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

Amy Airiel · January 14, 2014 10:55 pm

It may. But Mrs. Hudson was not fully aware of what was going on there. Awareness is a big deal.
Of course we don't know whar pushed Mary to kill innocent people (they stated innocent, I recall, but I may be wrong) for money, but sure as hell she had a choice not to. I mean...come on. I prefer the freedom of a guilty to the conviction of an innocent, and you only get thar sorted out on a trial, unless you catch them you know, at it.
I can't trust Mary anymore and I don't understand the writers sorted all of it out so quickly.

BTW I totally agree with Mouse.

Mrs. Watson · January 14, 2014 10:57 pm

Swanpride wrote:
My point was that it is not as easy as saying "murdering someone for money is the worst kind of murder" - there are always the circumstances to consider and we don't know the circumstances. Mary started out as a trained agent - so all the murders she did in the beginning were part of her job. Later she freelanced - why? Because of the money? She is apparently not particularly rich. Because she wanted to get away from the thumb of the organisation she worked for beforehand?
We neither know why she became an agent in the first place, why she decided to freelance and why she decided to give up her "job". We only know that Magnusson calls her a "bad, bad girl" and that she herself considers what she has done so bad that nobody would be able to love her knowing about it. But Magnusson is a guy who would paint someone as pedophile, knowing fully well that it isn't the truth, and she herself feels guilty for whatever she did, but people feel guilty for a lot of things other people don't consider that bad. So without the information on the stick, how are we supposed to judge her for her past?
Who knows, Mrs. Hudson helping out her husband might have killed more people indirectly than Mary did directly.

I agree with you. Mary is obviously a flawed person but since we don't know anything about her we can't judge her. I wonder if she told Sherlock something about her past. He might be the one person who could understand her.

RavenMorganLeigh · January 14, 2014 10:58 pm

LoveBug54 wrote:
Ozema, I agree with you! I can only hope there is some rational explanation later for some of it. After all, it seemed very stupid of Mycroft to tell Moriarty things about Sherlock then even let him go, but we found later it was all part of his and Sherlock's plan to defeat him.

Mary is an orphan because Canon!Mary is an orphan. Also, we are supposed to think the shooter is Smallwood because of the perfume and because in the Canon Milverton is killed by one of his victims. But Moffet likes to put his own twist on the Canon, thus Mary becomes the shooter instead. But did he have to give her the background of a killer to do that? He could have made up some other, less monstrous, background for her and she would have been a much more sympathetic character who takes up a gun out of desperation. But, Moffat has the bad habit of coming to his conclusions and twisting plot points to fit. I know it's anathema in this fandom to criticize The Mofftis but sometimes it's justified when the writing isn't making sense.

If you want to see a brilliant and more faithful adaptation of this story check out Jeremy Brett' s The Master Blackmailer.

This seems to be a trend in scriptwriting, and I don't like it: Amoral main characters-- to me, it's a sensationalist, cheap way of upping the tension for the audience; the character does horrible things, but as a main character, the audience must struggle with the quaundary of whether to empathize, or not. It's as if the writers are trying to lead the audience into a struggle with their own morality. The series "Dexter" was a good example of this, and so is BBC's Sherlock.

Just me ramblin' again...

silverblaze · January 14, 2014 11:00 pm

Amy Airiel wrote:
Well, there's actually a big difference, at least in my country, the fact that you're being payed for killing makes the action a lot more reprehensible, which leads to a higher penalty (a lot more years in jail). It's one of the three differences (along with premeditation and treachery or malice -viciousness, I don't know how english people say it) that takes homicide from murder. Both thins are regrettable, but the last is not only that, it's heinous. One can at some point understand the sudden decision to kill CAM, but in no way can I understand killing the innocent for money.

Well, in my country we don't do moral absolutes, cause they're idiotic. Every situation is different and you will find the same thing if you have a look at real court cases, wherever you're from (I'm guessing the US).

I believe Mary killed people who were really awful, and mostly legally for the CIA. Besides, not everything that is unlawful is also morally wrong. There are shades of grey here.

shezza · January 14, 2014 11:03 pm

Mrs. Watson wrote:
I agree with you. Mary is obviously a flawed person but since we don't know anything about her we can't judge her.

lol what, so we can't judge an assassin?! She's obviously done heinous things, and freelancing suggests she did it for money or other personal gains. She should be in jail for life, not playing wifey.

Ozma · January 14, 2014 11:12 pm

Swanpride wrote:
And I think that punishment should not be about revenge, but about turning the culprit in quesiton into a better person. Mary already turned her life around.

when, exactly, did she turn her life around? When she lied to John to avoid the hard part = tell him the truth and risk him not liking her at all?

Or when she shot Sherlock, or perhaps when she ordered him not to tell John, so therefore to lie to John for her sake?

I am not sure when exactly has she turned her life around. Surely not before she was forced to - and even then she did nothing - John did everything by just choosing not to see. So she was lucky.

From what she said - I would do anything not to lose John - if she had to kill/hurt not to lose what she has, she would - AGAIN.

Again, I am not sure WHEN you see that she has turned her life around.

Last edited by Ozma (January 14, 2014 11:13 pm)

shezza · January 14, 2014 11:18 pm

Sure, John and Sherlock may forgive her because she's actually a nice, lovable person and she's turned her life around. It's their right to forgive her and love her. The fact is - what about justice? What about the families of those she's killed? Is "I am not that person anymore" enough to erase what she's done? Are we supposed to sympathize with her?

I mean, in the end BBC Sherlock is all about playing on the side of the angels but not quite being angels, which makes for good drama and interesting plots. Sherlock isn't an angel, nor John, nor Mary - by now they've all killed in cold blood and done other morally dubious and/or despicable things. The difference being that both Sherlock and John have always acted in the name of the greater good, which is itself a philosophically complex and endlessly debatable concept but which preserves the morality of our leading duo. Mary did some CIA work which could arguably be considered for "the greater good" but then went rogue and did things (namely murdering people) for her own personal gain, which she knows would utterly disgust and appall even the man who loves her the most in the world.

Tetrisash · January 14, 2014 11:22 pm

One thing I"m wondering is did she really call the ambulance, or is that something Sherlock made up to try to get John to forgive her?

Ozma · January 14, 2014 11:24 pm

Tetrisash wrote:
One thing I"m wondering is did she really call the ambulance, or is that something Sherlock made up to try to get John to forgive her?

yes. Or also, in other words - how the heck did Sherlock know she called the ambulance, if he was lying unconscious on the floor?

Mrs. Watson · January 14, 2014 11:32 pm

What if Lady Smallwood had hired her to kill Magnussen or if the father of a child who was abused had hired her to kill the abuser because the justice failed to incarcerate him/her? Would it be morally wrong? Many would say yes because they consider that taking someone else's life is always wrong (i.e. They oppose death penalty) and I respect their opinion but I don't agree with them. And what would happen if it was their child the one who is abused or their mother the one that is kidnapped or murdered? Would they continue thinking the same?

We don't know what Mary did and would really like to know. Who did she kill? Even if you are an assassin it doesn't mean that everyone you kill is an innocent lamb. In real life there really bad people killed by contract (Does it really make a difference who pays the killer'a salary?)
I don't mind if you disagree with me. What I like is this series and this episode in particular being so provocative. That's good TV in my opinion.

Last edited by Mrs. Watson (January 14, 2014 11:35 pm)

shezza · January 14, 2014 11:38 pm

Yes but if she only had murdered child rapists and mafia bosses I suspect she wouldn't have been so opposed to John knowing the truth.

Amy Airiel · January 14, 2014 11:57 pm

silverblaze wrote:
Amy Airiel wrote:
Well, there's actually a big difference, at least in my country, the fact that you're being payed for killing makes the action a lot more reprehensible, which leads to a higher penalty (a lot more years in jail). It's one of the three differences (along with premeditation and treachery or malice -viciousness, I don't know how english people say it) that takes homicide from murder. Both thins are regrettable, but the last is not only that, it's heinous. One can at some point understand the sudden decision to kill CAM, but in no way can I understand killing the innocent for money.
Well, in my country we don't do moral absolutes, cause they're idiotic. Every situation is different and you will find the same thing if you have a look at real court cases, wherever you're from (I'm guessing the US).

I believe Mary killed people who were really awful, and mostly legally for the CIA. Besides, not everything that is unlawful is also morally wrong. There are shades of grey here.

First of all, I did not say everything that is unlawful is also morally wrong. So nothing to say to that.

Secondly, you're guessing awfully wrong. The US don't even have a decent law code. Every state is different so you don't really get to know what's legal and what isn't (Kelsen tried, he did) What I said up there, those are not PURELY MORAL absolutes. We don't want judges using pure morals here, basically because naturalism tends to lead to legal uncertainty and totalitarisms would have an easy way to tear legallity apart. If we wanted pure morals in law we would use the freaking Bible or whatever religious code that suited as they do in -stan countries.
I have actually seen lots of "real court causes", cause of my former job. Every situation is different but you need a public "compendium" of defined cases so people know the consecuences of their actions. And my country's is one I find reliable, though it has flaws. Lots. I don't think it's the very best, really.

I don't know where you come from but surely you have a criminal code. Take a look at it and tell me that there aren't defined sanctioned cases in it, offenses that are offenses because most people thought they were, out of morals or whatever, but watched through the eye of legality (what you'd say made from moral idiotic absolutes like killing is generally wrong kids don't do that). The German Strafgesetzbuch. The Italian Codice Penale. The "moral" difference, which is "definited" here, is the same you'd put also taking infanticide from usual homicide. Murdering a child, who is totally defenseless, is considered more reprehensible than killing a man; even if both are hardly punished, and there are a bunch of reasons for that.
They're just defined situations. Where you put the limit between murder and homicide. Or theft and robbery (hurto y robo).
It's really pointless to give a speech on general criminal law in a forum and with my VERY POOR level of vocabulary, so I'll stop here xD

I hope I made myself clear because I'm having a hard time writing legal stuff in english you guys have a BUNCH of words that look like synonyms to mine and are NOT and omg I'm going nuts xD

Last edited by Amy Airiel (January 15, 2014 12:19 am)

Amy Airiel · January 15, 2014 12:01 am

shezza wrote:
Yes but if she only had murdered child rapists and mafia bosses I suspect she wouldn't have been so opposed to John knowing the truth.

This, too. Mary knows John. She knows he's killed for less (crazy cabbie anyone), for Sherlock's sake. She knows John would understand if she was some kind of vigilante. But she is not.

(Have in your mind that I did like her, a lot. I don't want her gone or hated, but as I see it, she was incredibly selfish and John dissapointed me, utterly.)

NotYourHousekeeperDear · January 15, 2014 12:01 am

It disturbs me greatly that we don't know who Mary is at all. There was a comment early in this thread by Lill which talk about how Moftiss manipulated us to first like Mary by making us believe she was a warm, lovely, smart woman who loved John and accepted Sherlock and then in HLV turned it all upside down, having her shoot Sherlock and then bizarrely have Both John and Sherlock forgive her for deceiving them with almost no explanation, other than, oh she's a sociopath, that must have been why you were attracted to her, John (isn't this the worst kind of victim blaming?). So why would the writers do this to us?
Do they want us to hate Mary after all so it is easier for us when she (and maybe John's baby) dies? That doesn't seem right, because they would have never got us to love her then surely? Or do they think, we like John, will just follow Sherlock's lead, and forgive her? Why. I just can't get my head around it!

sj4iy · January 15, 2014 12:07 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
LoveBug54 wrote:
Ozema, I agree with you! I can only hope there is some rational explanation later for some of it. After all, it seemed very stupid of Mycroft to tell Moriarty things about Sherlock then even let him go, but we found later it was all part of his and Sherlock's plan to defeat him.

Mary is an orphan because Canon!Mary is an orphan. Also, we are supposed to think the shooter is Smallwood because of the perfume and because in the Canon Milverton is killed by one of his victims. But Moffet likes to put his own twist on the Canon, thus Mary becomes the shooter instead. But did he have to give her the background of a killer to do that? He could have made up some other, less monstrous, background for her and she would have been a much more sympathetic character who takes up a gun out of desperation. But, Moffat has the bad habit of coming to his conclusions and twisting plot points to fit. I know it's anathema in this fandom to criticize The Mofftis but sometimes it's justified when the writing isn't making sense.

If you want to see a brilliant and more faithful adaptation of this story check out Jeremy Brett' s The Master Blackmailer.
This seems to be a trend in scriptwriting, and I don't like it: Amoral main characters-- to me, it's a sensationalist, cheap way of upping the tension for the audience; the character does horrible things, but as a main character, the audience must struggle with the quaundary of whether to empathize, or not. It's as if the writers are trying to lead the audience into a struggle with their own morality. The series "Dexter" was a good example of this, and so is BBC's Sherlock.

Just me ramblin' again...

The original story itself has Sherlock and Watson refusing to investigate the crime because they thought Milverton deserved what he got. This isn't a 'trend' in scriptwriting...it was right there in the original story itself written over 100 years ago. Amorality or ambiguous morality isn't a new concept...it's a popular theme in many famous literary masterpieces throughout history. It's because morality is entirely a social construct...it's something that varies from culture to culture and invariably from person to person. Homosexuality used to be considered amoral by almost everyone a thousand years ago...now it's fast being accepted as acceptable. If a woman kills her abusive husband, is that amoral? The law doesn't cover every situation, nor does it account for those those know how to manipulate it to their advantage.

Sherlock Holmes has never been Dudley Do-Right, in ANY version of the story. This isn't sensationism...it's storytelling. Of course the writers are trying to make us question ourselves...that's what great writers do. Those are my favorite books and tv shows, as a matter of fact. People are neither wholey good or wholey bad. We are a mix, and we change over time.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 15, 2014 12:13 am)

Ozma · January 15, 2014 12:11 am

NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:
It disturbs me greatly that we don't know who Mary is at all. There was a comment early in this thread by Lill which talk about how Moftiss manipulated us to first like Mary by making us believe she was a warm, lovely, smart woman who loved John and accepted Sherlock and then in HLV turned it all upside down, having her shoot Sherlock and then bizarrely have Both John and Sherlock forgive her for deceiving them with almost no explanation, other than, oh she's a sociopath, that must have been why you were attracted to her, John (isn't this the worst kind of victim blaming?). So why would the writers do this to us?
Do they want us to hate Mary after all so it is easier for us when she (and maybe John's baby) dies? That doesn't seem right, because they would have never got us to love her then surely? Or do they think, we like John, will just follow Sherlock's lead, and forgive her? Why. I just can't get my head around it!

I think ultimately it was a plot device - or, in the case of Mofftiss, what I feel is a huge example of 'trolling' - ie they set her up so people would like her, to then ultimately kill her off; but they knew everybody was expecting her to die in HLV so not only they didn't kill her, but they trolled us again by showing her as a baddie and then turning her into someone who John and Sherlock forgive - so pushing her again on to the side of the angels (or to be more specific and avoid misunderstanding of 'John and Sherlock are no innocent souls', what I mean by that is, pushing her towards our point of view, with the heroes - because as protagonists of the story this is what John and Sherlock are).

They knew we were expecting her death and so they turned things around, for now. I am not saying they think we don't expect her to die any more, but now they have a whole 3 episodes in which to do it, and they will take us by surprise and yes, perhaps even use her bad side to sweeten the pill and make her death more 'acceptable'. Particularly if she gives her life for them.

Ozma · January 15, 2014 12:14 am

Swanpride wrote:
Sherlock knew that Mary called the ambulance because it was there to help him very fast. If John had called it, it would have been too late.

I thought so too. But may I ask - where the bloody hell was John in all this? Did he get lost in Magnussen's office? Why in the blue hell did he let Sherlock roam around a place where evidently someone is hiding and attacking people, on his own? Why didn't they stay together once they saw that Jeanine had been attacked??

sj4iy · January 15, 2014 12:17 am

Ozma wrote:
NotYourHousekeeperDear wrote:
It disturbs me greatly that we don't know who Mary is at all. There was a comment early in this thread by Lill which talk about how Moftiss manipulated us to first like Mary by making us believe she was a warm, lovely, smart woman who loved John and accepted Sherlock and then in HLV turned it all upside down, having her shoot Sherlock and then bizarrely have Both John and Sherlock forgive her for deceiving them with almost no explanation, other than, oh she's a sociopath, that must have been why you were attracted to her, John (isn't this the worst kind of victim blaming?). So why would the writers do this to us?
Do they want us to hate Mary after all so it is easier for us when she (and maybe John's baby) dies? That doesn't seem right, because they would have never got us to love her then surely? Or do they think, we like John, will just follow Sherlock's lead, and forgive her? Why. I just can't get my head around it!
I think ultimately it was a plot device - or, in the case of Mofftiss, what I feel is a huge example of 'trolling' - ie they set her up so people would like her, to then ultimately kill her off; but they knew everybody was expecting her to die in HLV so not only they didn't kill her, but they trolled us again by showing her as a baddie and then turning her into someone who John and Sherlock forgive - so pushing her again on to the side of the angels (or to be more specific and avoid misunderstanding of 'John and Sherlock are no innocent souls', what I mean by that is, pushing her towards our point of view, with the heroes - because as protagonists of the story this is what John and Sherlock are).

They knew we were expecting her death and so they turned things around, for now. I am not saying they think we don't expect her to die any more, but now they have a whole 3 episodes in which to do it, and they will take us by surprise and yes, perhaps even use her bad side to sweeten the pill and make her death more 'acceptable'. Particularly if she gives her life for them.

How is it 'trolling' to show us the good side of Mary? She's not Satan, you know. Just like it's not 'trolling' us to show the darker side of Sherlock.

I don't get why people are so quick to try to place people into two categories: GOOD, BAD. Good people do bad things and bad people do good things. Hell, even Disney has stopped the "evil witch" "good prince" crap now. 'Sherlock' is an adult show with adult themes.

sj4iy · January 15, 2014 12:19 am

Ozma wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
Sherlock knew that Mary called the ambulance because it was there to help him very fast. If John had called it, it would have been too late.
I thought so too. But may I ask - where the bloody hell was John in all this? Did he get lost in Magnussen's office? Why in the blue hell did he let Sherlock roam around a place where evidently someone is hiding and attacking people, on his own? Why didn't they stay together once they saw that Jeanine had been attacked??

Sherlock told John to stay with Janine and he went downstairs to look for Magnussen. Mary used a silencer and he wouldn't have heard the gunshot. He's been with Sherlock long enough to trust that Sherlock can handle himself.

shezza · January 15, 2014 12:19 am

Frankly what I'm most afraid of now is the baby. I don't know if I'd be able to cope with an infant on Sherlock So I'm really sorry for Jawn but I dearly hope the missus and the kid go. And knowing Moftiss, I just know it's never going to happen - she's about to give birth by the end of HLV so the most probable thing is that by the first episode of season 4 rolls around the kid's already arrived.

I just hope they won't write themselves into a corner with this wife-and-kid development. Sherlock Holmes is about 221b Baker Street dammit.