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

tykobrian · March 15, 2015 2:27 pm

lil wrote:
Think the writers will solve it the way they kinda did TRF.
Everyone will be right and also wrong...so my headcanon goes something like..
Mary was cia and sent undercover to infiltrate Moriarty...then had to be naughty and wicked so the cia abandoned her...leaving her freelance...Moriarty got a little more insane...so she vanished herself and became Mary Morston...then Moriarty and Sherlocks death hit the papers so....she looked for John to see if it was really true and she was safe......then SH turned up....and Magnussen....so hmmm one more kill NP......etc...@her panic that Moriarty is alive
So next maybe Moriarty or other bad guys expose all this..@she kills them.....which is all fine for SH but maybe too much for Johns strong moral principles....so she vanishes herself again....maybe from the cops or witness protection and leaves John a..... Dear John......You love Sherlock more....so stay and solve cases and have a happy ever after.......
Thus we are all correct ,Mary bad ass doing bad things is redeemed to Mary bad ass doing good things...... the shippers unite , and the fromance goes on.....
(@Fromance.... romantic friends like SH@JW goes into the dictionary) .

Or thishappens.

tykobrian · March 15, 2015 3:35 pm

Swanpride wrote:
To me the "six month of bristly kisses for me" sounds like Mary get to know John without his mustache...and to me one year is a "short time" to propose, at least the kind of proposal which comes with the assumption that the wedding will happen soon.

"God, I had six months of bristly kisses for me, and then His Nibbs turns up...."

I don't get that vibe at all. Care to elaborate?

Also now that I have written that dialogue, Mary clearly loathed (she actually kept record of the time!!) that mustache so why couldn't she just say so? Lol the way she's complaining it's like she always complained about it but John never gave in. I mean, John's not a child, he can take an opinion. The way he confidently told Sherlock that Mary liked it I feel she actually told him that she indeed did. Anyways, so what I’m saying here is that if John started growing that mustache after meeting Mary she could’ve told him about her dislike. What I feel is that Mary met the mustached John and it was already part of his appearance and she "didn't know how to tell" him (doesn't make much sense to me if the m came after) to shave it off. And Mary’s like, “wow did I just suffer for six months trying to be the approving partner when I could’ve just asked him to shave it off!! ”

EDIT: Lolol boy was mary ****ing pissed about the shaving thing or what. I looked up the meaning of his nibbs and I found this:
A British slang term used, jokingly, to refer to someone who is a bit full of themself, snobbish, and/or aristocratic. Who, basically, has an over-large ego.
The origin of the term is unknown for certain. Ex: "Do you know what time His Nibs will be arriving?"
"God, I had six months of bristly kisses for me, and then His Nibbs turns up...." What happened to her liking Sherlock? I wish John let her finish what she was saying. Anyone wanna try?

I wonder how the Victorian Mary will react. Won’t say more for spoiler reasons.

Last edited by tykobrian (March 15, 2015 4:17 pm)

Lola Red · March 15, 2015 5:30 pm

Well, this definition actually sums Sherlock up quite nicely doesn’t it? He is not the most humble man to ever walk the streets of London. It seems to me that Mary likes Sherlock, but she never seems to develop the hero-worship that John is prone to.
I think for Mary to only know John with facial hair seems to make more sense than the other way around. Does anyone know how much time there is supposed to be between MHR and TEH? John does not strike me as having already experienced “the best thing that could have happened to him” in MHR, he still comes across as absolutely heartbroken not as having met someone who can help him to face the past (going back to Baker Street) and start dealing with it.

Last edited by Lola Red (March 15, 2015 5:31 pm)

Schmiezi · March 15, 2015 6:06 pm

tykobrian wrote:
Or thishappens.

I love that link (as I have said before, I think). The author uses profound knowledge of how story archs are set up in literature as well as on TV - something I sometimes miss in our otherwise wonderful discussions here.

nakahara · March 15, 2015 6:54 pm

tykobrian wrote:
Or thishappens.

What unpleasant scenarios. Especially that one in which John is once again angry at Sherlock whose secrets even lead to John´s baby demise would probably turn me off from watching this show. Didn´t we already have enough of angry John in S3?

Zatoichi · March 15, 2015 6:58 pm

Lola Red wrote:
I think for Mary to only know John with facial hair seems to make more sense than the other way around. Does anyone know how much time there is supposed to be between MHR and TEH? John does not strike me as having already experienced “the best thing that could have happened to him” in MHR, he still comes across as absolutely heartbroken not as having met someone who can help him to face the past (going back to Baker Street) and start dealing with it.

The first comment from Mary ("Let´s go for a drink later. X") on John´s blog is on April 20th. The entry for MHR is October 5th. The Empty Hearse is from 7th November of the same year.. I sense a facial-hair-discontinuity!! ;p

nakahara · March 15, 2015 7:16 pm

Whisky wrote:
I just wonder what Sherlock thought would happen to Moriarty in the end of the game. I mean, Moriarty proved he could get out of a court case easily. So what means were there to finally stop him? What had Sherlock planned for that roof meetup?

I think Sherlock eventually wanted to strike at Moriarty, but "from the afterlife". Since his friends would be targeted if he openly hurt Moriarty or did harm to his organisation, it would make sense for him to fake his death and only attack Moriarty and his companions then. They would think that some new enemy is after them, make no connection to a detective who is dead = safety for Sherlock´s friends, because they would not be involved in the thing this way. Some "new enemy" with no connection to them is after Moriarty now = it´s a waste of time to harm them since it would not deter this new enemy from acting (of course, no one knows that this new enemy is Sherlock himself).

Of course, I cannot say that with a 100% certainty. But if Sherlock wanted to kill Moriarty (or if he deliberately provoked him into suicide), why would he go into this shock and confusion after Moriarty shoots himself? He is alone on the roof - to whom would this "performance" serve if it was fake? Or was it actually his happy dance and the angle of the camera didn´t allow us to see it for what it was?

Whisky wrote:
I'm just saying, Sherlock finally shooting Magnusson might not be as random as it appears. Maybe Moriarty is a key to this development in Sherlock - that he finally decides to kill as a way of stopping someone. And I wonder if Sherlock's shooting of Magnusson will change Sherlock's approach to Moriarty... if he should be back (which I hope not)...

Once again, I can only judge from Sherlock´s reactions, but I don´t think he was prepared to kill CAM immediatelly after the horrifying realisation of failure and of CAM´s triumph hit him. I am under an impression that when he told John to endure CAM´s face flicking and apologised to him for failing, he was still at his wits end. And it was only after, after he heard CAM´s incredibly stuck up words, witnessed his humiliation of John and his incredible hubris, that he decided to self-sacrifice and to kill CAM and bear the consequences, devil-may-care....

Whisky wrote:
I am not sure. He seemed under pressure. I don't know, I am not sure I can assume he managed to get through two years without getting any dirt on his hands. It just feels unlikely to me. What would he for example do in a case of self-defense? I suppose if he was threatened, he would defend himself. Maybe shoot someone.

That's true. I suppose it could still be true that it is the first actual murder he commits. Because self-defense would be in another category. Although I keep thinking about how he said he isn't an angel. Being on the side of the angels just means defending and helping their cause. It doesn't mean to keep his own hands clean. And he hurt people willingly. He might have had a reason to hurt the cabbie, for information or whatever. But throwing that guy out of that window on Mrs. Hudsons bins was nothing but revenge and hurting someone in cold blood. I don't want to say that makes Sherlock also capable of cold-blooded murder, murder is still a big step further. And I agree that he is very emotional while shooting Magnusson. But I really don't want to close my eyes to the fact that he has this streak of not-good-behaviour.

I may look at the things too legally, but I don´t categorise acting in self-defence or even in the righteous amok following the injury to a loved one into the same category as a cold-blooded murder. I think Sherlock definitely has this dark-streak in him (in canon, he often tells that he would make an incredible criminal), but he is still able to controll it and does not allow this cold streak to overpower his sence of what is right or wrong.

nakahara · March 15, 2015 7:18 pm

Zatoichi wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
I think for Mary to only know John with facial hair seems to make more sense than the other way around. Does anyone know how much time there is supposed to be between MHR and TEH? John does not strike me as having already experienced “the best thing that could have happened to him” in MHR, he still comes across as absolutely heartbroken not as having met someone who can help him to face the past (going back to Baker Street) and start dealing with it.
The first comment from Mary ("Let´s go for a drink later. X") on John´s blog is on April 20th. The entry for MHR is October 5th. The Empty Hearse is from 7th November of the same year.. I sense a facial-hair-discontinuity!! ;p

Wow, good observation!

nakahara · March 15, 2015 7:25 pm

Swanpride wrote:
The way Sherlock talks with her ex-boyfriend means that she was in a normal realtionship with him before she meet John. And considering how similiar he looks to John, the suggestion is clearly that this is simply her "type" and that she was leading a normal life before she encountered John.

Maybe Mary is a plant - she can even be "Sebastian Moran", she has shooting skills needed to that - and this "former boyfriend" is one of her people?

SusiGo · March 15, 2015 8:42 pm

Well, in Canon Moriarty was a professor of mathematics. And Mary a governess.

Lola Red · March 15, 2015 11:10 pm

Zatoichi wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
I think for Mary to only know John with facial hair seems to make more sense than the other way around. Does anyone know how much time there is supposed to be between MHR and TEH? John does not strike me as having already experienced “the best thing that could have happened to him” in MHR, he still comes across as absolutely heartbroken not as having met someone who can help him to face the past (going back to Baker Street) and start dealing with it.
The first comment from Mary ("Let´s go for a drink later. X") on John´s blog is on April 20th. The entry for MHR is October 5th. The Empty Hearse is from 7th November of the same year.. I sense a facial-hair-discontinuity!! ;p

"facial-hair-discontinuity" makes me happy

Lola Red · March 15, 2015 11:34 pm

nakahara wrote:
Once again, I can only judge from Sherlock´s reactions, but I don´t think he was prepared to kill CAM immediatelly after the horrifying realisation of failure and of CAM´s triumph hit him. I am under an impression that when he told John to endure CAM´s face flicking and apologised to him for failing, he was still at his wits end. And it was only after, after he heard CAM´s incredibly stuck up words, witnessed his humiliation of John and his incredible hubris, that he decided to self-sacrifice and to kill CAM and bear the consequences, devil-may-care....

I do have the feeling that as soon as Sherlock saw that there were no vaults, he knew what he had to do. That was why he needed the gun in the house, CAM is not physically violent, he is emotionally cruel, so there was no need to bring a gun for self-defence purposes. I think he was devastated by what he was about to do, but the decision was already made. He had to wait for witnesses to protect John, so his hands were bound until Mycroft arrived, but I think CAM’s fate was decided when he showed them the (lack of) vaults.

nakahara wrote:
I may look at the things too legally, but I don´t categorise acting in self-defence or even in the righteous amok following the injury to a loved one into the same category as a cold-blooded murder. I think Sherlock definitely has this dark-streak in him (in canon, he often tells that he would make an incredible criminal), but he is still able to controll it and does not allow this cold streak to overpower his sence of what is right or wrong.

I have to say I disagree with the last sentence. I think Sherlock’s loved ones are his weak spot and when they are in danger, he is likely to lose his cool. Even if the murder of CAM can be explained by Sherlock’s desire to safe John, Mary and Mycroft, what he did to the American was him loosing all control over himself. He already had overpowered the man, bound him to a chair and gagged him. But sentiment still got the better of him, so he could not stop hurting the man who had laid a finger on his beloved landlady. I sometimes believe that this might be one of the reasons why Sherlock is so desperate to ban sentiment from his life (and failing utterly) As long as he stays cold and emotionless, he can control the darkness in himself, but if he gives in to sentiment, he is capable of very dark deeds. Love is indeed a vicious motivator and from what I have seen until now his most of his most questionable deeds have been motivated by love.
Edit:
And to come back to the topic, it seems to me that the most awful thing we have seen Mary doing. Going after CAM can be somehow explained, even the initial shot at Sherlock can be explained (≠ forgiven) given the circumstances and a desire to keep her new life a happy one, but the threatening of an gravely injured Sherlock to me seems to be her darkest action. To me it seems to be solely for the purpose of keeping John in the dark, because she does not want to lose him (“there is nothing in this world that I would not do to stop that happening”). I am not saying that Mary’s actions = Sherlock’s actions, but I think both’ darkest deeds (that we have seen on screen till now) are motivated by love.

Last edited by Lola Red (March 16, 2015 11:29 am)

Schmiezi · March 16, 2015 5:35 am

Swanpride wrote:
I would really dislike that...not because of Mary, but because I saw Sebastian Moran always as a negative reflection of John. Therefore he has to be an ex-soldier in my eyes. Everything else would just be disappointing.

What speaks against Mary being an ex-soldier?

SusiGo · March 16, 2015 7:57 am

Good point.

Liberty · March 16, 2015 8:58 am

Maybe that has something to do with John possibly not loving her any more?

@LolaRed, I agree about Sherlock and the CIA agent - it's very dark. It's essentially torture (with a risk of death), and torture without any "need" (such as extracting information that could save people). Torture is one of the worst crimes, isn't it? But ... I feel that although it does show some of Sherlock's character (I agree about him being motivated by love), it seems to have been put in partly for comedy, and so I don't take it quite so seriously as it could be. There's an element of the series that it is not quite real life, that is fantasy and dark comedy.

(Although the scene with the dying cabbie in ASiP is not humorous and does suggest that Sherlock is capable of torture, at least for extracting information).

nakahara · March 16, 2015 9:41 am

Schmiezi wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
I would really dislike that...not because of Mary, but because I saw Sebastian Moran always as a negative reflection of John. Therefore he has to be an ex-soldier in my eyes. Everything else would just be disappointing.
What speaks against Mary being an ex-soldier?

I don´t think Mary neccessarily must be an ex-soldier to be a "negative reflexion of John". It sufficess that she has similar characteristics to John (the way Moriarty had similar characteristics with Sherlock, thus being negative reflexion of Sherlock).

To be CIA and a trained assassin, Mary must definitely have some kind of martial-arts, maybe even military training. She is a good shot as John (and as Sebastian Moran who was a sniper). She patiently lays in her cover, observing the behaviour of her victims, then strikes mercilessly at them (once again as Sebastian Moran who was a hunter). She hunts "tigers" = individuals too powerful, who cannot be touched by law but who "deserve to die". She is definitely a type similar to canonical Moran.

Last edited by nakahara (March 16, 2015 11:18 am)

tonnaree · March 16, 2015 11:57 am

Liberty wrote:
Maybe that has something to do with John possibly not loving her any more?

@LolaRed, I agree about Sherlock and the CIA agent - it's very dark. It's essentially torture (with a risk of death), and torture without any "need" (such as extracting information that could save people). Torture is one of the worst crimes, isn't it? But ... I feel that although it does show some of Sherlock's character (I agree about him being motivated by love), it seems to have been put in partly for comedy, and so I don't take it quite so seriously as it could be. There's an element of the series that it is not quite real life, that is fantasy and dark comedy.

(Although the scene with the dying cabbie in ASiP is not humorous and does suggest that Sherlock is capable of torture, at least for extracting information).

Oh Sherlock didn't really mean the CIA guy any harm. I mean, he did aim for the bins..............

Schmiezi · March 16, 2015 2:29 pm

nakahara wrote:
Schmiezi wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
I would really dislike that...not because of Mary, but because I saw Sebastian Moran always as a negative reflection of John. Therefore he has to be an ex-soldier in my eyes. Everything else would just be disappointing.
What speaks against Mary being an ex-soldier?
I don´t think Mary neccessarily must be an ex-soldier to be a "negative reflexion of John". It sufficess that she has similar characteristics to John (the way Moriarty had similar characteristics with Sherlock, thus being negative reflexion of Sherlock).

To be CIA and a trained assassin, Mary must definitely have some kind of martial-arts, maybe even military training. She is a good shot as John (and as Sebastian Moran who was a sniper). She patiently lays in her cover, observing the behaviour of her victims, then strikes mercilessly at them (once again as Sebastian Moran who was a hunter). She hunts "tigers" = individuals too powerful, who cannot be touched by law but who "deserve to die". She is definitely a type similar to canonical Moran.

I totally see your point. Plus, Mary appears to be a lot more harmless and ordinary than she is - just like John.

nakahara · March 16, 2015 2:42 pm

Yes, John and Mary are to some extent a mirror images of each other.

SusiGo · March 16, 2015 3:48 pm

Sorry if this is not referring to the last posts but I found this TEH meta quite interesting. Especially the idea that Mary might have observed Sherlock from above:

http://deducingbbcsherlock.tumblr.com/post/81317834836/if-you-havent-already-done-it-id-be-interested