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

Dorothy83 · September 16, 2015 8:55 pm

Lola Red wrote:
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.

Thank you Lola.

I think that if you feel interested in the character of Mary, if you like her or are a fan, that's completely fair enough, but I don't understand why expect other people to like her too or get annoyed if they don't.

Also, I thought about it today: just like you are free to like Mary, people are free to like John and Sherlock together, and not like Mary because 'she gets in the way'. What's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with shipping two fictional characters, and if a third character gets in between them, then you're going to not like them. If that's the reading that a person wants to have, why not? Everybody can consume the show like they want to consume it.
Discussing, asking questions and trying to understand different points of view are all great things, but at the end of the day, why take it personally/get snarky? I don't get it.

Last edited by Dorothy83 (September 16, 2015 8:56 pm)

Liberty · September 16, 2015 9:00 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Liberty wrote:
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?
Actually-- I don't think Sherlock killing Magnussen in cold blood was honorable at all. And, I'm still miffed at Mofftiss for having him do that-- Sherlock who solves crimes with his brain, not a gun-- reduced to a cold-blooded killer. I really, really hated that.

To address the rest of your question-- in some ways (in my view, only) Mary is worse. Moriarty was what he appeared to be--Crazy, Homicidal, Meglomaniacal---but, Mary fooled John and Sherlock both. And she was prepared to let John live a lie...for the rest of his life! Even if it could have put him and their baby in jeopardy! (because of those people out looking for her, that she forgot to tell John about.)

It's like being handed a lovely, adorable domesticated kitten, and finding out after you take it home that it's actually a feral, man-eating, spraying the house every ten minutes, Tiger-wannabe.

(Have missed out a couple of the nested quotes - hope it still makes sense!).

What I was trying to address was your point that Mary was morally more suspect because she did freelance work rather than just being hired by the same employer. I wasn't saying Sherlock killing Magnussen was honourable, but trying to show that it whether or not he was freelance didn't make any difference to how honourable it was. The thing is, it was the same murder that Mary planned to commit, and yet, even if we don't see it as honourable, then we don't think Sherlock is as irredeemable as Moriarty because he did it. But you think that Mary is, for doing the same thing. I know the argument is that Mary had done it before, but then it just becomes a question of numbers - we don't know if she had more or less reason to kill the previous people, or if Sherlock would also have thought those murders were justified.

Now, I think that Sherlock clearly is an honourable character. i don't think Mary is (yet, anyway, given what we've been shown), but I don't think she's meant to be his antithesis either, or why have him do her murder for her?

SolarSystem · September 16, 2015 9:03 pm

Swanpride wrote:
And we are back to making broad assumptions.
My question a few pages back was serious btw, despite the sarcasm. I don't think that it truly had made a difference if Mary had apologiced a second time in the show, those who don't like her would simply assume that she was just pretending to be sorry to get John back. Just like I don't think that it makes any difference what Mary does now. She could throw herself in front of a bullet, some people would still claim that she only did it for selfish reasons, or at the very least, that this is the last she can do.

All of this also sounds like broad assumptions to me.

RavenMorganLeigh · September 16, 2015 9:34 pm

Liberty wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Liberty wrote:
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?
Actually-- I don't think Sherlock killing Magnussen in cold blood was honorable at all. And, I'm still miffed at Mofftiss for having him do that-- Sherlock who solves crimes with his brain, not a gun-- reduced to a cold-blooded killer. I really, really hated that.

To address the rest of your question-- in some ways (in my view, only) Mary is worse. Moriarty was what he appeared to be--Crazy, Homicidal, Meglomaniacal---but, Mary fooled John and Sherlock both. And she was prepared to let John live a lie...for the rest of his life! Even if it could have put him and their baby in jeopardy! (because of those people out looking for her, that she forgot to tell John about.)

It's like being handed a lovely, adorable domesticated kitten, and finding out after you take it home that it's actually a feral, man-eating, spraying the house every ten minutes, Tiger-wannabe.
(Have missed out a couple of the nested quotes - hope it still makes sense!).

What I was trying to address was your point that Mary was morally more suspect because she did freelance work rather than just being hired by the same employer. I wasn't saying Sherlock killing Magnussen was honourable, but trying to show that it whether or not he was freelance didn't make any difference to how honourable it was. The thing is, it was the same murder that Mary planned to commit, and yet, even if we don't see it as honourable, then we don't think Sherlock is as irredeemable as Moriarty because he did it. But you think that Mary is, for doing the same thing. I know the argument is that Mary had done it before, but then it just becomes a question of numbers - we don't know if she had more or less reason to kill the previous people, or if Sherlock would also have thought those murders were justified.

Now, I think that Sherlock clearly is an honourable character. i don't think Mary is (yet, anyway, given what we've been shown), but I don't think she's meant to be his antithesis either, or why have him do her murder for her?

Well, one big difference between Sherlock and Mary is that Sherlock immediately took responsibility for killing Magnussen, whereas Mary hasn't . She's still on the run. She's intending to get away with ALL of it. All those people she killed-- apparently had loved ones, people who she hurt by killing folks for whatever reason-- according to Magnussen. Also, Sherlock, I think killed Magnussen for John, not Mary. So John and his family would be safe. Not to be able to keep lying to John with impunity...

RavenMorganLeigh · September 16, 2015 9:36 pm

Just wondering-- what do we think a paid assassin is??? They're sure not Florence Nightingale!

Dorothy83 · September 16, 2015 9:41 pm

I don't think John would have stopped loving Mary if he found out that she got rid of the villains of the world.

Mary says that John would stop loving her - and John refuses to read the USB stick - because she killed, not just criminals, but also people who didn't deserve it. To me, that's very clear.

tonnaree · September 16, 2015 11:56 pm

*raises hand*

I state once again for the record: Hating Mary for what she's done does not equal no liking the character. I think we are supposed to not like Mary after HLV. I like her as a villian. I think it makes her more interesting.

There have been many character's in film, television and liturature that I have loved to hate.

ukaunz · September 17, 2015 12:57 am

Moriarty is the same - he's a brilliant, funny, charismatic psychopath, many of us love him as a character, but of course he's a bad guy. No one is going to deny that right? If Mary turns out to be definitely a "bad guy", we can still love her character (those of us that want to; those of us who hate her and would never forgive her are welcome to have their opinions and feelings too). I'm still on the fence until I see more, personally

Last edited by ukaunz (September 17, 2015 6:51 am)

RavenMorganLeigh · September 17, 2015 3:47 am

I liked Mary at first-- then, disliked her after HLV, and after people kept urging me to love her, and accept her as the permanent, loving, wonderful, love of John's life who hadn't really done anything wrong, and was now going to be a part of the team, or a housewife and soccer mom---that pressure actually made me like her less. But I'm a Taurus, and hate being pushed.

RavenMorganLeigh · September 17, 2015 3:48 am

Dorothy83 wrote:
I don't think John would have stopped loving Mary if he found out that she got rid of the villains of the world.

Mary says that John would stop loving her - and John refuses to read the USB stick - because she killed, not just criminals, but also people who didn't deserve it. To me, that's very clear.

Excellent point. What do we think *would* cause John to stop loving Mary???? Speculation?

mrshouse · September 17, 2015 6:24 am

Lola Red wrote:
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.

Kudos, Lola, very well put.

Liberty · September 17, 2015 6:58 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Liberty wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Actually-- I don't think Sherlock killing Magnussen in cold blood was honorable at all. And, I'm still miffed at Mofftiss for having him do that-- Sherlock who solves crimes with his brain, not a gun-- reduced to a cold-blooded killer. I really, really hated that.

To address the rest of your question-- in some ways (in my view, only) Mary is worse. Moriarty was what he appeared to be--Crazy, Homicidal, Meglomaniacal---but, Mary fooled John and Sherlock both. And she was prepared to let John live a lie...for the rest of his life! Even if it could have put him and their baby in jeopardy! (because of those people out looking for her, that she forgot to tell John about.)

It's like being handed a lovely, adorable domesticated kitten, and finding out after you take it home that it's actually a feral, man-eating, spraying the house every ten minutes, Tiger-wannabe.
(Have missed out a couple of the nested quotes - hope it still makes sense!).

What I was trying to address was your point that Mary was morally more suspect because she did freelance work rather than just being hired by the same employer. I wasn't saying Sherlock killing Magnussen was honourable, but trying to show that it whether or not he was freelance didn't make any difference to how honourable it was. The thing is, it was the same murder that Mary planned to commit, and yet, even if we don't see it as honourable, then we don't think Sherlock is as irredeemable as Moriarty because he did it. But you think that Mary is, for doing the same thing. I know the argument is that Mary had done it before, but then it just becomes a question of numbers - we don't know if she had more or less reason to kill the previous people, or if Sherlock would also have thought those murders were justified.

Now, I think that Sherlock clearly is an honourable character. i don't think Mary is (yet, anyway, given what we've been shown), but I don't think she's meant to be his antithesis either, or why have him do her murder for her?

Well, one big difference between Sherlock and Mary is that Sherlock immediately took responsibility for killing Magnussen, whereas Mary hasn't . She's still on the run. She's intending to get away with ALL of it. All those people she killed-- apparently had loved ones, people who she hurt by killing folks for whatever reason-- according to Magnussen. Also, Sherlock, I think killed Magnussen for John, not Mary. So John and his family would be safe. Not to be able to keep lying to John with impunity...

I think Sherlock took reponsibility because he had to - if he'd shot Magnussen behind the scenes, John would have been implicated, and the point was to save John and Mary. Moftiss say that they read the ACD story as if Watson covered up for Holmes (by writing that the murder was done by an unknown woman), so they don't think there was any intention for Holmes to hand himself in. Even in HLV, Sherlock doesn't go to trial, but takes the preferred (if more dangerous) option that Mycroft negotiates. We don't see Sherlock making any reparation (to Magnussen's family, for instance).

I'm saying all this, because I don't think we're being shown a model of "murder is only forgiveable if you take responsibliity by owning up and going to prison". It seems as if Sherlock, like Moriarty, can avoid the usual course of justice. He does own up to protect John, but there's no reason for Mary to own up to previous murders.

Anyway, I'll be really disappointed if Mary is supposed to a Moriarty without further information (just as I'd be disappointed if she is supposed to be a heroine without further information). Although I do take your point that Moriarty may be more forgiveable because he's possibly mentally ill. I think that's the closest I can get to your point of view (Mary seems perfectly sane and responsible for her own decisions).

Last edited by Liberty (September 17, 2015 7:09 am)

nakahara · September 17, 2015 7:08 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Dorothy83 wrote:
I don't think John would have stopped loving Mary if he found out that she got rid of the villains of the world.

Mary says that John would stop loving her - and John refuses to read the USB stick - because she killed, not just criminals, but also people who didn't deserve it. To me, that's very clear.
Excellent point. What do we think *would* cause John to stop loving Mary???? Speculation?

Occasional murder of best friends here and there does not fase John, it obvously doesn´t stop him from loving Mary.
But if she drunk some milk he had prepared for himself in the fringe, that would be the true transgression! I´m sure he could not forgive THAT.

nakahara · September 17, 2015 7:14 am

Swanpride wrote:
And we are back to making broad assumptions.
My question a few pages back was serious btw, despite the sarcasm. I don't think that it truly had made a difference if Mary had apologiced a second time in the show, those who don't like her would simply assume that she was just pretending to be sorry to get John back. Just like I don't think that it makes any difference what Mary does now. She could throw herself in front of a bullet, some people would still claim that she only did it for selfish reasons, or at the very least, that this is the last she can do.

Last time I checked, there was no legal duty to like Mary.
So what that some people would always hate her? Some people would also think Sherlock is a horrible psychopath or that John is an asshole, etc. etc. There will also be some people who would love the unpleasant characters like Sally Donovan and find some good even in them. That´s like it with TV fiction. De gustibus non est disputandum.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/there's_no_accounting_for_taste

Last edited by nakahara (September 17, 2015 7:15 am)

mrshouse · September 17, 2015 7:19 am

*waving*
I love Sally! She's pretty and just awesome in all her nasty and mean attitude!!

nakahara · September 17, 2015 7:34 am

mrshouse wrote:
*waving*
I love Sally! She's pretty and just awesome in all her nasty and mean attitude!!

Lola Red · September 17, 2015 8:23 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Dorothy83 wrote:
I don't think John would have stopped loving Mary if he found out that she got rid of the villains of the world.

Mary says that John would stop loving her - and John refuses to read the USB stick - because she killed, not just criminals, but also people who didn't deserve it. To me, that's very clear.
Excellent point. What do we think *would* cause John to stop loving Mary???? Speculation?

Shooting Sherlock did not do the trick, lying about her past almost did. I am guessing that it has less to do with the people she killed. Maybe it has to do with her former employers? Lying seems to be the crucial point (trust issues), so possibly something in that direction. The “Mary has been planted” theory might apply, as it would involve even more lying. Or a former involvement with e.g. Moriarty, there has been the notion that she could have been one of the snipers in TGG. If show-time=real time that could have been her last job under her old name. But then there is her not being English and apparently coming to England as Mary Morstan to hide. If you do not want to be recognized it would not make much sense to hide in the city where your former employer is based because he wants to play with a minor government official and a consulting detective. Also her “people like Magnussen should be killed that’s why there are peole like me” implies a moral compass that is likely incompatible with working for Moriarty. Anyway I would guess something that involves even more lies and hits quite close to home.

Lola Red · September 17, 2015 8:27 am

nakahara wrote:
mrshouse wrote:
*waving*
I love Sally! She's pretty and just awesome in all her nasty and mean attitude!!

To be fair to Sally (and formerly Anderson), nowhere but in Sherlock would objecting against an amateur with a history of drug abuse wandering around a crime scene without protective gear and stealing/withholding evidence qualify you for the “bad guy list”

nakahara · September 17, 2015 8:38 am

Lola Red wrote:
nakahara wrote:
mrshouse wrote:
*waving*
I love Sally! She's pretty and just awesome in all her nasty and mean attitude!!

To be fair to Sally (and formerly Anderson), nowhere but in Sherlock would objecting against an amateur with a history of drug abuse wandering around a crime scene without protective gear and stealing/withholding evidence qualify you for the “bad guy list”

Sally Donovan is not a bad guy, but she is definitely unpleasant (being nasty to John who has an obvious handicap immediately just because he appeared in Sherlock´s company, she is snarky about an old lady Moriarty kidnapped just because the elderly lady phones Sherlock) and jealous about Sherlock´s skills (she makes some nasty remarks about how he always let them down, althrough she has an evidence proving his skills right under her nose - the pink case she and her colleagues didn´t even know existed, until Sherlock pointed it out to them). And instead of centering on her cases and their result, she puts much greater effort to bring Sherlock down. Not very professional behaviour, IMHO.

nakahara · September 17, 2015 8:46 am

Plus, Sally acts in a strange way. For example, she takes part in a false drug bust with gusto althrough the drug bust is actually an attempt to bully Sherlock into helping her and Lestrade (doesn´t she actually want to avoid exactly this result)? So why does she complain about Sherlock tallying around crime-scenes then?