Harriet wrote:

But, and I wonder if I will repeat again, people of this board who see Mary as bad started as seeing her good or neutral. There was no intention whatsoever of judging her in an unfair way right from the beginning. So it's not what you call a "need" here, "no matter what", it's an insight.

Then it's just as unfair to state that someone has "a need" to see her as good, isn't it? Why can't that be an insight too?
 

Last edited by Vhanja (August 29, 2015 4:11 pm)

I honestly started out as neutral about Mary.  Wanted to wait and see where she went, 

And, I don't want her to be bad now because I hate the character.  I think it would be much more interesting for Mary to turn out to be a true villian and I would love for the story to go there.

Last edited by tonnaree (August 29, 2015 5:35 pm)

I don't see that really...look back at the thereads...it's all still there..there was a lot of enthusiam and excitement when we learnt Mary would be in 03 and AA would play her.
When TEH aired more Mary threads started , @most people loved her , but the -something about Mary -thread appeared and suspicions were aired , which grew during TSOT and obviously proved true in HLV.
Thats when dislike of Mary started..in a perfectly normal way..Mary was a professional assasin..had lied to and decieved John..and shot Sherlock..no one needs a 'need' to be appalled by that.
Whats wierd is the fanatical defence of Mary and crapola and inventive excuses to turn a highly trained liar and killer back into a fluffy bunny.
I think a lot of it ( irrational need to defend AA and Mary ) sprang from early sensationalised media rubbish about AA getting death threats from crazy fans..nonsense I found very hard to believe anyone ever took seriously.

lil wrote:

Whats wierd is the fanatical defence of Mary and crapola and inventive excuses to turn a highly trained liar and killer back into a fluffy bunny.
I think a lot of it ( irrational need to defend AA and Mary ) sprang from early sensationalised media rubbish about AA getting death threats from crazy fans..nonsense I found very hard to believe anyone ever took seriously.

This is what I was trying (badly!) to articulate, earlier... insight implies looking at the character and noticing something already there-- that might have gone unnoticed before. It's not brainstroming ideas to make the character into what we want that character to be, when all evidence points to the contrary. 

Wishful thnking might have been a better way to put it. 

A "Need", as I called it-- what I actually meant was this: it's a sort of a willful determination to see only what fits our own idea of an acceptable narrative. It gets more interesting when an opposing view feels like an attack on us. But, it happens... 

Harriet wrote:

Well, perhaps, we WILL find someone who started seeing Mary as bad and got convinced she is good?
So that things are - balanced?

After all, it's not the first time we have this discussion, and I can't remember someone.

I *do* know people who didn't want Mary in the picture, because it disrupted the John and Sherlock dynamic. Not all of these folks were Johnlockers, either. 

What I'm actually more interested in-- and I ask this with absolutley no guile, no judgment-- what do Mary supporters want to see for her character in coming seasons? (And, no-- I don't think she's dying off in s4.) But, I'd like to know, what do people who want to see Mary continue in the show hope to see? Housewife? Stay-at-home Mom? Part of a crime solving trio? 

I'm not a Mary supporter, but I am somebody who initially thought she was bad and now think she may be more neutral (for now, anyway).  Part of reason for that is that I think they've already done the twist in the tale story of Mary turning out to be an assassin and doing something terrible, AND I don't think they're going to go over the shooting again (I could be wrong, of course).  I feel like accepting Sherlock's explanation, however farfetched (it's not the only far-fetched thing in the show), and then moving on.  I would like to see Mary as a villain, but not just as an assassin - we've already seen that.  If she's going to be evil, I'd like her to be an arch-villain rather than Moriarty's pawn. 

I think I would also be happy for it to go the other way and for Mary to be a heroine.  I have a feeling she needs to save Sherlock (or maybe John) in order to balance things out - at the moment, she is hugely, hugely indebted to him, and relying deeply on his and John's forgiveness, and has not yet  had a chance of atonement or redemption.   And then she could die . 

I would not like to see the crime-solving trio, and although it kind of makes sense (Mary has skills as an intelligence agent which might be useful, and possibly inside knowledge and contacts), I don't think the writers would be daft enough to go down that route - it has always been about Sherlock and John, and I think it will continue to be.   I don't think they can create a character like Mary and make her a housewife either, so just having her in the background wouldn't work well for me.  I think they have to "do" something with her.   I think it would work best if she's part of the storyline, part of a case.  She has already been a client (as in the original story), so the door is open for her to be a villain or a victim, or perhaps a heroine.

Last edited by Liberty (August 29, 2015 6:58 pm)

I just think it would be more constructive to debate this without using words as "a need to see her as good" or "fanatical defence" towards those who have a different opinion on Mary.

Harriet wrote:

Just to get you right, did you think she was bad from TEH or perhaps TSoT on? Or from the first all in all impression of S3?

In my case, HLV. From the point of the shooting. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Well, then-- why not talk about what you'd like to see with her character in coming seasons? 

I would like to see her out of the picture as soon as possible, and preferably in a way that would hurt John the less. So I imagine that if she turned out to be evil/bad/traitor of some kind, that would be better than her suffering a heroic death. Because the first part would make John angry, and the second would crush his heart (again). I think anger is easier to deal with than tragic loss, perhaps in particular for a character like John (although it will be painful either way).
 

Lola Red wrote:

I agree with Vhanja here. It is all right to respectfully discuss an opposing view, to give counter arguments and ask questions, but calling your discussion partner “fanatical” or suffering from “wishful thinking” or an unexplainable “need”, while calling oneself “insightful” is hardly helping the general atmosphere. So I ask you all to keep the tone of discussion respectful towards everyone, even if you don’t agree with them.

Again, I am apologizing, if I caused ruffled feathers or hurt feelings. Mea culpa. :-(