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

Vhanja · December 31, 2014 9:55 pm

I don't think she is a good character. Nor an evil one. Just like Sherlock is neither a good nor evil character. That is what I like, that they are all nuanced, flawed, great and horrible.

nakahara · January 1, 2015 12:21 am

SolarSystem wrote:
Liberty wrote:
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.)?
They'll have a hard time convincing me with anything they might come up with, because I'm afraid it'll always feel like a manipulation. But like I already mentioned earlier: Put someone in the background who has put pressure on her, who made her do the things she did, who ultimately is more responsible for the things Mary did than Mary herself - and there you go, she's the good girl that had to do bad things because she had no other choice.

Well, in the original story "The Valley of Fear" there is a subplot about a detective who infiltrated a criminal organisation under false name and became an avid member of it, but with the ultimate purpose of destroying that organisation eventually. He was thus forced to take part in some brutal criminal acts because it was not in his power to warn all the victims beforehand and he gained a name of being a brutal killer and a ruffian. Still, at the end he succeeded, caused most members of the gang to be caught and shattered their power, reducing it to nothing. But because some members of the gang escaped and promised to avenge themselves on him, he was forced to go into hiding in a different country - UK (while he was an American by origin) - to change his name and to defend himself violently when they eventually found out about his new identity. (And unfortunately, he was eventually killed by Moriarty´s agent hired by the last members of the gang.)

If Mary was eventually adapted in the story as this character, it would redeem her and explain why she is not a bad woman althrough some proofs about her shady criminal activities exist. It would explain why she went "freelance" althrough being a former CIA agent and why she lives in hiding, under the false identity, fearing the blackmail and her former enemies the way she did. It would probably also prove that she didn´t really kill that many people in the past, but that she gained her reputation about being the killer and now she can´t get rid of it. Many problems considering her motivations in HLV would be solved by this. (This would also explain why she understood Sherlock´s situation so well in TEH.)

But I don´t know. This would still not explain why she shot Sherlock. So there´s an equal chance she would be revealed as a villain who simply killed people for money.

Last edited by nakahara (January 1, 2015 12:25 am)

Liberty · January 1, 2015 9:17 am

So it's shooting Sherlock that's the sticking point? That's the hardest bit for me too. I don't know why it was written as it was, but it looks as if they wanted her to deliberately shoot Sherlock, and then wrote around that.   It just wouldn't have the same impact if she'd negotiated with Sherlock then slipped out - I think we'd all have been much more forgiving about her past.   Even if she'd shot Magnussen, we hated him anyway. But Sherlock ...

I can see that was writing themselves into a corner, and actually I can see why Mary would want to incapacitate rather than negotiate (too risky).   After all, she knocked Janine (who was a closer friend than Sherlock) out - and Janine is fine afterwards (do we just accept that in this universe, it's possible to knock somebody out as accurately as that - leave them unconscious for a specified time, but cause no lasting damage?).   But she wouldn't have been able to do that to Sherlock - and she had to act before Sherlock shouted - it had to be instant. The point in Mary's favour here is that the easiest, quickest thing for her to do would have been to shoot them both in the head and leave - she has to have a reason for not doing that.

But then they wrote themselves into another corner by making Sherlock "die". And there's no explanation given for that.   If they'd left out the "death", I could have accepted the explanation much more easily. Or even if they'd given an explanation for the death. I was so sure that we'd find out in S4 that Mary had meant to kill him, and the "death" was our clue.   But Steven saying that he wished he'd left in the lines about Mary only nearly killing him because she wasn't a perfect shot - that's what's giving me doubt and thinking that quite possibly he thought Sherlock's explanation was "enough" (or did until he rewatched and thought that it could have done with a bit more backup).

That's the one thing that could swing it for me - if there was a better explanation of the "death".   I think I could easily accept a dodgy past (because we see killing for the "right" reasons in the series - both John and Sherlock do it).

I think it would be fine to use that theme from Valley even if they've used other parts of the story.

Last edited by Liberty (January 1, 2015 9:19 am)

nakahara · January 1, 2015 2:05 pm

I think they could easily use the above-mentioned storyline from "The Valley of Fear" (if that´s what they actually want to do). It happened in the past that they used the elements of one story in several episodes - for example many elements from "The Sign of Four" were used in both "Study in Pink" and "The Sign of Three". It can happen again.

I think the authors wanted to have some sensational scene in HLV and so they have written both Sherlock´s shooting and "death" in. But it´s unusual how they then didn´t show any particular regret or concern or compassion towards Sherlock from Mary´s side. She continued to be enigmatic and unreadable. So I have a feeling something is still missing from "her explanation" of the shooting (which is actually Sherlock´s, she didn´t say a word about it, making the thing even more mysterious). I therefore hope they wouldn´t just leave it at that and add at least some explanation into S4. I would have otherwise a hard time to swallow that scene - to me it would still look as if it was performed out of hatred of Mary towards Sherlock.

I think Mary proved that she can knock people out quite effectively and quickly. She managed to knock the lights out of both Janine and some bulky and strong ex-con bodyguard who was probably trained in martial arts. She would probably manage Sherlock just fine. But that´s anyone´s guess.

In my opinion it was a blessing that they left the line about Mary not being a stellar shot out of the finished episode. As it is, Sherlock´s "surgery" explanation only holds, if we really believe Mary knows exactly where to shoot and how to incapatiate the man that way without killing him. That explanation would not hold if Mary admited she´s lousy at shooting - it would make her look absolutely stupid and irresponsible. I have a hard time buying that explanation even now - but it would be downright impossible if that line was left inside.

Liberty · January 1, 2015 3:39 pm

Oh, the line wasn't about her being lousy at shooting! It was about the bullethole not being dead centre of the moving coin she shot - she's meant to be an amazlingly brilliant shot, but can still be a tiny, tiny bit off target. I think it's trying to imply that yes, she did mean to leave him alive, and it was that tiny bit of error that meant he nearly died.

I do find it very odd that we only get the story from Sherlock. Although I think it works well like that - he's doing one of his deductions, after all. It still leaves Mary as an enigma, I agree.

I imagine Mary sneaked up on Janine and the guard - although what's really odd is that she didn't seem to see Janine talking to Sherlock on the monitor. Maybe she was dealing with the guard at that point. Janine didn't seem to have seen her (as far as we know). However, she couldn't sneak up on Sherlock and that would make it MUCH more difficult. (He'd likely defend himself if she took a swing at him, and would shout for John. And his head is quite high up for her to hit with the right force).

Schmiezi · January 1, 2015 7:40 pm

Swanpride wrote:
I don't think that Mary shooting Sherlock is the true sticking point. I think if Mary had died at the end of series three, nobody would bother to hate on her.

There are some user around who are having problems with Mary. Why don't you ask us instead of assuming stuff?

nakahara · January 1, 2015 8:01 pm

Swanpride wrote:
I don't think that it is odd that Sherlock tells the story. In this moment, Mary isn't trustworthy. Sherlock deducing her actions make his interpretation the believable one. If Mary had tried to explain herself, the audience would have doubted her and most likely hated on her along the lines of "how dare she to excuse something like this!!!" Mary just can't win in the situation.

Well, it was the show itself which repeatedly connected Mary with the word LIAR.

As for Su Lin Yao, Sherlock and John are partly responsible for her death - but they didn´t kill her with their own hands, it was her past and connection with tong that mostly caused. It´s similar with Mary and Lord Smallwood - she is partly responsible for his death, but as many people here argued, they see her as innocent because it was not her who directly pushed him into his suicide.

nakahara · January 1, 2015 8:04 pm

Liberty wrote:
I imagine Mary sneaked up on Janine and the guard - although what's really odd is that she didn't seem to see Janine talking to Sherlock on the monitor. Maybe she was dealing with the guard at that point. Janine didn't seem to have seen her (as far as we know).

The moment between Janine speaking with Sherlock and being knocked out by Mary is indeed so short, that I simply must suspect her she was in this with Mary (and maybe set up the confrontation between her and Sherlock?).

nakahara · January 1, 2015 8:53 pm

Sad but quite truthful:

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/106786970626/marybegone-ravenmorganleigh

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/98881377081

Liberty · January 1, 2015 9:15 pm

nakahara wrote:
Sad but quite truthful:

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/106786970626/marybegone-ravenmorganleigh

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/98881377081

I thought that Magnussen set up the fire to get to Sherlock, not Mary? At least, he implies that at Appledore. (He sends the message through Mary, knowing she'll go to Sherlock).

Although I suppose if it really was Mary he was targetting, not Sherlock, there's all the more reason for Mary to kill him to protect John. And he does seem to think John and Mary are each other's pressure points, as he talks about John to try to stop Mary shooting him (although that's partly to make us think he means Lord Smallwood!).

SusiGo · January 1, 2015 9:17 pm

The double standard is not that we condemn Mary and forgive Sherlock everything but that we (are supposed to) forgive Mary things that are far worse than everything Sherlock has done.

Last edited by SusiGo (January 1, 2015 9:18 pm)

Liberty · January 1, 2015 9:17 pm

Swanpride wrote:
I don't think that it is odd that Sherlock tells the story. In this moment, Mary isn't trustworthy. Sherlock deducing her actions make his interpretation the believable one. If Mary had tried to explain herself, the audience would have doubted her and most likely hated on her along the lines of "how dare she to excuse something like this!!!" Mary just can't win in the situation.

That's a really good point! I think you're right - we wouldn't have trusted Mary the "liar", but we'll probably believe Sherlock.

SusiGo · January 1, 2015 10:53 pm

Liberty wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
I don't think that it is odd that Sherlock tells the story. In this moment, Mary isn't trustworthy. Sherlock deducing her actions make his interpretation the believable one. If Mary had tried to explain herself, the audience would have doubted her and most likely hated on her along the lines of "how dare she to excuse something like this!!!" Mary just can't win in the situation.
That's a really good point! I think you're right - we wouldn't have trusted Mary the "liar", but we'll probably believe Sherlock.

Although there are some logical flaws in his version - using a touchscreen wearing gloves and Sherlock being unsconscious after three seconds and therefore unable to notice what happened.

tonnaree · January 1, 2015 11:01 pm

Liberty wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Sad but quite truthful:

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/106786970626/marybegone-ravenmorganleigh

http://marybegone.tumblr.com/post/98881377081

I thought that Magnussen set up the fire to get to Sherlock, not Mary? At least, he implies that at Appledore. (He sends the message through Mary, knowing she'll go to Sherlock).

Although I suppose if it really was Mary he was targetting, not Sherlock, there's all the more reason for Mary to kill him to protect John. And he does seem to think John and Mary are each other's pressure points, as he talks about John to try to stop Mary shooting him (although that's partly to make us think he means Lord Smallwood!).

Didn't Magnussen say that everyone, from Mary to John to Sherlock was all to eventually get to Mycroft?

SusiGo · January 1, 2015 11:07 pm

Yes, it was the chain: Mary - John - Sherlock - Mycroft.

Liberty · January 2, 2015 7:41 am

Yes, exactly. So it would make sense for Magnussen to use John to get to Sherlock, not Mary - that would be backwards. Maybe the writers think it's Mary because she got the text, and because of the message at the wedding.

Liberty · January 2, 2015 7:55 am

SusiGo wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
I don't think that it is odd that Sherlock tells the story. In this moment, Mary isn't trustworthy. Sherlock deducing her actions make his interpretation the believable one. If Mary had tried to explain herself, the audience would have doubted her and most likely hated on her along the lines of "how dare she to excuse something like this!!!" Mary just can't win in the situation.
That's a really good point! I think you're right - we wouldn't have trusted Mary the "liar", but we'll probably believe Sherlock.

Although there are some logical flaws in his version - using a touchscreen wearing gloves and Sherlock being unsconscious after three seconds and therefore unable to notice what happened.

I think it's meant to be a deduction, not something he actually saw. He guesses partly from the timing of the paramedics' arrival, which he finds out later. He says it's 8 minutes, John took 5 minutes to get to him, so presumably they were there within 3 minutes. It's not the best of deductions, but I think that's his main source. I suppose 3 minutes is noticeably quick considering they have to get throught that building - and it's TV! I can't see paramedics going to a "shooting" (221B) without the police arriving too (especially not if the caller asked them to bring some morphine! Which I believe they carry routinely.). But anyway, the 221B scene confirms that in this universe, paramedics take 8 minutes to arrive (Sherlock knows what time to expect them and gets his talking done by then).

Last edited by Liberty (January 2, 2015 8:01 am)

SolarSystem · January 2, 2015 8:07 am

Liberty wrote:
Yes, exactly. So it would make sense for Magnussen to use John to get to Sherlock, not Mary - that would be backwards. Maybe the writers think it's Mary because she got the text, and because of the message at the wedding.

But if Magnussen didn't have anything on John with which to put him under pressure? That was his explanation, wasn't it? That he has things on Mary, so that's where the chain started.

Liberty · January 2, 2015 8:13 am

SolarSystem wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Yes, exactly. So it would make sense for Magnussen to use John to get to Sherlock, not Mary - that would be backwards. Maybe the writers think it's Mary because she got the text, and because of the message at the wedding.
But if Magnussen didn't have anything on John with which to put him under pressure? That was his explanation, wasn't it? That he has things on Mary, so that's where the chain started.

Yes, so he uses Mary to get to John, not John to get to Mary. He only "needs" Mary as a link in the chain to Mycroft and although we never see Mary's pressure point flash up, Magnussen can get her killed or exposed which is a fair amount of pressure.

Last edited by Liberty (January 2, 2015 8:17 am)

SusiGo · January 2, 2015 9:23 am

Good points. But I still wonder about some things. IMO the bonfire was a way to test Sherlock's feelings for John, not to put Mary under pressure because she is not threatened in any way here. She is just used as a messenger. And we have discussed at length if she is really the innocent wife spontaneously going to Sherlock for help or if she is involved in this.

Anyway - so the chronological order would be:
1. John is kidnapped, Mary receives the text and goes straightaway to Sherlock for help. (Starting the chain not with her but with John).
2. Mary receives the wedding telegram from CAM. (Which strangely enough nobody seems to find suspicious, not even Sherlock. It could be a real threat or a reminder of some sort in case she were really involved in the plot).

From then on it gets a bit blurry. What I wish to point out is that the chain of pressure does not work as Sherlock says because Mary is not really involved. She does not seek help so there is no pressure on John at all. No, she goes to Magnussen alone and if her plan had worked she would have killed him, left the office the way she came, and nobody would have been the wiser. (Always assuming of course that Janine was not in on the plan.)

And the question is - assuming that the idea of the pressure chain is correct - what did Magnussen expect Mary to do? Did he really expect a trained assassin to run for help to her unknowing husband who then would run to his best friend who then would get himself into trouble and have to be saved by his brother, Magnussen's original target, making said brother vulnerable to Magnussen's plans? Sounds a bit farfetched to me.

And if we say that Mary is in a way outside the chain, the question is what is her true part in all this.

Last edited by SusiGo (January 2, 2015 9:24 am)