Dorothy83 wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

Honestly, the more we discuss different scenatios, the more I hope that Mary is simply in love with John and John is simply in love with Mary. Because every other scenario would make me hate the characters.

Sadly, this is a scenario I find very difficult to stomach. Because I simply cannot accept John loving Mary after all she did to him and Sherlock. 
 

Same. There is no way, absolutely NO WAY, that I will accept and like Mary after what she did, unless she does something to redeem herself.
I always thought of it like in the case of Boromir in LOTR - he was almost a 'villain' in the Fellowship, but now we love him because he actually showed he wasn't by protecting the Hobbits (and dying while doing so). Had he not done that, none of us would have really liked him.

Mary isn't getting any votes from me, not now nor ever unless she actually shows (with facts, not just words and crocodile tears) that she isn't a villain.
 

Yes, I think this is the problem: unless Mary is going to be a villain, we really need a chance for her to be redeemed.    At the moment, the only redeeming factors are that she didn't mean to kill Sherlock and that she didn't want John to be hurt, and those two aren't nearly enough.     (It's also a massive contrast to Sherlock's selfless behaviour in S3). 

I do think it's possible for Mary to be redeemed, given the chance.  For instance, she could sacrifice herself in some way to save John or Sherlock (or even the baby).   (Sherlock would be most appropriate as she put his life at risk).   But so far, she hasn't been given a chance (by the writers) to do that.    I think I could accept that her intentions were OK, if we were shown a selfless act like that.    I do think we're given a reason why she saw what she did (shooting Sherlock) as the only viable option, but then we're shown continued threats after the shooting, and not given "good" acts to "cancel it out".   I undertand that Sherlock trusts her now (I think!) and wants to protect her and the baby, but that seems to come from the kind of regard you'd have for, say, a family member, that you will support even when they do wrong, rather than a judgment of how good a person she is.   (Although, surely he must believe that she's basically OK if he trusts her?).

It got me thinking again about what was in my mind last year, about the biblical references in S3.  (No offence intended to anybody Christian here - I don't think there's any religious meaning here, but I do feel I'm seeing allusions to Christian stories and images)  Sherlock tends to be shown as a Christ figure.  And there are two famous Marys: Mary, mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene, who is sometimes portrayed as a redeemed sinner.   I know I'm probably reading too much into it, but I think it's really interesting that Mary is shown as having two personas which seem to correspond to the two Marys: one being the nurse and mother, and the other being the "sinner".   (And it's possibly alluded to by the use of the name "Madonna" in the Rizla game).   If these allusions are intended, then I would expect Mary to be redeemed. 

Last edited by Liberty (September 15, 2015 4:32 pm)

Swanpride wrote:

Hypothetical question: If Mary does throw herself in front of a bullet next season in order to rescue John and/or Sherlock and has then the bad taste to actually survive instead of leaving Johnlock in blissful domestic bliss...would the fandom than accept her? After all, taking a bullet should make up for shooting one.....

For the record:

I already accept the character of Mary as a part of the show even though I don't want her to be a permenant part.

I like the character of Mary, and I like her best as a villian.  I think this is way more exciting and interesting than having her settle into domestic bliss with John.

I don't care how many times it's said, my feelings about Mary, as she has been portrayed in the show, would be the same even if I did not support Johnlock.

Swanpride wrote:

Hypothetical question: If Mary does throw herself in front of a bullet next season in order to rescue John and/or Sherlock and has then the bad taste to actually survive instead of leaving Johnlock in blissful domestic bliss...would the fandom than accept her? After all, taking a bullet should make up for shooting one.....

 
Well, if I take the sarcasm out of this my answer would be: it could help to see her as redeemed. Or at least a step into a direction I could understand. Of course there are the circumstances of the whole scenery to be taken into consideration. If she takes the bullet with snark I will just watch it with an eye roll...

Furthermore, I think Raven and Zatoichi put it perfectly in their posts and I agree 200% with them. And mind you, zatoichi is not a shipper.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

There's never been a convincing reason as to why she lethally shot Sherlock-- and then the rest of it. Stalking and threatening Sherlock in the hospital. Showing up ready to shoot Sherlock again at Leinster Gardens. Never once apologizing. Never once owning up to what she did. 
 

Sorry for going slightly OT here, but this is just something that stands out for me in this discussion. I find it very interesting that this (“she never apologized”) gets repeated over and over again. It really gives an interesting picture of how facts are just omitted if they don’t serve one’s theories. Very rarely I see something along the lines of “I don’t think her apology is sincere”, but this keeps popping up. Isn’t it interesting that fans of the work that said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” keep falling into that trap (not only the theorising before we have data part - we have to deal with a very long hiatus - but also the twisting of facts)?

Zatoichi wrote:

Does anyone else feel that the very thing that was supposed to introduce Mary without disturbing the dynamic - her being cool and pushing the boys together and all that - is actually what seperated them the most? If I imagine that John had married for example Sarah - who would not have had heroically stepped in to "talk John around" and had not insisted on trotting along ever since - i can easily see them returning to the old dynamic without living together. Maybe that wouldn't make for enough drama.. But the fact that Mary provides danger, excitement, domesticity, banter and almost everything that has been Sherlock's domain before to John now makes me think that without her out of the picture there can't be any peace for the two of them. Actually I would feel that way even without everything that happened after the night in CAMs office.. just the fact that she's there all the time now and she's so "great" with Sherlock.. so great they talk about John behind his back, and I'm sure she also talks to John about Sherlock.. so great that she can safely insist that she understands his "fibbing" much better than easily impressable John.. so great that they can't go on cases anymore without her insisting to come along (argh).. just makes me want her to go away. I know all this is supposed to add to the dynamic.. But to me this addition actually takes a lot if things away from Sherlock.

I see your point. I think TPTB made Mary a bit too good in everything. I think with Sarah they just had a much better balance. She wasn’t friends with Sherlock, but could deal with him perfectly fine. She managed to help in an investigation not because she has some super awesome skills, but simply because she saw something that Sherlock had overlooked. She could hold her own, without taking limelight. Given her background Mary’s abilities make sense, but it makes her a bit Mary Sue-ish. To balance that of with the shooting and the big reveal, again, just seems a bit much. The Mary that they wrote now is not one that is likely to stay home, provide John with a stable base from which he can enjoy Sherlock’s crazy world (though she really only ask to join a case once- beginning of HLV-, otherwise they kind of happened on her). Her cannon counterpart was written more balanced, as someone who is remarkably balanced, but far from unaffected, in a time of crises (the sign of the four), is someone that people in need naturally turn to (the man with the twisted lib) and just generally seems very supportive of the Watson/Holmes friendship. I do not think she was in need of an assassin-background (which is why I desperately hope that this strange addition will have a great pay-off in a wonderful storyline). I think as such a character she would have had less of an impact on the dynamic between the boys (though the dynamic was bound to change with all those major life changes – return to London, living alone, getting married, becoming a dad, etc. - happing for both of them).
 

SusiGo wrote:

But this would mean one cannot discuss anything that may be continued in series 4, doesn't it? Because the sames goes for character development, the Mycroft/Mary conundrum, Moriarty's return, etc. We can judge Mary only on the facts we are given so far and so far there has been nothing about a sincere apology, explanation, regret. 

I said nothing against theorizing (given the long hiatus), I was just fascinated by the repeated omitting of facts that do not fit one’s theory and how Doyle wrote about twisting of facts.

There is a difference between fact and interpretation. To work with the example at hand: Mary did apologize. That is a fact. The interpretation part would be if that apology was sincere or not, which will depend on the theory. I can get that the interpretation of facts will change according to the theory, what I was talking about was the complete omitting of facts that do not fit a theory. To use another example: One can argue over the interpretation of Mary’s willingness to shoot her gun at Leinster Gardens. Fact is: she had a gun with her. Do you see the difference?
 

Last edited by Lola Red (September 16, 2015 8:41 am)

Dorothy83 wrote:

Swanpride - I am also trying to ignore the sarcasm in your post. I am honestly getting a bit fed up with this kind of attitude and also the implication that all the people who hate Mary must do so because she gets in between Johnlock. I am so tired of it.

For the millionth time: I am a shipper, but when I started watching the show and I wasn't because I didn't know everything about it, I loved it straight away anyway because of the chemistry between them. I loved them living together and their unique relationship dynamic. Therefore I didn't like Mary from the beginning because I didn't want a character that impeded that kind of dynamic and partnership, REGARDLESS of Johnlock (I am not a Tjlcer and I don't think they'll ever be together, so I'll be very content with them just back at 221b and having their adventures). I want them at 221b solving crimes and having adventures - if I wanted them having their own separate stories and babies and family lives I would watch any other show. Their partnership was what made this show unique for me. Mary disrupts all of this and for that I don't like her.

She then up and shoots Sherlock, our main character, one half of the duo for which I watch the show - and hers and Sherlock's explanation for that is ridiculous for me, as is Sherlock's assertion that John should be with her because she's proven she's dangerous and he likes that - yes he may like danger but that does not excuse her shooting his best friend. You may like danger but that doesn't mean you want yourself or your loved ones harmed. For that, I now despise her.

BUT - this is MY opinion. My feelings towards her - which I am entitled to have. Just because people have unfavourable opinions or criticism towards a controversial character doesn't mean you should get annoyed or snarky with them.

You like her, and I sure as hell wouldn't dream of telling you not to or being sarcastic because you like her - you have your preferences and your reasons, and I have mine.  Can I please ask that you respect that?
 

Beautifully put. I applaud you Dorothy.
 

tonnaree wrote:

RE: Apologies and regret.

I do not feel that Mary's "I'm truly sorry" before SHOOTING SHERLOCK was sincere.  My personal inturpretation is that she's sorry she got caught. 

From just what we've been shown on screen, she never apologizes to JOHN.

It was after pulling the trigger that she says “I’m sorry Sherlock, I truly am”. But I see you point. And you’re right, we never hear her apologise for the lying to John part.

Btw, why all the capital letters? No screaming needed, I’m all ears (eyes?)
 

At least Sherlock had neither way the chance to accept that apology.
(Before or after she pulled the trigger)
And he would never had the chance, if he hadn't made it by something like a miracle.

Last edited by Harriet (September 16, 2015 1:03 pm)

*crossed*, Dorothy - and full agreement