Lola Red wrote:

lil wrote:

Is there perhaps a confusion here of tv margins of acceptability with IRL....?
As a tv character..taking Mary..as is..and writing murder off as acceptable...these days...is bit of a laugh..but IRL..would Mary supporters really accept an ex assasin..shooter of your best friend..hunted by various agency's and bad guys...etc etc as a friend or a person to trust around loved ones ...
Are some views just for tv personas...and some from IRL POV.
Maybe realism is out of place when talking tv shows.......

lil, I absolutely agree with you real life is something completely different to me than a fictional world (even one that resembles the real world in some ways). IRL, Mary would be a monster for shooting an unarmed man and likely many more in her lifetime, John would be both stupid and heartless to stay together with the woman who lied to him and almost killed his best friend and Sherlock would be all of the above for shooting an unarmed man, keeping Mary around and even helping her covering up her past murders and leaving his best friend with someone with such murderous tendencies. Yet, in the fictional world that the show has created, I can empathise with all of these characters and even root for them, most of all Sherlock himself.
 

But this fictional world was initially supposed to be about the clever detective and his loyal and brave friend, not about the bunch of murdering, emotiaonally dead monsters who successfully cover up their crimes. This isn´t Patricia Highsmith´s "The Talented Mr. Ripley", this is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Something is wrong if this story has taken this turn.

Lola Red wrote:

For Mary: At least in this forum (I’m not past of any other discussion groups) her negative actions seem to be (by and large) not at all dismissed. If anything I feel around here they spill over to every other aspect of her character. Because of her actions in HLV everything she did before that is now dismissed as false and manipulative. If there is truth in this or not will only be shown in future seasons, but for now it remains speculation. Until then I personally choose to continue seeing her as a character that seems to have both vices and virtues. I do not know if that is because I am a woman. Than again, I see Sherlock as a character with vices and virtues too (albeit with a different set of them) and I am neither a man, nor a genius, nor a private detective, so I have no idea where that comes from.
 
For the earlier Mary “having to” encourage the boys to go on an adventure together: I feel John and Sherlock are terrible at communicating with each other, especially in times of distress. In TGG John misses Sherlock’s reasons for his apparent disinterest in the victims’ fate, while Sherlock rebukes from John’s expectations of him being a hero. In ASIB both of them lie to each other about the fate of Irene Adler. In THOB Sherlock lashes out at John when he feels his foundation shaking. In TRF fall John again fails to see behind Sherlock’s reasons for seemingly not caring (about Mrs. Hudson’s apparent death) despite the fact that he has witnessed Sherlock throwing a man out a window (several times) after he had laid hand on Mrs. Hudson. TEH is basically fuelled by their inability to properly communicate with each other (Sherlock’s clumsy re-appearance, John’s inability to react to that in a not physically violent way, Sherlock’s inability to properly apologise for the grief he caused John without simultaneously making John belief they are both about to die, John’s inability to tell Sherlock he has forgiven him all along without having to think they are both about to die). But until Mary played a more active part, there was never anyone around to witness those two heading towards the next emotional disaster. They where always alone for it, crashed (sometime quite heartbreakingly) and then had to work it out from there. So when Mary see’s that Sherlock is about to break down under the anxiety about the impending wedding, she tried to avoid that disaster from happening, giving Sherlock the chance to express all his love for John in a more opportune manner during his speech. And yes, a few months later the same person, in very different circumstances, decides to shoot Sherlock rather than risking loosing the life she has build for herself.
 

I very much agree with all of this. As of now, we do not now where Moftiss decide to take her. I can't say that she won't be portrayed as a full-blown villain is the future, because I don't know what plans they have for her. But seeing as we've already had this huge plot twist with her character, it seems to be to be bad writing to add another twist just to make her worse. So in my opinion, that won't happen. But we will just have to wait and see.

I also agree with your second point. Sherlock and John have always been bad at communicating emotions, and I think it actually helps them and their relationship to have someone outside of them to support and nudge them in the right direction when needed. 


 

Lola Red wrote:

nakahara wrote:

But this fictional world was initially supposed to be about the clever detective and his loyal and brave friend, not about the bunch of murdering, emotiaonally dead monsters who successfully cover up their crimes. This isn´t Patricia Highsmith´s "The Talented Mr. Ripley", this is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Something is wrong if this story has taken this turn.

I feel this particular fictional world (which is an adaptation of another fictional world) has from the very start relied on some morals that would be quite shocking IRL. In reality, how charmed would we be by two man - one who has just killed a man, the other who has just tortured a dying man – walking away laughing and talking about their dinner plans? Yet within the rules of this fictional world we are able to love these very men and beg the creators to show us more of their adventures. In SolarSystem’s words the show had the “decency to let people in on their game” in the very first episode.

The first man killed the cabbie in defence of the life of another human being, the other man prioritised getting information about the person who set a string of serial murders over the comfort of a dying cold-blooded murderer.

Both actions were only amoral to certain extent - they were not committed for a personal gain or sadistic satisfaction for Sherlock nor John.

Compare, for example, Hannibal to them to see an amorality whose motive is a self-satisfaction of a perpetrator.

Now, Mary´s deeds are another league entirely - committed for her personal gain and with disinterest for the wellbeing of others.

nakahara wrote:

Lola Red wrote:

nakahara wrote:

But this fictional world was initially supposed to be about the clever detective and his loyal and brave friend, not about the bunch of murdering, emotiaonally dead monsters who successfully cover up their crimes. This isn´t Patricia Highsmith´s "The Talented Mr. Ripley", this is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Something is wrong if this story has taken this turn.

I feel this particular fictional world (which is an adaptation of another fictional world) has from the very start relied on some morals that would be quite shocking IRL. In reality, how charmed would we be by two man - one who has just killed a man, the other who has just tortured a dying man – walking away laughing and talking about their dinner plans? Yet within the rules of this fictional world we are able to love these very men and beg the creators to show us more of their adventures. In SolarSystem’s words the show had the “decency to let people in on their game” in the very first episode.

The first man killed the cabbie in defence of the life of another human being, the other man prioritised getting information about the person who set a string of serial murders over the comfort of a dying cold-blooded murderer.

Both actions were only amoral to certain extent - they were not committed for a personal gain or sadistic satisfaction for Sherlock nor John.

Compare, for example, Hannibal to them to see an amorality whose motive is a self-satisfaction of a perpetrator.

Now, Mary´s deeds are another league entirely - committed for her personal gain and with disinterest for the wellbeing of others.

Hannibal is set in yet another fictional world (assuming you mean Hannibal Lecter, not Hannibal Barkas), not connected with the fictional world of Sherlock. This was about the difference between the morality in a fictional world and reality. In reality, the murder and torture of a human being upsets me, no matter the circumstances. I am aware that desperate times call for desperate measures and sometimes something terrible has to be done to prevent an even bigger tragedy. In that light I could understand how some might say that what happened to the cabby was unavoidable. What I find more shocking is the extreme light-heartedness which is shown by the two men afterwards. Again, in real life. In the show, I can accept the pretence that all of this is ok, because the cabby wasn’t “a very nice man”.

Edit: I do not mean to bash John’s or Sherlock’s character(s). I am just trying to describe the difference between the morality in the real and a given fictional world – using the set of morals as indicated in the very first episode as a guideline – because the question has come up with regard to Mary’s character.
 

Last edited by Lola Red (March 13, 2015 3:50 pm)

Lola Red wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Lola Red wrote:

I feel this particular fictional world (which is an adaptation of another fictional world) has from the very start relied on some morals that would be quite shocking IRL. In reality, how charmed would we be by two man - one who has just killed a man, the other who has just tortured a dying man – walking away laughing and talking about their dinner plans? Yet within the rules of this fictional world we are able to love these very men and beg the creators to show us more of their adventures. In SolarSystem’s words the show had the “decency to let people in on their game” in the very first episode.

The first man killed the cabbie in defence of the life of another human being, the other man prioritised getting information about the person who set a string of serial murders over the comfort of a dying cold-blooded murderer.

Both actions were only amoral to certain extent - they were not committed for a personal gain or sadistic satisfaction for Sherlock nor John.

Compare, for example, Hannibal to them to see an amorality whose motive is a self-satisfaction of a perpetrator.

Now, Mary´s deeds are another league entirely - committed for her personal gain and with disinterest for the wellbeing of others.

Hannibal is also set in yet another fictional world (assuming you mean Hannibal Lecter, not Hannibal Barkas), not connected with the fictional world of Sherlock. This was about the difference between the morality in a fictional world and reality. In reality, the murder and torture of a human being upsets me, no matter the circumstances. I am aware that desperate times call for desperate measures and sometimes something terrible has to be done to prevent an even bigger tragedy. In that light I could understand how some might say that what happened to the cabby was unavoidable. What I find more shocking is the extreme light-heartedness which is shown by the two men afterwards. Again, in real life. In the show, I can accept the pretence that all of this is ok, because the cabby wasn’t “a very nice man”.

 

Personally whether real life or in fiction I would feel that the murder of the cabbie was somewhat justified but still be troubled by how callously John shrugs it off. Same case for Mary's attempt at CAM and Sherlock's murder of him. And it has nothing to do with if the writers want me to feel that it's justified or if the murderer was the protagonist. Now if I'm asked that am I willing to commit murder to protect people then my answer would be only if I'm not caught. *shrugs* for example I would never have killed CAM in front of all those witnesses, no matter how much essential it would be for my loved one's survival. That's just me but things like these cross my threshold for sacrifice and protectiveness.

Vhanja wrote:

When I wrote "get away with murder", I didn't meant that he got away with it without consequence in the series. I meant that Sherlock can more or less do or say anything and it will be excused and handwaved away, whereas Mary will be scrutinized and criticised for the minor thing. To me, that is so deeply unfair and a blatant case of double standard.

I think that is why I struggle so much with the criticism of Mary. Not because I feel like defending everything she did, not because I approve of or like everything she did. But because the big majority of what she is judged for I keep thinking: "Hey, but Sherlock did that too...". Yet no one bats an eyelid. 

I am simply unable to agree on criticising one character for a thing they said or did when another character have done the same and gotten away with it (within the fandom). 

As I've said before - liking a character does not mean you have defend everything they do. Sherlock does a lot of thing that is dubios at best. It's not a weakness to admit that, and it doesn't make me like him less. On the contrary - it makes him more intriguing to me. I don't think it does the show or the character of Sherlock any good to defend everything he has said or done just because he is Sherlock.

Can you plesse elaborate when you have the time? The way I've seen so far time and time again Moffitson have equated Sherlock and Mary in many ways to show Sherlock as selfless while Mary's action as selfish. And when you say nobody bats an eyelash do you mean that people just forgive Sherlock wihtout any reason or logic. before analyzing an action of a character whether real or fiction their motivation/ personality needs to be judged. Again I don't know from where you've concluded that nobody bats an eyelid about Sherlock's actions but for now all I can say is that Sherlock and Mary have both very different personality and morality (yes, Mary had a lot of little screentime compared to Sherlock but Moffitson has given us enough data to construct a profile of her as close to our protagonists) and so one can't just find comon things they've done and say that both must be praised and critisized together. We need to consider their motives as well. I was asking because I was thinking of writing my throughts on Mary from throughtout the series and express my take on all the topics of debate about her.
 

Last edited by tykobrian (March 13, 2015 3:57 pm)

Yeah, let's forget about all these wet jobs... probably they were just done for the sake of humanity.
Poor Mary, so misunderstood.

Vhanja wrote:

There has been an argument saying that when Sherlock does these things, it's for the greater good. I would say that in most cases, it isn't. Sherlock doesn't solve cases for the greater good, he does it mainly to keep his brain occupied and entertained. So torturing the dying cabbie, the experiment on John, yelling at the school attendant in TRF, making Mrs. Hudson upset with the news about her date, dating Janine under false pretences, charming Molly into giving him access whenever he wanted - none of that was done for the greater good. It was done to solve, or just hasten the solution, for his own satsifcation, first and foremost.

None of this excuses what Mary has done. She is certainly no saint. And there is several things I question myself about her. (Again: Liking a character doesn't mean having to like everything they say or do). But to put Sherlock on a pedestal and defending everything he does "for the greater good" while condemning Mary for the slighest thing does not sound right to me. It doesn't fit with how I view neither Sherlock nor Mary.
 

For me, the big difference between Sherlock and Mary lays in personal gain they get from their actions in the show. OK, let´s presume Sherlock is this utterly selfish wretch who completely lacks any higher motivations for his deeds except his own mental exaltation. Does that mean other people did not benefit from his actions?

That´s obviously not so: Scotland Yard, even Lestrade´s completelly inept and unprofessional colleagues, gets accolades for solved cases, clients benefit from having their issues solved, broke and desperate John gets his limp cured, gets a nice fee of 5000 pounds in one case, gets famous for writing about his flatmate and gets plenty of adventures he craves. Sherlock was snarky and arrogant to those people in between? So what? They used him and his abilities, callously took the results of his detection and his chemical tests and forgot to thank him in any way for it, calling him freak, laughing behind his back about the fact he doesn´t know Solar System or photographing him and making videos of him while he was sick or recovering from an almost fatal injury. The mental exaltation and the way he "ruffled the feathers" of those people were actually the only benefits Sherlock gained for himself in most of his cases.

And when Sherlock wanted to be friendlier, more considerate and did even a huge self-sacrifice for his friends what did he got for his efforts? He was fatally wounded, lost his life and career and for his self-sacrifice, he got an enormous gift of a handshake. 

And I really doubt his actions in HLV were motivated by his effort to merely occupy his brain by an interesting puzzle. It was obviously so much than that.

Considering that he has met with such unthankfulness, I find it hard to critise him for his in-character negative traits. (That does not mean that everyone does it - but people who find Sherlock too arrogant usually do not watch this show, since the hero is repulsive to them - they watch Elementary where Sherlock is more palatable in a mainstream way).

Now, when I look at Mary in turn, I see that she profited greatly from Sherlock´s self-sacrifice, but no remorse for wounding him and no thank you for his sacrifice ever passed her lips. Other people didn´t profit from Mary´s deeds at all, her presence was mostly a detriment to them (considering that she was a killer for hire). And what good did she for Sherlock in the show? People believe that she supported Sherlock when John was angry at him in TEH - but we didn´t get to actually see any scene where she spoke in Sherlock´s favour to John and encouraged him to reconcile, did we? I don´t think mere sentence "I like him" count as that. Some of her actions in TSOT are ambivalent, they may be seen as benign or as malicious equally. And HLV then completelly deconstructs Mary´s image and shows us that every fact about her thus far was a lie.

In the light of that, I find it hard to value Mary´s deeds above those of Sherlock. And untill we get more facts about her from the authors, I find it hard to see her and her actions in a positive light.

Twice now Sherlock has sacrificed himself to save others and as part of a greater good...thats not a pedal stool.That happened.

If Marys sacrifice of others....including innocents....for self....is just as morally acceptable and equal and lovable.....the whole show is undermined.Sherlock may as well just continue being great... being good seems pointless.

So for me..sure Mary can be great.....but she can not be good with it atm.

I think....the evil geniuses that wrote this.....will somehow balance it..with Karma! ...John will choose...and Mary will somehow loose..

By the same token, we do not know for sure that any part of Mary in the first two episodes is indeed true.
Thiis is why the character has inspired so much debate.