BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Mary

besleybean · May 7, 2016 7:00 pm

Not really...
But I think we have to accept our heroes don't always do the right thing.
It was a bit more grey when John shot the cabbie...
But TV does have a different moral compass to real life.

SusiGo · May 7, 2016 7:03 pm

This is true. And the flawed heroes are always more interesting. But I would not count Mary among the heroes of this show.

besleybean · May 7, 2016 7:05 pm

I might make my final judgement on her, once she's gone.

nakahara · May 7, 2016 7:12 pm

besleybean wrote:
Not really...
But I think we have to accept our heroes don't always do the right thing.
It was a bit more grey when John shot the cabbie...
But TV does have a different moral compass to real life.

Different moral compass is OK in TV. But for your fictional universe to work, the parts of the whole must be coherent and aligned with each other. You cannot have the character of the most famous detective, representing reason, brilliance of mind, compassion, striving for justice and embodying of the fight with social evils (in others and in himself) and let him tolerate psychopatic, amoral, greedy behaviour harmful to others at the same time, without a good explanation... the pillars of your fictional universe will collapse that way.

Or are we really supposed to believe that BBC Sherlock is a story about disfunctional sociopath with no higher goals in life, therefore shielding other sociopaths dangerous to society?

Last edited by nakahara (May 7, 2016 7:13 pm)

kgreen20 · May 7, 2016 7:17 pm

besleybean wrote:
Not really...
But I think we have to accept our heroes don't always do the right thing.
It was a bit more grey when John shot the cabbie...
But TV does have a different moral compass to real life.

Not necessarily. John shot the cabbie to save Sherlock's life. It's permitted, both legally and morally, to kill in self-defense or in defense of another person, if it is necessary to do so. And sometimes, sadly, it is necessary.

Last edited by kgreen20 (May 7, 2016 7:19 pm)

besleybean · May 7, 2016 7:19 pm

That's what I was implying.

Liberty · May 7, 2016 8:04 pm

I still think it's a little bit grey. At that point, Sherlock was choosing to take the pill (or not). There was no coercion, no risk from anyone else, no threat of violence, no functioning weapon, etc. The courts might be more lenient on John because he he could argue that he thought there was more coercion involved and that Sherlock was being murdered. But what he's actually watching is a voluntary act on Sherlock's part. He could have stopped it by shooting at the window or something to draw attention, then waving or whatever. But he shot and killed an unarmed man. I'm not judging him for it ... just saying! Sherlock torturing a dying man for information is also a bit grey too. I think they do what they think is they should do, given the information they have at the time. Clearly they remain heroes despite actions that could be slightly questionable. (Which might explain why they're more able to accept Mary).

nakahara · May 7, 2016 8:28 pm

Their acts concerning the cabbie really were gray, even black at times... still, if we look at the bigger picture, the cabbie was still the person who murdered four people and the pill he offered Sherlock was still poisoned... he was not Sherlock and John´s friend and we were not supposed to root for him in the long run... so even if they shot him and stepped on him, it was not that shocking, really.

Mary, on the other hand, shot a person who was unarmed, offering her help, speaking to her in a friendly manner, appealing to her good side in invoking her new status as Mrs. Watson and who previously arranged a very beautiful marriage ceremony for her although the same activity was extremely painful for him... we are supposed to root for Sherlock and the act of him being shot is therefore shocking to the extreme.

In short, both scenes, although depicting a shooting, are at their core the very opposites of each other and cannot really be compared that way.

RavenMorganLeigh · May 7, 2016 11:54 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Interesting points. And I am quite sure that Mary's past will become important again for several reasons, e.g. the so far unexplained connection between her and Mycroft as imagine (or presented as real) in TAB

But there is something else I have been thinking about for quite some time: Sherlock shoots Magnussen in the head because this is where the information on Mary is. But how can we be sure that this is enough? She has in all probability killed more than one person, people who have friends, family, associates, colleagues, co-conspirators, make your choice. And we are to assume that Magnussen was the only link between them and Mary? Not very likely, if you ask me.

Didn't Mofftiss use the phrase, "chickens coming home to roost"?

RavenMorganLeigh · May 8, 2016 12:01 am

nakahara wrote:
besleybean wrote:
Not really...
But I think we have to accept our heroes don't always do the right thing.
It was a bit more grey when John shot the cabbie...
But TV does have a different moral compass to real life.
Different moral compass is OK in TV. But for your fictional universe to work, the parts of the whole must be coherent and aligned with each other. You cannot have the character of the most famous detective, representing reason, brilliance of mind, compassion, striving for justice and embodying of the fight with social evils (in others and in himself) and let him tolerate psychopatic, amoral, greedy behaviour harmful to others at the same time, without a good explanation... the pillars of your fictional universe will collapse that way.

Or are we really supposed to believe that BBC Sherlock is a story about disfunctional sociopath with no higher goals in life, therefore shielding other sociopaths dangerous to society?

THIS.

besleybean · May 8, 2016 7:29 am

Sherlock is on the side of the angels, but he isn't one of them.
Any means necessary...

Schmiezi · May 8, 2016 9:39 am

besleybean wrote:
Sherlock is on the side of the angels, but he isn't one of them.
Any means necessary...

Necessary for what?

besleybean · May 8, 2016 9:46 am

Doing what he thinks is right.
But as we know, he will kill for those he loves.

Liberty · May 8, 2016 10:01 am

It seems as if Lazarus would only work if Moriarty killed himself, which makes me think that Mycroft and Sherlock planned his death, once they knew that he couldn't be taken out of action by the justice system. They had to do it in a way that allowed them to eliminate his network. The cabbie, of course, is eliminated by John in S1. And the big baddie of S3, Magnussen is killed by Sherlock. I know they have their good reasons, but I think this shows that they are not completely averse to assassination in the right circumstances, given that they're bumping off at least one villain per series.

I think Sherlock is clearly shown as not being a sociopath. But he has an unusual take on morality and justice.

SusiGo · May 8, 2016 10:04 am

nakahara wrote:
Different moral compass is OK in TV. But for your fictional universe to work, the parts of the whole must be coherent and aligned with each other. You cannot have the character of the most famous detective, representing reason, brilliance of mind, compassion, striving for justice and embodying of the fight with social evils (in others and in himself) and let him tolerate psychopatic, amoral, greedy behaviour harmful to others at the same time, without a good explanation... the pillars of your fictional universe will collapse that way.

I think I am going to frame this and hang it over my bed.

besleybean · May 8, 2016 10:13 am

It possibly depends upon what your pillars are.

Schmiezi · May 8, 2016 10:17 am

The way the discussion is going makes me wonder:

John killed the cabbie (to save Sherlock's life), Sherlock killed Magnussen ( to keep Mary and therefore John save) and Mycroft planned for Moriarty to die on the rooftop (to stop an evil criminal to go after his Baby Brother again and again).

Mary surely knows about the cabbie and Moriarty, and yet she thinks that John will stop loving her if he reads what is on the stick.

What the hell has she done??? It must be worse than killing the cabbie and Moriarty. Scary thought, isn't it?

besleybean · May 8, 2016 10:39 am

Not really.
I assume she only went after baddies, which is of course only acceptable in TV land.
I don't see her as a risk to Sherlock, John or baby...which is what matters to me.

mrshouse · May 8, 2016 11:10 am

Yes, Schmiezi, it is scary, and very much so.
Sorry, but I clearly have to disagree that everything is fine as long as she's not a threat to our boys.
We should still care about a proper characterization, about a proper plot without holes as big as black holes for the shocking effect and we should still care that this is Sherlock and not Sherlockjohnmarybabyanddog.
Furthermore I care about Sherlock not being sad and alone anymore and I care about a proper back story if I have to forgive a side character an obviously nasty past.

Schmiezi · May 8, 2016 11:15 am

besleybean wrote:
Not really.
I assume she only went after baddies, which is of course only acceptable in TV land.

Why would that make John stop loving her? Sorry, I disagree too. I think that something that makes John "I shot the cabbie" Watson stop loving her needs to be something REALLY wrong, like killing the good guys' children for money.