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

Liberty · August 31, 2015 1:29 pm

But Sherlock does not appear to be "a bad man", in my opinion. There isn't the surprise element that there is with Mr Darcy (ages since I've read it, so I'm remembering) ... from the beginning, Sherlock is shown as an arrogant and flawed character, who is also a good guy. There isn't that moment of "oh, my goodness, I've completely misjudged him".

And with Mary, I think her "bad" side is quite different to Wickham's. If I remember, with Wickham it wasn't so much about a secret past, a double life, but about the kind of person he turned out to be - that he was a dishonourable scoundrel. Mary could certainly be more evil, but I don't think she deliberately goes off to thoughtlessly ruin somebody the way Wickham does - it's implied that she's actually clinging on to living a good life and putting her past behind her, if that was possible.

(In other words, I'm not sure the comparism to Wickham gives any clues about Mary).

Last edited by Liberty (August 31, 2015 4:34 pm)

RavenMorganLeigh · August 31, 2015 6:51 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I don't view her as two different people, or that the revelation of her as an assassin has made what we saw in the previous episodes a lie. I think what we saw in TEH and TSoT were just as much Mary as HLV. People are complex, and there is no reason why having a past as an assassin doesn't mean you can't also be a loving and supporting wife. (Even officers working in concentration camps during WWII were loving husbands and fathers when they returned home for the day).

As I see it, she held her past to herself, not faking who she was.

Just a question-- does that mean that those who worked in concentration camps and put people into the ovens and what-not--who were loving husbands-- they *shouldn't* have been punished? I mean-- here in the US, the same parallel could be drawn with people in the Klu Klux Klan-- and having had some personal experience with them, I can tell you that their friends and families think they are loving and supportive-- but that doesn't wipe out the fact that the Klan has killed a lot of men, women and children, burned a lot of crosses on people's lawns, terorrized people-- should they get a pass? Are we required to be sympathetic to someone who hurts people, as long as they are loving and supportive spouses and parents?

I'm not ragging on you-- I'm actually very interested in the reasoning, here.

RavenMorganLeigh · August 31, 2015 7:02 pm

If we want to talk about who's good and who turns out to be "not good"-- well, Sherlock has done a LOT to make John happy and safe-- even to his own detriment. By the end of HLV, he's lost everything-- because he put John first.

Mary, on the other hand, has done everything to KEEP John. Totally different motivations, if you ask me.

She didn't care about John's trust issues, as long as he stayed with her; she didn't care that losing Sherlock a second time would be unbearable for John, she shot Sherlock anyway-- to keep John; everything I've seen her do has been for her own benefit. She want's John, and even his own needs come second to that.

Vhanja · August 31, 2015 8:43 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Just a question-- does that mean that those who worked in concentration camps and put people into the ovens and what-not--who were loving husbands-- they *shouldn't* have been punished? I mean-- here in the US, the same parallel could be drawn with people in the Klu Klux Klan-- and having had some personal experience with them, I can tell you that their friends and families think they are loving and supportive-- but that doesn't wipe out the fact that the Klan has killed a lot of men, women and children, burned a lot of crosses on people's lawns, terorrized people-- should they get a pass? Are we required to be sympathetic to someone who hurts people, as long as they are loving and supportive spouses and parents?

I'm not ragging on you-- I'm actually very interested in the reasoning, here.

Perhaps it would be best to take this in a different thread, or even on PM, as it's getting quite off topic. And it seems just mentioning this has ruffled quite a few feathers in this thread, so we probably shouldn't continue this debate here.

Sufficient to say that if you feel you actually have to ask this question, I am wondering if other people have thought the same and if that can explain the huge reaction I got. I am close to being offended by you feeling such a question in warranted, actually. But I won't answer any more questions about this here, it's the wrong thread. A thread of it's own or PM would be better.

SusiGo · August 31, 2015 8:49 pm

Mod's note:
The huge reaction and ruffling of feathers as you choose to describe it, was caused by your inappropriate comparison/example, Vhanja. And, yes, I would strongly suggest to discuss this via PM if there is the need for it. I really have no idea what such a thread would be about but I am sure that it would cause hurt and offend some members. Therefore I will not allow it.

Last edited by SusiGo (August 31, 2015 9:05 pm)

mrshouse · August 31, 2015 9:07 pm

I don't know how everyone feels, but it gets quite nasty in here. @ Swanpride, I find it very interesting what you can tell about your family history and it's an important part of your life. But in my opinion this does not connect to the fictional character of Mary Morstan. We should restrain from such comparisons.
And last not least, I'm no fan of AA, but I seriously doubt she would feel comfortable with defending her part in such manner.

Last edited by mrshouse (August 31, 2015 9:23 pm)

Vhanja · August 31, 2015 9:10 pm

I only wrote one sentence as an illustration, and that was all it was for me. Then it was turned into a big issue with a lot of posts from a lot of people that just kept going. If no one had mention it, it wouldn't have been turned in to anything more than that one sentence from me.

SusiGo · August 31, 2015 9:12 pm

Mod's note:
The fact that so many people felt offended might be taken as a hint that you wrote something inappropriate and not just one sentence in passing. And now this discussion (not the topic itself) is closed since this is getting out of hand.

Last edited by SusiGo (August 31, 2015 9:15 pm)

mrshouse · August 31, 2015 9:38 pm

Well, of course it's not black and white. I don't remember anybody saying so.

RavenMorganLeigh · August 31, 2015 10:36 pm

Okay, so let's redirect: when is it appropriate to ignore someone's criminal past, particularly when it involves multiple murders, attempted murder (Sherlock) and serial , pathological lying to one's spouse? Is the idea that "love conquers all" truly that compelling?

If there is love, is it reasonable to expect forgiveness, no matter what, no matter who the lover hurts to "keep" the beloved?

I know love can make people crazy-- and there are many in prison, because they thought that the fact that they were in love justified them killing a rival.

Schmiezi · September 1, 2015 4:32 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
If we want to talk about who's good and who turns out to be "not good"-- well, Sherlock has done a LOT to make John happy and safe-- even to his own detriment. By the end of HLV, he's lost everything-- because he put John first.

Mary, on the other hand, has done everything to KEEP John. Totally different motivations, if you ask me.

She didn't care about John's trust issues, as long as he stayed with her; she didn't care that losing Sherlock a second time would be unbearable for John, she shot Sherlock anyway-- to keep John; everything I've seen her do has been for her own benefit. She want's John, and even his own needs come second to that.

I totally agree with you here.

And to combine that with your last question: I personally think that (in fiction), a lot of forgiveness can be granted if a person truely loves someone. Sherlock killed Magnussen, well, executed him. BUT he did it to keep John safe, so I can forgive him.
Mary almost killed Sherlock to keep John. Not to keep him safe, just to keep him. A totally egoistic move, in my mind. So I cannot forgive her.

RavenMorganLeigh · September 1, 2015 4:38 am

Schmiezi wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
If we want to talk about who's good and who turns out to be "not good"-- well, Sherlock has done a LOT to make John happy and safe-- even to his own detriment. By the end of HLV, he's lost everything-- because he put John first.

Mary, on the other hand, has done everything to KEEP John. Totally different motivations, if you ask me.

She didn't care about John's trust issues, as long as he stayed with her; she didn't care that losing Sherlock a second time would be unbearable for John, she shot Sherlock anyway-- to keep John; everything I've seen her do has been for her own benefit. She want's John, and even his own needs come second to that.
I totally agree with you here.

And to combine that with your last question: I personally think that (in fiction), a lot of forgiveness can be granted if a person truely loves someone. Sherlock killed Magnussen, well, executed him. BUT he did it to keep John safe, so I can forgive him.
Mary almost killed Sherlock to keep John. Not to keep him safe, just to keep him. A totally egoistic move, in my mind. So I cannot forgive her.

I think the other reason I can forgive Sherlock-- he was accountable for it. He took his punishment.

gently69 · September 1, 2015 5:23 am

I agree with everything mentioned in the post above.
I'm not sure if Mary didn't love John to be honest. But what I am sure about is that she didn't care about anybody while trying to get what she wants. And that included her "beloved" husband.

Liberty · September 1, 2015 7:16 am

Of course love doesn't mean all can be forgiven. Where does that idea come from? As Sherlock says, love is a vicious motivator (and a dangerous disadvantage!). I suppose it must come from fiction - we're constantly being told that romantic love conquers all - and yet in real life we're constantly seeing people in trouble for believing it.

But talking about motivations, in a way I find Mary's motivation for killing Magnussen (self-defence, to save herself) almost as valid as Sherlock's (to save somebody else). (In fact, in Sherlock's case, it's not just Mary that he's saving, but by extension John and himself). Is a life worth less because it's your own? This is regardless of whether she's a good person or not (I don't think she is ... and I think she's a world away from Sherlock on the morality scale). She also seems to be motivated by the fact that Magnussen is an evil man ... as does Sherlock.

SolarSystem · September 1, 2015 7:20 am

Swanpride wrote:
It is just difficult to judge if Mary deserves forgiveness for her past without knowing why she did what she did and what exactly she did for that matter. True, she thinks that her actions were terrible. But if she had been a cold blooded kiler, she wouldn't care. The very fact that she feels the way she does suggests that whatever she did, it was not simply "killing for money".

And why don't we know why she did what she did exactly...? Because the writers decided for her not to tell anyone, not even when it was already clear that she had lied to John (and Sherlock and anyone else) about her past.
And we don't even know what it is exactly that she 'feels'. Does she really care? And about what exactly does she care? About John? About her own well-being? For me nothing that she says suggests that she cares about anyone else than herself, and I see no indication that she killed for anything else but money.

Liberty · September 1, 2015 7:49 am

Yes, I wish they'd give more background! I suppose it wouldn't have been able to be fitted into HLV (what would we have got - flashbacks?), but I think it's a bit much for us to just have to accept it without any more detail.

I don't agree that there's no indication that it was anything other than money - we know that Magnussen could have her killed, so I imagine there was self-protection involved rather than money in that case. And she does mention that her purpose is to kill people who need to be killed, like Magnussen. And there's no mention of money. It's just not clear at the moment.

To be honest, I'm torn between thinking that we have to know the truth and that has to come out in S4, and thinking that we've done the Mary=assassin story and do we really want to go back over it again? I do think that if her past comes up again, it probably has to be in a big way, as part of the story, rather than just explaining it to us a bit more.

SusiGo · September 1, 2015 11:22 am

Personally I do not feel that I need more detailed information about Mary's past.

There are only two people telling us things about Mary that can be regarded as reliable - Mary herself and Magnussen. Sherlock's assumptions are never confirmed by Mary while she herself tells us that John would stop loving her if he knew, etc. So we have to assume she is telling the truth because this is how she explains her behaviour (protecting her marriage, etc.).

As for Magnussen - he may be a villain but he usually does not lie about his information. Lord Smallwood was indeed in love with a minor and wrote letters to her, he is right about people's pressure points, so why should he not be right where Mary is concerned?

This is what we get. And at this point in the show this knowledge plus the shooting of Sherlock is enough for me not to see Mary as a good or even acceptably grey character.

And I wish to end my post with a quote by Steven Moffat. It is from 2010. I think I have not seen it before and fits well with some of the assumptions about Mary and also where the show is going to take us:

"The great thing about reinventing Sherlock Holmes is that the whole story happens all over again. And we can do it any way we like. We can change the rules; we can shock you with what we do. So don’t assume that we are going to do everything according to the rulebook. We are at times throwing it away. So it might be frightening–brace yourselves for shocks."
—
Steven Moffat

(Assignment X interview, November 2010)

Last edited by SusiGo (September 1, 2015 11:23 am)

tonnaree · September 1, 2015 12:37 pm

Swanpride wrote:
At least MAry killing Magnussen is something I consider she does for a valid reason. Magnussen is someone who destroys lifes left and right and Mary is smart enough to know that the interest in her is most likely more related to John than directly about her, because that's how Magnussen works.

Could be wrong but I got the impression that MAG was interested in Mary even before she met John.

mrshouse · September 1, 2015 12:44 pm

That's what I thought, too, tonnaree. That they have some sort of dubious past. Nothing that happened during the time she turtle-doved with John is reason enough for something like the telegraph at the wedding, and that's only the most obvious example.

Lola Red · September 1, 2015 4:12 pm

tonnaree wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
At least MAry killing Magnussen is something I consider she does for a valid reason. Magnussen is someone who destroys lifes left and right and Mary is smart enough to know that the interest in her is most likely more related to John than directly about her, because that's how Magnussen works.

Could be wrong but I got the impression that MAG was interested in Mary even before she met John.

Where did you get that impression from? I always thought Mary was a mean to an end, more specifically a way to take down or at least control Mycroft. What makes you think CAM was after her for her own sake? What could he have wanted from her?