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

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 8:33 am

Swanpride wrote:
There are two things I hate in writing...unnecessary contrived drama (especailly of the melodramatic sort) because it is annoying and domestique bliss, because it is boring. Thankfully Sherlock falls into neither trap.

But I think it would be a mistake to consider Mary just as a stumbling stone. She is an interesting character in her own right.

It's really interesting how differently those things are perceived. For me both the fall as well as the farewell on the tarmac is melodrama at its finest, on a very very very subtle level.

Vhanja · March 2, 2015 8:33 am

Napkins? I meant diapers.

Only had one cup of coffee this morning...

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 8:39 am

*handing Vhanja a mug of coffee*

Vhanja · March 2, 2015 8:47 am

Thank you.

And, yes, I believe those scenes are melo-drama too.

From wikipedia:
"Victims, couples, virtuous and heroic characters or suffering protagonists[/url] (usually [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroines]heroines[/url]) in melodramas are presented with tremendous social pressures, threats, repression, fears, improbable events or difficulties with friends, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community]community[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment]work[/url], lovers, or family. The melodramatic format allows the character to work through their difficulties or surmount the problems with resolute [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance]endurance[/url], [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrificial]sacrificial[/url] acts, and steadfast [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravery]bravery."

Last edited by Vhanja (March 2, 2015 8:47 am)

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 8:54 am

Fits perfectly IMHO.

SolarSystem · March 2, 2015 9:33 am

I think that most people associate something negative with the words "melodrama" and "melodramatic". It's important to keep in mind though that you can write good and bad melodrama (or comedy or adventure or crime for that matter). It's crucial how the writer approaches it, and a lot of scenes we've seen in "Sherlock" so far could have been just painful to watch because they might have ended up being too cheesy or too boringly domestic bliss.
I don't think that introducing a new character to a tv show ensures good writing. It can be thrilling, it can also turn out to be boring, not working at all or lethal to the chemistry on the show. I've seen this happen.

SusiGo · March 2, 2015 11:07 am

There are quite a lot of characters with whom the writers have deviated very much from Canon - Moriarty, Irene, and Mary coming to mind. And while for me the "new" Moriarty and Irene both work brilliantly, I do not feel the same with Mary.

And coming back to what I have said more than once: the main reason for my discomfort is that I feel somehow forced react to her in a positive way. As if the writers were telling me "just look how sassy/cool she is", what a true peer for Sherlock and John, etc. And for me this is not supported by the narrative or the acting.

With Moriarty and Irene I always felt comfortable - I was free to loathe or involuntarily admire them without being told how I had to feel about them. I did not feel forced into liking Moriarty when he had dozens of people killed or wanted Sherlock to commit suicide by threatening his friends. And this is exactly the reason why I do not buy the whole forgiveness scenario. For me it remains a matter of credibility.

Last edited by SusiGo (March 2, 2015 11:08 am)

gently69 · March 2, 2015 11:42 am

Yes, like to sign this.

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 5:35 pm

Yes, Susi, I feel the same way about this character. I actually loved Moriarty, Irene was okay, was not a big big fan, but as you say, it was a congruent characterization in itself. The duality of the two main characters never got lost, and by god, they were shaken through by them!

Whisky · March 2, 2015 6:26 pm

SusiGo wrote:
As if the writers were telling me "just look how sassy/cool she is", what a true peer for Sherlock and John, etc. And for me this is not supported by the narrative or the acting.

I tend to agree I think, but I am not yet sure what exactly you mean. So that means the way we perceive the character, the acting, and writer's intention is different? Like three sides of a person that don't add up to one whole convincing Mary?
But how and why would such a thing happen? I don't think that's happeing a lot (in good series)... when would that happen? Only if an actor misunderstands the script and character description, or has a different interpretation? And wouldn't it mean that the narrative doesn't support the writer's intention? Why construct narrative that doesn't show what you really wanna say? (I mean, if they wanted Mary to be sassy and cool, I am sure the writers and Amanda could have pulled that off in a convincing way)
probably I just misunderstand. The acting, the narrative and writer's intention, are they really that different, are they contradictory?
I mean, I see what you see, but I don't quite understand what's the reason for it, and I think (thought) I see exactly what writers and actors want me to see? or not? (I mean, I thought the problems with seeing Mary clearly were all there because writers/actors/script wanted them to be there)

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 6:34 pm)

SusiGo · March 2, 2015 6:36 pm

I do not think the writers or the actress made a mistake but that the forgiveness scenario may be not the whole truth. Let me give you an example:
If we truly were to forgive and understand Mary, why does Amanda play her in the Leinster Gardens and the Baker Street scenes the way she does? Cold, distant, calculating, threatening, not showing the least sign of remorse, not giving any explanation of her own but waiting until Sherlock hands it to her on a plate. Some people may interpret it differently but this is what I see. And as this has never happened before in the series (at least not in my opinion), I tend to believe that there is more than what we see on the surface.

The alternative sadly would mean that they did not manage to convince part of their audience.

Whisky · March 2, 2015 6:43 pm

Ah, okay, I understand you now.
Well, that will totally depend if there will be more on Mary or not. If not, the latter might sadly come true in a way, because it would just be so unsatisfying.

Although, I think, the cold and distant is just a modus operandus. As long as she's not feeling safe and under pressure, she will retreat to this. But the problem then would be, that someone with a history as hers will probably never relax and embrace "civilian" life and be able to let the good stuff show. So maybe the cool, sassy, even nice and honest Mary is somewhat of a lost girl, just like John cannot go back to being the "mundane" doctor. I am not a big fan of Mary staying, but maybe she will find her peace, like John did with Sherlock and his eccentrics. Maybe even being a mother could bring that forward. Then, I think, she could be the girl John maybe saw somewhere deep hidden in her. I would like that.

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 6:49 pm)

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 6:47 pm

The way I see it it was a matter of limited time in an episode that had lots to show and tell. Some scenes just fell under the rug in the cutting room that might have been helpful for some fans. I think the dimensions of how the given material to cope with this new character was not sufficient or satisfying for some fans was underestimated by the writers. And most probably they don't really care.

SusiGo · March 2, 2015 6:49 pm

The show is very carefully done in every respect. I cannot believe that a thing like this would happen by chance or by carelessness of the creators.

Whisky · March 2, 2015 6:52 pm

I don't think it was a time problem. They had two full episodes in which Mary dominated anyway in one way or another. They managed to show really important stuff within seconds in previous series, and I'm somewhat confident they still hold that ability.
ah sorry, Susi was quicker. What Susi said

Last edited by Whisky (March 2, 2015 6:53 pm)

mrshouse · March 2, 2015 6:52 pm

@Susi, no, I meant they might not care too much if they lose a couple of fans on the way who have problems with the new dynamics.

Last edited by mrshouse (March 2, 2015 6:54 pm)

SusiGo · March 2, 2015 7:08 pm

I still believe that there will not be a new dynamic for good.

And I still believe Mark Gatiss when he said: "We knew it the moment that they read together that the show was in front of our eyes." I do not think the show will be become something completely different.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 2, 2015 7:42 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Well, one thing for sure, fanfiction writers who ship Sherlock with either Molly or Janine tend to be more receptive to John/Mary than other fanfiction writers (hence my problems to find stories with pure canon pairings).

I'd be interested in hearing about other slash ships. For instance, I'm plotting out a Sherstrade story right now, and Mary is not shown in a positive light. And, actually, neither is John, in the beginning.

RavenMorganLeigh · March 2, 2015 7:50 pm

mrshouse wrote:
@Susi, no, I meant they might not care too much if they lose a couple of fans on the way who have problems with the new dynamics.

Sadly, I agree. And I think there are a number of factors here that might lead Mofftiss to make the decision to keep
Abbington as "Mary" in the series for the duration...

(1) Nepotism. That's what got Abbington the job to begin with-- and may be the thing that keeps her on.
(2) The character of "Mary" generated a lot of buzz.
(3) I get the feeling that Mofftiss don't care that much about logic, or realism in this series-- they don't seem to care that much about continuity, either-- so the questions brought up about Mary's past in S3 may never be answered, if the failure to adequetely resolve TRF is any indication...

Just my thoughts...

Whisky · March 2, 2015 8:08 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
(2) The character of "Mary" generated a lot of buzz.

I think that's due to a better mystery to discuss. My opinion. I only discuss Mary because she is the most discussion worthy thing that happened in series 3 (apart from the usual discussions). Had there been more to go on about Moran or whatever, she wouldn't have generated such a buzz I suppose.