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

mrshouse · June 20, 2015 10:05 am

There's one thing that doesn't sit right with me here: Liberty, you say that the truth didn't break John. But don't forget that he doesn't even know the whole truth, he chose to stay in the dark about it.
And what about her if John left for a man?

Liberty · June 20, 2015 10:25 am

"The truth" was me paraphrasing, sorry. I think what she actually says is about John finding out she lied to him - which he does. He definitely knows she lied .

As I said, I don't think we get shown enough about Mary to know how she would react to John leaving her, but t does seem that Sherlock thinks John will be safe. I suppose I might question if she'd want to stay in her "role" without John to keep her straight. I could easily imagine her somehow getting caught up in something again.

mrshouse · June 20, 2015 10:30 am

I don't want to nitpick here, but have to: there's not only the step of John knowing she lied, that didn't break him in the end, but knowing what she actually was capable of in her past. He choses not to learn that. And Mary considers herself not loveable anymore if he did. That is one more step on the scale, so, John could still very well break if he learned about details.

Kittyhawk · June 20, 2015 10:52 am

SusiGo wrote:
I have not used the word evil. Let me see

She lied to him about her whole identity.

As I said, double standards! Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) does exactly the same thing in Mission mpossible 3! Did that bother you?

SusiGo wrote:
She never tells him she loves him.

As Vhanja has remarked, neither does John as far as we hear. However, to me it's clear that Mary does indeed love John very much.

SusiGo wrote:
She shoots and threatens repeatedly his best friend.

We've already had this discussion...

SusiGo wrote:
She is snarky and demanding at Christmas.

Not to my ears - not in comparison to what I've heard from pregnant women in real life. That's the one thing. The other is that John doesn't sound all that loving either, not at the beginning. And the "All this does not mean that I’m not still basically pissed off with you." makes me now belive that the marriage is not going to be so very happy, after all....

Last edited by Kittyhawk (June 20, 2015 11:27 am)

Kittyhawk · June 20, 2015 10:56 am

Vhanja wrote:
..... He loves to play these petty sadistic power games on other people, he loves (almost implied to be sexual) his power over other people.

.....

"almost implied"? I put licking people's face (or hand, in the deleted scene) firmly in the category "sexual harassment". Actually, I have wondered whether Lady Smallwood couldn't have solved her problem right there in her office by crying rape and killing Magnussen in "self-defense" (is the guy in the background her employee or CAM's bodyguard?)

mrshouse · June 20, 2015 10:56 am

Wow, Kitty, sorry, but this is not very helpful for discussion and I doubt it would make someone want to reply.
Edit: meant the post that answers Susi's.

Last edited by mrshouse (June 20, 2015 10:58 am)

Harriet · June 20, 2015 11:03 am

@ Kittyhawk: This is not a level I find worth discussing.
@mrshouse, yes, crossed

Last edited by Harriet (June 20, 2015 11:04 am)

Vhanja · June 20, 2015 11:05 am

I actually love John's comment about being "basically pissed off with you" and "it will come out now and then". It's one (of several) lines that took me by surprise and hightened the show's quality for me. Because it made it more realistic. You can't just forgive someone and act like it never happened, not things like that. Not when he is only starting to forgive her. Sometimes anger will simmer, and sometimes it will come out. And to have that added to the scene was awesome.

Last edited by Vhanja (June 20, 2015 11:07 am)

mrshouse · June 20, 2015 11:06 am

Shsh...
*that was the only thing I liked about this scene.*

Kittyhawk · June 20, 2015 11:07 am

mrshouse wrote:
Wow, Kitty, sorry, but this is not very helpful for discussion and I doubt it would make someone want to reply.

What, now I'm not allowed to react to SusiGo's direct reply to my post (on page 60)? Sorry, it's a bit late, but real life got in the way...

Last edited by Kittyhawk (June 20, 2015 11:10 am)

Harriet · June 20, 2015 11:08 am

You are allowed to read carefully and then think 1259 over.

mrshouse · June 20, 2015 11:18 am

Of course you are allowed to react, did I say otherwise? In the German language we have a word saying "The tone makes the music".
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by real life got in the way.

SusiGo · June 20, 2015 11:24 am

On this board politeness is a basic prerequisite for discussion. Therefore I am not going to answer Kittyhawk's post.

Kittyhawk · June 20, 2015 11:25 am

I'm thinking my post might have offended less if I had written it at 9.30 last night (nobody complained about Vhanja's, did they?) before the whole CAM discussion got in the way.

I apologize for the tone being rather abrupt, but I'm actually trying to keep my posts as short as possible as the more words there are, the easier they are to misinterpret.

Vhanja · June 20, 2015 11:38 am

Well, whenever I react to the tone of someone's post, I just get told to not take things so personally and not read things into the post that isn't there. So perhaps that would be a good advice for more than just me?

NatureNoHumansNo · June 20, 2015 3:53 pm

Agree with Vhanja. Kittyhawk's reply didn't cross the line and double standards shouldn't apply depending who it is replied to.

SusiGo · June 20, 2015 4:00 pm

Accusing me of having double standards is quite a serious accusation. Please note that I replied to a post Kittyhawk has edited since then. And I would request everyone having problems with my behaviour or moderation of this board to contact me via PM instead of discussing this in here.

tonnaree · June 20, 2015 4:22 pm

*puts on Mod hat*

Ok. We need to rein this in. Trying to phrase things very gently. I will not address anyone one person directly here but we need to stop discussing each other and get back to discussing the show.
Tone is a real problem in internet communication. It is very easy to misunderstand things and take offense when you cannot see or hear the speaker. When we disagree with someone we need to try and focus on the content of their statements and not spend to much time on HOW things were said. But at the same time we need to be aware of our words and chose them with care. One of the things I have always loved about this board is the overal politeness and intelligance of the conversations. There is a fair amount of silliness and humour but it is never at anyone's personal expense. We should try to avoid snark and sarcasim aimed directly at another person.

I hope I am not coming across as too harsh but this thread has seriously deteriorated and I hate to see that happen. Now, I do ask that anyone with concerns or comments on what I just said please PM me. That is where this discusion belongs rather than here. Don't make me get naked again people!

ok. TOPIC: In Sherlock there's a charactger named Mary. She is very complex and mysterious.

Discuss.

Last edited by tonnaree (June 20, 2015 4:50 pm)

NatureNoHumansNo · June 20, 2015 4:55 pm

@Susigo. Even if it was not directed at you (re-read the thread) I was quite serious in what I wrote.

SusiGo · June 20, 2015 5:21 pm

Mod's note
As tonnaree and I have written above, this is not the place for discussions about people's behaviour. This should be done via PM to the members concerned and not in a thread about the show. I would be very grateful if we could continue the discussion about Mary in a polite and relaxed way. Thank you.