True she is unpleasant, but so is Sherlock (towards her). She is snarky, but so is he. She never attempts to bring him down in any way until she has a very good reason to believe he crossed the line (a reason so good even Lestrade has temporary doubts). Her comment about Sherlock letting Lestrade down seems to stem from experience (though I think rather personal ones that professional ones, as I believe that SIP in one of the first official cases that both Sherlock and Lestade work on together). I think the fact that she does not like him does not make her a bad copper. I think she is actually a good one, she just does not like Sherlock.

For her helping even though is means further involving Sherlock in the case: All of them (Sally, Anderson and Lestrade) are using Sherlock as an effective weapon against crime, though using him is actually unprofessional, they all care more about the results (getting criminal off the street) than the process (following police protocol). It is just that Sally (and formerly Anderson) do so reluctantly. But this is getting OT again.
 

No problem, I’ll rather wait and get something good
The thing about the laptop I don’t understand. Why was that even necessary? Mycroft sweeps in with a helicopter and a few snipers. If he says he acted because CAM got hold of his laptop he exposes Sherlock and himself. If he does not say it he could have done that any day of the week. Or was the problem that Appledore’s location was unknown (the laptop had a GPS) and he needed the location. Now that we know that the vaults were a mind palace, “Appledore” could have been a different location every day. But that is just something general that I don’t quite gat, not necessarily Mary-related (though it would explain why she, too, was attacking the office instead of CAM’s home base). Or did Mycroft just need prove that CAM was actually moving against him?
 
I agree with you that there are (at least) two levels to everything, though I think leaving Mary in was more useful as the initiator for the other shocking twists (Sherlock shooting someone, Sherlock being send into certain death, Moriarty’s return), than as a twist itself, at least for the casual viewers. I doubt many of them are as excited as the fans about Mary.
For the story-level: until now Sherlock we have not seen Sherlock working for someone with that dark a past. He might not be “one of the angles”, but he is “on the side of the angles”. I am not sure if he would have taken on the case of an (ex) assassin who wanted to avoid the consequences of her deeds without the sentimental connection. He takes down Irene quite harshly, though he does spare her life in the end, but also there, there was a sentimental attachment, hence the honourable title “the woman”.

I hope there is no plan with Mycroft. The brothers scheming behind John’s back to severely affect his personal life again would get a bit repetitive. But Mycroft’s lack of involvement does indeed point to him being involved in the background (does that make any sense?). Either that or TPTB have had an oversight of their own. Like you, I hope for some more clarity in S4. There are quite some possibilities for consequences, Mary being only one of them.

Last edited by Lola Red (September 17, 2015 10:38 am)

Lola Red wrote:

The thing about the laptop I don’t understand. Why was that even necessary? Mycroft sweeps in with a helicopter and a few snipers. If he says he acted because CAM got hold of his laptop he exposes Sherlock and himself. If he does not say it he could have done that any day of the week. Or was the problem that Appledore’s location was unknown (the laptop had a GPS) and he needed the location. Now that we know that the vaults were a mind palace, “Appledore” could have been a different location every day. But that is just something general that I don’t quite gat, not necessarily Mary-related (though it would explain why she, too, was attacking the office instead of CAM’s home base). Or did Mycroft just need prove that CAM was actually moving against him?

What do you mean? Mycroft might have known where Appledore was, I don't think that was a secret as that's CAM's residence (aside from his apartment in the city), but he needed proof that he blackmailed people through the information he owned (stole?) about them. Not knowing where the info was, Mycroft was forced to keep protecting CAM or have his/the government's secret information revealed. Obviously Sherlock then discovers that the info aren't physically anywhere so his plan can't work.
Is this what you were asking?
 

Lola Red wrote:

For the story-level: until now Sherlock we have not seen Sherlock working for someone with that dark a past. He might not be “one of the angles”, but he is “on the side of the angles”. I am not sure if he would have taken on the case of an (ex) assassin who wanted to avoid the consequences of her deeds without the sentimental connection. He takes down Irene quite harshly, though he does spare her life in the end, but also there, there was a sentimental attachment, hence the honourable title “the woman”.

But what if a client did what Mary did, and then told Sherlock he wanted to leave all that behind and do good in their life? Would Sherlock still refuse to help? I guess, probably, you're right. Sherlock could totally tell them to go do one and face the consequences of their shitty life choices, and he only helps Mary because he would do anything for John (and in fact, what Sherlock does is try to cover for Mary, destroy the evidence of her evil past, which we could argue is even illegal...)
So yeah, you could be right.

Lola Red wrote:

I hope there is no plan with Mycroft. The brothers scheming behind John’s back to severely affect his personal life again would get a bit repetitive. But Mycroft’s lack of involvement does indeed point to him being involved in the background (does that make any sense?). Either that or TPTB have had an oversight of their own. Like you, I hope for some more clarity in S4. There are quite some possibilities for consequences, Mary being only one of them.

I know, Mycroft&Sherlock in cahoots has been done before, and it'd be super awful of them to scheme behind John's back again. But honestly - Mycroft bloody kidnapped John and basically tried to terrorise him just because he saw him hanging out with his precious brother for like, half an hour. I find it difficult to believe that he's choosing not to  look out for Sherlock now? He's way too protective for that.
I want to think he is involved, but he's not only scheming with Sherlock but ALSO with John - sadly though, John's reactions don't lead me to believe he might be in in a plan (even his 'these are prepared words' announcement - if you had prepared words because you're following a plan, why would you say it out loud?!
 

General comments.

Even though we all long for S4 and some answers to the Mary situation, I have no doubt that the debate about her will continue just as strongly.  

When discussing a character and someone exclaims "OH I HATE THEM,"  my standard response is "You're supposed to.  That's what the writer's want."   

Although I will conceed that our writers have left much opent to speculation.

we should get back to topic.

Liberty wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

(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).
 

We certainly don't see Mary making any attempt to make any sort of resitution to Sherlock's family, after the pain and suffering she put them all through. Sherlock know that his action could result in a Death Sentence-- and he did it anyway...for John. 

Mary shot Sherlock to save her own derrierre. 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Liberty wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

 
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).
 

We certainly don't see Mary making any attempt to make any sort of resitution to Sherlock's family, after the pain and suffering she put them all through. Sherlock know that his action could result in a Death Sentence-- and he did it anyway...for John. 

Mary shot Sherlock to save her own derrierre. 

Neither do we see John making an attempt to make restitutions to the cabby’s children, nor Sherlock to CAM’s family, nor Mycroft to all those families that he left with an uneasy feeling about the death of their beloved. I think I fail to see the point you’re trying to make.

 

The problem is that three characters do similar acts and one of them gets understood and even defended for it, and the others do not.

It's not that Sherlock and John are worse than Mary, I don't think anyone on this forum believes this to be the case. At least I haven't read anything that points in that direction. It's more than everyone should be judged - or not judged - equally for similar flaws/actions/weaknesses.

 

Swanpride wrote:

It is btw a notion I don't agree with. Sherlock doesn't stick around to face "consequences", he does it to protect John, and eventually, he gets away with murder due to Mycroft influence. There is certainly no regret involved.

I would not call it exactly getting away with murder when Sherlock basically gets a death sentence. And by now we do not know if Mycroft is responsible for the Moriarty video or not. 
 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

Similar? How is shooting someone to save another life similar to shooting yours and your husband's best friend,  who is offering to help you, and your reason is so you can keep lying to your husband and protect your relationship? Other than than the fact that all three used a gun, I don't see them as similar at all. 
 

I was talking in general terms since you asked about why this is brought up "every time". For instance, Mary (and John) are being scolded by the fandom for being snarky in S3, whileas Sherlock has been snarky to John and everyone else in each and every episode from the beginning. So that's why I don't mind much at all about the snarkiness of any of them, they are all just as good (or bad) in that area.