But, as far as I remember she said the "Don't read it in front of me..." part after it has already been revealed that she lied at all?  But she seems to think it could get worse, that's how I interpreted it.
Actually, yes, she misinterpreted the men. Which is in contrast to the "You don't know anything about human nature" and "I know when you're fibbing" parts.

Mrshouse, I think there's a slight distinction - she doesn't say that the memory stick will break John, but that he wouldn't love her.   What we're talking about is whether either of these are a threat to kill John, or at least, whether Sherlock thinks that they are (that Mary's a danger to John).  I don't think either of them are.

I think in the first scenario, it's just as she says: she believes that if John found out what has just been revealed, it would break him and she'd lose him.  The threat, if there is one (and I think there is) is to Sherlock: she would do anything to stop that happening.   I mean we already know that she would at least seriously injure Sherlock to stop it happening.   But I don't get the impression she is saying she would injure/kill John to stop it happening.  If anything, I think she is protective of him. 

In the second scene with the memory stick, the threat has already gone: John already knows that she lied.  And, of course, she has no need to reveal the memory stick.  Nobody knows she has it,  (Rather oddly) nobody is actually questioning her about her past - Sherlock is just saying what he's deduced.   She could just leave it at that.   For some reason, she seems to want John to have the chance to know it all, to be completely open.  (Of course, it would be nice if we got the chance to know it all too, but I suppose the team wanted to save it until S4, when I really hope more will be revealed).  If the stick is genuine, then that's actually a lot of trust that she's putting in John (and Sherlock), trust that she didn't quite have before.  Presumably whatever's on there is not just information that would upset John but stuff that could get her killed.  There's no threat there that I see - quite the opposite, in fact. She puts herself at risk by handing it over. 

I think it was Sherlock who was at risk from Mary, not John.  After the reveal, Sherlock is no longer at risk either.  Whether he's right, wrong, or bluffing (any one could arguably be the truth!) it certainly looks as if he believes John is safe with Mary. 

That was completely my fault for misquoting: I said that Mary said finding out the truth would break John, when actually she said that finding out she'd lied would break John.   I agree that she's still afraid - but I think she's afraid of him not loving her, rather than him being broken (at least, that's what she says).   She could have chosen not to give him the memory stick.  As I said, I do hope we get told more about what's on it, and Mary's past, in S4, but - horrible thought - do you think it could be just a shorthand, that the writers just didn't want to go into Mary's past at any more than a superficial level?  I hope not. 

Liberty wrote:

There's that line "that's why there are people like me", which implies that her assassinations were for the greater good.   (For me, that's the aspect that could be redeeming about Mary, but they will have to make that explicit, I think, rather than hinted at). 

Very significant, I think, Liberty--and I think that Sherlock thinks so as well, as it's a strong foreshadowing of why Sherlock felt he had to kill Magnussen, and why it was justified. Remember, when he's telling John they should "take her case", he draws a parallel between himself and Mary, and I think that shows that he sees himself and Mary as being alike in many ways.

(And, of course, it is a point of view that John holds himself, that there are people that are better off dead--"He wasn't a very nice man.")

Whisky wrote:

"The greater good" is also no justification for whatever action. It never makes a morally wrong act a good one. It's the same as "the end justifies the means". Even nowadays people try to justify violence that way. I don't support it.  

You can certainly disagree with that justification--many do--but you cannot say it is insupportable, because that is the basis for most philosophical discussion for the past few centuries--utilitarianism and the variants thereof vs. the theories that have been developed as alternatives. It's still very debated on both sides, by people who are very interested in coming to both right and good results. "Debatable" is accurate!

Last edited by REReader (June 21, 2015 4:01 pm)

It's true certain actions are no longer considered either good or evil , because of soldiers at war and similar circumstances we have to go beyond that as Nietzche Jung and others argued.
So we have jurys and examine motivations etc.
In Marys case she acts as an individual for self , she has no agency or wider reaching greater good or backing behind her to hold her accountable and would come before a jury of her peers to be judged one assumes.
With Soldiers and SIS people or in state sanctioned executions, they or their commanders come before court martial type panels to be held to account. My assumption was   , Sherlock as a private contractor to MI6 ( SIS now) did just that.
Marys ....thats why people like me exist..line ...one assumes refers to her past life as an agent doing agency work..which perhaps may be accountable, yet we are led to believe she had to ..go on the run...from it.Perhaps if she is still a cia agent , they will give her a medal for shooting Sherlock as mentioned in ASIB, we don't know.
Mary cannot act as judge jury and executioner alone , and there is no evidence or insinuation of any kind of greater of good in her attempted assasination of Magnussen , she states herself it is to stop John finding out, and shooting witnesses as collateral damage is inexcusable in this case.

@Whiskey .Sorry , I am referring to Sherlock being held to account for his actions of Shooting Magnussen by the intelligent agency/government people.
:-)

Last edited by lil (June 21, 2015 4:57 pm)

If she does work for a government agency ,and co-ordinated her plans with them yes,  I thought 'on the run 'and 'gone freelance' meant she was more a rogue.Inteesting to think she may have been exiled from the cia in similar circumstanced to Sherlock being exiled here.Knowing these writers though probably we never know and Mary will remain mysterious in a canon like way.
John didn't shoot until there was immediate danger so strong moral principle...well according to SH.
However defence of life with clear, immediate and present danger are usually accepted.

That's a good point, Susi: it hadn't occurred to me that the "freelance" work could mean just the recent encounter.  I wonder if it could even just mean her going for Magnussen?

If they wanted to give Mary a "good assassin" past, they could maybe take it in the direction of when she was working at the CIA she was asked to kill all kinds of people - good or bad. Maybe she got a bit too moralistic when she realised they were asking her to get rid of people simply because they were in the way, and that the people themselves hadn't actually done anything all that bad. So then, she decides to go "freelance" and becomes more of a vigilante type, like Dardevil or Arrow ...only bumping off people who she knows are bad guys.

That would fit in with her line of "people like Magnussen should be killed" and the freelance aspect. Magnussen would still have referred to her as a "bad girl" because she technically betrayed the CIA and now maybe some of them are after her.