BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Mary

Vhanja · February 19, 2015 3:20 pm

Lola Red wrote:
I get a bit upset when I see that someone (in this case Vhanja) gets practically shut up for including something from the DVD extras, while even badly written metas are analysed with great attention. Let me say I have no problem with the inclusion of metas, however skillfully written. But when I opened this thread, this was part of the rules:

Lola Red wrote:
You may base your arguments on anything in the show, the canon, the commentaries or well informed (!) speculation or any other source you can think of, but please state them when you make a point.
So I feel if someone makes a point based on anything other than the show as seen on BBC, that should be ok, for as long as the source that is used to base a statement on is stated. If anyone does not own the material, you can always ask for a direct quote.

Thank you.

mrshouse · February 19, 2015 4:35 pm

I'm sorry, Vhanja, if you felt shut down. I'm sure that was not the purpose.
I posted the link to the meta, because I thought it was interesting and it doesn't contradict in that respect that it is interpretation of what we see. Nothing more, nothing less.

Lola Red · February 19, 2015 4:58 pm

I was not talking about the meta you posted mrshouse.
And as I said, I have nothing against metas in general. I was just astounded about the reaction concerning using something that was said in the commentary, when I remember a meta that did not go one paragraph without using the words “hate”, “feck” or “ugmpf” that was treated very thoughtfully. I only hoped we could extent the same thoughtful consideration to other sources as well.

Last edited by Lola Red (February 19, 2015 5:13 pm)

SusiGo · February 19, 2015 5:04 pm

I see what you mean and I did not try to shut out anyone.

The basic difference between metas and comments, however, is that the former are written by members of the audience (= ourselves) and the latter come from the writers of the show. And in the above case we were talking about the usefulness/desirability of explanations/interpretations provided by the authors themselves, not about metas written by members of the audience about their own interpretations.

(Btw, an interesting third group of additional material that is connected with really good metas are academic studies which recently came up in another thread. The show has been discovered by scholars as well.)

Last edited by SusiGo (February 19, 2015 5:05 pm)

Lola Red · February 19, 2015 5:43 pm

Susi, I see your point, but I do not think that everyone who chooses to include commentary in the base of his or her interpretation has to defend himself for doing so while the argument they are trying to make gets ignored. The very point of this thread was to be open to all sources. So the usefulness/desirability of different sources is maybe something for another thread (when it comes to availability, proper scientific studies are the worst of all, btw).

mrshouse · February 19, 2015 5:44 pm

@Susi, that is a very important difference there IMHO.

Last edited by mrshouse (February 19, 2015 5:46 pm)

Liberty · February 19, 2015 7:34 pm

For people who don't have the commentaries, Arianne de Vere has kindly provided transcripts.

I just wanted to comment that the commentaries are open to interpretation too!   They don't actually saying anything definite about Mary's intentions, and even the bit about whether it was surgery is a little ambiguous, in my opinion. There is still plenty of room for them to go back on the surgery story, and to make Mary an arch-villain (which I think would work very well).

One thing that makes me think they won't go back in the story is what happened after TRF - the only thing that was explained was the jumping off a building mystery. They didn't go back over the meat of the story and explain in detail what really happened - we were just left with the unanswered questions.   And I have a feeling that it might be the same this time - they'll take one feature of HLV, most likely Moriarty's appearance, and explain that, but leave the rest "as is".   I don't think they'll want to go over old ground too much.

However, I think something new about her past might come up. (I feel it's got to come up, but I could be wrong). It seems very odd to leave it the way it is - we still don't really know who she is or anything about her motivations. It would be a complete waste to have a background like that and not use it in the story in some way (or only to use it to have her shoot Sherlock and be a client).    I think we're going to learn more, and what we learn could make her an even worse villain, or could go toward exonarating her.

From the commentary, the bit that makes me feel Mary might be grey rather than black is the "Callan" comment. It seems to come during a moment of genuine discussion about Mary's motivations, and I don't get the feeling they're setting up the audience at this point. However, although I'm sure they had an idea about how Mary's story would go when filming the commentary, it's quite possible that they could have changed direction since then. What the commentary does suggest at that point, was that Mary's intentions weren't something that arrived fully formed - that they were something they had to consider when writing the story, and even after S3 had been filmed, they might not fully have decided.   So I could quite believe that there has been a deliberate move by the writers to leave things open - not just for the audiences, but for themselves, to allow them room to go in different directions.

Vhanja · February 19, 2015 8:29 pm

mrshouse wrote:
I'm sorry, Vhanja, if you felt shut down. I'm sure that was not the purpose.

No worries, it certainly wasn't just you. It just feels a bit strange to be overwhelmed with replies, to the point of almost being ridiculed, for daring to use the word of the creatores to help explain a scene. I'm just not used to that, I'm used to the opposide - from TV Tropes it's called the Word of God, and it's the one thing that usually settle debates. On this board, it seems that whatever the creators of the show says is completely irrelevant. Just not something I'm used to, so it leaves me a bit baffled.

Last edited by Vhanja (February 19, 2015 9:21 pm)

Harriet · February 19, 2015 8:48 pm

You used the word source in a way that makes me believe you prefer the writers (as the original source) to the artwork itself (which would be secondary then).

Vhanja · February 19, 2015 8:51 pm

Harriet wrote:
You used the word source in a way that makes me believe you prefer the writers (as the original source) to the artwork itself (which would be secondary then).

The source to clarify which interpretation of the show would be in alignment with the original intent would be the writers.

Harriet · February 19, 2015 8:53 pm

Ok, according to you and if there is such thing as original intent.

Vhanja · February 19, 2015 8:58 pm

Harriet wrote:
Ok, according to you and if there is such thing as original intent.

Yeah, and that is the topic of a new thread inspired by the discussion in this one.

Lola Red · February 19, 2015 9:18 pm

... to be found here: http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=6187

Schmiezi · February 20, 2015 5:29 am

Vhanja wrote:
It just feels a bit strange to be overwhelmed with replies, to the point of almost being ridiculed, for daring to use the word of the creatores to help explain a scene. I'm just not used to that, I'm used to the opposide - from TV Tropes it's called the Word of God, and it's the one thing that usually settle debates. On this board, it seems that whatever the creators of the show says is completely irrelevant. Just not something I'm used to, so it leaves me a bit baffled.

Vhanja, the reason for the writer's words not being considered the Word of God here might be found here:

Harriet wrote:
Copy and paste:

- We were told the show wasn’t going to go into Mycroft and Sherlock’s childhood
~ Lo and behold in S3 not only do we meet their parents, we get a glimpse as to what Sherlock was like as a child, as well as his childhood pet

- We were told the writers weren’t going to touch on the drugs bit any more than the tiny bit they did in A Scandal in Belgravia
~ Come His Last Vow, we see Sherlock in a drug den, and learn from Molly that he wasn’t clean (which was obvious given the drug den but w/e)

- We were told Mary wasn’t going to come inbetween John and Sherlock or be an adversary in any way
~ She became snippy at John over Sherlock, then ended up shooting and (albeit temporarily) killing Sherlock in His Last Vow

- We were told that Moriarty was definitely dead, and the writers even joked about it at Comic-Con 2013
~ “DID YOU MISS ME?!”

- We were told throughout 2013 that there was no Christmas special, that the whole thing was a rumor.
~ At the start of December 2013, we found out there was a special S3 prequel that aired for us - Many Happy Returns

- Something not linked to Sherlock but equally as important - in 2013 Moffat himself deliberately caused a fake controversy surrounding the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special, saying that none of the classic doctors were going to be remembered in any way, shape, or form, which wasn’t the case. Moffat is one of the creators and writers of Sherlock, so where does that leave us?

- ETA - Moffat and Gatiss both have said contradictory things about the show (for example, about the nature of Sherlock’s interest with Irene) and Moffat also had everyone believing that he actually would reveal the Doctor’s actual name in The Name of the Doctor, which also turned out to be false.

Those. And BTW:

nakahara wrote:
Yes, we fans are stupid - why are we doubting such a truthful people?

“Anything is possible.

But we do our best to surprise you with a combination of lies and deceit.

So, we’re never going to tell you what we’re going to do.”
—
Steven Moffat, when asked about upcoming stories in S4 and S5.

XXXXX

“QUESTION: What is your opinion (if any) on Sherlock’s sexuality? Does it matter, or is it irrelevant to you as writers?

GATISS/MOFFAT:Sherlock lives in his brain — everything else is transport.

Unless we’re lying.

Again.”
—
Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat

XXXXX

“INTERVIEWER: So what did you say to Steven and Mark after you read the [Mary] twist?

ABBINGTON: I texted them, 'You bastards.' It was brilliant. I was so happy.

INTERVIEWER: I feel like Steven lives for people saying, ‘You bastard’ to him in that way.

ABBINGTON: He does. He loves that. That’s why he brought Moriarty back after he said in interviews, 'Moriarty’s dead, okay? He’s dead.'

And here’s Moriarty in the finale saying, 'I’m back. Did you miss me?'”
—
Amanda Abbington, after the first airing of His Last Vow.

I must admit that I love to repost that from time to time. Thanks for giving me an opportunity.

Zatoichi · February 20, 2015 7:22 am

To get back to Mary.. I still wonder how they could become instant bffs. To those who find it convincing, what´s your idea/headcanon about that, what did Sherlock find so likeable about her that he didn´t listen to his own mind?

Imo his deductions.. "size 12, cat-lover, bakes her own bread, romantic.." should be as intriguing to him as Mrs. Hudson´s latest bisquit-recipe. Or did he already subconsciously sense something more about her, just like he made us believe John did from the start?

I can imagine he was very grateful that Mary promised to "talk John round", and also liked that she took his side when she told John he was overreacting.. but is that enough to make them instantly bond, like their little exchange at the end of TEH indicates? I just feel it´s very unlikely for Sherlock to have exceptional interest in a woman who, at that point of the story, is nothing more than John´s fiancé and a clever, romantic part-time nurse with a spunky personality..?

Is it all in her unfazed conduct towards him? Does he see her as an extension of John? Or does he like that she thinks about John like he does? (He´s overreacting.. the mustache has to go..) Whatever it is, it makes him wink at her at the end of TEH, kiss her, chat with her on the phone and never once treat her less than civilly - in fact much more courteous than he treats any of his other friends. That´s such an unusual behaviour for Sherlock that I really have problems to understand what´s going on..

mrshouse · February 20, 2015 7:35 am

I think in the beginning he sees her as a part of John he better accepts to be reaccepted himself. He is surprised for certain during the scenes in the various restaurants that she is not repelled by his weirdness but hops on the train. I don't really like the whole"talking round" thing because for me it feels wrong that the men's relationship should be dependent on a third party but anyway. Actually now that I come to think of it, I just wanted to write something about Mary rushing for the bonfire with him, but she actually does less there than Sarah at the circus....
I have a very hard time to understand their rebonding in HLV.

Liberty · February 20, 2015 7:46 am

No, I don't really get the attraction either. I suppose it's possible that he sees that need for adventure and excitement in her and feels a bond, but I think that Sherlock of all people would consciously see it if he was going to see it. He sees it almost instantly with John, but is very aware of seeing it, and even talks to John about it.   So if he did see it in Mary, you'd think that he'd know that he saw it, and would wonder why she was happy with a life that John found boring and unstimulating.

I think Mary's reaction to Sherlock's return probably has a lot to do with it.   She's on his side there, at a time when the world has been against him (and John too, at that moment) - the right place at the right time.   Maybe if he'd met her pre-TRF as one of John's girlfriends, he wouldn't have felt the same connection. And at this point in his life he has realised the importance of friendships and values them deeply (after being without anyone for two years).   He's probably more open to a new friendship than he has been at any other time.

I think that maybe he also respects that she does really matter to John (much more than any previous girlfriends he's met).    John often seems more alone than Sherlock - Sherlock has Mycroft looking out for him, and his friends, loving parents.

Last edited by Liberty (February 20, 2015 8:06 am)

SusiGo · February 20, 2015 7:49 am

I agree with you. It has not sat completely well with me from the beginning. And Sherlock feeling guilty for leaving John for two years indeed has something to do with Sherlock's behaviour towards Mary. IMO this is the only reason why he does not react to his "liar" deduction. He comes back, only then understands how much pain he has caused, and does want to do everything to make John happy. So far, so good.

But Sherlock bonding with Mary beyond his attachment to John does not seem credible to me. I can only explain it by the circumstances. Sarah for example was a nice and clever woman who once even bested Sherlock in her deductions but she came at a time when Sherlock was emotionally more immature and did not feel guilty towards John.

Last edited by SusiGo (February 20, 2015 7:54 am)

mrshouse · February 20, 2015 7:56 am

I also don't think it comes instantly. If you look at him waltzing on John I think he doesn't realize yet that there might be a woman for John who has a different meaning for John. If I remember correctly it starts with the same snark that he reserved for John's girlfriends. His attitude changes during the various restaurant scenes. But I agree with Susi, that puts Mary in a very engraving position here. That is not completely understandable.

SusiGo · February 20, 2015 8:12 am

It may also be the fact that apart from the very beginning in the Landmark restaurant she tends to side with Sherlock - a thing she has been criticised for, also by me, because it is not very supportive towards John. But Sherlock is in a very difficult situation and Mary e.g. instantly understands that he needed a confidante for his plan. I think here he may bond to her on an intellectual level, not realising that her remark may seem cruel to John who should have been his natural confidante.

But if you take the beginning of the bonfire scene - if it had been someone else than Mary, Sherlock would have become suspicious about her recognising the skip code on sight. Maybe we are meant to suspend our disbelief here in order to make the revelation in HLV more shocking. But I think if we want a logical explanation for his obliviousness, we have to opt for a mixture of guilt and a certain impairment of his faculties in series 3.