BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » My thoughts about Mary (all episodes)

Willow · March 4, 2014 10:50 pm

Ozymandias wrote:
Yeah, but what is the ratio for finding a nice ex-assassin working at your clinic as a nurse? Hmm...
UNLESS John Watson is actually a magnet for dangerous people (in a litteral meaning).

Frankly, at this time of night I do not wish to embark on a stastical analysis.

All I can say is that I would be delighted to read yours...

lil · March 5, 2014 1:33 am

Talking of true love..and tragic endings in a few threads ...yet.
I don't really see any love between Mary @ John at all...
I see a manipulative sociopath/psychopath that has taken command of a vulnerable and barely intrested John..Marys relationship and actions are completely opposite to the Sherlock/John relationship.
They didn't show us a Mary - John love story.
They did show us a Sherlock loves John story.

And I don't ship / mean or want Johnlock.......

Last edited by lil (March 5, 2014 1:36 am)

mrshouse · March 5, 2014 4:48 am

lil wrote:
Talking of true love..and tragic endings in a few threads ...yet.
I don't really see any love between Mary @ John at all...
I see a manipulative sociopath/psychopath that has taken command of a vulnerable and barely intrested John..Marys relationship and actions are completely opposite to the Sherlock/John relationship.
They didn't show us a Mary - John love story.
They did show us a Sherlock loves John story.

And I don't ship / mean or want Johnlock.......

this! And this is imo where the writers were a bit I'll advised casting Amanda. It's boring concerning chemistry. I read somewhere in an interview that martin denied this being a yoko-john-thing, but this is what it feels like a bit for me. In real life they are really cute, though.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 5, 2014 4:51 am

mrshouse wrote:
lil wrote:
Talking of true love..and tragic endings in a few threads ...yet.
I don't really see any love between Mary @ John at all...
I see a manipulative sociopath/psychopath that has taken command of a vulnerable and barely intrested John..Marys relationship and actions are completely opposite to the Sherlock/John relationship.
They didn't show us a Mary - John love story.
They did show us a Sherlock loves John story.

And I don't ship / mean or want Johnlock.......

this! And this is imo where the writers were a bit I'll advised casting Amanda. It's boring concerning chemistry. I read somewhere in an interview that martin denied this being a yoko-john-thing, but this is what it feels like a bit for me. In real life they are really cute, though.

I actually like Amanda, I think she did a terrific job. It's what the writers did with her character that drives me nuts. It's such a wasted opportunity.

mrshouse · March 5, 2014 5:07 am

Did I say I don't like her? Don't think so, she seems pretty cool. But casting her as love interest is boring. Difference between character and real life there.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 5, 2014 5:15 am

mrshouse wrote:
Did I say I don't like her? Don't think so, she seems pretty cool. But casting her as love interest is boring. Difference between character and real life there.

I see. And I wasn't jumpin' on you! :-)

besleybean · March 5, 2014 6:41 am

I definitely think Amanda was chosen because she was popular in the fandom and was thought to be the only woman acceptable to the fans to be near Martin Freeman(and John).
Plus, because of the real life connection...it worked.
But yeah, why not employ her?
She's a good actress, was available and presumbaly fit the profile they wanted for age etc....though I wish she hadn't had to be stereotypical blonde.
As for Mary: she was always going to have to be more full on(in all ways) to Canon Mary.

Last edited by besleybean (March 5, 2014 6:42 am)

Michele · March 5, 2014 10:29 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Mary is one of the few characters in canon which has a very thorough description...and there she is a petite blonde around 27. It made sense to make their version a little bit older, not just because MF would have looked like a cradle robber otherwise, but also because the point of her being 27 is that back then, she was already moving past the "marrying age", while nowadays, most woman wait a little bit.

I do love reading older books when the women get the 'tick tick times running out' lecture at like 18 years old!

besleybean · March 6, 2014 6:34 am

To be fair, they didn't live as long in those days and a woman's only role was to marry and produce children.

SusiGo · March 6, 2014 8:16 am

Well, we should not romanticise working as a governess. In the 19th century at least it usually was not about educated women leading an independent life but about being forced to work out of financial necessity. Governesses were regarded as being inferior to the family and superior to the servants thereby becoming often very lonely. Living in the household as they did they were not really able create social contacts outside their workplace.
Canon Mary Morstan probably was lucky in finding an acceptable position but this was not the usual thing.

SusiGo · March 6, 2014 9:35 am

From a modern point of view, yes. But for a middle class or upper middle class woman in those times it was a social decline to have to work for their money. Becoming a teacher/governess was just the least evil.

Willow · March 6, 2014 10:08 am

SusiGo wrote:
From a modern point of view, yes. But for a middle class or upper middle class woman in those times it was a social decline to have to work for their money. Becoming a teacher/governess was just the least evil.

Georgette Heyer's romances are set rather earlier than Holmes; typically the Regency rather than the Victorian, but she makes exactly that point...

SusiGo · March 6, 2014 10:11 am

Or think of the Bronte sisters who wrote about this from their own experience as governesses.

SusiGo · March 9, 2014 9:43 pm

I would have to watch that again but I believe you. And in my analysis I mainly concentrated on the dialogue. Nevertheless for me it is quite a small point compared to all the things that speak against a truthful and loving relationship.

SusiGo · March 9, 2014 10:09 pm

I am quite sure we well never agree on this. But I state it again - Mary fails in all the important matters. She is not truthful about her past. She lets John marry a person he basically does not know. She more or less kills his best friend. And these are facts I simply cannot ignore.

SusiGo · March 9, 2014 10:48 pm

It is very simple - I wrote the little analysis because I could not accept the scene in 221B. It haunted me enough to go over episode 1 and 2 again and I came up with these points. That is all.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 9, 2014 11:17 pm

Swanpride wrote:
There are a lot of dialogue snippets which clearly show how much she cares for John...for example, she tries to comfort him about Harry being a no-show during the wedding.

Sometimes, all the little good things just don't outweigh big, bad things.
Just being in love with someone does not absolve a person of the fallout and need to take responsibilty for seriously bad stuff; attempted murder, or assault with a dealy weapon with intent to harm or maim, if you like, fraud - (is she even actually qualified to be a nurse?) , lying to someone you love about your past, very dangerous to John, if (when) Mary's chickens come home to roost. Heck, that's even putting the baby in danger.

Caring is not enough.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 9, 2014 11:19 pm

Swanpride wrote:
I have no problem with that...I understand that very well. I just don't understand the need to interpret everything she does as negative as possible and overlook the positive things she does.
I don't think that after the first two episodes anyone doubted that Mary loved John, because her love was shown in so many gestures. It's right there on the screen.

In all fairness--*we* didn't make her the "bad guy". She did (or the writers did) and we are only going with what we've been given -- by what we watched on the show.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 10, 2014 12:51 am

Swanpride wrote:
But the question if caring is not enough is not my issue...my current issue is the insistence that Mary somehow mistreats John before the writers revealed what she really is. If we only have a look at the first two episodes, I see a lot of evidence that there is something going on with Mary - but none that she might not love John, or that she is not supportive of Sherlock, quite the opposite in fact. In addition we know that the writers deliberately made the actress believe that this was the role she was playing - which tells me that they wanted the audience to perceive this Mary as just as real as the Mary we get in episode three.

Lying about your past when you are an ex-assasin with a price on your head, to a man with PTSD, -- and then shooting his freind and nearly killing him could be considered abusive, actually. The drastic change in chacterization from the first two episodes to the final episode tells me, that they wanted us to understand just what a good liar she was. And that one word ties the Mary from the first 2 episodes in with ep 3-- "liar." From the very beginning, the writers wanted us to know that she was a liar.

lil · March 10, 2014 1:01 am

Ultimately I think Marys arc is going to be a redemptive one.
The scene in 221b is Sherlock giving Mary a second chance...for logical reasons mostly..Sherlock always needs logic.(the apple appledoor moriarty connections)
Can Sherlock succeed where Moriarty failed..and will Mary be tempted onto the
"Side of the angels" .
Can a bad person..become a good one .

I think so and next series Sherlock will get the Sherlock the redeemer attribute/title to add to all the others..that are fast adding up to "a great and good man"
This is why Mary is written the way she is...redemption only works when you have been bad and are given a chance to be good...Johns...your past...your future speach is really a you'v been bad...but no more excuses..be good now offer.Blantant redemption set up...and Sherlock gives her that chance.
It is written that way....and for a reason.