Offline
Vhanja wrote:
John Watson went to war.
Please let us not equal soldiers and assassins here.
Offline
Though for at least part of the time, she was working for the CIA.
Offline
Assassins are often soldiers. My suspicion is that Mary's freelance work wasn't as freelance as we might think.
Offline
Ah-chie wrote:
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".
I don't think you need to be worried about the 'applecart' (never heard that expression before, is it Canadian? What's the full expression?). Moftiss have said quite a few times that they love the originals.
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
....
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.
The difference is the reason. It's that simple.
Offline
silverblaze wrote:
Assassins are often soldiers.
But soldiers are not often assassins.
silverblaze wrote:
My suspicion is that Mary's freelance work wasn't as freelance as we might think.
I think that this would be too easy a way to solve the moral dilemma that makes Mary interesting. She is a "bad girl" according to Magnussen and has done things that will most likely make John stop loving her. Given what we know about John, that must be something really really bad.
Last edited by Schmiezi (December 21, 2014 8:35 pm)
Offline
Moral dilemma?
Sherlock murdered a guy.
Offline
silverblaze wrote:
Ah-chie wrote:
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".
I don't think you need to be worried about the 'applecart' (never heard that expression before, is it Canadian? What's the full expression?). Moftiss have said quite a few times that they love the originals.
I don't know if "Don't upset the applecart" is Canadian or not, but I have used it all my life (and I am 60 years old) and I guess I heard my mother say it a lot too (so she must have heard it from someone in her era). It must be an old expression...
-Val
Offline
besleybean wrote:
Moral dilemma?
Sherlock murdered a guy.
I was referrng to Mary. But you have a good point here, bb. John, Sherlock and Mary have killed at least once. Still, I have no problem with saying that Sherlock and John are moral, honourable characters because of WHY they killed.
Offline
I think equating Sherlock and John with assassins would be very much against the essence of Canon. I really do not see Steven and Mark taking that road.
Offline
I'm sure it's of great comfort to CAM that he was killed for honourable reasons!
Last edited by besleybean (December 21, 2014 8:45 pm)
Offline
As it was for Milverton, I suppose.
Offline
I think in-show morality is slightly different from the real world, because of the fantasy/story element. For instance, I'd see Sherlock torturing the CIA guy as despicable in real life, but I'm quite happy with it in the show. So I can accept that in the show it's possible that Mary could be morally OK or reformed (although I don't think this is shown well at all in S3. It's as if her redeeming features are supposed to be that she was great before we knew the truth - but I think she needs to be redeemed after us knowing the truth).
Offline
Good point.
And of course I know that the rules of fiction may differ from those in real life but for me she does not work as a character within the show. So I agree with you there.
Offline
Yes, and although I think it's possible that her motives could be good rather than bad, we haven't actually been given any proper motives yet.
Offline
Mattlocked wrote:
The difference is the reason. It's that simple.
If Mary worked for the CIA (and wanted to kill Magnussen) she was hired to take out criminals. That is heavily implied in her own saying.
John shot the cabbie, Sherlock tortured him in his dying moments for his own curiousity and later shot Magnussen in cold blood. And lord only knows what Mycroft has done, although without dirtying his own hands. ("I regret to say that we have people that will be able to extract that code from you").
I don't think any of these reasons are better or worse than the other.
Of course, we don't know it all. Mary may have done some really horrible things that can't be defended by anything. I am just saying that we shouldn't put Sherlock (or John) on a pedastal either. As he puts it - he might be on the side of the angels, but he is not one of them.
Last edited by Vhanja (December 21, 2014 10:43 pm)
Offline
Are you sure that is what the CIA does? Do some research
Offline
If a criminal like Magnussen calls her a "bad girl" she surely did not just do her job. She went freelance, we are told, meaning she killed for money or other reasons tha killing "bad people" who "deserved it". When John would stop loving her, she must have been worse than being a CIA assassin (which is bad enough in itself).
We heard that the person who shot the cabbie had "strong moral principles".
This is what we are told in the show, not my interpretation.
Last edited by SusiGo (December 21, 2014 10:46 pm)
Offline
But what about Sherlock torturing the cabbie? Was that of the same moral principles as the one John has?
Offline
This is indeed a dark moment regarding Sherlock. But it is at the very beginning of his journey, of a great man becoming a good man as well. This is before John becomes his moral compass. This is not the Sherlock we see in the later episodes.