Well I've read it all.
Plus 2 of the volumes twice and one of them onto a 3rd time...
I just don't retain what I've read,.

Last edited by besleybean (December 21, 2014 3:07 pm)

Possibly we retain the ones that interest us, but I agree with you on The Lion's Mane!

Last edited by besleybean (December 21, 2014 3:21 pm)

It just made me feel really intelligent because I guessed it ages before Holmes did. But to his defense, he was quite old at that time and so was his author. It probably would've been a clever twist if you hadn't guessed it. 

Since I am new to this forum and haven't had a chance to comment on a lot of items I'm going to swing this around back to the original intent of this thread... thoughts about Mary.

I had aprehensions about introducing a character like Mary into the Sherlock/John universe.  She could have been something very wrong for their partnership.  But she was really well written and initially established in TEH as someone who liked Sherlock a lot.  She saw the bond that was between them and wanted to keep the "Gruesome Twosome" connected, I think.

We didn't know it at the time she was first introduced but she actually is a kindred spirit of Sherlock.  Both of them love John.  And both of them are much darker than they first appear.  I don't mind that at all.  By the time we see her in HLV a more clearer picture of the depth of her personality is finally revelled - mind you, I said a more clearer picture... not the total picture.  She has great intelligence (which Sherlock admires), she is determined in her love of John (as is Sherlock) and she can be deadly when she reasons it is needed to combat what she fears (again just like Sherlock).  

Sherlock is genuine in his description of the reasons why John chose Mary as his wife.  John is attracted to people like her (and Sherlock).  It's who he is.  Right from the get-go. ""And I said 'dangerous,' and here you are." 

Sherlock sums the proof of why Mary is in his life so neatly in HLV:

" You were a doctor who went to war...  You’re a man who couldn’t stay in the suburbs for more than a month without storming a crack den and beating up a junkie. Your best friend is a sociopath who solves crimes as an alternative to getting high... That’s me, by the way... Hello... John, you are addicted to a certain lifestyle. You’re abnormally attracted to dangerous situations and people ... so is it truly such a surprise that the woman you’ve fallen in love with conforms to that pattern?"

Now, if it turns out she is sinister in Season/Series 4 (which I haven't seen thus far even with the shooting in HLV) I might have to re-evaluate Mary. 

But from what I have seen of her I still like her a lot. 

John loves her (and Mary loves John).  Sherlock trusts her and she knows that Sherlock loves John.  Mary is not a divisive character to me (I admit she may be to some - just not to me). 

If she ever was written to be a divisive character (not to the viewers' perceptions - I am talking about her as a character in the stories as someone who purposely is written to drive a wedge between Sherlock and John) I probably would have to have her disposed of in the course of Season 4 (like I have a propensity to do to any Baby Watson because I feel that introduction would be terribly divisive).

But for now as it stands my thoughts on Mary (as a character and "person" in the unique Holmes Universe) are very positive.

-Val

besleybean wrote:

yes and I think in those days readers would be less aware of the natural world!

Yes, that's what I thought too. 

@ Ah chi: I kinda agree with you there on Mary but I actually don't think a 'divisive' character is a bad idea. It could provide good conflict. 

@silverblaze : I actually love divisive characters too (looking at it from a story POV) I just don't think they should be permanent fixtures that actually live with the protagonists (a little too close fo use the dramatic tension properly IMO).  They are better at a distance (or in the background) and only do their direct "divisiveness" when called upon to heighten the stress levels (of both the viewers and the plot).

And divisive characters do need to be eliminated eventually.  Or else they become trite, don't you think?

-Val

People in the unknown universe worry about that attitude.

silverblaze wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

I think one has to distinguish between a divisive character within the show and beyond.
 

I agree. I was referring to within the show, not within the fandom. But to react to the fandom part: I don't think the writers should have the fandom in mind while creating characters. The fandom is only a tiny minority of their viewers. They should just write whatever they feel is right. Honestly, I find some reactions to Mary very immature but that's the fandom's problem and not the Moftiss' problem. 

About divisive characters: I suppose I agree with A-chie that you can't have a divisive character permanently because then you'd just get a new balance and the shock effect is gone. I don't think divisive characters need to be eliminated per se, depends on the story, sometimes the new balance is better. It's hard to speak about those things in general terms, it really depends on the type of story and how it's executed. 

So to get more specific: people have said that Mary does terrible things for their dynamic and I just don't see how. I like the fact that they changed it a bit; the friendship has deepened, the dynamic is fresh again. It was the right time to change tone and style in the third season. Some people prefer to keep things the same, only change the baddies, nothing else, but I think Moftiss understand very well that that doesn't work for a series with these kinds of episode arcs. The fact that we now have discussions about Mary and the baby reflects that. We know they will turn things upside down again at some point. I think their main risk is that they will get bigger and bigger every time until every episode is about saving the world or the known universe. 

Your first paragraph - totally agree!  When I said I didn't find Mary a divisive character I was speaking of her as a character within the show.  That's the only kind of divisiveness that concerns me.

As for various divisiveness among fans concerning Mary I kind of live by the credo scribed in an old "Frasier" episode (Author, Author) "... the mark of a pure man is that one realizes he can't control his circumstances, he can only control his responses."  Difficult to do I acknowledge, but something to keep in mind at all times as far as I am concerned.  Hopefully most people on forums try to control their responses rather than the circumstances too.

Any character has the potential to be divisive in fandom.  Granted some more than others. But the writers responsibility isn't to do things to make the fandom harmonious, it is to make the best story they know how.  

I also don't see how the introduction of Mary has ruined any dynamic between Sherlock and John.  At least it hasn't for me.  Certain fans' reactions to Mary and the resulting divisive ripples through fan boards... that really is their problem.  

When you said: "I like the fact that they changed it a bit; the friendship has deepened, the dynamic is fresh again. It was the right time to change tone and style in the third season. Some people prefer to keep things the same, only change the baddies, nothing else, but I think Moftiss understand very well that that doesn't work for a series with these kinds of episode arcs." 

I replied "Yes, yes, yes!"  

And further, my apprehension about Baby Watson's appearance is probably rooted in the fear that that sort of change is akin to the kind of a shake-up that is too big to fit the format of the show.  But again it all depends on the writing and so I await until I actually see the episodes to make a definitive judgement as to whether it upset the "applecart".

-Val

 

SusiGo wrote:

My problem with Mary within the show is quite simple - Sherlock Holmes and by extension Dr Watson have always been characters with deep moral principles. Of course they make decisions that on the surface may be morally grey like letting someone get away with killing a bad person, e.g. Milverton, but basically they have been at least on the side of the angels. 
 

Well, as Mary said "People like Magnussen needs to be killed, that's why there are people like me." 

And who ended up shooting Magnussen in the end?

John Watson went to war. Sherlock killed an unarmed man in cold blood (and tortured a dying man for a name out of nothing more than curiousity). Mary was an assasin. I am not sure any of these are any better than any of the others.
 

Last edited by Vhanja (December 21, 2014 8:11 pm)

@SusiGo : I appreciate you have a perspective on her character that differs greatly from mine.  And I can see that this affects you profoundly (when it comes to the show).

For me I don't see any change in the direction of the show in any fundamental way with Season/Series 3.  I see growth and added dimensions to what we have experienced in the past.  But then everyone's different and I can accept that.

-Val