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

nakahara · March 27, 2015 9:51 pm

Vhanja wrote:
According to Sherlock himself, she did not shoot to kill, so there is ample argument to support that theory (even though there is of course argument to say that she did intend to kill as well).

Hmmm, if I remember correctly, Sherlock has no medical credentials in this BBC-verse. Why would his opinion in medical matters be more correct than that of a trained doctor?

Vhanja · March 27, 2015 9:51 pm

Well, even the trained doctors disagree.

nakahara · March 27, 2015 9:52 pm

Vhanja wrote:
So if that is a wise word, does that mean I am free to go into Johnlock threads and say I am tired of the metas over-analyzing every scene and angle? Would that be wise words as well?

Well, you are free to state anything you like in any thread, I wouldn´t mind a bit.

Vhanja · March 27, 2015 9:56 pm

Yeah, but would it be considered wise words? Just trying to navigate what is considered good when it comes to "I am so tired of this discussion"-posts.

Last edited by Vhanja (March 27, 2015 9:56 pm)

nakahara · March 27, 2015 10:04 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Yeah, but would it be considered wise words? Just trying to navigate what is considered good when it comes to "I am so tired of this discussion"-posts.

I consider it wise words because there is a strong possibility that Susi´s assession: "She shot him. He nearly died. You do not shoot someone to save his life." is the correct one and the authors of the show didn´t think this scene into such details.

Of course, it´s just my opinion - but I´m guessing from the entire way they have written this show, that it wouldn´t be far from the truth.She

Schmiezi · March 27, 2015 10:08 pm

SusiGo wrote:
She threatened to kill him. She shot him. He nearly died. You do not shoot someone to save his life.

This sums up how I feel about the scene. BTW the meta I posted also includes a chapter on Sherlock as a so-called unreliable narrator. His "it was surgery" statement could easily be as true as "I don't know how to switch off the bomb".

Vhanja · March 27, 2015 10:30 pm

I think that Mofftiss are rarely so simple.

nakahara · March 27, 2015 10:39 pm

I didn´t state that Moftiss are simple. They know canon, pastiches and other adaptations magnificently and use it in a great manner. But when they are using the plot twist, joke implying canonic detail or a reference in a story, they usually do it pretty straighforwardly and do not try to put too many "arcane meanings" behind it (or so it seems to me). I believe, they avoid to overcomplicate such things because the scenes or plots they are reffering to would become unrecognisable.

Vhanja · March 27, 2015 10:43 pm

I don't find "Mary didn't shoot to kill" overcomplicated. If anything, some of Sherlock's deductions are less believable than the "not shoot to kill"-theory. (Not that I mind, I have no trouble suspending disbelief for Sherlock).

SusiGo · March 27, 2015 10:48 pm

Of course one may choose to believe that she did not shoot to kill. But if someone says "I will kill you" and shoots another person and the person nearly dies, I am willing to believe that she was telling the truth in the first place. And we do not get this information via Sherlock (an unreliable narrator) but we are shown it in the scene.

Vhanja · March 27, 2015 10:52 pm

It can be argued that her statement was meant to scare him.

Schmiezi · March 28, 2015 6:31 am

It boils down to this:

Mary said she would kill Sherlock.
Sherlock said she didn't intend to kill him.
They can't both be telling the truth.

Who do you believe more?

For narrative reasons I tend to believe Mary,because the plot device of Sherlock as the the unreliable narrator is a stylistic device has been often used on the show.

Vhanja · March 28, 2015 8:48 am

I see her statement as a threat and a way to scare him, not necessarily to be taken as face value. Or maybe she meant the words as she were saying them, but then changed her mind just before she shot him (sentiment).

Either way, I don't think she meant to kill him.

Harriet · March 28, 2015 9:38 am

As we have discussed this here at least three times and in the other thread eight more times (my guesses) I feel I have nothing more to contribute. But if someone wants to discuss with the same arguments for a twelfth (my guess) time, why not? Go ahead!

Vhanja · March 28, 2015 9:47 am

Harriet wrote:
As we have discussed this here at least three times and in the other thread eight more times (my guesses) I feel I have nothing more to contribute. But if someone wants to discuss with the same arguments for a twelfth (my guess) time, why not? Go ahead!

It might be worth noting that new members keep coming to this forum, and they would want to discuss the things that have already been discussed a lot before. That always happens on forums. If you are met with posts like this (and similar "I am so tired of this discussion" posts), that might not feel as welcoming, and it might scare new members away from contributing.

If you want new members to be active, that means topics will be discussed countless times. If you are tired of them, I think the best is to simply ignore it.

Harriet · March 28, 2015 9:53 am

I am speaking for myself. And if you don't get tired of this after the third or fourth time, why not?

Vhanja · March 28, 2015 9:55 am

I don't mind that you get tired of it. I am just saying that for the sake of wanting new members to be active, it might be a good idea to not post such things as "I am so tired of this discussion".

Harriet · March 28, 2015 10:00 am

I think new members are very well capable of reading threads as well as they are of bringing new things in.

SusiGo · March 28, 2015 10:14 am

To bring this back to the subject again:

Here is my perspective as a viewer. We get the threat, the shot, the mind palace. The mind palace scene about seven minutes long and shows us Sherlock fighting to somehow stay alive in spite of the injury. This is what stays in my mind. If they had wanted his explanation and thereby Mary's justification to be strong, they could have filmed it in a different way. But what we get is a weak explanation - the amount of discussion in here alone shows how ambivalent it is - as opposed to a seven-minute fight full of pain and fear. And the victim having to supply an excuse for the offender … well.

P.S.: As for the intention to kill - there is something called "recklessness" (in German Eventualvorsatz, in Latin dolus eventualis). I think this would apply to Mary's shooting of Sherlock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(law)

Last edited by SusiGo (March 28, 2015 10:22 am)

Vhanja · March 28, 2015 10:32 am

I would agree that her action seem to fall under the term "recklessness". I don't think anyone would approve of her shooting - understanding someone's reasoning doesn't equal agreeing with them.

I agree that it is ambivalent, and that is why it is cause of much discussion. I think the reason I believe Sherlock is that the matter seemed to be settled within the episode. When Sherlock makes a mistake (about the drug being in the sugar, about Moriarity's data code and about Magnussen's vaults), he is shown to be wrong within the same episode. When he isn't wrong, his deductions/conclusions are the last thing mentioned in the episode.

So his conclusions about the shooting falls into the previous pattern about when Sherlock is wrong and when he is right. Of course, that doesn't mean that Mofftiss can't change that pattern and have Sherlock being shown to be wrong from one season to the next. But as I've mentioned before - we've already had a big twist about Mary (the asassin reveal). To me, it doesn't make sense writing-wise to have everything settled and then make another big twist (she shot to kill and is really more evil than we were lead to believe).

That to me is bad writing. And what I've seen so far from Moftiss in Sherlock, they are not prone to bad writing.

Those are the main reasons for why I don't think she shot to kill. But as with so many other things, Moftiss could of course prove me wrong, but I won't believe it until I see it.