Just my two cents on this: I actually enjoyed that the discussion had been renewed again and in a quite civilized matter over the last days. It's a pity that the word hate has come up again because it's not fitting in how we spent the discussion over the last days.
The fans who have problems with Mary as a character named some profound reasons of why they do so and everybody has the right to have an opinion as long as the discussion is civilized in here.
The word hate has been much overused lately IMHO, and degrading reasons to hate is also a bit of simplifying the discussion.

Last edited by mrshouse (January 2, 2015 9:57 am)

If you compare this forum to other Sherlock fan forums the discussions around here are very civilized and deep going and with profound reasonings.

Speaking for myself I CAN'T hate a fictional character, a person that doesn't exist in reality.
I don't like Mary for the reasons mentioned several times already. I only follow this discussion and don't take part because I don't feel safe enough with my English skills to express what I think and feel about this subject.

And I can't understand why to leave the civilized way of discussing ... for a matter like this. Sorry.

Last edited by gently69 (January 2, 2015 10:27 am)

SolarSystem 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.

Yes, of course. Because most of us hate on Mary all the time and because (quote) wääääääääh... how can you interpret anything she does in a positive light!!! (unquote) and because (quote) wäääääääh... why does Mary exist!!!!!!! (unquote).  

The question here is about the how. Would her explanation have been believable? None of us can know how her explanation would have looked and sounded like, so this is pure speculation. And it's not just this one scene. They could have showed her differently before and after that scene in order to make the audience believe that she really means it and is honest. And it's not my job to come up with ways in which they could have accomplished it. They didn't, and they certainly had their reasons.
But I understand that it's very convenient to just say "the bad, bad audience would have hated on her anyway".
 

I didn't say any of those things you're claiming.  Why do you think it makes us a "bad audience" to trust the main character that we've known throughout more than a character who has acted unexpectedly, almost killed him, and who has been identified as a liar?   I think it makes complete sense to trust Sherlock more.
 

Last edited by Liberty (January 2, 2015 6:43 pm)

Not sure if Magnussen planned it or if it was Janine who told both Mary and Sherlock that he would not be in the office. 

Because it really makes no sense that Mary goes there on this evening of all evenings and meets Sherlock purely by chance. Sherlock checked with her, so she assumed that he and John would be out of the way. The only person able to arrange all this would have been Janine - telling both Mary and Sherlock that Magnussen would not be there. Or telling Mary he would be there and Sherlock that he would not. 

As for the chain - Magnussen either underestimated Mary by expecting her to seek John's help or the telegram was meant as a warning or reminder of some sort. Which would mean she was in some way involved with Magnussen. 

Yes, I agree. This explains it quite well. 

But then I wonder what Magnussen would have done if Sherlock had come alone which must have been what he planned and expected. 
 

Swanpride wrote:

I think if Mary had tried to defend her, it wouldn't have made a difference because then the argument would have been "see, she doesn't even feel sorry for what she did, and what a weak excuse is that".

Let's ask the other way around: How should Mary have been acted? (And keep in mind that she is still a human being who is emotionally invested, too). What exactly is she supposed to do when her husband just realized that she shot his best friend? How is she supposed to act when Sherlock invited her to his parents house?
I actually interpreted her "cozy reading" as her not being really comfortable to face Sherlock's family and therefore opting to stay secluded in the living room instead of in the kitchen, where everyone else has gathered. And that's the problem. It is all interpretation. You can interpret her actions in the most negative light if you want, or you can give her the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt Sherlock and John constantly get. In any case, I don't think that you can use any of those scenes as "proof" how awful she is. Or claiming that John is some sort of whipped husband who does whatever his wife wants when in fact it's mostly John who makes the decisions in their relationship. Or saying that she inserts herself in John's and Sherlock's friendship when in fact she is never there when they solve a case unless it involves herself or her wedding.

What she should do?

Saying sorry would be the first thing - both to John and Sherlock (if Mary is not self-aware that she is a character in a fictional story, she should not mind that we, an audience, wouldn´t belive her - because in her world we don´t exist, only the people she hurt exist).

She should look more guilty not cold and defiant (at least when people are not looking at her, if she can´t do it to their faces).

She should try to speak with Sherlock in a neutral public ground and explain herself + explain why she deemed his shooting neccessary - rather then vaguely threaten him both in hospital and at Lennister Gardens. As it is, the only two occassions she speaks with him after she shot him are the occassions when she threatens him, once when he is helpless, once with a gun in hand. (That´s why it´s almost impossible to buy her good-bye to Sherlock at the tarmac as sincere - we had absolutely no emotional build-up towards such sudden friendliness in the narrative that preceded it.).

If she doesn´t want to make John look as a whipped husband she should respond "We´ll both think about the name later" at John´s request about the naming of their child, rather then resolute "no, forget it". 

If she really isn´t meant to insert herself into Sherlock´s and John´s friendship, she should stop making digs at Sherlock in his presence ("we were not his first", "he speaks to me about Sholto constantly"), stop speaking dismissively about him to John in his absence (as in HLV, when Mrs. Whitney visited their flat) and stop trying to follow them and wedge herself into their cases when John asks her not to.

I can always give John and Sherlock a benefit of the doubt, because the last time I checked, they were both main heroes of the story with 120 years long history, one of the greatest examples of friendship in the English literature and the forces for good. Mary Morstan, on the other hand, does not resemble her lovely, respectful and endearing canonic counterpart at all - we are casually informed, that in BBC Sherlockverse, this character was stillborn and the enigmatic Mary who usurped her place is somebody else entirely. 

 

I agree that this scene seems genuine.. And it was the only one where I was actually close to being touched by Mary. But then I never doubted she really really wanted to be with John and would go to some lenghts to stay in this relationship. Still that fact alone doesn't strike me as particularly romantic.. for me what's missing to really feel the love is some clear display of concern for John's wellbeing and remorse for the pain she caused both Sherlock and John. And it would have been easy to show.. For some reasons all the scenes that would have shed a little light on Mary's emotions and motivations were cut out. ("But I nearly killed you." And the one in which she looks terrified because she thinks Sherlock is hunting her.. The final cut looks more as if she was hunting barely alive Sherlock). That makes it really hard for me and many others to connect with her. It is correct she lays her life in their hands, and she patiently waits for John's decision, but it can easily be argued that this was her best choice in her situation, big love or not.. and her tears were just for herself. So while I can give her the benefit of the doubt as long as she's not convicted and accept John and Sherlock have forgiven her I still don't trust her as far as I can throw.. right now she might not be a threat anymore, Sherlock took care that she is safe with them now. But nothing in her behaviour so far suggests she wouldn't turn against Sherlock if it served her purpose. I don't think she is beyond redemption, but for me there needs to be a little more than just handing in the stick when cornered..

Swanpride wrote:

Mary is neither digging at Sherlock (she is just trying to cheer him up), nor is she speaking dismissive about him (she is reminding John that not everything is about Sherlock, that he is important and impressive on his own, too), and she doesn't wedge herself into their case, if John had gone with Sherlock to the drug den, she most likely would have been assured that Sherlock would look out for him. But she loves John too much to let him go alone.

In my favourite anime one character, a girl, gave the other the rose, only to be brutally slapped in return. My initial reaction was similar to yours: "The poor baby just wanted to cheer her up, why did that crazy one slapped her for her good intentions?"

But later it was revealed that "the poor baby" knew about unhappy unrequited love of the other woman to the third character and her "rose-gift" was a deliberate attempt to hurt that woman emotionaly by reminding her of her traumatic past. The slap was the proof that she succeded with her attempt and in the same moment, it ensured that she, an actual "agressor", looked like an innocent victim in all this.

And it´s the same with Mary reminding Sherlock about Sholto - you do not cheer people up by reminding them of things that visibly bother them and that emotionally hurt them. By exaggerating Sholto´s importance to John in front of Sherlock she was trying to aggravate him and she knew very well that she is doing that. She´s intelligent and she herself boasted that she is not like John, she can read between the lines. Therefore, her act was not cheering Sherlock up - it was a deliberate malicious dig (and similar as my anime example, it made her look all innocent in this).

Also, at first she is sooo friendly to Sherlock and inseparable from him, that she makes her wedding preparations in Sherlock´s flat at Baker Street. Then after the wedding, when they didn´t contacted Sherlock in a month, her first words concerning him are the ones that downplay his importance? In the moment when she said this, she didn´t yet know that John will be asked for help by their neighbour. They had nothing to do with John - she simply wanted to point out to John that Sherlock is not at all important in their life. Her remark "about a month" on John´s claim that he didn´t saw Sherlock for ages served a similar role. (This scene actually nicely illustated the attitude of real and fake friend - real friend misses Sherlock as if he didn´t see him for a long time, fake friend scoffs that it was "only a month" as if a month was a trifle like a minute or a second.)

It´s how she formulates her request to John in the third case what sits unwell with me. If she said "No, John, I´ll go with you, I will be too much afraid for you if I don´t" I wouldn´t bat an eyelash. But her negative statement "You can´t go, I´m pregnant" is both bossy ("You can´t go!") and rife with emotional blackmail ("You see John what you are doing to your pregnant wife?")

Swanpride wrote:

I still don't want Mary to say sorry, because the word would mean nothing, she has to say sorry through her actions...which she does in my eyes. (And I also think that if she had said "sorry" a lot of people would have claimed that she didn't sound honest enough, or that a sorry just doesn't cut it).

Many people from the audience didn´t buy Sherlock´s "sorry" as something that would remedy John´s hurt caused to him by the events of TRF. Still, Sherlock repeated that word thrice, with sincerity, then even went down to his knees and apologised once more. That all after he already proved that he cares for John by pulling him out of the fire.

If Sherlock could do it, Mary could too. But she didn´t - at all. Which makes her look as if she was persuaded that she did nothing wrong when shooting Sherlock.

Swanpride wrote:

And canon Mary is a boring tool, only there that ACD can make a point about true love. Of all the female characters which turn up, she is one of the less defined. Her only role is to be perfect for John, just to be shuffled aside later on.

It´s only your interpretation that the original Mary was boring. I personally found her character to be very dignified, endearing and realistic. If you like an assassin ninja with a murky past, with which she was replaced, more than this, that´s allright - just don´t presume everybody agrees with that assessment of the original Doyle´s character.

Last edited by nakahara (January 4, 2015 5:21 pm)

Yep, made for each other.