Swanpride wrote:

To me feminism is not about having a string of perfect females, or a certain ratio of females in every show. It is about allowing a myriad of different females gracing out screen, of them being more than just props but being treated with respect, and having shows which turn the ratio around and focus more on female than male characters. And my blog is not about complaining, it is about celebrating progress in this regard. Mary, weather you like the take or not, is a progress.  

I see your point and I respect it if it works for you.

Unfortunately, for me it would never work in a similar way.

I´m that strange person who actually wants to see more of Sherlock Holmes when I sit down to watch the show called "Sherlock". Just as I would want to see more of Mozart if I watched the movie "Amadeus" and more of Jane Eyre, if I watched "Jane Eyre". I care more about the content of the story and the characterisations of my favourite heroes, the sex of the characters is only important in this if it is somehow significant to the storyline.

Sherlock Holmes is also my favourite character, so aside from interest in a flashy new detective show, I am driven to the BBC version by a special liking I acquired towards this character in my childhood already.

I would consider the side characters (no matter if male of female) useful if they helped me to understand this central character better, if they threw some light on the central character´s plight or if they helped me to see the motivations and inner movings of this character´s mind more clearly.

But I can´t feel anything but disappointed if I sit down to watch the adventures of my favourite hero and instead of having more of Sherlock I am suddenly force-fed the side-character whose fate didn´t interest me that much in the first place. Force-feeding is not very pleasant is it? Why should I consider this a progress?



And what´s more, the side-character in question would then achieve skills which would rob all of the other characters of their agency. More clever than Sherlock, more badass than John, more cunning than Mycroft, more, more, more...

Sherlock Holmes adaptations are fairly frequent, but BBC adaptation is the only one which modernised the old storyline in a witty and ingenious manner. Why must it be this adaptation, in which my beloved hero becomes a statist in his own story, replaced by the omnipotent side-character?

If I wanted to see the show about female detecties or agents, I would watch "Julie Lescaut", "Rizzoli and Isles", "Agent Carter" or any other show in which females are prominent without being force-fed to the audience. We don´t live in a Victorian Era anymore - stories featuring females in such roles are manifold now, there´s no need to forcefully stick them into the adaptations older classics in which the main heroes were male.

Like this, I cannot but feel kinda cheated.

Well, at least we know that Lestrade is a police officer with the Met which is more than we can say of Mary's professional career before she became a nurse. We only have Sherlock's assumptions about her past which have never been refuted or confirmed. 

Last edited by SusiGo (February 24, 2016 4:39 pm)

nakahara wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

To me feminism is not about having a string of perfect females, or a certain ratio of females in every show. It is about allowing a myriad of different females gracing out screen, of them being more than just props but being treated with respect, and having shows which turn the ratio around and focus more on female than male characters. And my blog is not about complaining, it is about celebrating progress in this regard. Mary, weather you like the take or not, is a progress.  

I see your point and I respect it if it works for you.

Unfortunately, for me it would never work in a similar way.

I´m that strange person who actually wants to see more of Sherlock Holmes when I sit down to watch the show called "Sherlock". Just as I would want to see more of Mozart if I watched the movie "Amadeus" and more of Jane Eyre, if I watched "Jane Eyre". I care more about the content of the story and the characterisations of my favourite heroes, the sex of the characters is only important in this if it is somehow significant to the storyline.

Sherlock Holmes is also my favourite character, so aside from interest in a flashy new detective show, I am driven to the BBC version by a special liking I acquired towards this character in my childhood already.

I would consider the side characters (no matter if male of female) useful if they helped me to understand this central character better, if they threw some light on the central character´s plight or if they helped me to see the motivations and inner movings of this character´s mind more clearly.

But I can´t feel anything but disappointed if I sit down to watch the adventures of my favourite hero and instead of having more of Sherlock I am suddenly force-fed the side-character whose fate didn´t interest me that much in the first place. Force-feeding is not very pleasant is it? Why should I consider this a progress?



And what´s more, the side-character in question would then achieve skills which would rob all of the other characters of their agency. More clever than Sherlock, more badass than John, more cunning than Mycroft, more, more, more...

Sherlock Holmes adaptations are fairly frequent, but BBC adaptation is the only one which modernised the old storyline in a witty and ingenious manner. Why must it be this adaptation, in which my beloved hero becomes a statist in his own story, replaced by the omnipotent side-character?

If I wanted to see the show about female detecties or agents, I would watch "Julie Lescaut", "Rizzoli and Isles", "Agent Carter" or any other show in which females are prominent without being force-fed to the audience. We don´t live in a Victorian Era anymore - stories featuring females in such roles are manifold now, there´s no need to forcefully stick them into the adaptations older classics in which the main heroes were male.

Like this, I cannot but feel kinda cheated.

 
Very well said, nakahara. Agree on all terms.

Well, I think for the perfume we need a little suspension of disbelief. It is used as a plot device for mis-identifying Lady Smallwood and identifying Mary. 
What strikes me more - and this is in accordance with your post - is the whole question of what Mary is wearing. 

There are two ways of entering the building: via some secret facade-climbing or similar way. Then she must have worn the combat outfit. However, if she entered through the lobby and was buzzed in by Janine, she must have worn something else, no matter if Janine was in on it or not. But I cannot believe she came this way because she would have entered immediately before Sherlock and John. There is not much time between conscious Janine being proposed to and unconscious Janine on the floor. 

Therefore I assume she came via a secret way, wearing her combat dress and the perfume for the sake of identification. And remember, Sherlock has an excellent sense of smell. If she wore it to work, I am sure he would have been able to smell it still. 

Yes, it would. But think of the timeline: 

Janine talks to Sherlock, fully conscious. She opens the elevator for them, they ride up, enter the office. How long would this take in reality? 20 seconds, 30 seconds? In this time Mary would have needed to knock Janine out, knock the guard out, take off her regular clothes, run up into the office, threaten Magnussen. There is very little time between Sherlock and John entering the office and Sherlock happening upon Mary. 
 

Yes, there are some stairs. Sherlock goes up because he has heard a sound from above. But it does not take long. And Mary must have been already in place when they entered the office, else they would have heard her running up the stairs. So there is really no time to do all this. 

I do not want to interrupt this discussion but look at this. I am amazed. This is from March 2013. 

http://trained-cormorant.tumblr.com/post/139964089263/ladymacphisto-captclockwork-i-love-this-for

Which works are Amanda's pictures taken from?

At point of last leaving them: they were still married and Mary was still pregnant.
I think Mary loves John and has no interest in Sherlock that way...
Though I feel it would be pointless, even if she did.

I don't see her as a baddie and the team don't seem to think so, from commentary discussion.
She has a past.
She should have gone to Sherlock for help.
But hopefully she will move forward now.

tonnaree wrote:

I think Mary is a good character, but I think Mary is a bad person.
I will NEVER forgive her for shooting Sherlock.  If my husband shot my best friend he would no longer be my husband.

My deepest desire for the series is for her to ultimately remain a villain.

I SO agree.