BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » How Mary could have shot Sherlock and everyone forgave her for it

ancientsgate · February 4, 2014 1:53 am

Willow wrote:
Sherlock killed CaM for his brother and for his country, not John; the fact that it gave John some much needed wriggle room was a bonus, not a cause. Sherlock murdered, and he was prepared to pay the price for it, because CAM would have destroyed everything, as well as everyone, he held dear.

Oh, I don't think so. I don't think Sherlock gives a fig about Queen and country, or his dear brother, either, except when the casework is interesting. But John is his heart.... and Mary is John's heart..... so it's a whole lot more likely that the murder of CAM was primarily to protect John and Mary. I also think Sherlock found CAM an abhorrent human being, the lowest of the low, someone who preys on the innocent and takes great glee in the process, something Sherlock can't stomach. So at the moment he pulled the gun and shot him, I think Sherlock could only be satisfied that he'd done the right best thing for all of them-- Queen, country, Mycroft, John, Mary, the baby, and all the entities everywhere who'd ever been tortured and blackmailed by that evil man. But remember what Sherlock told John in the wash of the helicopter, with all the red laser lights trained on him, "Tell Mary she's safe now!" This was not a man who just killed someone for the Queen's interests.

clareiow · February 4, 2014 7:00 am

I reckon motfiss will be rubbing their hands together with glee that we've had 12 pages of discussion about this - that's all part of the Sherlock "experience"!

I truly think Sherlock simply snapped. CAM broke him with the final straw that was flicking Johns face. I think he he played all his cards and had lost, and CAM knew he had won, and that's why he shot.

As for Mary I think he knew Mary had provided John solace while he was technically dead, made john happy. And there's the fact john looks for the dangerous. Mary and Sherlock are one and the same in a certain way. Sherlock sees that - Mary and John are one, and Sherlock and John are one. The Sign of Three. One goes and they all break.

I'm sure there's dozens of possible explanations, and it's fun to look beyond the face value of it - one day we might find out officially!

Willow · February 4, 2014 9:59 am

ancientsgate wrote:
Willow wrote:
Sherlock killed CaM for his brother and for his country, not John; the fact that it gave John some much needed wriggle room was a bonus, not a cause. Sherlock murdered, and he was prepared to pay the price for it, because CAM would have destroyed everything, as well as everyone, he held dear.
Oh, I don't think so. I don't think Sherlock gives a fig about Queen and country, or his dear brother, either, except when the casework is interesting. But John is his heart.... and Mary is John's heart..... so it's a whole lot more likely that the murder of CAM was primarily to protect John and Mary. I also think Sherlock found CAM an abhorrent human being, the lowest of the low, someone who preys on the innocent and takes great glee in the process, something Sherlock can't stomach. So at the moment he pulled the gun and shot him, I think Sherlock could only be satisfied that he'd done the right best thing for all of them-- Queen, country, Mycroft, John, Mary, the baby, and all the entities everywhere who'd ever been tortured and blackmailed by that evil man. But remember what Sherlock told John in the wash of the helicopter, with all the red laser lights trained on him, "Tell Mary she's safe now!" This was not a man who just killed someone for the Queen's interests.

No, that was a man who knew that Mary should be put down like Redbeard because she is a danger to everyone around her, and cannot yet be because she is pregnant. The 'Tell Mary she's safe now' line is damage limitation, because a Mary who thinks she's safe is marginally less likely to kill than in her default setting.

It's also nonsense because CAM derived his knowledge from sources; those sources are still alive, and Mary will never be safe because too many people know what she was. Sherlock knows that because it is blindingly obvious, but he's trying to ease the burden from John.

See? It's really easy to construct alternative narratives; the difficulty is constructing rational narratives. Moftiss are intelligent people who like to write stuff which can be enjoyed on a number of levels; bodice rippers they are not

ancientsgate · February 4, 2014 11:22 am

clareiow wrote:
...I truly think Sherlock simply snapped. CAM broke him with the final straw that was flicking Johns face. I think he he played all his cards and had lost, and CAM knew he had won, and that's why he shot.

Definitely a matter of his having said "enough" and deciding to just end it, yes, I agree. You can see Sherlock standing there, thinking it over, while John was getting flicked. I wonder if one of the last straws was when that dreadful horrible man announced that Janine had kept her eye open when she got flicked, and that she'd made the most interesting sounds..... argh! That had to have been one of the many straws that broke the camel's back.

Willow · February 4, 2014 11:45 am

ancientsgate wrote:
clareiow wrote:
...I truly think Sherlock simply snapped. CAM broke him with the final straw that was flicking Johns face. I think he he played all his cards and had lost, and CAM knew he had won, and that's why he shot.
Definitely a matter of his having said "enough" and deciding to just end it, yes, I agree. You can see Sherlock standing there, thinking it over, while John was getting flicked. I wonder if one of the last straws was when that dreadful horrible man announced that Janine had kept her eye open when she got flicked, and that she'd made the most interesting sounds..... argh! That had to have been one of the many straws that broke the camel's back.

The difficulty with that analysis is that Sherlock didn't break then; if he had he would have shot CAM then, or even allowed John to shoot CAM then. Instead, Sherlock told John to put up with it whilst he reviewed the possibilities; having concluded that there was no other workable strategy, he then waited until Mycroft plus large numbers of armed officers were in plain sight, to take John's gun and shoot CAM. He preserves Mycroft's plausible deniability, and ensures that John is seen by independent witnesses not to be the one who shot CAM. Those are not the actions of a broken man; he was thinking.

And, of course, he was prepared to pay the price; his own life, either there on the terrace at Appledore or in the field six months later...

silverblaze · February 4, 2014 2:23 pm

Acting on a strong emotion doesn't always necessarily mean that you completely lose common sense. Especially not someone like Sherlock. The problem with using metaphors like 'breaking' is that they're not entirely accurate, even when they are appropriate.

Tinks · February 4, 2014 2:53 pm

I really don't think he "broke" so much as he used his plan B.
He checked John had his gun and where it was.
He checked there were no paper files.
He waited - twitching with frustration while the odious CAM demonstrated his power by flicking John- for Mycroft and other witnesses to John's innocence to arrive.
Then he shot him and waited for the consequences.
I don't think it was ideally what he wanted to do, but I think it was always his back up plan.

RavenMorganLeigh · February 4, 2014 10:23 pm

silverblaze wrote:
Acting on a strong emotion doesn't always necessarily mean that you completely lose common sense. Especially not someone like Sherlock. The problem with using metaphors like 'breaking' is that they're not entirely accurate, even when they are appropriate.

And right here, is also my reasoning for not beleiving that Mary had any intention of saving Sherlock's life.

silverblaze · February 5, 2014 12:04 pm

Then why would she call the ambulance? And why not just shoot him in the head? Makes no sense then.

ancientsgate · February 5, 2014 12:10 pm

silverblaze wrote:
Then why would she call the ambulance? And why not just shoot him in the head? Makes no sense then.

As Sherlock observes in that scene with John and Mary back in 221B, with Sherlock bleeding to death internally and barely hanging on by his teeth in the face of the pain and ebbing consciousness, Mary never meant to kill him. If she'd meant to kill him, he'd've been dead already.

Last edited by ancientsgate (February 6, 2014 11:06 am)

SolarSystem · February 5, 2014 12:23 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
silverblaze wrote:
Then why would she call the ambulance? And why not just shoot him in the head? Makes no sense then.
As Sherlock observes in that scene with John and Mary back in 221B, with Sherlock bleeding to death internally and barely hanging on by his teeth in the face of the pain and ebbing consciousness, Mary never meant to kill him. If she'd meant to kill him, he've been dead already.

And I still believe that if she wanted to make absolutely sure that Sherlock survived she would have taken another shot. It was already suggested, aim somewhere compareably harmless - as a CIA agent she'd know where to aim - and then knock him out. Even calling the ambulance didn't help, as we've seen. Sherlock flatlined.

Willow · February 5, 2014 4:44 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Comparable harmless? Where? I guess you mean arm and legs, but that is not as "harmless" as some people believe. If you happen to hit an ateria, the victim will bleed out very, very fast. In fact, the only place in the body which you can shot without mayor risk of hitting an important one is on the right side of the upper body (on the left side is the aorta) - and that's exactly where the bullet ended up.

Let's examine the situation. Mary has two mayor goals: The first one is getting rid of Magnusson, the second one is keeping John in the dark of her true identity.

She could get both by simply killing Magnusson and Sherlock. But that would result in
1. John being devasted because Sherlock is dead and
2. John being in trouble and pehaps even under the suspicion of murder.

She could try to salvage the situation by convincing Sherlock - but that would cost time and John might enter any minute. So to avoid John finding out, she has to act fast.

She could try to knock out both, Magnusson and Sherlock. But Sherlock doesn't head her warning that she will shot so she has basically no control over him. If she allows him to come closer, the result will be a messy fight.

So her solution is to take out Sherlock with one precise shot which won't kill him immediatly (giving the ambulance time to arrive) and knocking out Magnusson. She calls the ambulance and leaves, hoping that she'll have the opportunity to talk to Sherlock before he tells John.

Would she have killed Sherlock to protect her secret once and for all later on? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Sherlock would have never put John in the place of the dummy if he had believed that she was ready to shot first and ask questions later. Her main goal was to convince Sherlock, not to kill him.

Er, no. I am sorry, but it is utterly ludicrous to suggest that a shot into the central mass is safer than a shot into a limb; even if a bullet hits an artery in a limb it is easy peasy to put a tourniquet on that limb, which is what paramedics do all of the time. John was there, as she had established before she shot Sherlock, and he certainly knows how to put a tourniquet on. You can't put a tourniquet on someone who is bleeding internally because there's nowhere to put it; the only option is immediate surgery, and as we know, Sherlock died on the table.

It would help your other arguments if you didn't make such easily refutable claims; of course Sherlock thought she might shoot first and ask questions later, which is why her picture is projected all over the facade at Leinster Gardens. He specifically told her that, noting that if his body were found there even the police would be able to solve it. And by that point she'd already had her opportunity to talk with Sherlock; she'd threatened him in the hospital, and she was following it up by hunting him across London with a loaded gun.

Incidentally, there is no evidence that there would be a messy fight; you have conjured that one from nowhere. She didn't even give Sherlock the one step, as in

'If you take one more step I swear that I'll shoot you'

because she shot him before he could take that step. This was distinctly unsporting of her, I have to say

clareiow · February 5, 2014 5:07 pm

Ah but if she shot him in the arm or leg he would've still had a voice, and told john there and then.

By sending him deep into unconsciousness, she could grasp an opportunity later (as she did) to speak with Sherlock without John hearing.

A shot anywhere else would have blown her cover. Although Sherlock made sure that was blown anyway, she didn't bank on that.

I still believe Sherlock comes out of the whole thing a bloody hero. And if he forgives Mary - and let's face it, he doesn't have to! - then we all must. So there

ancientsgate · February 5, 2014 5:52 pm

Swanpride wrote:
.....Would she have killed Sherlock to protect her secret once and for all later on? Perhaps, but I don't think so. ....

Never. The show is called Sherlock, so they need him, plus him coming back from the "dead" is so two years ago. So no, she couldn't kill him, and neither could anyone else. When they had him "die", it left me completely unmoved-- I didn't believe for an instant that he was in any permanent danger.

ancientsgate · February 5, 2014 5:58 pm

clareiow wrote:
Ah but if she shot him in the arm or leg he would've still had a voice, and told john there and then. By sending him deep into unconsciousness, she could grasp an opportunity later (as she did) to speak with Sherlock without John hearing.

I agree. A wounded but still talking and moving Sherlock would have been dangerous to her, to her being found out, etc. I think she absolutely knew what she was doing-- yes, taking a chance with Sherlock's life, but at least giving him a chance, not shooting him dead where he stood. She loves him, after all. And how endearing was his offer to help her, in those moments before she took her shot? She has history, yes, but she's not totally unfeeling and uncaring. Plus she knew that if she killed Sherlock, she would break her husband's heart in two-- she'd already seen his suffering while Sherlock was "dead", but real dead? That might've done John in for good. This is a woman literally between a rock and a hard place, in those seconds of decision before she shot Sherlock.

Tinks · February 5, 2014 6:34 pm

I agree that we will have to forgive Mary as Sherlock has because I think she's a permanent feature of the series now (I didn't think so before but I've changed my mind now)
I just wish they'd made it easier to do so.
- even accepting that she had no choice but to make such a potentially dangerous shot, I can't accept that she "saved" Sherlock - she didn't, he saved himself.
- if she had any regard for him at all, why be so threatening when he was ill in Hospital? Why "you don't tell John" rather than "please don't tell John until I've explained to you"?
- if she had any regard for him at all, why track him down when he left the Hospital and threaten him again? Why not try to explain herself and ask him to keep quiet for John's sake?
- why when they went back to Baker Street, when neither she or John paid any attention to the fact that Sherlock was getting weaker by the minute, was she still being harsh and unremorseful towards him
- if it was so imperative that she stopped CAM, why didn't she continue to go after him in the months when Sherlock was hospitalised and John estranged from her?
- and why was it that the only friendly gesture she made after the shooting was when she hugged him goodbye?
- then we have the fact that neither she nor John appeared to thank Sherlock or even show any regret for the fact that he was being banished from the life he knows, while they settled down happily and got on with their lives.

I suppose it's the writers I'm angry with really, ultimately.
They've shown Sherlock to be a hero, yes, but they've done a disservice to both Mary and John in the meantime, imo.

besleybean · February 5, 2014 6:50 pm

Really only the last point(the airport goodbye)Ican agree with you on...maybe it's the guy thing...they both would have been too embarrassed to acknowkedge that Sherlock shot CAM to protect Mary...because he loves John.
I could never be angry with the 2 men I consider to be the finest TV writers.
I couldn't do any better.

Tinks · February 5, 2014 7:04 pm

besleybean wrote:
Really only the last point(the airport goodbye)Ican agree with you on...maybe it's the guy thing...they both would have been too embarrassed to acknowkedge that Sherlock shot CAM to protect Mary...because he loves John.
I could never be angry with the 2 men I consider to be the finest TV writers.
I couldn't do any better.

Oh I certainly couldn't do any better either!
But it's like, I love my Boyfriend but I'm allowed to be cross with him sometimes! :D

besleybean · February 5, 2014 7:08 pm

Tee Hee.

SolarSystem · February 5, 2014 7:15 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
.....Would she have killed Sherlock to protect her secret once and for all later on? Perhaps, but I don't think so. ....
Never. The show is called Sherlock, so they need him, plus him coming back from the "dead" is so two years ago. So no, she couldn't kill him, and neither could anyone else. When they had him "die", it left me completely unmoved-- I didn't believe for an instant that he was in any permanent danger.

I didn't believe for an instant that he was in any permanent danger (or that he would die), either. But that's not really what we're discussing in this thread. Even if it's impossible to kill Sherlock off and we know this and we know that Moffat can't do this, there still remains the question (if it's something one wants to discuss) whether or not Mary could have had different options to incapacitate Sherlock. This has nothing to do with the fact that in the end he just can't die. It has to do with what 'evidence' we find in this particular scene.