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

nakahara · August 27, 2015 10:13 am

mrshouse wrote:
Though I just scrolled a bit mary-morstan tags on tumblr and found multiple snippets of interviews where she uses the term psychopath or psychopatic. But more along the lines of "all three of them are psycho, they fit so well, cool trio."
Ugh.

Ugh, indeed. Personally , I find this attitude pretty misguided.

Sherlock and John are not cool and admirable because they are psychopaths. Sherlock is cool because he has marvellous intellectual properties, John because he is loyal, fearless and bad-ass. These are the characteristics that make them big - not severe mental disorders.

SusiGo · August 27, 2015 10:35 am

I fully agree, nakahara. And since in the show they often say one thing and mean another, not everybody John has ever met is a psychopath. But some are.

Last edited by SusiGo (August 27, 2015 10:35 am)

mrshouse · August 27, 2015 11:50 am

I'm with Nakahara on that matter.
There's too much careless use of those labels and at least at the moment too little considering of the gifts that make Sherlock and John great men. And that's the story to be told. Full stop. Not the story of a dysfunctional gang and their adventures.

gently69 · August 27, 2015 11:52 am

Well said, mrshouse. That's what the show should be about.

Last edited by gently69 (August 27, 2015 11:56 am)

SusiGo · August 27, 2015 11:58 am

And I hope and trust that they will continue to do so in series 4.

That said I am convinced that this is basically the dramatic (love/friendship) story of two men and neither a criminal threesome nor your average episodic crime drama. And these men need adversaries. And to me Mary seems to be one of them in which way ever.

tonnaree · August 27, 2015 1:43 pm

SusiGo wrote:
And I hope and trust that they will continue to do so in series 4.

That said I am convinced that this is basically the dramatic (love/friendship) story of two men and neither a criminal threesome nor your average episodic crime drama. And these men need adversaries. And to me Mary seems to be one of them in which way ever.

Slighty OT but I have to agree with you here Susi. I have seen a lot of people on the net whinning that they want the show to "get back to the cases." The powers that be have stated clearly that this is not a detective show but a show about a detective.

tonnaree · August 27, 2015 1:55 pm

TOPIC!

I really really want Mary to be a psychopath.

Dorothy83 · August 27, 2015 3:26 pm

tonnaree wrote:
TOPIC!

I really really want Mary to be a psychopath.

me too, but to me she is already, so all that's left for me to do is wait to see if Moffat will infuriate me by making her a poor victim or elate me by giving her what she actually deserves (which is a kick up the bum and out of the bloody show)

Lola Red · August 28, 2015 7:34 am

Short intermezzo:

I have no problem whatsoever with discussing if Mary is a psychopath or not, but, please, keep, as far as possible, Amanda out of it. Emotions tend to run high when it comes to Mary and while I do not care what anyone wishes on a fictional character, I will not accept any negativity towards the actress who plays her.

Ok, it has been proposed that Mary is a psychopath. What are the pros/cons? Discuss!

SusiGo · August 28, 2015 7:40 am

I agree with you but I have not seen anything disrespectful to Amanda in here. It would be difficult, however, to discuss the tweet without mentioning the person who tweeted.

Liberty · August 28, 2015 8:03 am

I think she could easily be a psychopath. But I think that "psychopath" and "sociopath" always seem to be used in the colloquial sense, both on the screen and off.

There isn't very much that would disprove it in the show. We don't get to see things from Mary's point of view, apart from when we're told about it through Sherlock. She does seem to genuinely care about John though. She sounds genuine when she apologises to Sherlock too, but her focus seems to be John and everything else is secondary.

I do find her statement about people like her being needed because of people like Magnussen really interesting. She seems to be saying that her job was to get rid of people who were evil, dangerous and otherwise unstoppable i.e. that she killed for what (to her) were morally good reasons.

Lola Red · August 28, 2015 8:04 am

SusiGo wrote:
I agree with you but I have not seen anything disrespectful to Amanda in here. It would be difficult, however, to discuss the tweet without mentioning the person who tweeted.

I have not seen anything off limits either, yet. But Amanda has been dragged into the discussion and that, in an apparently emotional question like Mary’s character, will, sooner or later, lead to negative comments if the discussion is to be two-sided. Hence my polite request to discuss the matter at hand “Is Mary a psychopath?” without involving Amanda. I do not see why the person that tweeted has to be discussed in a discussion of the point of the tweet.

Last edited by Lola Red (August 28, 2015 8:05 am)

nakahara · August 28, 2015 8:28 am

Liberty wrote:
I do find her statement about people like her being needed because of people like Magnussen really interesting. She seems to be saying that her job was to get rid of people who were evil, dangerous and otherwise unstoppable i.e. that she killed for what (to her) were morally good reasons.

Just think about it: who has the money to finance the hired assassin? Some poor people who get trampled by oligarchs? Or an oligarch who wants to get rid of an unwanted opposition and silence the dissenters by murdering people who are in his way? Which one of them is more likely to hire people like Mary? In whose interest would a person like Mary do her bloody business?

Mary says that people like her exist to get rid of people like Magnussen, but it´s actually the opposite, isn´t it? People like Mary serve people like Magnussen or even worse persons to make their reign over normal populace firmer and unopposed.

Plus, Mary´s words aside, it´s very obvious she didn´t want to kill Magnussen and she didn´t hurt him much either. If she wanted to get rid of him, she would shoot him dead right there in his office - there really was no need to escort him into his bedroom from there.

No, the only person she actually hurts is Sherlock - the unwanted detective who knew too much about her.

Last edited by nakahara (August 28, 2015 8:30 am)

Vhanja · August 28, 2015 9:06 am

nakahara wrote:
Plus, Mary´s words aside, it´s very obvious she didn´t want to kill Magnussen and she didn´t hurt him much either. If she wanted to get rid of him, she would shoot him dead right there in his office - there really was no need to escort him into his bedroom from there.

I read an interesting meta about that. Stating that it was never Mary's intent to kill Magnussen. Magnussen probably had a back-up so that Mary would be hunted down if she did something like that. She was there to scare him.

Of course, if that is true, it doesn't bode well for Mary (and thus John) when Sherlock shot Magnussen. It would then probably lead to the same thing.

Lola Red · August 28, 2015 9:14 am

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
I do find her statement about people like her being needed because of people like Magnussen really interesting. She seems to be saying that her job was to get rid of people who were evil, dangerous and otherwise unstoppable i.e. that she killed for what (to her) were morally good reasons.
Just think about it: who has the money to finance the hired assassin? Some poor people who get trampled by oligarchs? Or an oligarch who wants to get rid of an unwanted opposition and silence the dissenters by murdering people who are in his way? Which one of them is more likely to hire people like Mary? In whose interest would a person like Mary do her bloody business?

Mary says that people like her exist to get rid of people like Magnussen, but it´s actually the opposite, isn´t it? People like Mary serve people like Magnussen or even worse persons to make their reign over normal populace firmer and unopposed.

I find that view a bit one-sided. We know that Mary worked for the CIA for a while, but we also know the she went “freelance” after that. What we don’t get any information about is when Mary killed the people who “deserved it” and when she killed the people she thinks John could never forgive her about. She could have become greedy, and killed those who did not “deserve it” for a generous pay (possibly for the people you describe) after her CIA times, or she could have gone rouge after having to kill “undeserving” people for the CIA itself.

nakahara wrote:
Plus, Mary´s words aside, it´s very obvious she didn´t want to kill Magnussen and she didn´t hurt him much either. If she wanted to get rid of him, she would shoot him dead right there in his office - there really was no need to escort him into his bedroom from there.

No, the only person she actually hurts is Sherlock - the unwanted detective who knew too much about her.

You are right, it is a bit curious that she let CAM live to the point where Sherlock found them. Why not shoot him when she got what she wanted (either the USB stick or plainly an opportunity to point a gun at him)? But should she actually have come into the building without the intent to hurt anyone? Just to threaten CAM and then leave again?

SusiGo · August 28, 2015 9:17 am

Vhanja: I find it interesting that Magnussen as well as Sherlock are convinced that Mary wants to kill Magnussen. And while Sherlock does not know that it is Mary and not Lady Smallwood, the situation would be the same. Killing Magnussen because he possesses incriminating information.

nakahara · August 28, 2015 9:24 am

Lola Red wrote:
nakahara wrote:
Just think about it: who has the money to finance the hired assassin? Some poor people who get trampled by oligarchs? Or an oligarch who wants to get rid of an unwanted opposition and silence the dissenters by murdering people who are in his way? Which one of them is more likely to hire people like Mary? In whose interest would a person like Mary do her bloody business?

Mary says that people like her exist to get rid of people like Magnussen, but it´s actually the opposite, isn´t it? People like Mary serve people like Magnussen or even worse persons to make their reign over normal populace firmer and unopposed.
I find that view a bit one-sided. We know that Mary worked for the CIA for a while, but we also know the she went “freelance” after that. What we don’t get any information about is when Mary killed the people who “deserved it” and when she killed the people she thinks John could never forgive her about. She could have become greedy, and killed those who did not “deserve it” for a generous pay (possibly for the people you describe) after her CIA times, or she could have gone rouge after having to kill “undeserving” people for the CIA itself.

If she wanted to get rid of "undeserving" people by killing them due to some idealistic reasons, being radicalised by some crazy ideas about "justice that prevails through violence", she would become a revolutionary / terrorist rather then a hired assassin and she would probably have an entirely differend kind of lifestyle.

But she is a trained, discreet murderer for hire instead - and I doubt she does it as a charity.

Liberty · August 28, 2015 10:31 am

Well, the only real clues we have are that she worked for the CIA and that she killed people (like Magnussen?) who deserved to die. The second one, at least, does imply that she thought there was good reason to kill them. And actually, in that episode, Sherlock does seem to end up assassinating somebody when he thinks it's needed, which almost seems to back up the idea that there can be good reasons for assassinations (in the programme. I'm not talking about real life here).

I think she did plan to kill Magnussen. As you say, Susi, both Sherlock and Magnussen thought she was there to kill him. And in the deleted scene (if that can be included - I'm always a bit wary with things that were left out!) with Magnussen at Sherlock's bedside, he confirms it. And in the commentary at that point, Moftiss say that Mary has worked out that the only thing to do with Magnussen is kill him (which Sherlock doesn't work out until later).

Harriet · August 28, 2015 12:21 pm

(We know that also the CIA killed a lot of people for more than dubious reasons.)

nakahara · August 28, 2015 12:21 pm

Liberty wrote:
Well, the only real clues we have are that she worked for the CIA and that she killed people (like Magnussen?) who deserved to die. The second one, at least, does imply that she thought there was good reason to kill them. And actually, in that episode, Sherlock does seem to end up assassinating somebody when he thinks it's needed, which almost seems to back up the idea that there can be good reasons for assassinations (in the programme. I'm not talking about real life here).

I think she did plan to kill Magnussen. As you say, Susi, both Sherlock and Magnussen thought she was there to kill him. And in the deleted scene (if that can be included - I'm always a bit wary with things that were left out!) with Magnussen at Sherlock's bedside, he confirms it. And in the commentary at that point, Moftiss say that Mary has worked out that the only thing to do with Magnussen is kill him (which Sherlock doesn't work out until later).

OK, let´s presume Mary is some Robin Hood in skirts, who only kills genocidal maniacs, dictators, mafia-bosses, warlords and the like....

1 - Why is she so reluctant to admit this to John then? Why does she say he won´t love her if he knows the whole truth? What objection could he, a former army-man, have to this unusual job of her.

2 - If Mary works freelance, only killing those unworthy people for idealistic reasons.... who pays for it? The ammunition, the assasin´s gear and an equipment, travel-costs for travels around the world in search of those "unworthy to live", the costs of false documents confirming various fictive identities, the cost of living in various foreign countries.... it´s a bit of an expensive hobby, isn´t it? If Mary only acts "for good of the people" and isn´t being financed by criminal gang or some oligarch willing to remove his opponents, then she is doing it for free, which means she must pay for it from her own pocket. Where does she find so much money? It´s unlikely she spares for it from her nurse/receptionist wage.

3 - If she did want to kill Magnussen, why didn´t she kill him in his office? What was the point of bringing him to his bedroom? And if he escaped there alone, how come she let him plead with her for a long while and didn´t shoot him into his head the moment she saw him?

Personally, I think her remark of "people like her being needed to kill people like Magnussen" was only a false rationalisation, with which she tried to exuse herself for her awful job. It had nothing to do with her real intentions in breaking into CAM´s office.