Oh, I can understand why Mary wouldn't go to Sherlock.   She wasn't just a client like Lady Smallwood.  She was a killer, and Sherlock hunts down killers.   And she could not rely on him keeping the secret from John - I'd be disappointed if he did keep it a secret from John.   And ... it wouldn't have helped:  Magnussen was playing Sherlock, and Sherlock would not have realised that he had to kill him, or probably would not have accepted it if he did.  Telling Sherlock would just have left Magnussen alive and a continued risk to Mary. 

(I do wonder if Mary in some way knew that Sherlock would work out that he had to kill him). 

Yes, I think Mary would have lied to John forever, if it hadn't been for Sherlock.  She'd have shot Magnussen, a lot of people would have been safer and happier and she'd have been rid of her past (perhaps).   Now, I'm not looking at this from a moral angle, but  I can see how that could seem the only or best option.  She thought John would be broken and reject her if he found out.   How could she go through life constantly avoiding getting close to people, and if she did get close, telling people the truth only to have to go on the run again, or go to prison for life/be killed.   How could she be open and honest about her past? 

On the other hand, if she could sort out the threat (Magnussen), and leave her past behind, then perhaps she could have lived with her secret forever, and she, John and the child could have had a happy life. 

I think it's interesting.  She wouldn't be the first to have a dark secret, carried to the grave. 

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.

I agree, 100%. 

And, just sayin'-- if I walok up to somebody and say to them, "I'm sorry---, I truly am," and whack them upside the head with a bat, do you think they should give me a pass because I said I was sorry before I put them in the hospital with a broken jaw? 

I can imagine all sorts of criminals using this as defense in murder cases, " But, yer honor! I SAID I was sorry BEFORE I stabbed him 49 times!" 

It's actually worse, saying sorry AFTER the fact. (And not to the person one has just grievously wounded unto death)

Sorry. 
 

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 16, 2015 6:50 pm)

I didn't say she was a nice assassin .  I said she's not shown in the same way as Moriarty, and not as an evil serial killer.   There is more mystery to her background, and it would be easier for her to be redeemed. 

We assume she got paid, but we don't know for sure that money was a particular motivator (any more than money is the motivation for anybody who does a paid job).  The only target we see, she doesn't gain financially from his death, and we see that Sherlock thinks killing him is justified too.   So it's much more ambigous.   I don't think Sherlock ever thought Moriarty was justified in taking lives, and can't imagine a situation where Sherlock would have bumped them off for Moriarty.  There's so much unknown (who her targets were, why, etc.).    I'm surprised that she's seen in the same category as Moriarty.   I think she could be there, in the future, but it needs more information, and more definitely evil motivations than we've got (for instance, she's shown as killing Magnussen mainly for self-protection, which isn't nearly as evil as killing for fun). 

Last edited by Liberty (September 16, 2015 6:28 pm)

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?
 

Hear, hear. 

nakahara wrote:

The killer for hire apologising to his victim "sorry chap, personally I have nothing against you, but I must kill you" is a common trope in TV and movies. It anything, it only proves that Mary is an assasin. It says nothing about her sincerity.

THIS. A thousand times, THIS. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

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.

I agree, 100%. 

And, just sayin'-- if I walok up to somebody and say to them, "I'm sorry---, I truly am," and whack them upside the head with a bat, do you think they should give me a pass because I said I was sorry before I put them in the hospital with a broken jaw? 

I can imagine all sorts of criminals using this as defense in murder cases, " But, yer honor! I SAID I was sorry BEFORE I stabbed him 49 times!" 

It's actually worse, saying sorry AFTER the fact. (And not to the person one has just grievously wounded unto death)

Sorry. 
 

Why is everybody screaming today? Did I miss something? Or is there really that much excitement in the air?

Actually, an apology will often reduce the sentence after a violent attack. That is, an apology after the fact, an apology before will probably win you a one-way ticket to the psych-ward.
 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

I didn't say she was a nice assassin .  I said she's not shown in the same way as Moriarty, and not as an evil serial killer.   There is more mystery to her background, and it would be easier for her to be redeemed. 

We assume she got paid, but we don't know for sure that money was a particular motivator (any more than money is the motivation for anybody who does a paid job).  The only target we see, she doesn't gain financially from his death, and we see that Sherlock thinks killing him is justified too.   So it's much more ambigous.   I don't think Sherlock ever thought Moriarty was justified in taking lives, and can't imagine a situation where Sherlock would have bumped them off for Moriarty.  There's so much unknown (who her targets were, why, etc.).    I'm surprised that she's seen in the same category as Moriarty.   I think she could be there, in the future, but it needs more information, and more definitely evil motivations than we've got (for instance, she's shown as killing Magnussen mainly for self-protection, which isn't nearly as evil as killing for fun). 

I kinda think being an asassin *is* sort of a serial killer-- but it's for money-- not just being mental. Think about it-- who knows how many people she actually killed...for cash???

I'm talking about the "Freelance"-- and "Rogue" work. If that doesn't qualify to be at least as bad as a serial killer, I don't know what does. 

I do know that one speculation is that she actually worked for Moriarty-- and it's rather plausible, though again, that's speculation. But it could explain why an "ex"-Asassin just magically happened to be working at John's clinic, and just happened to start dating him-- the partner of Moriarty's nemesis! Where she would be in a darn good position to see if Sherlock ever surfaced. (I mean-- Sherlock's taking out Moriarty's Criminal Organization for two years-- you can't tell me that some of Moriarty's cronies didn't wonder if Sherlock was indeed, still alive!) 

I agree that that's all possible, but it's unknown - we're not shown it.  If we were meant to think of her as a Moriarty, then why have Sherlock kill her target?    Is him doing so meant to be more honourable because he does it as a job (Mary is a client), rather than "freelance"?    I think that if she was meant to be seen as a Moriarty at this point, then there needs to be more indication that she killed for the hell of it.   But instead, we don't get told anything definite at all.   As it stands, I think there's scope for her to go either way in S4, but I'd really struggle to see Moriarty being redeemed as we know for definite that he killed innocents.   We don't know that (yet) about Mary.   Quite possibly she did.   But I keep coming back to Sherlock killing her target, Sherlock thinking that killing her target was justifiable.  Why show us that if we're supposed to think that she's equally as bad as Moriarty? 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

I didn't say she was a nice assassin .  I said she's not shown in the same way as Moriarty, and not as an evil serial killer.   There is more mystery to her background, and it would be easier for her to be redeemed. 

We assume she got paid, but we don't know for sure that money was a particular motivator (any more than money is the motivation for anybody who does a paid job).  The only target we see, she doesn't gain financially from his death, and we see that Sherlock thinks killing him is justified too.   So it's much more ambigous.   I don't think Sherlock ever thought Moriarty was justified in taking lives, and can't imagine a situation where Sherlock would have bumped them off for Moriarty.  There's so much unknown (who her targets were, why, etc.).    I'm surprised that she's seen in the same category as Moriarty.   I think she could be there, in the future, but it needs more information, and more definitely evil motivations than we've got (for instance, she's shown as killing Magnussen mainly for self-protection, which isn't nearly as evil as killing for fun). 

I kinda think being an asassin *is* sort of a serial killer-- but it's for money-- not just being mental. Think about it-- who knows how many people she actually killed...for cash???

I'm talking about the "Freelance"-- and "Rogue" work. If that doesn't qualify to be at least as bad as a serial killer, I don't know what does. 

I do know that one speculation is that she actually worked for Moriarty-- and it's rather plausible, though again, that's speculation. But it could explain why an "ex"-Asassin just magically happened to be working at John's clinic, and just happened to start dating him-- the partner of Moriarty's nemesis! Where she would be in a darn good position to see if Sherlock ever surfaced. (I mean-- Sherlock's taking out Moriarty's Criminal Organization for two years-- you can't tell me that some of Moriarty's cronies didn't wonder if Sherlock was indeed, still alive!) 

Snipers in the army are also paid to kill people, yet are not considered “at least as bad as serial killers”. Mary did “wet jobs for the CIA”, so at least for part of her career she was authorized by the government. “Freelance” does not necessarily mean killing for everyone who had 20 pounds to spare. Mycroft does “freelance” work, for/as the British secret service and the CIA. Could be she was lending her services to government organisations. The only discriminating thing we know is that at some point she did something that could get her into prison and that she thinks would make John stop loving her. But we don’t get to know the nature of it. Government mission gone wrong? Mary killing someone that afterwards turned out to be innocent? Her “people like Magnussen should be killed” indicates some form of moral compass. She seems to see it as her (former) goal in life, to rid the world of “people like Magnussen”, which can be a very lucrative career path with the right employer, but does not necessarily mean that money was the primary motivator (if it was, she did not manage her finances well, she lives a relatively modest lifestyle … in show-verse).
 
The speculation about Mary being a plant has been going on a while, but for now of cause remains exactly that: pure speculation. But I agree Moriarty (if still alive) would be likely, as would, in my opinion, Mycroft. To plant an assassin that close to Sherlock indicates that whoever planted her thought (Moriarty) or knew (Mycroft) that he is cleverer than Sherlock and could trick him. If Mycroft would be behind it, it would also explain his apparent oversight, Mary’s well-timed introduction into John’s life and making it a rather painful (and once more unlearned) lesson of “caring is not an advantage”. Of cause Mary could be the next super villain, tricking both Sherlock and Mycroft into not seeing her for what she is, even after the exposure. Or she was planted by the next, yet unknown, super villain. In that case she is the best actress in show-verse yet. (If Mary turns out to be planted, my money is on Mycroft)
 

I am not sure if it counts when the offender tells the victim immediately after the deed. It probably would have to be more formal or even during trial.

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.....

Ok, since you apparently actually meant that as a sincere question.
I do not think that “the fandom” will ever accept a woman at either Sherlock’s or John’s side. Some individuals might, but I think the core of the fandom has been drawn in by the chemistry between Sherlock and John, with or without romantic element. Anyone who prevents the two of them being together in Baker Street will very likely not be accepted in the long term. That Mary did something undeniable wrong does of cause not help her acceptance, but I think even without the shooting she would have had a hard stand. There is a reason Doyle discretely killed off her canon counterpart.