BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



June 4, 2017 4:40 pm  #5101


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Sorry, Liberty, but a husband being more shocked and angry about being lied to by his wife about her identity than by the fact that she is an assassin does not make sense to me. It may be that Mofftiss have written this story but then the story does not make sense to me. Lying about being a killer cannot be worse than being a killer IMO. 

I agree, Vhanja. What we see about Mary's past does not explain what we heard from Magnussen. It may be that John does not know about that but the audience does. 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

June 4, 2017 4:42 pm  #5102


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

But in real life, if you think what people are actually blackmailed with...it' often quite trivial, but it's important to them- usually because a spouse doesn't know.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 4, 2017 4:44 pm  #5103


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

There is no indication that what Magnussen has against Mary is trivial. And her own reaction indicates the same. 

 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

June 4, 2017 5:30 pm  #5104


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

It does seem that John is also upset about Mary being an assassin ("but she wasn't supposed to be like this!"). However, seeing as both him and Sherlock are sometimes on the grey side of the moral horizon - and John himself killing an unarmed, sick and elderly chap in the very first episode - I think it's understandable that he isn't as upset about the assassin bit as normal people would. He isn't normal.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

June 4, 2017 6:24 pm  #5105


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Also, he doesn't know she's an assassin at that point.   It's when she tells him that people like her are needed because of people like Magnussen that he guesses.

IIRC John hears most of what we hear from Magnussen.   The main points, anyway. 

Now it might not make sense to everybody, but it's just what's in the show - what John expresses anger about.  "My lying wife".  "You said it was your initials". "So many lies".  He even equates it to his texting.  It's the deception that seems to bother him the most.   That's what he takes personally, which I suppose I can understand.  "She wasn't supposed to be like that" is said before he knows about Mary's past or what she did, exactly, apart from shooting Sherlock.   It's just in response to Sherlock describing her as one of the dangerous people he's drawn to (putting her in the same bracket as Sherlock himself, and Mrs Hudson).

I agree that what John knows is important, but I think we've tended to mix up the timeline - perhaps partly because the timeline is mixed in HLV.   But briefly, he finds out things in this order:

Mary shot Sherlock, and has deceived him, but her past is uncertain.
Mary's past is on a memory stick, with her initials "AGRA" (Mary gives him it).
She was an intelligent agent (Sherlock tells him)
She was an assassin (she kind of says this outright)
She went freelance (Magnussen tells him)
Her freelance work was with a group called AGRA, not solo.   AGRA was not her initials exactly, but the initials of the group.  She gave their daughter her own name. 

This is the order in which John finds things out.   I'm just writing it like this because I think perhaps a clue that gets missed is that Mary wasn't saying "what's on this stick is even worse than me being an assassin".  That hadn't been mentioned at that point.  Mary was handing over the stick before John knew anything about her past.   What's so terrible about it, is that it shows that she deliberately lied - she had a whole secret life and identity that she'd covered up.  Now, I'm sure the fact that it was as part of a mercenary group is worse than if she'd had a secret life as a hairdresser!   But there doesn't need to be any extra secret bad deed hidden on the stick. As we see, later John seems to accept that she was an assassin, and accept that she went freelance, but struggles to accept her lying about the initials.

As Mary said "John can't ever know that I lied to him.  It would break him and I would lose him .." "that I lied to him", rather than "who I was", or "what I did". 

(Apologies for the overly long reply!)

Last edited by Liberty (June 4, 2017 6:25 pm)

 

June 4, 2017 6:25 pm  #5106


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Yes, it does seem fairly clear.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 4, 2017 7:27 pm  #5107


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Liberty wrote:

I don't have an article to hand, but Moftiss explained that they thought that Holmes killed Milverton in canon.   They thought that Watson was an unreliable narrator - obviously he was not going to expose Holmes as a murderer, so he wrote up the case with an unknown woman doing the deed at the end.   So in the Moftiss version, they just made explicit what they already thought had been implied!

Of course, our Mary is not much like the canon character, and her story is not an adaptation of the original book (although some elements are used).  But then neither is Eurus canon.  I don't think they are obliged to stick to canon, but can use it how they like.   However, I do think they've come closer to canon at the end of TFP.   The rest can follow on from there.   The non-canon elements which are a bit awkward are Eurus and Rosie (who I still suspect was originally added purely for the line about the "three"!).   But Mary is not so much of a problem: John is now the widower who will carry on having adventures with Sherlock. 

A widower and a single father, who's going to have a hard time continuing to have adventures with Sherlock unless something is done with Rosie.  He can't move back to Baker Street as he does in canon unless that happens.
 

 

June 4, 2017 7:31 pm  #5108


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Baby sitters.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 4, 2017 7:33 pm  #5109


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Vhanja wrote:

It does seem that John is also upset about Mary being an assassin ("but she wasn't supposed to be like this!"). However, seeing as both him and Sherlock are sometimes on the grey side of the moral horizon - and John himself killing an unarmed, sick and elderly chap in the very first episode - I think it's understandable that he isn't as upset about the assassin bit as normal people would. He isn't normal.

An unarmed, sick, and elderly chap who is about to murder Sherlock.  In that scene, John had no other option, not if he was going to save Sherlock's life.  Had he been able to prevent the murder any other way, I have no doubt that he would have done it.

 

 

June 4, 2017 9:06 pm  #5110


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Liberty - good point. I sort of just assumed that John knew she was an assassin by that point. I do still think there are worse stuff on that stick than her freeing hostages, though. But yeah, I do see how that changes it a bit. And as I've mentioned prior to S4, I don't view Magnussen as a reliable source seeing as he was deliberately goading John at that point.

kgreen20 - Yes, but he wasn't bothered for a second afterwards either. Other people might have done the same, but they'd be devastated afterwards. Even Sherlock, who has a greyer morale than John, is surprised that John isn't fazed by it.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

June 4, 2017 9:24 pm  #5111


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Vhanja wrote:

I do still think there are worse stuff on that stick than her freeing hostages, though. 

I fully agree with you.

Vhanja wrote:

And as I've mentioned prior to S4, I don't view Magnussen as a reliable source seeing as he was deliberately goading John at that point.

Magnussen repeats "bad, bad girl" while he is alone in his mind palace, though and is assessing things he has on Mary. So he doesn´t do this to only goad John.


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

 

June 4, 2017 9:31 pm  #5112


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Liberty wrote:

But they did explain.  We saw what AGRA was, and it fitted with what Magnussen said.  
 

"Don´t read the stick in front of me .....because you won´t love me anymore when you do."
Was this piece of dialog written by Steven Moffatt? Yes.
Was there any explanation as to what Mary was reffering to? No, never.
So they didn´t bother to explain anything.

And the sanitised version of AGRA we saw in TST definitely doesn´t fit with the data we obtained from the dialogues in HLV.
As besleybean correctly points out, we probably never would be allowed to know - and that creates the inconsistency I have mentioned.


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

 

June 5, 2017 5:40 am  #5113


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Well as usual, that's just me trying to be nice and concessionary!
In reality, as some of you are aware, I remain perfectly happy with what we were shown and continually bemused over the obsession with Mary.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://professorfangirl.tumblr.com/post/105838327464/heres-an-outtake-of-mark-gatiss-on-the
 

June 5, 2017 8:24 am  #5114


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

But there are answers and explanations - that's one of the things I loved about TST! 

That "you won't love me" line is explained.  We are told what's on the stick: it's AGRA.  Maybe most people think that Mary lying to John about a secret life with a mercenary group isn't enough for him to stop loving her, but Mary certainly thinks it is.   She tells Sherlock that earlier - that she'll lose him if he finds out she lied to him.   (Not that she'll lose him if he finds out what she's done).   The information from Magnussen is that she worked for the CIA, that she did wet jobs, and then went freelance.  Again, that must mean AGRA, a freelance group - in fact, a mercenary group, killers for hire, which is "bad" in itself.   (The fact that they were hired by the British government for the case we see might make it seem better, but actually neither Magnussen's nor Mary's allegiance is originally to Britain). 

Depending on how much information Magnussen has, it also looks as if Mary messed up her final job and got her colleagues killed, then disappeared to live a new life without consequences.  We find out in TST about at least one of the people who would kill Mary if Magnussen let them know her identity (Ajay). 

Going to prison for life may be because she does not have protection as part of a mercenary group (in fact, I imagine it's one of the risks of the job.  There would be no Mycroft jumping through hoops to try to get her off with it, even if work had been ordered by MI5/6.  She's not one of their own), or it could be the CIA who would put her away, or it could be her work for other countries, but likely she is a wanted woman. 

Yes, I'd have liked a little bit more backstory on Mary, but I realise that it would have interfered with the flow of the story.   We needed to know about one particular job which came back to haunt her.   There will have been other jobs, of course.  Mary suggests that she has been hired to bump off people who are truly evil but untouchable, for instance, and we know she wasn't always working for the British government.  But as I keep saying if they were meant to be something that would affect our view of the character or the story, then we'd be told about them.    We're not being told about other work, because it doesn't matter.

What kind of surprises me, is that people don't see her AGRA work as at all dodgy!  I was pretty sure Mary was going to be a good person in TST, but I thought we might see something that exonerated her a little more - that she had to go into that line of work to protect somebody, for instance, or that she was forced into it.   Instead it seems that she made a choice to be a killer for hire, and enjoyed the work (and the friendships).   It doesn't make her horribly evil (of course, she's not meant to be), but it's definitely questionable. 

 

June 5, 2017 9:40 am  #5115


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

People probably don't see the AGRA work as dodgy because due to clever writing we were only shown the not so bad parts of it.

Somebody who tries to free hostages and is betrayed will always get sympathy.

Showing us the dirty aspects of it would not have needed more than two minutes screen time. You could have cut the scene with Toby for example without losing too much. But the clear goal of the writers was to raises sympathy instead of solving the "You won't love me / bad bad girl" expectations that were built up in HLV.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still believe that love conquers all!

     

"Quick, man, if you love me."
 

June 5, 2017 9:42 am  #5116


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

I'm glad you cleared that up, Liberty. It makes even more sense now. 

As for not seeing her work as dodgy, I think that comes down to two reasons:

1. The one job we do get to see in detail is actually a heroic rescue
2. All of our heroes in the show partakes in actions that are dodgy, so she just sort of fits in

I think it would have been much different if the job we had seen flashbacks to had been her killing an unarmed, unthreatening individual because she was paid by someone to do so.


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

June 5, 2017 9:44 am  #5117


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

What you say about her initial choice is interesting, Liberty. Because John chose to be a soldier and a doctor, both honorable choices (provided you are not anti-military per se). Sherlock chose to solve crimes and deliver criminals to justice. Another honorable choice even if he did it mainly for the sake of the game. Mary chose to be an assassin and a mercenary. And we are to accept all three as being on the same moral level? 


------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes

"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)

“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)



 
 

June 5, 2017 9:54 am  #5118


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

SusiGo wrote:

And we are to accept all three as being on the same moral level? 

That's up to each of us to decide for ourselves, isn't it? I personally think that it makes her more interesting as a character. Just as the faults of Sherlock and John are what makes them more interesting to me as well. (In TV-world. In reality, I probably wouldn't want any of them near me).

All three of them have made some horrible mistakes, and all three of them have done heroic deeds to save other people. 
 


__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"We'll live on starlight and crime scenes" - wordstrings


Team Hudders!
 
 

June 5, 2017 10:20 am  #5119


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Well, that's the interesting thing is that people are accepting the AGRA work as morally OK, and thinking that Moftiss should have shown something worse.  I think it might be because Sherlock, with his rather unusual sense of morality, accepts it, and sees them all as similar. 

But thinking about all your comments, I think it's partly an issue of how it's presented.   Actually, the relevant bad stuff about Mary was all in S3/HLV.  She shot Sherlock, and was revealed as an intelligent agent and an assassin who went freelance.   That was as bad as it got.   I think maybe some people were expecting "AGRA" to be something even worse than that, but I think it wasn't supposed to represent a worse crime, but a mystery.    What we needed in TST was not to have some further terrible deed revealed, but to find out what AGRA was. 

So HLV is the reveal about the "evil" side of Mary, and that's concluded there.  I don't think there was ever meant to be a further reveal.  There's a point where it looks like Mary could be evil in TST, but it turns out to be a false lead. 

Vhanja, I don't think we have to see her killing somebody, because we know that she did it, and we know that she was an assassin (i.e. probably sneaking up on people and killing them, rather than killing them in combat).    We get all that information in HLV. 

 

June 5, 2017 11:10 am  #5120


Re: Mary – the subject of discussion

Liberty wrote:

She tells Sherlock that earlier - that she'll lose him if he finds out she lied to him.   (Not that she'll lose him if he finds out what she's done).  

Can you post the exact citation, please?

Liberty wrote:

Going to prison for life may be because she does not have protection as part of a mercenary group (in fact, I imagine it's one of the risks of the job.  There would be no Mycroft jumping through hoops to try to get her off with it, even if work had been ordered by MI5/6.  She's not one of their own), or it could be the CIA who would put her away, or it could be her work for other countries, but likely she is a wanted woman. 

If Mary is a wanted woman, how come she can sassily lead conversation with Mycroft (whose brother she dangerously injured) during TAB, promenade herself around him all the time - and not be arrested immediately?

Liberty wrote:

Yes, I'd have liked a little bit more backstory on Mary, but I realise that it would have interfered with the flow of the story.  

Whole TST was about Mary´s past, what could it hurt to include some more precise information about her in that episode? And cut out those good-to-nothing scenes like Sherlock tweeting, Mary´s birth in the car, Toby´s few seconds appearance, Rosie hurling toys at Sherlock etc. etc.

Liberty wrote:

 What kind of surprises me, is that people don't see her AGRA work as at all dodgy!

I certainly see her work as dodgy....

Last edited by nakahara (June 5, 2017 11:11 am)


-----------------------------------

I cannot live without brainwork. What else is there to live for? Stand at the window there. Was there ever such a dreary, dismal, unprofitable world? See how the yellow fog swirls down the street and drifts across the dun-coloured houses. What could be more hopelessly prosaic and material? What is the use of having powers, Doctor, when one has no field upon which to exert them?

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum