nakahara wrote:

Honestly, if Sherlock didn´t existed in the show at all and Mary had shot another friend who offered her help, for example Lestrade, would you see her behaviour as exusable, then?

Actually, that is a question I (sort of) asked here in this thread days ago, but nobody gave me an answer. 
Almost everything I'm reading here in Mary's defense (if you want to call it that) is connected to the assumption that Sherlock has done bad things, too. So the fact that he is the way he is seems to be the ultimate excuse for almost everything Mary has done. Too simple for me. I have joined this forum only after S2, but as far as I remember we never had any discussions about how snarky Sherlock has been for six episodes and what John has to put up with because of bad, bad Sherlock and how we don't like Sherlock because of that. But now that Mary has entered the scene we suddenly talk about Sherlock being a constant pain in the ass...? Yeah, really convincing.

I'm not excusing everything he's done, certainly not, but I'll gladly admit that one of the reasons why I like this show so much is exactly because Sherlock is snarky and sometimes behaves like a total arse - and I still see that he cares about John very, very much. He doesn't even have to apologize for some of the things he's doing to John, because I just see that he cares. And I wouldn't have needed Mary to say "Sorry, I'm so sorry" to Sherlock or John - but it would have been great if I had seen or felt some regret. But I didn't. If others here did, perfect. But I don't see Mary and John being all happy at Christmas, and I don't see a happy threesome on the tarmac, either. And again, if some people see all these things, perfect. But please don't call people who don't see those things and are analysing the details in order to find out why they don't see it hateful or disturbing, thank you very much. Analysing things in detail is obviously only allowed if the person who's doing the analysing agrees with those who love Mary.  
 

Last edited by SolarSystem (January 5, 2015 11:53 am)

Well said, Solar. And it is true as I can say from two and a half years experience on this board.

Last edited by SusiGo (January 5, 2015 12:15 pm)

Vhanja wrote:

I wasn't here until recently, so I wasn't part of the discussions going on after S1 and 2. And if Sherlock's behaviour and snarkiness towards John was never debated, why should we not give Mary the same amont of leeway? Why is it ok to let Sherlock get away with snark but not Mary? THAT is my issue. I am NOT saying Mary is perfectly nice and wonderful, I am NOT saying that Sherlock doesn't care about John or that he is a horrible person, and I am NOT saying Mary and John have everything worked out and everything is fine.

I don't even mind people mistrusting Mary, even though I do. The ONLY thing I mind, the ONLY thing I've debated for several pages is - why don't cut Mary the same amount of slack as Sherlock has? Why is it ok for Sherlock to behave as an arse but Mary can't even read a book without being criticised? Why is snark ok from Sherlock but not Mary? 

Because they are not one and the same person? Because they didn't do one and the same thing? Because Mary's snarkiness is the symptom of something completely different than Sherlock's snarkiness? Because Mary's snarkiness comes across differently than Sherlock's and gives me a completely different feeling? Because the circumstances are totally different?
That's for starters. It's totally beyond me how an action can be viewed as being one and the same action, no matter who's doing it under which circumstances and for what reason. You have to take all those things into account and can't just say "They are both snarky, so it's all the same".

Apart from that, I never criticised Mary for reading a book. But I can understand why people might criticise it or why they might criticise how she's behaving in the home of Sherlock's parents. It's not about the book (and I'm pretty sure you actually know that...), again, it's about the circumstances. 

Vhanja wrote:

SolarSystem wrote:

Actually, that is a question I (sort of) asked here in this thread days ago, but nobody gave me an answer. 
Almost everything I'm reading here in Mary's defense (if you want to call it that) is connected to the assumption that Sherlock has done bad things, too. So the fact that he is the way he is seems to be the ultimate excuse for almost everything Mary has done. Too simple for me. I have joined this forum only after S2, but as far as I remember we never had any discussions about how snarky Sherlock has been for six episodes and what John has to put up with because of bad, bad Sherlock and how we don't like Sherlock because of that. But now that Mary has entered the scene we suddenly talk about Sherlock being a constant pain in the ass...? Yeah, really convincing.

I'm not excusing everything he's done, certainly not, but I'll gladly admit that one of the reasons why I like this show so much is exactly because Sherlock is snarky and sometimes behaves like a total arse - and I still see that he cares about John very, very much. He doesn't even have to apologize for some of the things he's doing to John, because I just see that he cares. And I wouldn't have needed Mary to say "Sorry, I'm so sorry" to Sherlock or John - but it would have been great if I had seen or felt some regret. But I didn't. If others here did, perfect. But I don't see Mary and John being all happy at Christmas, and I don't see a happy threesome on the tarmac, either. And again, if some people see all these things, perfect. But please don't call people who don't see those things and are analysing the details in order to find out why they don't see it hateful or disturbing, thank you very much. Analysing things in detail is obviously only allowed if the person who's doing the analysing agrees with those who love Mary.  
 

I wasn't here until recently, so I wasn't part of the discussions going on after S1 and 2. And if Sherlock's behaviour and snarkiness towards John was never debated, why should we not give Mary the same amont of leeway? Why is it ok to let Sherlock get away with snark but not Mary? THAT is my issue. I am NOT saying Mary is perfectly nice and wonderful, I am NOT saying that Sherlock doesn't care about John or that he is a horrible person, and I am NOT saying Mary and John have everything worked out and everything is fine.

I don't even mind people mistrusting Mary, even though I do. The ONLY thing I mind, the ONLY thing I've debated for several pages is - why don't cut Mary the same amount of slack as Sherlock has? Why is it ok for Sherlock to behave as an arse but Mary can't even read a book without being criticised? Why is snark ok from Sherlock but not Mary? 

 
You keep repeating this without answering the posts that explain what was meant by the book reading incident for example. Or the snark Sherlock expresses from time to time. Or the strive for truly deserved forgiveness.

Vhanja wrote:

I think this boils down to what was mentioned earlier - if you like someone you are quicker to forgive them. If you don't, you are easier to condemn that person.

I agree. And Mary would still be hated by some of the fans even if she was only the 'nice Mary' from the first two episodes. 

Swanpride, nice to see you back (though you've been back for some time now). I agree, Mary hasn't told the parents or Mycroft. Though Mycroft probably knows anyway.  

Depends on what type of villain. Some villains are awesomely cool (like Khan, for instance). But if she, say, had something to do with Moriarty's "death" or has in any other way worked against or hurt Sherlock and John, or will in the future, then she gets scratched permanently from my "like"-list. And then she should go and die in a fire.

Hec, nothing would make me happier than if she dies in the Special already, I don't care why or how. Just get the boys back together in 221B where they belong.

Last edited by Vhanja (January 5, 2015 4:40 pm)

I'd possibly like her more as a bad character, if you know what I mean!  I loved Magnussen as a villain, but he was so blatantly evil and didn't have the personal connection to the characters that Mary does.  I'd love for Mary to be a villain - and not just working for somebody.  I'd like to have her own evil masterplan.   

For me she would work much better as a villain because my problem is not that I do not like Mary as a character but as character that is supposed to be good. Make her a charismatic villain like Moriarty and I am in. 

besleybean wrote:

So does she have to be something of a stereotype, can she not be nuanced and complicated?

That is what she is today, in my opinion.

Well people seem very interested in her, so possibly that takes some level of charisma.