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

Liberty · May 23, 2017 12:09 pm

I feel TST is not so much Mary's adventures, but Mary's "case". In a way, she's the client there, and Sherlock solves it. And the upshot of the whole thing is the rift between John and Sherlock - which wouldn't have happened if it was any old client.

I don't think Mary is presented as a hero - except at the end, when she saves Sherlock. She is part of a mercenary group - that's what's bad. And yes, when John finds out, he doesn't stop loving her, but he's pretty pissed off (he says he used to like Mary - meaning the name, but implying that he means her). So she was right that he wouldn't take it well. It's consistent - it's just maybe that John loved Mary a little more than she believed.

Vhanja · May 23, 2017 1:06 pm

Schmiezi wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
I don't see the inconsitency myself. But, yeah, I would love to see more of that development!
Mary said John would stop loving her if he knew about her past. Magnussen called her a "bad, Bad girl".

Yet, in S4 we only learn that she was a super hero special agent with a sense of family who was a victim herself.

That is the biggest inconsistency I can think of right now.

I don't see it as an inconsistency. Only that there are still things from her past that we don't know of yet.

Schmiezi · May 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
I don't see the inconsitency myself. But, yeah, I would love to see more of that development!
Mary said John would stop loving her if he knew about her past. Magnussen called her a "bad, Bad girl".

Yet, in S4 we only learn that she was a super hero special agent with a sense of family who was a victim herself.

That is the biggest inconsistency I can think of right now.
I don't see it as an inconsistency. Only that there are still things from her past that we don't know of yet.

I thought about how that can not be an inconsistency, and I understood that it leaves me unsatisfied is because those still unknown things are not mentioned in S4. I mean, not even the fact that there are things we still don't know. (Or am I forgetting something?)

On the surface it looks like all is fine now, and some people even on the forum seem to agree with that.

Vhanja · May 23, 2017 2:22 pm

Well, all is certainly not fine, as John says himself. He will always be marked by Mary's death. And Sherlock will always be marked by his past, and his decisions as a young boy to delete Victor and his sister from his memory.

However, on the surface everything is indeed fine - Sherlock and John are friends again, John is doing better all things considering, 221b has been restored and the duo is back to crime-solving, parented and co-parented by the boys.

besleybean · May 23, 2017 3:36 pm

Mary is the glue that keeps the boys together.

kgreen20 · May 23, 2017 4:38 pm

besleybean wrote:
But I always hoped and believed Mary would be redeemed, she did exactly what I expected her to do.

Me, too! And I did not want her to die a villain's death, since she was a flawed hero, not a true villain. Thankfully, Moffat and Gatiss didn't want that for her either.

Last edited by kgreen20 (May 23, 2017 4:39 pm)

besleybean · May 23, 2017 4:39 pm

They wanted to write a full, strong role for Mary and I applaud that decision.

kgreen20 · May 23, 2017 4:41 pm

besleybean wrote:
It had to be. John was not that heartless and would have chosen a woman who could love deeply.

I agree.

kgreen20 · May 23, 2017 4:42 pm

Liberty wrote:
One thing that was maybe a little interesting, seeing her past, was that she wasn't quite the cold, ruthless, solo killer that I'd imagined. She seemed very bonded with her team, there was a sense of family, and you got the feeling that she would have made sacrifices for them and tried to protect them before the disaster. It's maybe not as strong as her bond with Sherlock, but it does seem that this isn't something new for her - she is drawn towards getting involved, to close relationships, to friends protecting each other and so on. The "warm" side of her was there all along.

Yes, it was. She never was a true villain; she was a flawed hero. She was capable of love, of bonding, of making sacrifices.

kgreen20 · May 23, 2017 4:44 pm

Liberty wrote:
I suppose it doesn't really bother me - I don't have a burning desire to see canonical Mary, and I do think the character Moftiss created is more interesting. I think she was a bit of a mystery in S3, but I think S4 clears it up - she seems inconsistent because we're shown different aspects and information is withheld for plot reasons. But I do think it all comes together - well, as much as it does for the other characters (who also have some inconsistencies, but I think are still coherent characters).

Other adaptations have been cavalier with the canon too. It's not a big deal for me. With Mary in particular, I don't think there was ever any intention to recreate canon Mary. Some aspects of her story are used, but "our" Mary probably borrows from other characters and influences, and is invented. It seems they decided to use John marrying a woman called Mary, who apparently dies, as a basis, but the character is somebody completely different.

I remember they talked a lot about canon Mary's death being barely talked about - that Holmes just mentions Watson's bereavement, then they get on with the stories. Now, it would have been quite funny if they had done that in the series, but I think it would have seemed odd. I like that they've made Mary's death part of the story. There's a reason for it, and consequences of it, and it affects John and Sherlock deeply. Not canon, but possibly works better than canon in this particular context.

I agree. The way ACD did it worked in the stories, but it wouldn't have worked on the TV show. And Mary only making brief appearances in a few of the stories also worked for ACD, but it wouldn't have worked on the TV series.

Schmiezi · May 23, 2017 4:51 pm

kgreen20 wrote:
besleybean wrote:
But I always hoped and believed Mary would be redeemed, she did exactly what I expected her to do.
Me, too! And I did not want her to die a villain's death, since she was a flawed hero, not a true villain. Thankfully, Moffat and Gatiss didn't want that for her either.

I see "flawed" But could you please point out where she was a "hero" except when she died?

kgreen20 · May 24, 2017 7:09 pm

She helped Sherlock save John's life, for one, when he was put in the bonfire. Yes, Sherlock was the one who moved the burning wood out of the way to pull John out when they got there, but it was Mary who realized that John was in danger, and who went to him to inform him of the skip code; she also rode double on the motorcycle that he commandeered, to help save John. She took the bullet to save Sherlock, sacrificing her own life in the process, when Vivian Norbury tried to kill him. And she tried to help save the hostages on that final mission several years before; it wasn't her fault that the mission failed, but Vivian's. So, yes, she's a hero, flawed though she is.

Last edited by kgreen20 (May 24, 2017 7:11 pm)

besleybean · May 24, 2017 7:10 pm

All the best heroes are flawed: Sherlock case in point.

Schmiezi · May 24, 2017 7:29 pm

Sorry, I still don't see it. She showed Sherlock the skip code and then did nothing but trailing behind. And she went on a mercenary mission to earn money. She was shown to be very skilled and competent, yes, but she did nothing heroic besides saving Sherlock. So I could agree on her doing one heroic act in the end but not on her being a hero through and through.

besleybean · May 24, 2017 7:30 pm

I don't know if the team really intended her to be seen as heroic.

Vhanja · May 24, 2017 7:44 pm

No, I don't view her as a hero either. I don't think she was intented to be. But she redeemd herself at the end.

Schmiezi · May 24, 2017 8:01 pm

Vhanja wrote:
No, I don't view her as a hero either. I don't think she was intented to be. But she redeemd herself at the end.

Yes, that's a different point of view and one I can deal with. :-)

SusiGo · May 29, 2017 7:31 pm

An interesting question about Mary:

https://howverypeculiar.tumblr.com/post/161210843307/a-mary-watson-question-i-havent-seen-brought-up

Vhanja · May 29, 2017 7:38 pm

Interesting thoughts. I don't see her as a psychopath at all. But I do see her as someone who might not be as comfortable with the mother role as other mums might be.

People are different. I know there are mums out there, who aren't psycopaths, who regretted having children because they preferred their lives before. I know mums who deeply loved their children but couldn't wait to get back to their jobs because they were dying of boredom being at home. And I know mothers who would stay at home for as many years and possible and put their child first in everything.

So mothers are different. I think the main reason she did it is simply that she needed to get out of the show (because it is - at the end of the day - about Sherlock and John), and this was the most redeeming, most exciting and most heart-breaking way to go, for television.

But if we are to go by an in-show answer, I think assassin reflexes (just as I think shooting Sherlock was an assassin's reflex).And perhaps, if you want to stretch it a bit and give Mary that amount of credit, she knew that Rosie would be better of with Sherlock and John than she would be with Mary and John without Sherlock. (Rosie was still so young she wouldn't have any memories of her mother).

Liberty · May 29, 2017 7:50 pm

I think Mary was aware that she was a dead woman walking: that her past would probably catch up with her eventually, as Mycroft predicted (and the appointment in Samarra is the theme of the episode). So maybe that was in the back of her mind when she made her decision. I have wondered if the fact that she'd shot Sherlock played into it as well. But I think in the end it had to be a split second decision - she saw a way to save Sherlock and took it instinctively. (And it wasn't guaranteed that she would die - she may just have been injured).