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

RedKitten · March 4, 2014 4:12 am

Ok I never post to these things but I decided to do so here.
I knew that Mary would not be killed off at the end of series 3 because it would have made very little sense to do so after having spent a whole episode, when there are only 3 the begin with, on the wedding. I mean why 'waste" a whole episode on a marriage that lasts a month? And they didn't have to kill her if they really wanted to get rid of the character--Mary's lying to John about her past/shooting Sherlock could have ended her right there. In fact, Moffat once said in an interview that he wanted to look at the idea of Sherlock and John living apart but didn't know if he would have John get married. He obviously had his reasons for deciding to do that.
Sorry folks, but the baby is the issue here. That's because the idea of the pregnancy/baby is so far out of canon that to bring it into the story and then just have it go away (loss of pregnancy/baby death/child living elsewhere) just for the sake of canon is pointless. Add to that, the fact that they throw canon out the window all the time. Now Moffat and Gatiss have been known to introduce pointless plot developments into their stories (Molly's engagement, for example), but I don't think this is one of them. This all has to do with the fact that Moffat is very fond of the idea of family. The idea of "family" is all over his past projects--Coupling, Jekyll, even Doctor Who (Amy and Rory were the first married couple to be The Doctor's companions. They even had a child--although that didn't work out like it usually does, but still...). And you couldn't miss the family bonding theme in this 3rd Sherlock series. Anyway, what Moffat is doing here is something that is sometimes done in genre TV--giving a/the protagonist a surrogate family. Through John and Mary, he is giving Sherlock a kind of family (i.e., couple/child) that he will never have on his own. This has nothing to do with what is or is not canon and everything to do with an idea that Moffat is partial to. And as it's his show, he can do whatever he wants. I'm not saying that Mary/baby will be playing a big role in upcoming series but they will be there. I'm looking foward to the scene set 17 or 18 years in the future where Sherlock and John are interrogating one of the girl's dates before the couple heads out.

Zatoichi · March 4, 2014 8:59 am

Well, that would fit with their interview when they said they won´t just kill her off in the hiatus and plan to keep her around some time, now they introduced her so extensively. I didn´t know Moffat was so partial to surrogate families in his work.

The good thing is that this minimizes the danger for unborn baby Watson.

But the thought really worries me.. I dislike their family-interaction in TSoT with a passion and I have no idea how they could possibly make it work after all that happened. I´m open to let their genius surprise me, but.. oh no, I don´t even want to think about Sherlock/John/Baby-interactions.. Mary being the benevolent mother for all of them.. nooooo!!! *runs away screaming*

Ozymandias · March 4, 2014 9:22 am

I swear, if I see the "Let uncle Sherlock change your diapers thing or omg she is so cute when you're holding her", I will turn off my computer. It's Sherlock BBC, not The Big Bang Theory or How I met your mother....

Last edited by Ozymandias (March 4, 2014 9:22 am)

Zatoichi · March 4, 2014 9:37 am

Theywon´tletthathappentheywon´tletthathappentheywon´t..

nakahara · March 4, 2014 10:49 am

Yet they somehow made that baby more real when they let John reveal that she will be a girl (and she will probably be called Shirley after Sherlock, I bet.)

Too much effort if they just want to kill baby off in S4.

Willow · March 4, 2014 11:00 am

nakahara wrote:
Yet they somehow made that baby more real when they let John reveal that she will be a girl (and she will probably be called Shirley after Sherlock, I bet.)

Too much effort if they just want to kill baby off in S4.

My impression was that the 'it's a girl' bit was John's explanation for why none of Sherlock's names could work; Sherlock doesn't know about the conversation between John and Mary on this topic, although obviously we do know because the writers made sure we know...

Tinks · March 4, 2014 11:07 am

Well if there's a Baby, and if Mary is sticking around, then I guess things will go on much as they did last season, with some focus on John's happy family life and him getting caught up in Sherlock's adventures whenever he goes to visit him.
It could also mean a season finale that sees the death of Mary, which is something I really, really don't want, but we wait and see.

nakahara · March 4, 2014 11:34 am

Can′t she just be kidnapped by TARDIS or by the Weeping Angels?

Last edited by nakahara (March 4, 2014 12:26 pm)

Zatoichi · March 4, 2014 11:38 am

Couldn´t the baby just live in the lovely countryside with John´s parents, please? I can´t stand anything happen to babys/kids on the TV anymore since I have kids myself, but happy family life..?

But you´re right Tinks, wait and see.. (argh..^^)

Edit: That´s a neat solution, nakahara!

Last edited by Zatoichi (March 4, 2014 11:39 am)

Willow · March 4, 2014 12:24 pm

Tinks wrote:
Well if there's a Baby, and if Mary is sticking around, then I guess things will go on much as they did last season, with some focus on John's happy family life and him getting caught up in Sherlock's adventures whenever he goes to visit him.
It could also mean a season finale that sees the death of Mary, which is something I really, really don't want, but we wait and see.

Well, the opening show will be a big knockdown fight between Sherlock and whoever is responsible for Moriarty's gif, and I cannot see John being allowed in on that with the lethal killer nurse in tow; I'm voting for a resolution in the first episode.

Unless, of course, Sherlock's sabotaged plane is forced to make a crash landing, tragically killing Mary in the process, but with John nobly rescuing Sherlock from the blazing wreckage

nakahara · March 4, 2014 12:53 pm

Willow wrote:
Tinks wrote:
Well if there's a Baby, and if Mary is sticking around, then I guess things will go on much as they did last season, with some focus on John's happy family life and him getting caught up in Sherlock's adventures whenever he goes to visit him.
It could also mean a season finale that sees the death of Mary, which is something I really, really don't want, but we wait and see.
Well, the opening show will be a big knockdown fight between Sherlock and whoever is responsible for Moriarty's gif, and I cannot see John being allowed in on that with the lethal killer nurse in tow; I'm voting for a resolution in the first episode.

Unless, of course, Sherlock's sabotaged plane is forced to make a crash landing, tragically killing Mary in the process, but with John nobly rescuing Sherlock from the blazing wreckage

Please, no 3- and 4-degree burns on our detective, I like him in one piece, unhurt.

mrshouse · March 4, 2014 2:56 pm

Lovelies, I can't express how annoying this all sounds to me...
maryjohnbabydoglock??? Gross...😒 But I have to admit that some of the reasonings sound plausible. But moftiss needs to restore some balance to the universe again, which is difficult. In my opinion Mary is Mary sued even more by making her a bamf, there is literally nothing anymore she can't provide, she even wants to keep John in trouble. Where is place for Sherlock? I want my boys!!!!!

Tinks · March 4, 2014 3:12 pm

It's the placing of Sherlock that bothers me a bit, too - it's almost like he could become a third party, and it's ok for Moffatt to say the show's not about Sherlock but about John because it's his blog, but that's inaccurate - the Holmes stories were about the adventures of Holmes and Watson.

March 5, 2014 10:59 am

Remember that we were told before series 3 aired and during setlock that fans were going to feel as frustrated as ever. And look at what we see here.
In canon Doyle found an easy way to deal with Dr. Watson's wife Mary Morstan. Her name was not mentioned after The sign of Four. Sometimes a wife was mentioned and sometimes she was just gone. Some scholars think that Watson had several different wifes.
In Victorian times Doyle couldn't do a divorce in his stories (although he often hinted at the problematic legal situation for women in "inconvenient" marriages and supported the right to get a divorce).

Today we can have a divorce for John and Mary or simply state that the marriage was illegal from the beginning. But I doubt that we will get that. Would be boring. I also doubt that the writers go to all the trouble to have a marriage and a lengthy wedding speech and a baby to just kill them. That would be a surprise, but what's the point.
I bet that the writers are tempted to do a baby in Baker Street scene (BakerStreetBabes!) just because they can. They wanted to see how Sherlock would cope with being the best man and placed him in the fluffy wedding scenario with dancing, kissing, hugging, love....

In the 21st century there are several possibilities to find a reason why people part, divorce or live together in a partnership. Patchwork-families. Lesbian women with a child, gay men married with a child, conventional marriages with children whose real parents live elsewhere or people in a partnership of their very own creation. There are a lot of possibilities to cope with Mrs. Watson and her daughter alive without them standing between John and Sherlock.
But a crime investigation concerning their death would be nice, too.

I think that we can try to look at the hints we have rather than speculate at what will happen later. Who knows whether we are alive at that time.

lil · March 5, 2014 4:39 pm

Agree@swan...a modern reflection of society could easily be a single father John with grandma Hudders and Sherlock helping out as the extended family of choice.
Its not exactly canon but before we know it we could easily have a baker st dozen type kids gang being sent out to find strange coloured taxis or boats on occasion.
I don't get the responsable parent John means no dangerous adventures John...policemen. .firemen...soldiers...s.a.s ...mi6 agents...we all have families too.I do think it would mean a more mature duo but we got a hint of that already.

Whats not wanted is an excess of awkward embaressing baby and kiddy fluff stuff...which is easily avoided anyway .
Standing by your friends , helping them with problems and children and choosing the people who become family and the diversity of society that has lead to..is apt for this century.
So its possible they could do that, and do it well.

Last edited by lil (March 5, 2014 4:41 pm)

stoertebeker · March 5, 2014 6:33 pm

lil wrote:
I don't get the responsable parent John means no dangerous adventures John...policemen. .firemen...soldiers...s.a.s ...mi6 agents...we all have families too.I do think it would mean a more mature duo but we got a hint of that already.

Besides, we know that John is a kind of adrenaline junkie. Even if he tries to be responsible, I don't think he could manage to be out of trouble for long (and Sherlock would ensure that ).

Willow · March 5, 2014 10:17 pm

stoertebeker wrote:
lil wrote:
I don't get the responsable parent John means no dangerous adventures John...policemen. .firemen...soldiers...s.a.s ...mi6 agents...we all have families too.I do think it would mean a more mature duo but we got a hint of that already.

Besides, we know that John is a kind of adrenaline junkie. Even if he tries to be responsible, I don't think he could manage to be out of trouble for long (and Sherlock would ensure that ).

I think that perhaps Sherlock has changed; he will still be looking for dragons to slay but I do feel that he has grown up, and become closer to canon in that sense. I agree that people with dangerous jobs are not precluded from family life, but our John is less likely to be able to persuade a friend to take over his practise for a few days than the original; it's difficult to see how they would work out the mechanics.

Of course, a live in nanny might solve some of the potential problems

Fillyjonk · March 5, 2014 10:49 pm

lil wrote:
Agree@swan...a modern reflection of society could easily be a single father John with grandma Hudders and Sherlock helping out as the extended family of choice.
Its not exactly canon but before we know it we could easily have a baker st dozen type kids gang being sent out to find strange coloured taxis or boats on occasion.
I don't get the responsable parent John means no dangerous adventures John...policemen. .firemen...soldiers...s.a.s ...mi6 agents...we all have families too..

It's true that real-life policemen, firemen, etc. have families. But real-life folks like aren't routinely targeted and kidnapped because of their jobs. Alas, we have to live in the canon (fictional) world where anyone close to John or Sherlock is likely to be kidnapped, poisoned, or extorted on a regular basis. That's fiine when John gets kidnapped (three times!); he can (fictionally) shake off the trauma of that. But put in an innocent child, and as far as I can tell, neither Sherlock nor John dares to take on Moriarty or Magnussen again. Look how dangerous their mere affection for each other and Mary has been!

Fillyjonk

miriel68 · March 6, 2014 8:21 am

Admittedly,I am very curious about how they will handle Mary in the 4th seson. I think they got themselves in a very tight corner there. On the other hand it is Moftiss we are talking about... The pregnancy factor is a most intriguing one. I loved it when they twisted our expectation about "The Sign of Three", but I agree with other posters that simply killing the child is not really the option, it would be to shocking and to cruel to John.My guess is that they know they will need to get rid of Mary (they are, after all, ACD fans and may do some un-orthodox things, but have never actually gone AGAINST the canon so far) and they prepared the ground by "secret agent" factor. This way1. We love her a bit less (she was becoming far too much likeable in first two episodes)and therefore2. Will mourn her loss lessand3. they open the possibilities of dispatching Mary in a plausible way (Otherwise: how many heatlhy women die suddelny in their forties nowadays?) The most daunting challenge, as I see it, is to "solve" Mary's & baby's problem without inflicting too much trauma on John. He has been traumatized by Sherlock's death long enough and the last thing the show needs is having John mourning again too much. Also, because it would take the focus from John & Sherlock doing "new" things.Hmm....

Willow · March 6, 2014 1:43 pm

miriel68 wrote:
Admittedly,I am very curious about how they will handle Mary in the 4th seson. I think they got themselves in a very tight corner there. On the other hand it is Moftiss we are talking about... The pregnancy factor is a most intriguing one. I loved it when they twisted our expectation about "The Sign of Three", but I agree with other posters that simply killing the child is not really the option, it would be to shocking and to cruel to John.My guess is that they know they will need to get rid of Mary (they are, after all, ACD fans and may do some un-orthodox things, but have never actually gone AGAINST the canon so far) and they prepared the ground by "secret agent" factor. This way1. We love her a bit less (she was becoming far too much likeable in first two episodes)and therefore2. Will mourn her loss lessand3. they open the possibilities of dispatching Mary in a plausible way (Otherwise: how many heatlhy women die suddelny in their forties nowadays?) The most daunting challenge, as I see it, is to "solve" Mary's & baby's problem without inflicting too much trauma on John. He has been traumatized by Sherlock's death long enough and the last thing the show needs is having John mourning again too much. Also, because it would take the focus from John & Sherlock doing "new" things.Hmm....

Well, having a baby in one's 40's is a great deal safer than it used to be, but it is not entirely without risks; I do agree whole heartedly that I really do not want to see John mourning again, not least because it sucks the life out of the iconic centrepiece of Sherlock and John adventuring together.

In practical terms the writers need to decide whether it's possible to move Mary into the background but still have her in John's life, or dispense with her altogether; there are enough clues to suggest that her involvement with John's kidnapping in TEH may not have been wholly innocent, and I think that if this were the case then John might conclude there was no way back from there. If she was a willing party to set Sherlock up for CAM then even the 'I don't want to know' John would be hard pressed to carry on not wanting to know.

One possibility is a rerun of the John and Mycroft discussion at the end of aSiB, but this time between Sherlock and Mycroft, suggesting that Mary is in a witness protection scheme whereas they believe her to be dead. The wheel turning is a favourite Moftiss device; they love to echo and subtly change the themes.

Mary being pregnant is, I think, the reason John is prepared to toss the memory stick in the fire; Mary not being in jail gives Sherlock his cover story for getting into Appledore, which both he and Mycroft want. I can, therefore, see logical reasons for Sherlock's actions; I don't think it's about Sherlock forgiving Mary, it's about Sherlock needing Mary if he is to have a shot at getting into the dragon's lair and uncovering the treasure hoard of information.

Last edited by Willow (March 6, 2014 10:57 pm)