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

mrshouse · March 14, 2015 2:22 pm

I cannot agree with this. Whisky, you have an interesting point about CAMs motivation as to not going into great details. But I think we don't need him to. Compare what he says: " Hard to find anything on you, Mr. Holmes" ( sorry, if it's not accurately cited) and " She's a naughty girl who went freelance with lots of people who would love to get her." That's different. I'm sure, there would be people after Sherlock as well, but why? For revenge that he put people into prison. After Mary? For having killed people, that's what the story tells me so far. And sorry, but it bothers me deeply that the shooting is time and again described as the good way in this situation. I can accept a couple of things about this, that Mary short-circuits, she panicks, she wants to save her life. But getting this sold as great chance and being best buddies afterwards I feel trolled. And I don't agree that he's not ready to bear consequences for his deeds. In Appledore he clearly waits for witnesses to get him before he shots, so there can't be any doubt left. While Mary doesn't have to do anything to be in the inner circle of trust again.

Whisky · March 14, 2015 2:34 pm

mrshouse wrote:
I'm sure, there would be people after Sherlock as well, but why? For revenge that he put people into prison. After Mary? For having killed people, that's what the story tells me so far.

Moriarty is after him for fun. Others because he messes around in their dirty operations. Mary is just a step further: she makes sure the people cannot come after her. That's morally pretty dark, but Sherlock tried the same with Moriarty. What would have been the outcome in TRF if Moriarty hadn't shot himself? Had Sherlock killed him, or given him to the court where Moriarty just blackmails everyone again to walk free again? Same problem as with Magnusson. And what did Sherlock do in Serbia? Playing cards? He was tortured. Pretty sure he killed people there. Bringing down a criminal network... did he really give all those people he found to a prison? With powerful people out there to bail them? With the knowledge they will be after him the moment they leave prison? He wanted to get RID of them. There is only one sure way... I don't believe in Sherlock's innocence.

And sorry, but it bothers me deeply that the shooting is time and again described as the good way in this situation.

Not saying that. Just saying Sherlock's shooting is in the same morally grey area as Mary's. I don't support the shooting as the best solution. In my post I was trying to let the characters speak, not myself, and they both came to the same conclusion.

And I don't agree that he's not ready to bear consequences for his deeds. In Appledore he clearly waits for witnesses to get him before he shots, so there can't be any doubt left.

Do you know it's for his own sake, or for John's? Not much use if John gets blamed for the Magnusson murder. It being his gun and all. Same setting as in Magnussons office: don't make John a suspect. (I don't say that's the only way I can see it, it's not, just saying there are more explanations than choosing the one excusing Sherlock, and I think that's what Vhanja meant in a way, and what I agreed on.)

While Mary doesn't have to do anything to be in the inner circle of trust again.

Well, I suppose Sherlock does understand who she is (what I see as proof that they aren't that different in ways of thinking). And John doesn't talk to her for months - so there aren't open arms to welcome her immediatly, not really. Best buddies? Not really. There was tension mentioned... I can still see it in John, also in Mary, in the end of HLV.

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 3:30 pm

Whisky wrote:
Then there is Mary herself, who says: "that's why there are people like me". And she voices her fear of having to go to prison if her work surfaces to the media. It looks like she is selfishly following a thought line of: "I'd do anything to avoid prison". But we don't know what exactly she did. She went freelance, that indicates the government didn't cover her actions. But that's exactly the point: the government, Mycroft also, couldn't bring down Magnusson. The laws don't get to him. That's why there are people like Mary. Sherlock kills Magnusson "freelance" as well. And Mary could have good reasons for her freelance murders as well, just we don't know them - we just know Sherlock's reasons. But to assume Mary is morally in a different place than Sherlock... I don't see the evidence for it.

If we had more background on Mary, maybe be would see her before one of her assassin trips, saying the words "nobody turns my stomach like XY". Maybe then we would get some background on what XY did and does. How the government cannot stop XY. How people suffer. Maybe we would think "oh, that's bad, what to do". And then Mary would kill that person and we would morally end up in the same place as with Sherlock and Magnusson.

Mary could be victim of a missing scene. She could of course also be cruel and the true baddie. But to judge that, we need to stick to facts - facts we don't have. Bad for Mary, mean trick from the writers.

You raise an interesting point there with regard to Mary’s past. We know that Mary worked for the CIA at some point (interesting side note: according to Sherlock Mycroft is the CIA on a freelance basis). Then (assumingly at a later point in time) she went “a bit freelance”. Her basic view of her old job seems to be “People like Magnussen should be killed; that’s why there are people like me”. That leads me to believe that the majority of her kills were connected to people she thought and still thinks deserved to die. But she also asks John not to read the USB stick in front of her, because there is something on there that she believes will make him stop loving her. Did she cause collateral damage? Did she kill someone she does no longer believe deserved to die? When did that happen? When she was still with the CIA? Was that the reason why she went “a bit freelance”? So she could decide for herself who lives and who dies, instead of following orders that cause innocents to die? Or did it she loose patience with the slow working of a government organisation, went freelance and killed an innocent? I don’t know if we will ever get any answers to this, but I find it interesting.

Vhanja · March 14, 2015 3:34 pm

You raise interesting questions, Whisky and Lola Red. It would be very interesting to learn what Mary's background really was. I wonder if we will ever know. I can imagine probably not - with John having accepted her for who she is and the USB stick burned, what plausible way would there be for the writers to let her know more about her background? Not to mention - what would be their reason for it?

I do believe that Moftiss do not plan to keep Mary in the series indefinetly. Seeing as she seems to be portrayed as someone the audience were meant to like, from the writers side, I can imagine she will have a heroic death. Would we need her background for that? I think her full redemption would come in dying for John - or Sherlock.

mrshouse · March 14, 2015 3:49 pm

It would be interesting, true. But for now it is wide, wide, wide in the territory of speculation and in my humble opinion not too useful for deciding about the morality of what is seen and said on screen. I liked what tonnaree wrote in a post yesterday: we can judge Sherlock's deeds and are free to condemn them but ( in contrast to Mary) we can't claim ignorance.

Vhanja · March 14, 2015 3:59 pm

I don't see how knowing Sherlock better makes his actions any better than Mary's. Most of the stuff they do (being snarky and manipulative, for instance), we already know within the show why they do it. There are instances where Sherlock manipulates just to get what he wants quicker with no regard to other people's feelings (fake crying to the wife in TGG, yelling at the devastated school lady in TRF, fake relationship with Janine), whereas one instance where Mary manipulates John and Sherlock ("run him"), she does it purely to help and support Sherlock.

No, I am not saying Mary is "better" than Sherlock. Not at all. I am saying they are BOTH grey characters who have BOTH done gray (and sometimes bordering black) deeds, and not always for the greater good any of them. Mary's background might possible put her into darker territory than anything Sherlock has ever done. (Possibly - we don't know what she's done, and we don't know what Sherlock's done in the two years away. Were they both fighting terrorists?).

My point with all these posts are not to make Mary out to be "better" than Sherlock, but to help add some nuance into this debate. To show why I think it's wrong to always assume the best of Sherlock and always the worst of Mary. That is a biased view.

Last edited by Vhanja (March 14, 2015 4:00 pm)

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 4:04 pm

Vhanja wrote:
You raise interesting questions, Whisky and Lola Red. It would be very interesting to learn what Mary's background really was. I wonder if we will ever know. I can imagine probably not - with John having accepted her for who she is and the USB stick burned, what plausible way would there be for the writers to let her know more about her background? Not to mention - what would be their reason for it?

I do believe that Moftiss do not plan to keep Mary in the series indefinetly. Seeing as she seems to be portrayed as someone the audience were meant to like, from the writers side, I can imagine she will have a heroic death. Would we need her background for that? I think her full redemption would come in dying for John - or Sherlock.

I hope her past will come back in some way, otherwise the whole conflict in HLV was just a cheap writing trick to make her “more interesting”. So I hope it was done to establish facts that will be important later on. But how? I don’t know. Maybe someone who’s loved one she killed will come after her? Then she would probably have to explain a bit more. Though that would be a very obvious course.

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 4:28 pm

mrshouse wrote:
It would be interesting, true. But for now it is wide, wide, wide in the territory of speculation and in my humble opinion not too useful for deciding about the morality of what is seen and said on screen. I liked what tonnaree wrote in a post yesterday: we can judge Sherlock's deeds and are free to condemn them but ( in contrast to Mary) we can't claim ignorance.

So you're saying we have to wait until we have more information before we can judge and condemn Mary’s deeds? I do agree with you generally speaking, but I feel in a fandom for a show that gives us three episodes every two years (if we are lucky) speculation is vital to keep the fandom alive. The most discussed about topics in this fandom are based on interpretation and speculation (e.g. Mary, Johnlock, “How-did-he-survive” theories after TRF). Some of speculation fuelled discussions will find a natural end when more information is provided (e.g. most “How-did-he-survive” theories after TEH), some will stay alive and kicking (e.g. Johnlock). Was the first group useless? Maybe, but it kept the fandom engaged until the next season. In the end, some will always happily get to yell “called it”, while the others will have to admit they were wrong. I cannot see the harm in that. I am by no means trying to force you to join a discussion that is partly based on speculation, but I opened this thread specifically so that such discussion has a place. You are free to join or withhold your judgement until you have more facts (or not join at all, if you wish), but please do not attempt to put the discussion to a stop, it’s all just for fun

mrshouse · March 14, 2015 4:32 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I don't see how knowing Sherlock better makes his actions any better than Mary's.

For me as a viewer it's a big difference. Watching ASiP I could decide after five minutes if Sherlock and John were main characters I could sympathize with, if the whole new concept within this show and how the characters were introduced was my cup of tea. I don't have this freedom with Mary. I'm too much knee deep in, you certainly know that there are fans who say they loved her very much in the first two episodes but in the third not so much anymore? What are they supposed to do?

And @Whisky, as for the shooting, it's quite obvious it's not for his own sake, but for Johns. The same might apply to Mary, I would never think that she would want to position John as suspect. But for me there's a difference in waiting for witnesses and going straight into arrest and sneaking out of the crime scene, still not talking to John when they embrace at the hospital but going on threatening a barely alive man and fighting till being exposed.

mrshouse · March 14, 2015 4:40 pm

Lola Red wrote:
am by no means trying to force you to join a discussion that is partly based on speculation, but I opened this thread specifically so that such discussion has a place. You are free to join or withhold your judgement until you have more facts (or not join at all, if you wish), but please do not attempt to put the discussion to a stop, it’s all just for fun

Huh? Not my intention to stop the discussion here, not in the slightest, I'm actually quite busy here, as you can see. Maybe for further explanation, that referred to the very latest posts, that based on very much speculation where as it was more about what we have from various sources before. And I'm always in for fun!

SolarSystem · March 14, 2015 5:01 pm

Vhanja wrote:
You raise interesting questions, Whisky and Lola Red. It would be very interesting to learn what Mary's background really was. I wonder if we will ever know. I can imagine probably not - with John having accepted her for who she is

Of course, not everybody believes that John has truly forgiven and accepted her. Some people think this has been staged for some reason we do not know anything about yet.

Vhanja · March 14, 2015 5:06 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Of course, not everybody believes that John has truly forgiven and accepted her. Some people think this has been staged for some reason we do not know anything about yet.

I've always figured that if it was staged, there would be a clear hint of it somewhere in the episode. (Like Sherlock losing his charming smile the moment he closes the door behind Janine lets us immediately know that there might be more going on that him just having a girlfriend). It seems to be Moftiss' style when Sherlock/John is involved.

SusiGo · March 14, 2015 5:08 pm

Sherlock loses his smile on the tarmac the moment he lets Mary go of after the hug.

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 5:22 pm

mrshouse wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
am by no means trying to force you to join a discussion that is partly based on speculation, but I opened this thread specifically so that such discussion has a place. You are free to join or withhold your judgement until you have more facts (or not join at all, if you wish), but please do not attempt to put the discussion to a stop, it’s all just for fun

Huh? Not my intention to stop the discussion here, not in the slightest, I'm actually quite busy here, as you can see. Maybe for further explanation, that referred to the very latest posts, that based on very much speculation where as it was more about what we have from various sources before. And I'm always in for fun!

I seem to have read your post more globally than you intended it, mainly because of the citing of something tonnaree has said about an earlier discussion point. Still, I specifically opened this thread so that also discussion based on speculation was possible. Whisky rose a point which interested me. I responded by citing things that we have been shown on screen and then continued to ask questions this triggered for me. Vhanja also expressed interest in that point, but wondered if and under which circumstances we would possibly get more information on the matter. You then (and as you are stating it now purely based on this specific discussion point) that this discussion was maybe “interesting” but “not too useful”, because you perceived it to be mainly based on speculation. I still fail too see an extreme level of speculation in that very short discussion, but even if you see it otherwise, it is no reason to disregard it. You can always choose to not respond to these arguments and go on with a part of the discussion that you feel more comfortable with. I do very much appreciate your contributions to many of the other points raised in this thread, but if you feel uncomfortable with this little side-line discussion, I would rather have you ignore it and continue with other points that trying to put a stop to it. This way we all can continue to have fun

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 5:37 pm

Vhanja wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Of course, not everybody believes that John has truly forgiven and accepted her. Some people think this has been staged for some reason we do not know anything about yet.

I've always figured that if it was staged, there would be a clear hint of it somewhere in the episode. (Like Sherlock losing his charming smile the moment he closes the door behind Janine lets us immediately know that there might be more going on that him just having a girlfriend). It seems to be Moftiss' style when Sherlock/John is involved.

I see what your mean, but I feel the more impact the staging has, the more convincing it is usually shown. The scene in the tube in TEH, I absolutely believed they were in grave danger and Sherlock meant it when he apologized for first ruining John’s life by faking his death and then ruining it again by coming back and causing him to stand next to a bomb about to explode. Afterwards I interpret his little chuckle after John says “You’re just trying to make me say something nice” as a give away of cause, but back than I did not see it that way. In the TRF, I believed Sherlock was saying good bye to John, but that was staged, too. So if the forgiveness is staged, I will probably be able to see the signs in retrospective, but for now it seems sincere to me (though I still wish we would have seen more of the process of how and why Mary was forgiven)

Last edited by Lola Red (March 14, 2015 5:37 pm)

Whisky · March 14, 2015 5:49 pm

mrshouse wrote:
And @Whisky, as for the shooting, it's quite obvious it's not for his own sake, but for Johns..

Not so obvious to me. Sherlock is after Magnusson even before John is involved. In the beginning he seems to have no idea that Magnusson put John in that bonfire. He wants to go against Magnusson, but his motivation seems to be rather the same as for other cases - catch the criminal. The letters from Lady Smallwood are his first chance to get closer to Magnusson (oh, and of course Janine). He is in that game since the wedding at least, when Mary is still the good girl to him and everyone else, and he doesn't know then that John could be involved in Magnussons game.
He might have shot Magnusson for John, but taking John out of the equation, I am not sure Magnusson would have ended up in a different place... Magnussons threat is as much on Sherlock as on John ("caught to sell state secrets"). Sherlock wouldn't have had John's gun with him without John there, right. But I am sure Sherlock wouldn't have let Magnusson get away. Sherlock doesn't kill Magnusson because it's convenient, but because he has no other choice... not only in that moment, but also in the bigger picture. And Mycroft agrees on that, btw ("this country sometimes needs a blunt instrument").
So, no, it is as much for his own sake as the sake of society... Sherlock isn't disgusted by Magnusson because he threatened John... he is disgusted by what Magnusson is, no matter who he threatens.

Last edited by Whisky (March 14, 2015 5:51 pm)

lil · March 14, 2015 6:38 pm

If Sherlock and Marys actions are the same....why didn't Sherlock plan to murder Magnussen in secret and get away with it..as Mary did.. ....he could have easily?

And is faking his death to save three peoples lives and go undercover to stop a mass murdering terrorist network.....
Really the same as....lieing about your whole life..and then marrying someone....with no intentions to ever be honest?

Not comparable at all.

@Sherlocks behaviour btw is nothing to do with Marys...I know a alcoholic ....doesn't mean I am one...I know a really rude person....I choose to be polite.....Mary makes her own decisions with no input from Sherlock.To like one and dislike the other....is because they are two different people who do things different ways.

Whisky · March 14, 2015 7:03 pm

lil wrote:
If Sherlock and Marys actions are the same....why didn't Sherlock plan to murder Magnussen in secret and get away with it..as Mary did.. ....he could have easily?

You assume Mary never tried different methods. You assume she murdered in cold blood for the fun of it. But why? Why not assume she had solid reasons, or at least some reasons that are based on more than "I like killing people", "I don't have morals", "I do everything just for myself".

lieing about your whole life..and then marrying someone....with no intentions to ever be honest?

I think that's the problem with Mary - she isn't honest. But she has her reasons for that: fear of loosing John maybe? I wonder if Sherlock ever told John the whole truth about his two years away. Judging from John's behaviour, I don't think he has. I wonder about that: I would expect John to treat Sherlock differently if he knew the whole truth. I know I know, they aren't going to be married, but they are best friends... best man... there should be honesty and openess. I also doubt John told Sherlock all about his past? Sherlock didn't know about Sholto from John... he googled Sholto in the internet. So yes, while I agree Mary lies in a very spectacular way, it's not like everyone else is behaving in the "right" and best way. But nobody would berate Sherlock and John for keeping secrets from each other, althouth they are damn close... just saying. I suspect that John has killed in the army.* Him being such a good shot, his violent dreams... he doesn't talk about it. Can't we assume that Mary is also uncomfortable to talk about her past? Why does she have to, and John and Sherlock don't need to? Has John told Mary all about his army years? The bad things? The stuff that went wrong? If he did, it's not shown.

I wonder what Mary told John. Because we don't know that either. Orphan, yes, but there must have been questions about her job and all...

It's not like I am a huge Mary fan, she is too ambiguous for that. I would just like to point out how we see Mary's faults but not Sherlock's. Even if they aren't the same.

*edited to add: Oh, I just remembered the scene in ASIB, where John says "You forget, Sherlock, that I was in the army. I killed people!" Well, that settles that.

Last edited by Whisky (March 15, 2015 12:22 am)

Lola Red · March 14, 2015 7:19 pm

I agree that Sherlock’s and Mary’s characters are independent of each other, even if they end up in similar places (pointing a gun at CAM).

For Sherlock shooting CAM for the sake of society: I’m not quite sure Sherlock would go so far as to murder someone for a client. He does hate CAM and he is capable of quite extreme violence when he wants to protect the people he holds dear (the theorist cell that attempted to behead Irene Adler, the American who hurt Mrs Hudson, Moriarty(‘s) network), but I did not get the feeling he was willing to kill him just for Lady Smallwood. I do not even believe he wanted to kill CAM for John (and Mary). I had the feeling that he was truly devastated when it was confirmed that there were no vaults. He could have never have shot CAM if there were vaults, the property would have been searched, the vaults and all their secrets discovered. But as soon as it was clear that the vaults where a mind palace, Sherlock knew that he had to shoot CAM (I think the shooting was only one of several planned scenarios). I think Sherlock could have dealt with his own ruin (he did in TRF), but this would have taken down Mycroft too and would place Mary in moral danger and possibly John, too. But if he had wanted to kill CAM before, he could have gotten him in his office, He had a way in.

For Sherlock killing CAM in secret: I think after the break-in, the office was off limits, security would have been heightened, so he had to go to Appledore, which he did. Shooting him from a distance would not work for him, Sherlock is not a great shot (how many shots did he fire at the Golem?). So he had to come close, but without invitation he would not be able to. The question is why did he not drug John, too and just take the gun, leaving John with Mary and his parents? Maybe CAM would not take him without John, thinking (rightfully) that Sherlock would do nothing stupid that could get John in trouble, so John was CAM’s security.

Is faking one's death to save your loved ones and take down a terrorist network the same as going into self-imposed witness (assassin) protection? No, they are two completely different things.

Last edited by Lola Red (March 14, 2015 7:20 pm)

Harriet · March 14, 2015 9:21 pm

I'm sure Mary knew from the beginning that John killed people. He didn't hide his military past, did he?