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

tonnaree · June 17, 2015 11:59 pm

Interesting and a bit relevant to the conversation.

http://teapotsubtext.tumblr.com/post/121789174758/thats-your-weakness-you-want-everything-to-be

RavenMorganLeigh · June 18, 2015 12:18 am

tonnaree wrote:
Interesting and a bit relevant to the conversation.

http://teapotsubtext.tumblr.com/post/121789174758/thats-your-weakness-you-want-everything-to-be

Oh, this was Purrrrrrrfect!!!! I had to post it to my Tumblr page. :-D
Thanks for sharing it.

SusiGo · June 18, 2015 6:29 am

Same with me. Interesting how what Sherlock says contradicts the things we actually see.

Schmiezi · June 18, 2015 7:14 am

I wonder what someone who believes Sherlock in that second scene thinks about this comparison.

SusiGo · June 18, 2015 7:28 am

Yes. If we assume that the events we are shown did happen in exactly that way, Sherlock's story cannot be really true. One has to decide if one wants to believe his own eyes and ears or an explanation that is directed only at another character under physical and emotional stress.

Vhanja · June 18, 2015 9:07 am

I wonder how people can read the last few pages of this thread and believe anyone in here thinks Mary is a "sweet, harmless, little lamb". They must have read something completely different than I have.

As for the gif-set, that sounds more to me as slight inconsistency from the writers. They talk about him being murdered in the mind palance scene, because that is more dramatic.

John's "We're losing you" can also mean "You are losing conscious", as a way to get Sherlock to stay awake. (It would be very unprofessional for John as a doctor to tell a pasient that "We are losing you" as in "You are dying").

I don't see as much inconsistency here, but that is also because I believe Wellingtongoose's meta on the shot. Other people don't, so they will interpret it differently.

SolarSystem · June 18, 2015 9:26 am

Vhanja wrote:
As for the gif-set, that sounds more to me as slight inconsistency from the writers. They talk about him being murdered in the mind palance scene, because that is more dramatic.

Well, that way you can explain away pretty much everything in pretty much any show on TV, don't you think? We need to work with what's there and yes, of course some things are done/said for dramatic effect - but not even Mofftiss would let their character say things just for dramatic effect if these things didn't make any sense or meant something different than what Mofftiss are trying to show us.
I doubt that Mofftiss would let Mary say something as explicit as "...I swear I will kill you" if there wasn't at least a bit of truth behind this. She is capable of killing her husband's best friend, that's what this line communicates to me. And that's what we see her doing ten seconds after she spoke those words.

Lola Red · June 18, 2015 9:28 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
But--- the show tells us that she wasn't just an Agent, she went rogue, she ticked off a lot of people, there are people who want to put her in prison for the rest of her life, and even she says this.

The show tells us that she was an assassin, which, by her words, exist because some people “ought to be killed”. She also has done some things that she believes would leave anyone unable to love her and that seemingly does not include killing people who “ought to be killed”, because she already admitted to that. The show further tells us that she worked for the government, before going “freelance”. Being an assassin who was “freelance”, hence no longer protected by the government, would leave her behind bars if anyone would find out.
The interesting question for me would be when she killed the people who “ought to be killed” and when she killed the people that would make John stop loving her and which caused her to change identities.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
She shows absolutley no remorse for all that she has done; and that psuedo-apology sounds more like what parents say when they're about to give their kid a punishment and say, "I'm sorry, this is going to hurt me more than it's hurts you" sort of thing. And she "apologizes" before she shoots Sherlock--her dear friend...

She apologizes after shooting Sherlock. I find that (admittedly small) difference very important, because an apology before pulling the trigger does not seem to leave much room for interpretation, while an apology after the shot can be viewed as sincere or insincere, both.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I don't know-- I just feel that if she were taking any sort of responsibility for any of her actions, she'd have been honest with John before she married him.

I mean, look at the fallout that she could be leaving John and the baby vulnerable to:

John and the baby may now become targets for all those that Mary hurt in the "past"--

If she's killed, John and the baby may not be able to claim any money, the house-- they could lose everything, because the marriage was fraudulent, indeed, Mary isn't even Mary...

Is John even actually legally married to Mary????

Seems like an awfully insecure foundation to base a marriage on....how the heck are they going to resolve this in s4? Whew!

Whether you believe Mary was planted at John’s side or if she was truly trying to start a new life, she could not tell him either way. Either because if she really wanted to start anew she had to leave her old life behind and never look back, or because she could not blow her cover. (I am by now half convinced that she was planted, but the only person who could have done it would slide down further on the grey scale than Mary herself) Either way, the first she hears of her old life creeping back into her new one is at the reception, when Sherlock reads out CAM’s card and we all know which actions followed on her part. By then it was too late to tell John, she already married him under false pretences. And no, that marriage is quite possibly not legally binding, nor do I necessarily believe it will last very long.
And yes (in reply to your other post), she is in great danger and a great danger for those around her and when we(fools that we are) believe Moffat that next season consequences of past action will be a large theme, it is very possible that is will also involve Mary’s past.

SusiGo · June 18, 2015 9:30 am

Vhanja: Mary talks about killing him. In the Mind Palace scene Sherlock, i.e. his alter ego Mycroft, regards himself as being murdered. This is what we get to see. And then suddenly, out of the blue, comes the surgery explanation. This does not sit well with me. As a ruse, yes, but not as something to be taken at face value.

I find this quite enlightening and I think you do not have to know Orange is the New Black to understand it (I have not watched the show):

http://221bmeta.tumblr.com/post/121826454268/if-we-were-meant-to-empathise-with-mary-as-of-the

Last edited by SusiGo (June 18, 2015 9:34 am)

SolarSystem · June 18, 2015 9:37 am

Lola Red wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
But--- the show tells us that she wasn't just an Agent, she went rogue, she ticked off a lot of people, there are people who want to put her in prison for the rest of her life, and even she says this.
The show tells us that she was an assassin, which, by her words, exist because some people “ought to be killed”. She also has done some things that she believes would leave anyone unable to love her and that seemingly does not include killing people who “ought to be killed”, because she already admitted to that. The show further tells us that she worked for the government, before going “freelance”. Being an assassin who was “freelance”, hence no longer protected by the government, would leave her behind bars if anyone would find out.
The interesting question for me would be when she killed the people who “ought to be killed” and when she killed the people that would make John stop loving her and which caused her to change identities.

I agree. It's interesting that certain details are given to us while others remain in the dark. And it's also interesting that most of the information we get isn't given to us by Mary herself but by other people (Sherlock, CAM). So we might not know everything about her past, but the fact that Mofftiss decided to let Mary tell the audience next to nothing about her past herself nonetheless tells us something about her character and certainly was a deliberate choice on Mofftiss' part, IMO.

Lola Red · June 18, 2015 9:43 am

Schmiezi wrote:
I wonder what someone who believes Sherlock in that second scene thinks about this comparison.

Without more data contradicting it, I tend to believe Sherlock (though I still have trouble with the word “surgery”). Here is what I think: The difference is between a man under shock, who has just been shot square in the chest, with just about enough medical knowledge to know the most common causes of death after a bullet wound, and a man who walked away from that experience alive and wonders why. I’d like to quote a line from TBB: “What does it tell you when an assassin cannot shoot straight? It tells you that they’re not really trying.” I think that are about Sherlock’s thoughts on that matter. He is alive, while an assassin shot him at close range, so he tries to come up with an explanation as to why. I am not 100% sure his explanation is the whole truth, but I believe him that is it what he believes.

SusiGo · June 18, 2015 9:48 am

Yes, he may believe it. But look at what we get to see: Sherlock practically dying and only coming back because his subconscious tells him John is in danger, not because Mary did not hit exactly the right killing spot. If his explanation was true, the Mind Palace scene's emotional impact would be very much diminished as in "Well, he did not die because she did not shoot straight, not because he thought of John." Quite disappointing, if you ask me.

SolarSystem · June 18, 2015 9:55 am

Well, it wouldn't be the first slightly disappointing explanation in the history of the show, nevertheless I agree with you. The reason that Sherlock survived is not that Mary simply wasn't good enough a shot.

Lola Red · June 18, 2015 10:03 am

Susi, it seems our emotional reactions to that scene differ a bit, I find it rather intriguing. While I appreciate the dramatics of "coming back for John" (and I think they are still valid seeing that he is in cardiac arrest at that moment), they do not answer the question of how a trained assassin can fail to go for the heart or brain stem.

Last edited by Lola Red (June 18, 2015 10:04 am)

SusiGo · June 18, 2015 10:11 am

I see what you mean and of course I am an old romantic.
But still - why show this minute-long Mind Palace scene culminating in the dramatic padded cell confrontation with Jim and the slow climb up the stairs, accompanied by highly dramatic music only to tell us later on that Sherlock only survived because Mary had last second scruples and move the gun a fraction before shooting? IMO the surgery explanation if taken at face value invalidates and destroys the effect of the Mind Palace scene.

Lola Red · June 18, 2015 10:25 am

Oh nothing makes me un-enjoy the mind palace scene, it’s one of my favourites.
Somewhere at the beginning of this thread or maybe even back in your thread, there was the discussion about the difference between a potential fatal shot and a kill shot. I feel what Mary did was a potential fatal shot – is could have killed Sherlock (it very nearly did), but it left a tiny chance, while with a proper kill shot (which, as an assassin, Mary should be able to deliver in her sleep) no amount of danger for John could have brought Sherlock back. So I don’t feel it takes away from the mind palace scene, but it explains why it could end the way it did, with Sherlock waking up, instead of dying unable to protect his blogger.

Last edited by Lola Red (June 18, 2015 10:26 am)

Whisky · June 18, 2015 10:27 am

I try to share my thoughts, not sure if they make sense: I do think there must be a "grey" area when we die. Maybe that's a spiritual approach, I'm not really sure. The mindpalace scene, for me, is proof that Sherlock is a very strong-willed character, willing to take pain. I think in the process of dying, there might be choices - to cling to life, to let go... I don't know. (I feel rather certain I wouldn't be able to take the pain Sherlock takes in "coming back" and rather nicely vanish into the unknown...).
Certainly that won't be true when a shot is fatal, because we cannot just reverse the logical workings of our bodies. But I think in this grey field where Sherlock is in his mind palace, where he is on the edge of death, he has got the choice - to stay dead, or to fight himself back into life.

I could imagine Mary likes grey areas. Her whole former profession must have been somewhat of a place-in-between. Maybe she was simply taking chances with Sherlock's life, not caring overly much for the outcome. Especially in the very situation she found herself. Maybe there was no bigger plan at that point. Maybe she thought: Oh, I would kill him, but oh, he's John's friend... what a mess... well, just shoot somewhere unlogical so everyone is confused.

Also, I think this whole shooting scene is just another way of showing Sherlock's character and what he cares about. It's about Sherlock, not Mary.

"Well, he did not die because she did not shoot straight, not because he thought of John." Quite disappointing, if you ask me.

I would say it was a combination of things. Mary's way of not killing him on the spot gave him the room to cling to life for John. If she had gone for the kill shot, no room to show how much he cares. So maybe there is no bigger motif behind Mary's action, than a convenient way to take another close look at Sherlock in a desperate situation. Don't know if that would make it bad story writing though ;-)

conclusion: no, I don't believe in the "surgery theory" either. And I'm not yet sure if Sherlock is convinced of it or just playing along. And in my book Mary isn't the "good girl" who knew Sherlock would survive.

Last edited by Whisky (June 18, 2015 10:36 am)

Lola Red · June 18, 2015 10:40 am

Whisky wrote:
Maybe she was simply taking chances with Sherlock's life, not caring overly much for the outcome. Especially in the very situation she found herself. Maybe there was no bigger plan at that point.

That comes very close to my original interpretation of the scene. She (in a very twisted way) passes the ball to Sherlock, by neither leaving him unharmed nor going for a proper kill shot, she chooses what I am tempted to call “the assassins way of doing nothing”. By putting that bullet in Sherlock the way she does she accepts all possible outcomes (hence my problem with “surgery”). He may live, he may die, but it is kind of “up to him”, and they will deal with whatever happens when it happens. To me it seems that it only dawns on her later that she has not solved anything. That is when I feel she is at her most dangerous, when Sherlock has to interfere to stabilise her (by revealing her secret to John and taking her on as a client), because she has put herself in a position where no-one (herself included) can say what she will do next.

Whisky · June 18, 2015 10:51 am

Yes, I agree, and it would also explain, as you say, the part

when Sherlock has to interfere to stabilise her

.
I also like the expression

the assassins way of doing nothing

, because I feel this fits Mary's character in series 3... she seems a bit thrown out of her usual game: neither being the "old" assassin, but also very much unfitting in the role of wife and mother. She is balancing a line, maybe not so sure where everything will lead to, and leaving choices to others would fit with that behaviour. Also I think Mary would be that kind of person to try to end up on the "winning" side, and that she wouldn't choose sides as long as the outcome isn't clear.
The only scene that always confuses me is the one with John at Sherlock's parents. I don't feel like she and him are faking things there. But then, I didn't think Sherlock would fake emotions on the roof in TRF, so I'll shut up ;-)

Kittyhawk · June 18, 2015 12:53 pm

SusiGo wrote:
.....
I find this quite enlightening and I think you do not have to know Orange is the New Black to understand it (I have not watched the show):

http://221bmeta.tumblr.com/post/121826454268/if-we-were-meant-to-empathise-with-mary-as-of-the

I agree with the tumblr post - Mary is lacking a backstory. But as Moftiss don't provide one, I simply adopt Jason Bourne's. Jason had the good fortune of being the hero of his own films rather than an ambiguous character at best or a villain at worst in somebody else's show but otherwise in my headcanon it's a perfect parallel. (Except that Bourne's past actually got his girlfriend killed...)

Another parallel, and an example of double standards: When John threatens to break down Major Sholto's door, Sholto says: "I really wouldn’t. I have a gun in my hand and a lifetime of unfortunate reflexes." and everybody backs off. But when Mary threatens: "Oh, Sherlock, if you take one more step I swear I will kill you." Sherlock dismisses her and tries to take another step.

In the virtual worlds I normally move in (Die Hard 1 and 3 are some of my all-time favourites, I also rather like Child's and McNab's books) getting shot when one makes a threatening move towards the person pointing a gun at one's chest is the normal and expected consequence.

On page 1

SusiGo wrote:
.....Is this to imply that it was his fault he was shot and nearly died? Interesting line of defence: the victim is at fault because someone threatened to kill him and he dared move because he knew and trusted the person not to kill him. Human error, I suppose.

Actually, even in the real world the victim will be blamed (or at least, the killer will be acquitted) if he has made threatening moves towards the shooter, provided the shooter was holding a legal weapon (which is never the case with civilian handguns in the U.K.) and (for example) "defending" their own home (i. e. not committing a crime at the time, as Mary was doing) - remember the case of Yoshihiro Hattori? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori)