that they would have set it there, rather than the Watson home which we saw in the short film, and then the beginning of HLV, without there being a reason for it; it is so very unusual that there must be something within the plot to account for it.

The most obvious explanation is that she wanted access to Sherlock's stuff, and that was the easiest way of achieving it; you are right to note that her behaviour towards him was unpleasant right up to the point where he is due to depart forever, whereupon she's nice to him.

Mixed messages, I grant you

Tinks · February 11, 2014 12:55 pm

I think the telegram was CAM reminding her of the hold he has over her.
That was actually a big big miss by Sherlock, that he didn't pick up on that message.

I suppose it could be argued by the writers that she liked Sherlock because he's similar to her, but that really doesn't work for me, I don't think they're similar at all, and HLV showed just how different they are.
But yes, even her reaction when Sherlock first returns is odd - certainly she doesn't seem surprised.

February 11, 2014 12:56 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
Be wrote:
.....There are four people then, two couples are what works for the most people. At least I am very suspiscious when somebody acts against the balance of probability......
Well, one thing we can say with utmost certainly, S, J and M [both M's-- both Mary and Mycroft] are not "most people". And the whole entire show has been filled with things that make good entertainment, but based in reality? I don't see much reality. I mean, it's all couched in reality (tea must be made, cabbies must be paid, showers must be taken and clothes changed once in a while, etc) but there are lots of things that happen in every episode that are far, far removed from what "most people" have ever experienced or ever would.

You are right.

Tinks · February 11, 2014 1:02 pm

Be wrote:
I am more and more uncomfortable here with this new Sherlock who apparently killed CAM for sentimental reasons. Who is this Sherlock anyway?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is wrong? (John's quote, btw)

I'm not so uncomfortable with this because I think ACD's Sherlock may well have done the same thing if necessary.
And it wasn't just sentiment; CAM was threatening Mary's safety. Mycroft was about to be ruined for being so careless with state secrets: it really was Sherlock's only way out. If he could've got real physical files from CAM, it might've been different.

Tinks · February 11, 2014 1:05 pm

Willow wrote:
Tinks wrote:
Willow wrote:
I find it exceedingly improbable that a couple who are living together should do all of their wedding planning in someone else's home; particularly when that person hates people messing up his stuff.

Dispatching Sherlock out of his home gives an excellent opportunity to search it...

Yes, it could've just been for ease of filming that they shot the scene there, but given what happened afterwards, you do doubt everything that happened before the shooting.
Mary is so worried about Sherlock being scared of the impending wedding that she sends John off to spend time with him, yet after the shooting, she's incredibly snarky and cold towards Sherlock, for the most part.

I can figure what she may have been looking for, though, if she searched his home?
I don't think that they would have set it there, rather than the Watson home which we saw in the short film, and then the beginning of HLV, without there being a reason for it; it is so very unusual that there must be something within the plot to account for it.

The most obvious explanation is that she wanted access to Sherlock's stuff, and that was the easiest way of achieving it; you are right to note that her behaviour towards him was unpleasant right up to the point where he is due to depart forever, whereupon she's nice to him.

Mixed messages, I grant you

Well this is certainly one of those shows that seems not to believe in coincidence - most things that happen, do so for a reason so it's not improbable that Mary was up to something when she sent them out!

ancientsgate · February 11, 2014 1:22 pm

Be wrote:
I am more and more uncomfortable here with this new Sherlock who apparently killed CAM for sentimental reasons. Who is this Sherlock anyway? Am I the only one who thinks that this is wrong? (John's quote, btw)

I think he killed him to protect the Queen's interests as well. CAM was a dangerous, evil, disgusting creep of an excuse of a man, and Sherlock hates....messiness. Anyone that would come into a home and take a piss in the fireplace, and then clean his hands on a wipe and throw the cloth on the floor, not to mention all the other repulsive things CAM did and was, well... I think Sherlock was pretty sure he was justified in killing him. In that scene at Appledore, while John was being flicked, and then in the wash of the helicopter with Mycroft screaming over the megaphone (doesn't M have minions to do things like screaming?), you can sit there and watch Sherlock thinking.... thinking.... thinking.... debating about whether to do it or not. I didn't see any evidence of sentiment, in spite of what Sherlock told John about how now Mary would be okay. The whole damned world was now OK, now that that repulsive snake of an excuse for a human being was gone.

Willow · February 11, 2014 1:24 pm

Be wrote:
I am more and more uncomfortable here with this new Sherlock who apparently killed CAM for sentimental reasons. Who is this Sherlock anyway?
Am I the only one who thinks that this is wrong? (John's quote, btw)

I really don't think that Sherlock shot CAM for sentimental reasons; he had failed his client Lady Smallwood, and he had profoundly miscalculated CAM, thus handing him Mycroft on a platter. Sherlock may be egotistical but he has a very clear view that his brother is essential to all that he holds dear; at that point he is confronted with a choice. He can allow CAM to continue, with the most powerful man in the country either in his pocket or forced to resign, or he can kill him.

He chose the latter, but he was prepared to pay for it with his life; still wrong but his willingness to pay that price makes it rather less wrong than it might otherwise have been...

February 11, 2014 1:41 pm

I am there on Mycroft's side. CAM is evil and I don't like him. He is a blackmailer and disgusting. He needed to be brought to justice. But properly. What did he actually do? He didn't kill anybody. He is not a murderer. Surely you don't think that a person can be shot because he is a blackmailer or licks or flicks or pees somewhere inappropriate, do you.
A victim needed to talk to the police. Lady Smallwood could have gone to the police after her husband killed himself and Mary should have owned up and talked to the police and maybe other victims of CAM's would have come out and there would habe been more evidence about the extent of CAM's blackmail.
But then that is probably too boring.

Tinks · February 11, 2014 1:45 pm

^^ this raises another question for me.
And that is: how Mycroft got it so badly wrong about CAM?
He said he was harmless yet he was actually a direct threat to Mycroft himself.
Was Mycroft playing down his importance to keep Sherlock away from him, and protect Sherlock?
I'd hate to think he was deliberately manipulating Sherlock into doing his dirty work for him as this wouldn't go at all with the picture I have of him!
Yet that scene between Mycroft and Sherlock at their parents' house seemed to be loaded with hidden meaning.

Last edited by Tinks (February 11, 2014 1:46 pm)

February 11, 2014 1:50 pm

Mycroft didn't say he was harmless. Maybe he was just down playing because he didn't want Sherlock to fight the dragon.

Tinks · February 11, 2014 1:58 pm

Be wrote:
Mycroft didn't say he was harmless. Maybe he was just down playing because he didn't want Sherlock to fight the dragon.

He said something like "he doesn't cause too much harm" - I'd like to think he goes on to play it down to try and keep Sherlock away from him - BUT Sherlock rarely does what Mycroft tells him to do, plus, was Mycroft deliberately planting the dragon slayer idea into his head?
Then the line about not wanting to lose Sherlock - I want him to mean this BUT, Sherlock reacts to people showing him affection, so could this be Mycroft manipulating Sherlock into going off and doing what he needed to do to protect both Mary AND Mycroft?
I'm probably (hopefully) just overthinking now, though!

Last edited by Tinks (February 11, 2014 1:59 pm)

ancientsgate · February 11, 2014 2:16 pm

Be wrote:
I am there on Mycroft's side. CAM is evil and I don't like him. He is a blackmailer and disgusting. He needed to be brought to justice. But properly. What did he actually do? He didn't kill anybody. He is not a murderer. Surely you don't think that a person can be shot because he is a blackmailer or licks or flicks or pees somewhere inappropriate, do you.

Well, I think Sherlock killed the total package. No, not just someone who flicks and licks faces or pees inappropriately, but someone who was a real danger to national security (ie, Mycroft), the public at large, and to the indivdiuals Sherlock cared about. What did CAM say? That Sherlock was Mycroft's weak point, John was Sherlock's, and Mary was John's, and that CAM owned both Mycroft and Mary. Sherlock has a history of drama queen stuff, when it comes to protecting his loved ones, after all. And if he had to shoot a scurvy dog of a human being, in order to wipe out the threat he represented, apparently sherlock thought that was valid, both short and long term. Not something you or I or anyone we know would do, and not something that's acceptable in real life, but this works, as a fictional piece of entertainment.

Last edited by ancientsgate (February 11, 2014 2:16 pm)

ancientsgate · February 11, 2014 2:26 pm

Be wrote:
Mycroft didn't say he was harmless. Maybe he was just down playing because he didn't want Sherlock to fight the dragon.

Ah. This rings true with me. As Mycroft said, if Sherlock died, he would be heart-broken. In spite of their best efforts to pretend otherwise [as though they'd been raised by wolves on the Arctic tundra or something], it seems that both S and M were raised right, by good, caring people. They know right from wrong, and they DO give a fig about others, not just themselves and their own interests. But having said all that, Mycroft of all people would know that trying to protect Sherlock would be nigh on impossible. Sherlock had always been a stupid little boy, and Mycroft had always had to protect him and straighten him out when Mummy got very cross.... and sibling rivalry being what it is (they don't call it sibling rivalry for nothin'), well, they haven't completely shed their old roles, either of them.

We know that all drunks and drug addicts pretty much stop their emotional growth at the age when they started using. I don't know when Sherlock first shot up, but if it were early enough, it's possible that in spite of his chronological age, he's still about 15 between his ears, and he's got a whole lot of catching up to do, emotionally. Hmmm. Interesting to think about, anyway.

Last edited by ancientsgate (February 11, 2014 2:29 pm)

Willow · February 11, 2014 2:32 pm

Be wrote:
I am there on Mycroft's side. CAM is evil and I don't like him. He is a blackmailer and disgusting. He needed to be brought to justice. But properly. What did he actually do? He didn't kill anybody. He is not a murderer. Surely you don't think that a person can be shot because he is a blackmailer or licks or flicks or pees somewhere inappropriate, do you.
A victim needed to talk to the police. Lady Smallwood could have gone to the police after her husband killed himself and Mary should have owned up and talked to the police and maybe other victims of CAM's would have come out and there would habe been more evidence about the extent of CAM's blackmail.
But then that is probably too boring.

I share your view that we undermine justice at our own peril; the most we can say for sure about CAM's behaviour is that he was happy to have someone kidnapped and placed inside a bonfire which was about to be lit. Admittedly, my own personal experience of being trapped in a room with a fire being fed by pure oxygen may be colouring my judgement here; I really don't like the idea of someone being burned alive.

I regard his claim that he had people on hand to haul John out of the fire as almost as implausible as Mary's claim to have shot Sherlock because she loved John.

So, we are left with trying to put together evidence which would lead to a successful trial; I agree entirely that Mary might have been able to provide that evidence but Mary doesn't do things for other people; she does things for herself. Lady Smallwood has no record of her conversations with CAM; it is her word against his, and criminal trials require evidence 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Which brings us back to square one...