Liberty wrote:

Oh, I don't think it's AT ALL presented as a little amiable incident.

 

The authors described in their comments with indignation how cruel and disgusting Sherlock´s treatment of Janine was (althrough it was a feature of the original story they were adapting and Sherlock´s motivation for lying was SAVING PEOPLE from the blackmailer, not primarily ruining Janine´s "fragile" heart out of malice), yet when it came to Mary they just handwaved her shooting of Sherlock with a flimsy explanation that it was just "surgery" and that Sherlock forgives Mary (and didn´t gave her any plausible motive for shooting Sherlock).

In short, they offered us a steaming turd on a silver platter and now they are persuading us to swallow it, saying it´s  a fragrant bowl Indian curry. 

Liberty wrote:

There's Mary suggesting that she only assassinates people who deserve to die, and the fact that she went "freelance" (possibly so that she could choose her targets, rather than kill on order). 

And Mary knew every one of them personally to decide that they have no redeeming qualities or people who depend on them whose lives would be ruined by their demise and so she could decide who would live and who would die, could play judge and executioner in one. Wow! Like a God! 

Sherlock killed exactly one person who deserved to die and was renounced as a murderer in the same show. Why wasn´t Mary judged by the same moral standard?

Liberty wrote:

There's another idea I've been playing with - I've liked the idea of Mary being a "plant" who falls in love with the person she's sent to watch.  Like the assassins, she'd be watching John for signs of Sherlock being alive.   But what if that's not it?   What if Moriarty is her target (I HOPE he's not alive, but I'm going with the possibility that he is - or that she thinks he is).  One way to watch for Moriarty is to watch Sherlock (because Moriarty is obsessed with Sherlock, and Sherlock is one of the people most likely to know/guess if he's alive).  And the way to watch Sherlock (if she suspects he's alive) is to watch John.  

It doesn't quite fit with Mary's words at the airport (confirming that Moriarty is dead - oh, there's another headshot mentioned), although it may be that Mary had eventually come to think that if Moriarty didn't appear shortly after Sherlock did, he really was dead, or maybe she's still keeping up the front of pretending she doesn't know. (It would also help to explain why Mary thought John wouldn't love her after looking at the memory stick - he'd find the information that she was "working" when she started the relationship with him).  Anyway, now heavily pregnant, Mary is going to have to face what she set out to do - kill Moriarty, somebody who "deserves to die".

It's a bit too much of a conspiracy for me, but I kind of like the idea!   I don't want Moriarty to be alive, though (too many fake deaths, and Sherlock failing in TRF), and my guess/hope is that he isn't alive. 

My theory is simpler: Mary hated Sherlock from the very start and just pretended to be on his good side (the same as she later pretended friendliness to his parents) to dull his suspicion towards her. But she was constantly aware that she has a detective behind her back, who could always unveil her. And so, when it finally happened that he by chance discovered her secret, she shot him to remove him from her life permanently.

There. Simple theory that explains why she didn´t reason with him, but shot him right away. And it doesn´t need any conspiracy nor bending physical laws of this planet in a "Dr. Who" way.

Liberty wrote:

There's also the "guardian" thing (although I still think that might just be the paper), and the fact that Sherlock feels John is safe with Mary. 

Maybe that meant that she reads newspaper called "Guardian". 

Last edited by nakahara (December 31, 2014 4:49 pm)

Well Mary did cry and there may have been a lot more...if she hadn't been drugged.

Last edited by besleybean (December 31, 2014 5:01 pm)

besleybean wrote:

Well Mary did cry and there may have been a lot more...if she hadn't been drugged.

Mary did cry in the moment that involved her own fate and her future with John.

To Sherlock´s parents she was callous and insensitive.
 

Well I never heard them complaining...
and really, that's up to John

Last edited by besleybean (December 31, 2014 5:10 pm)

Yes, I did mention the Guardian newspaper earlier - but there's a theory that it means something else. 

The thing is, Sherlock isn't stupid (although he does sometimes get things wrong).   Either he absolutely does believe what he says about Mary OR he's acting a part because he knows she's evil and he has some other plan.   I think there's a bit of evidence both ways (although unfortunately, very, very little to go on, apart from what he says), but a little thing in favour of him believing it's true is that he seems to believe John is safe with Mary.

Yes, it's possible that Mary did decide which contracts to take.   We just don't know.   But she seems to be saying that her purpose was to kill people who "deserved to die", not just people who other people wanted dead. 

Yes, you could be right that Mary intended to kill Sherlock (the fact that he virtually died kind of supports that), but she could have just killed both Sherlock and Magnussen and disappeared if that had been her intention.  Yes, John would have been in big trouble, but it would probably have been clear that he wasn't the murderer later, and Mary would have been safe, at least.  

Any negotiating (if she'd thought there was time to negotiate) would have to have been done in front of Magnussen, and then Magnussen would have had to watch Sherlock lying to John.  What would he even have said?  Pretended Mary wasn't there?  That there was no assassin there?  Make up a story about scaring the intruder off, and hoping Magnussen would go along with it, or wait for him to speak first?  Try to threaten Magnussen?  Suspecting Mary is dangerous, allow John to go back with her?  Etc.  Not to excuse Mary for not going down this route, but just saying it's not a simple one.

Moftiss explain the Janine thing - it was Steven Moffat's feeling about the original story (that the fake courtship was an awful thing to do).   So they made Janine get some revenge at the end, and made Sherlock lose what could have been a lovely friendship.  I don't think that's terrible, terrible punishment - and losing the friendship makes sense.  (Sherlock's not bothered about the publicity, and the morphine was only turned down very briefly). 

Liberty wrote:

Yes, it's possible that Mary did decide which contracts to take.   We just don't know.   But she seems to be saying that her purpose was to kill people who "deserved to die", not just people who other people wanted dead. 

But as I pointed out in my original post, we people are not gods and it´s really impossible for a person to decide that other person "doesn´t deserve to live". Judicial error can occur even if somebody was sentenced to death after the proper trial, where plenty of proofs were obtained and plenty of witnessess offered new evidence. How can one person (who had none of that) be sure that her killing of not single person, but groups of people was justified every time?

Liberty wrote:

Any negotiating (if she'd thought there was time to negotiate) would have to have been done in front of Magnussen, and then Magnussen would have had to watch Sherlock lying to John.  What would he even have said?  Pretended Mary wasn't there?  That there was no assassin there?  Make up a story about scaring the intruder off, and hoping Magnussen would go along with it, or wait for him to speak first?  Try to threaten Magnussen?  Suspecting Mary is dangerous, allow John to go back with her?  Etc.  Not to excuse Mary for not going down this route, but just saying it's not a simple one.

As I originaly said, she could knock CAM out as her first step (she knocked him out eventually in the episode too, she could do it right away) and then, after he was unconscious, speak to Sherlock. CAM wouldn´t hear a single thing that way.

Liberty wrote:

Moftiss explain the Janine thing - it was Steven Moffat's feeling about the original story (that the fake courtship was an awful thing to do).   So they made Janine get some revenge at the end, and made Sherlock lose what could have been a lovely friendship.  I don't think that's terrible, terrible punishment - and losing the friendship makes sense.  (Sherlock's not bothered about the publicity, and the morphine was only turned down very briefly). 

If Steven was so abhorred by lying, he should judge the murder attempt even more severely.
As it is, it looks as if lying disturbs him, but murder is a trifle to him.

I don´t think Mary absolutely cannot be redeemed as a character. But I would never buy the shooting scene in this form if he leaves it at that. 

Also, I hope, he stops writing Mary as Mary Sue. Because in her current form she disturbingly resembles Mary Sue´s description in many features:

"She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character [i]doesn't[/i]love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal. She has some sort of especially close relationship to the author's favorite canon character — their love interest, illegitimate child, never-before-mentioned sister, etc. Other than that, the canon characters are quickly reduced to awestruck cheerleaders, watching from the sidelines as Mary Sue outstrips them in their areas of expertise and solves problems that have stymied them for the entire series.

Her gravity is so great, she draws all the attention and causes other characters (and, often, reality itself) to bend and contort in order to accommodate her. Characters don't act naturally around her. They instead serve as plot enablers for her... The very laws of the universe bend to accommodate her. If there's only one in a million chance she could succeed at something, she'll accomplish it with flying colors. If the logical outcome of the story would end in her failure, a Deus ex Machina will ensure her victory.... This is fairly blatant author favoritism in effect, with the author using his or her effective position as God of the story to carry the character through by her hands. " 
 

Nested quotes, sorry!  I'll try to keep for context but not make the post too big!

nakahara wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Yes, it's possible that Mary did decide which contracts to take.   We just don't know.   But she seems to be saying that her purpose was to kill people who "deserved to die", not just people who other people wanted dead. 

But as I pointed out in my original post, we people are not gods and it´s really impossible for a person to decide that other person "doesn´t deserve to live". Judicial error can occur even if somebody was sentenced to death after the proper trial, where plenty of proofs were obtained and plenty of witnessess offered new evidence. How can one person (who had none of that) be sure that her killing of not single person, but groups of people was justified every time?

Oh yes, and as I've said, I wouldn't approve of this route in real life (normally).   But in that universe, it happens - Sherlock eventually decides to execute Magnussen.  Magnussen is somebody who can't be got through the courts of justice.  And even in real life - I don't want to name people, but there have been people who have been "taken out" and the public has applauded the killers, because those people were seen as so clearly evil.  The ONLY example of someone who Mary might take it out is Magnussen (and that seems to be for her own protection, rather than the public good), so we don't know what other people she thought of as deserving to be killed (evil dictators, etc?). 

Liberty wrote:

Any negotiating (if she'd thought there was time to negotiate) would have to have been done in front of Magnussen, and then Magnussen would have had to watch Sherlock lying to John.  What would he even have said?  Pretended Mary wasn't there?  That there was no assassin there?  Make up a story about scaring the intruder off, and hoping Magnussen would go along with it, or wait for him to speak first?  Try to threaten Magnussen?  Suspecting Mary is dangerous, allow John to go back with her?  Etc.  Not to excuse Mary for not going down this route, but just saying it's not a simple one.

As I originaly said, she could knock CAM out as her first step (she knocked him out eventually in the episode too, she could do it right away) and then, after he was unconscious, speak to Sherlock. CAM wouldn´t hear a single thing that way.

But she'd have to be sure that Sherlock would stand back and watch while she turned her back on him and did it - it might take more than one blow to beat him unconscious.   Personally, I think that even though Sherlock kills Magnussen later, at this point, he might well have tried to disarm Mary.

Liberty wrote:

Moftiss explain the Janine thing - it was Steven Moffat's feeling about the original story (that the fake courtship was an awful thing to do).   So they made Janine get some revenge at the end, and made Sherlock lose what could have been a lovely friendship.  I don't think that's terrible, terrible punishment - and losing the friendship makes sense.  (Sherlock's not bothered about the publicity, and the morphine was only turned down very briefly). 

If Steven was so abhorred by lying, he should judge the murder attempt even more severely.
As it is, it looks as if lying disturbs him, but murder is a trifle to him.

It was the fake courtship that bothered him in the orginal story, he said.   And his punishment of Sherlock for it is actually pretty gentle compared to some of the things he puts him through!    But he didn't seem bothered by the murder in the original story - Moftiss just believed that Watson was covering for Holmes and it was Holmes who had done it.   It's difficult to know for sure what he thinks of Mary's shooting in HLV (because we still don't know if she's going to be good or bad, really) - I do think it's meant to be something very, very difficult to forgive, though. 

I don´t think Mary absolutely cannot be redeemed as a character. But I would never buy the shooting scene in this form if he leaves it at that.

Yes, and I would really like something in the next episode which explains it better, if they do want to show Mary didn't mean to kill him.  It doesn't have to be medically correct or anything - just something that explains more clearly what she was aiming to do and why it went wrong. 

Also, I hope, he stops writing Mary as Mary Sue. Because in her current form she disturbingly resembles Mary Sue´s description in many features:

Again, I think it will depend on how it goes with the character.  I'm still kind of hoping for the arch-villain idea.  I think, though, if she was a pure Mary-Sue, TSOT would have been more focused on her (rather than on John and Sherlock).
 

Swanpride wrote:

Neither is Mary "Quickly adopted" (John already knows her for some time, and Sherlock mostly likes her because she doesn't hinder his friendship with John...by the time the marriage happens, they know each other for a couple of month already, and she never goes on any cases with them), nor does she outstrips then (she is a better assassin and shot, but she is certainly not a better doctor or better in solving cases), nor does the laws of the universe bend for her. Quite the opposite in fact, everything which can go wrong from Mary's perspective does go wrong.

Oh, but she is. Even after years of knowing him, Sherlock holds some distance from Lestrade, his good friend, because he hasn´t a socially inviting personality. But he knows Mary a few months and he is falling around her throat repeatedly, kissing her? Yes, sure. 

And laws of the universe had indeed bent for Mary - bullets in Sherlockverse served to kill people before she entered the stage. Now they serve as a kind of "pacifiers" but they are not supposed to kill anyone, if it is not a straight headshot. 

Sherlock doesn't have any choice over taking punishment.  He's been witnessed openly murdering somebody.  (And actually, he ends up being called back anyway, so "gets off" with it).  If Mary really was an assassin, good or evil, why would she want to turn herself in to take punishment?  What would be the point (even if she thought she was doing good - how could she continue her work from prison or if executed?).  And if she's working for government agencies, etc, the laws might apply differently (as they would to a spy, soldier, etc.)

No public approval doesn't always mean something is "right", but it does show that there are some people who people believe "deserve to die".    We just don't know what Mary's definition of that was.  (And in the show, a lot of things are "right" that I would not consider right in real life).

And whether Sherlock would stop Mary beating Magnussen unconscious (on the one hand, he hates him, but on the other hand, he's unarmed and cowering, and Sherlock probably nees to get the gun from Mary to protect himself) - I'm honestly not sure, but the point is, neither is Mary.   If we're believing Sherlock's story, then she needs to be sure.  And she needs to get out quickly.  (Not be caught in the act of beating up Magnussen, or even just talking to Sherlock).

But, anyway, if you think there's a chance they might make her a good character, what would you think would help to make that convincing (if not having her killing for "good" reasons, etc.)?

Last edited by Liberty (December 31, 2014 8:43 pm)

I think that could well be what Mark and Steven have in mind.