Lola Red wrote:

tonnaree wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

At least MAry killing Magnussen is something I consider she does for a valid reason. Magnussen is someone who destroys lifes left and right and Mary is smart enough to know that the interest in her is most likely more related to John than directly about her, because that's how Magnussen works.

 
Could be wrong but I got the impression that MAG was interested in Mary even before she met John.

Where did you get that impression from? I always thought Mary was a mean to an end, more specifically a way to take down or at least control Mycroft. What makes you think CAM was after her for her own sake? What could he have wanted from her?
 

It seems his extensive files made me think he had been gathering information on her for a while.  I'm assuming he thought Sherlock was dead for two years just like everyone else.  Since the pressure points would go from Mary to John as a way of getting to Sherlock and then to Mycroft, it wouldn't make sense for him to have started gathering information about Mary when Sherlock was "dead."   
That's at least part of it.
 

tonnaree wrote:

Lola Red wrote:

tonnaree wrote:

 
Could be wrong but I got the impression that MAG was interested in Mary even before she met John.

Where did you get that impression from? I always thought Mary was a mean to an end, more specifically a way to take down or at least control Mycroft. What makes you think CAM was after her for her own sake? What could he have wanted from her?
 

It seems his extensive files made me think he had been gathering information on her for a while.  I'm assuming he thought Sherlock was dead for two years just like everyone else.  Since the pressure points would go from Mary to John as a way of getting to Sherlock and then to Mycroft, it wouldn't make sense for him to have started gathering information about Mary when Sherlock was "dead."   
That's at least part of it.
 

But what would CAM have to gain from putting pressure on Mary? She is a killer, but she has no power besides her gun. He seems to go for the big fishes (Lady Smallwood, Mycroft), but does not seem interested in the rest, except as pressure points e.g. John and Mrs Hudson get the status “unimportant”. Even though John acts as pressure point for Sherlock (and by extension Mycroft), there is nothing to gain from putting pressure on John just for his own sake.

But you make it sound as if you think that he only started to sneak up on Mary after Sherlock came back. In that case I completely agree, we know he started working on the pressure point chain the moment Sherlock set foot back in London (he put John in the fire before Sherlock’s return was official). So having apparently nothing on Mycroft, Sherlock returning just after his name has been restored and John also having a clean vest (only him and Sherlock know about the cabby) he would logically have to extent his net and I believe that was when Mary got caught in it. She makes a good pressure point (has lots to hide). But by then she had already met John, in fact they just got engaged. I fear I misinterpreted at least one of your posts 

 

Last edited by Lola Red (September 1, 2015 4:39 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Of course love doesn't mean all can be forgiven.  Where does that idea come from?  As Sherlock says, love is a vicious motivator (and a dangerous disadvantage!).   I suppose it must come from fiction - we're constantly being told that romantic love conquers all - and yet in real life we're constantly seeing people in trouble for believing it. 

But talking about motivations, in a way I find Mary's motivation for killing Magnussen (self-defence, to save herself) almost as valid as Sherlock's (to save somebody else).  (In fact, in Sherlock's case, it's not just Mary that he's saving, but by extension John and himself).  Is a life worth less because it's your own?    This is regardless of whether she's a good person or not (I don't think she is ... and I think she's a world away from Sherlock on the morality scale).  She also seems to be motivated by the fact that Magnussen is an evil man ... as does Sherlock. 

I thought she was motivated by the need to get whatever info Magnussen had on her. What I don't understand is this: why the lying-- from the time she met John-- she never told him about all this. She had to know that there are people out there that would kill her-- and anyone connected to her, still out there, because she hurt them-- killed their loved ones. Otherwise, why did John let Magnussen flick his face? It wasn't just because Sherlock asked him to-- it was to protect Mary, because Magnussen said this: "I know how to contact people who hate her, people she hurt, and can bring your whole life crashing down." (Paraphrasing)

She's either incredibly short-sighted, or not very smart in some ways.... she ain't got no common sense!!!

my understanding was that she didn't tell him because she thought he would have interrupted their relationship and she didn't want to lose him. I mean - how do you tell the person you're seeing that you used to be a paid killer and everything he knows about you now is fake?
She was apparently very sure her new identify was going to protect her and it was impossible for anyone to find out who she was before.
 

Last edited by Dorothy83 (September 1, 2015 4:43 pm)

The thing is-- we don't have anything to bear that out in the series! (Slaps Mofftiss upside the head)  We don't know that she actually WAS trying to have this new, idyllic fantasy of the house in the 'burbs with the kid and husband and the picket fence--  suppose her actual motivation was (a) keeping an eye on John, because she worked for Moriarty, (b) she could have been using John and the new life as Cover-- we just don't know. So, what we're left with is either trying to come up with the most plausible reasons for her to do what she did-- and ..sigh... arrgh. (Slaps Mofftiss upside the head again.)

We don’t know. It entirely depends on what your personal view is. If you believe if Mary was planted or not, if you believe that all we have seen before HLV was just an act or if you believe she was sincere the entire time. Depending on which pair of “Mary glasses” you’re wearing your interpretation will be vastly different and alas, we all commit the capital mistake of theorising before we have all the data, which makes us twist the facts to suit theories, instead of the other way around.
 

Last edited by Lola Red (September 1, 2015 5:22 pm)

Dorothy83 wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Of course love doesn't mean all can be forgiven.  Where does that idea come from?  As Sherlock says, love is a vicious motivator (and a dangerous disadvantage!).   I suppose it must come from fiction - we're constantly being told that romantic love conquers all - and yet in real life we're constantly seeing people in trouble for believing it. 

But talking about motivations, in a way I find Mary's motivation for killing Magnussen (self-defence, to save herself) almost as valid as Sherlock's (to save somebody else).  (In fact, in Sherlock's case, it's not just Mary that he's saving, but by extension John and himself).  Is a life worth less because it's your own?    This is regardless of whether she's a good person or not (I don't think she is ... and I think she's a world away from Sherlock on the morality scale).  She also seems to be motivated by the fact that Magnussen is an evil man ... as does Sherlock. 

I thought she was motivated by the need to get whatever info Magnussen had on her. What I don't understand is this: why the lying-- from the time she met John-- she never told him about all this. She had to know that there are people out there that would kill her-- and anyone connected to her, still out there, because she hurt them-- killed their loved ones. Otherwise, why did John let Magnussen flick his face? It wasn't just because Sherlock asked him to-- it was to protect Mary, because Magnussen said this: "I know how to contact people who hate her, people she hurt, and can bring your whole life crashing down." (Paraphrasing)

She's either incredibly short-sighted, or not very smart in some ways.... she ain't got no common sense!!!

my understanding was that she didn't tell him because she thought he would have interrupted their relationship and she didn't want to lose him. I mean - how do you tell the person you're seeing that you used to be a paid killer and everything he knows about you now is fake?
She was apparently very sure her new identify was going to protect her and it was impossible for anyone to find out who she was before.
 

In a way, the common sense thing she was planning to do was kill Magnussen - it was safer than telling John, anyway (what could he have done?), as Sherlock finds out in the end.  I don't think she wants to know what Magnussen has got on her - she already knows.   It's information that could either get her put away for life, or killed, depending on Magnussen's choice. 

I'm not sure that the loved ones of people she killed would even know who she was - I imagine she'd be fairly invisible as an assassin.  But yes, there were obviously other people out there who wanted her dead, but didn't know her new identity.  I do wonder how Magnussen got the information.  It would have been fairly easy for Sherlock to trace her back to "Mary Morstan" and then deduce the rest, but he doesn't have any real data.  I'd love to know exactly what Magnussen knew, and how he knew it. 
 

I'm not sure how assassins work beyond some very limited knowledge of them in fiction, but judging by what Mary did with Magnussen, I imagine the actual killing would be undercover and she wouldn't be caught or announce herself to the victims' family - what would be the point of that?   People might suspect that the CIA (or whoever) had ordered the killing, but it would be be an unknown assassin.   Even if she did make herself known, and perhaps went to prison for it, then Magnussen would still have to put that together with "Mary Morstan". 

I think it's possible that people who would kill Mary are not her targets' loved ones, but people who think she knows too much through her work as an intelligence agent.   (Maybe, as Irene kept her phone, Mary kept her AGRA stick for protection - senstive information that could expose other people). 

Mary is willing to risk prison (by killing Magnussen initially, and then by shooting Sherlock), but I think that obviously she's going to want to avoid it.  (Sherlock wants to avoid it too!). 

Last edited by Liberty (September 1, 2015 6:53 pm)

Isn't Not Telling John the thing we castigate Sherlock for, again, and again? Why do we give Mary a pass for doing the same-- when it actually puts her life, her child's life and John's life in danger? She doesn't withhold that info to make him safer-- she does it to keep from losing John. The only thing she's trying to "protect" seems to be her relationship. As far as the CIA-- remember that she went "rogue"- "freelance"--- "wet Jobs"-- that doesn't sound like state-sanctioned killings of terrorists--  that sounds to me like killing for the highest bidder! And, why would John stop loving her, once he found out? He was a soldier-- he'd get asassination for Queen and Country. I don't get it. 

That would be tragic, but would be neat and would solve the "problem".  But to mourn Mary, I feel I'd still like to know more about her, her past and who she was/is.   That could be expanded on a lot if they were bringing back Mary's past to haunt her.  

Would that be a case which Sherlock failed to solve, do you think?  He has protected Mary at the end of S3, would he not be able to do it this time?  And he killed Magnussen for nothing?  (Apart from ridding the world of him).    I suppose the first episode could start with Mary's death or disappearance, with Sherlock and John on the case. 

@ Raven, I don't think we do castigate Sherlock  and give Mary a free pass.  Sherlock had good reason for not telling John and was protecting people (including himself).   Mary had less reason and was mainly protecting herself (and John, to some extent).    I suppose I'm surprised that people think that Mary (or a "better" version of Mary) would tell partners about her past, or that she'd want to go to prison for it.   Of course she should have told John, but at what stage?  She was trying to live a new life, as if in witness protection - her identity had to be secret to everybody (unless she was about to kill them!).   She wouldn't have told John when they started dating, and by the time they fell in love she thought it would break him - in a way, I can understand why would keep quiet.  Not because of some dream of suburban life, but because she felt she had to live as Mary Morstan, or Watson, and her secret was her burden to carry, not John's. (And remember, she didn't completely trust Sherlock at that point - if she'd told John there was no guarantee that he would stay with her and keep her secret.   What if he'd told somebody else - Sherlock being the obvious one?  Or even just let something slip.  Even Sherlock thinks that John can't keep a secret.  Mary would be at risk.). 

Oh, I don't blame Sherlock for the not telling John about the fall at all.  I think he was trying to do the right thing, and that it hurt him too.  But I take your point that this view isn't universal.