Offline
And, by the way-- if Moriarty *is* responsible-- well that means Sherlock has a nightmare to live-- again. Two years of work, torture, and losing everything... down the tubes. I somehow don't think he's looking at Moriarty being back as a fun thing... What's he going to lose this time?
Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 17, 2015 8:09 pm)
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
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.
I brought it up, because it's an effective strategy, and often used. Look at this thread! To overcome criticism of John or Mary, attack Sherlock, and put the critcizer on the defensive.
Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (September 17, 2015 8:12 pm)
Offline
Dorothy83 wrote:
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?
I guess I’m just asking: Why did Mycroft go through all this trouble? Appledore is quite big, so Mycroft should have been aware of its existence. He knew how CAM worked; he had used him for his own purposes (“occasionally useful to us”). The longer I think about it, the more I think that he was verifying that he had been placed at the receiving end of a pressure point chain. He actually completed it. I will have to elaborate a bit. I have been wondering, how could the troubles of the wife of a friend of his little brother threaten Mycroft? I think, just left as it is, it wouldn’t, it would still be too far from home. But if the wife could be lured into doing something foolish, let’s say reveal her assassin identity to Sherlock, what would happen? Sherlock would not abandon her, not John Watson’s wife. He would move to protect her and hence, he will do something foolish, say delivering state secrets in exchange for information about Mary. What would happen then? Mycroft would not abandon him, not his baby brother. He would sweep in with full power, trying to get his brother out unharmed. Now Mycroft would have to make a deal. You own John Watson’s wife, you own Mycroft. But Mycroft is the smartest known person alive. He saw through that scheme and was likely not amused. Rather than struggling against it, he completed the chain and came prepared to take CAM down, only Sherlock was faster.
Dorothy83 wrote:
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?!
I agree that Mycroft's usually overbearing protectiveness of his baby brother is in sharp contrast with his lack of interest in the whole Mary affair. Which is why I believe that he is involved in some way (or at least that is something I want to believe), I just hope that he does is independent of Sherlock. Sherlock once again not involving John in plans that will alter the cause of his life (however good his reasons) might destroy the friendship for good. And unless John has brushed up on his acting skills, I cannot see him caring out a secret plan. He has to live with Mary, they are working together, he would have to play his part 24/7.
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I brought it up, because it's an effective strategy, and often used. Look at this thread! To overcome criticism of John or Mary, attack Sherlock, and put the critcizer on the defensive.
That's not why I use it. I use it because I want criticism to be equal for everyone.
Last edited by Vhanja (September 17, 2015 8:13 pm)
Offline
Lola Red wrote:
Dorothy83 wrote:
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?I guess I’m just asking: Why did Mycroft go through all this trouble? Appledore is quite big, so Mycroft should have been aware of its existence. He knew how CAM worked; he had used him for his own purposes (“occasionally useful to us”). The longer I think about it, the more I think that he was verifying that he had been placed at the receiving end of a pressure point chain. He actually completed it. I will have to elaborate a bit. I have been wondering, how could the troubles of the wife of a friend of his little brother threaten Mycroft? I think, just left as it is, it wouldn’t, it would still be too far from home. But if the wife could be lured into doing something foolish, let’s say reveal her assassin identity to Sherlock, what would happen? Sherlock would not abandon her, not John Watson’s wife. He would move to protect her and hence, he will do something foolish, say delivering state secrets in exchange for information about Mary. What would happen then? Mycroft would not abandon him, not his baby brother. He would sweep in with full power, trying to get his brother out unharmed. Now Mycroft would have to make a deal. You own John Watson’s wife, you own Mycroft. But Mycroft is the smartest known person alive. He saw through that scheme and was likely not amused. Rather than struggling against it, he completed the chain and came prepared to take CAM down, only Sherlock was faster.
Dorothy83 wrote:
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?!
I agree that Mycroft's usually overbearing protectiveness of his baby brother is in sharp contrast with his lack of interest in the whole Mary affair. Which is why I believe that he is involved in some way (or at least that is something I want to believe), I just hope that he does is independent of Sherlock. Sherlock once again not involving John in plans that will alter the cause of his life (however good his reasons) might destroy the friendship for good. And unless John has brushed up on his acting skills, I cannot see him caring out a secret plan. He has to live with Mary, they are working together, he would have to play his part 24/7.
I concur, and we should remember that John-- in order to be convincing would need to perform his husbandly duties with Mary-- sleep with her. How's he going to do that, if he's just playing a part? Or do we really beleive that John is just that underhanded?
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I concur, and we should remember that John-- in order to be convincing would need to perform his husbandly duties with Mary-- sleep with her. How's he going to do that, if he's just playing a part? Or do we really beleive that John is just that underhanded?
Well, he is "Three Continents Watson" after all.
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I brought it up, because it's an effective strategy, and often used. Look at this thread! To overcome criticism of John or Mary, attack Sherlock, and put the critcizer on the defensive.
That's not why I use it. I use it because I want criticism to be equal for everyone.
The thing is-- you're doing it in a thread about Mary-- the Subject of Discussion. It's like if I went over to the What I Love About Mary thread, and started attacking her by comparing all of her actions to Sherlock and John's. Because, I too-- want a balanced look at the characters. I suspect that it would not be well recieved.
On the other hand.. I may just need more coffeeeeeeeeeeee......
Offline
Vhanja wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I concur, and we should remember that John-- in order to be convincing would need to perform his husbandly duties with Mary-- sleep with her. How's he going to do that, if he's just playing a part? Or do we really beleive that John is just that underhanded?
Well, he is "Three Continents Watson" after all.
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
The thing is-- you're doing it in a thread about Mary-- the Subject of Discussion. It's like if I went over to the What I Love About Mary thread, and started attacking her by comparing all of her actions to Sherlock and John's. Because, I too-- want a balanced look at the characters. I suspect that it would not be well recieved.
On the other hand.. I may just need more coffeeeeeeeeeeee......
I'm doing it when I read that a character (usually Mary or John) gets criticised for things that I know others (usually Sherlock) receives understanding for. For instance, the snarky bit. That is to me unfair. If I had seen the criticism for the similar acts go out to everyone, then I wouldn't mind one bit.
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
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.
How is it that every single time we discuss Mary and her transgressions-- the conversation always, always turns to how much worse Sherlock and John are than Mary-- or John and Sherlock did this, this, and this-- so this doesn't apply to Mary--
My point was a rebuttal to the earlier comment about taking responsibilty. Actually, by the logic outlined above-- Sherlock is the only one who took full responsibility-- he was flying off to his death. He accepted his punishment.
You're right, John did not. Maybe that means he and Mary deserve each other.
We're talking about different motivations for killing, as well. Mycroft does everything he does for Queen and Country, at least as far as we know. John shot the cabbie to save Sherlock's life. Sherlock shot CAM to save Mary's life-- for John. Mary shot Sherlock because she wanted to be able to keep lying to John about who she was for the forseeable future-- for the rest of their lives. There's a big difference there.
I'm not sure it's completely fair or accurate to lump them all together in this way-- it's taking a lot out of context and warping it to fit a Mary Positive reading. It's like moms fighting over their kids, and each one is going, "Well, your child did this, this and THIS! He's the bad one. Mine is an angel!"
Interesting how this got such a defensive reaction, not necessary, I was just trying to understand the point you were trying to make. I am not really Mary positive, merely trying to come to a point where I can come up with a scenario where I can get why she does the things she does (which is btw something else than agreeing with them), it is only by comparison that that seems overly positive. See, the point for me is the following. I try to understand how others interpret a character’s actions, to see if there is anything in there that can help me with my own understanding with the same character. Sometimes that happens by agreement, sometimes by sharp contrast, both is equally valuable to me. One of the things that I find interesting is why some actions/or lack thereof in one character trigger a very outspoken response in some people, while a similar (but not identical) action in another character is barely mentioned. It is not that criticism of that action is invalid, but why do some things seem to be much more important in some characters than in others? That is something I would like to understand.
Last edited by Lola Red (September 17, 2015 8:51 pm)
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
I brought it up, because it's an effective strategy, and often used. Look at this thread! To overcome criticism of John or Mary, attack Sherlock, and put the critcizer on the defensive.
That's not why I use it. I use it because I want criticism to be equal for everyone.
The thing is-- you're doing it in a thread about Mary-- the Subject of Discussion. It's like if I went over to the What I Love About Mary thread, and started attacking her by comparing all of her actions to Sherlock and John's. Because, I too-- want a balanced look at the characters. I suspect that it would not be well recieved.
On the other hand.. I may just need more coffeeeeeeeeeeee......
Character discussion can (and should) be both positive and negative, otherwise it ends up being character bashing (or character glorification). But if you'd like to give us your comprehensive view of Mary, I'd be very interested.
Also, more coffee is always better…true story.
Last edited by Lola Red (September 17, 2015 9:09 pm)
Offline
Lola Red wrote:
Character discussion can (and should) be both positive and negative, otherwise it ends up being character bashing. .
I very much agree with this. So I think the reason I personally becomes a bit defensive is not that I want to defend everything Mary or John have done. And it's certainly not that I think Sherlock is worse than them - Sherlock is the most interesting, awesome (and hot!) character I've seen on televion in years!
It's the combination of a) similar actions being judged differently depending on who does it and b) character discussion of some characters being mostly (if not all) negative. That combination is what makes me defensive. It's like a pendulum. I dislike black and white, I love the grey. Also when discussing characters, I want to discuss all of their sides, not just the negatives.
And, yes. Coffee is never wrong. Coffe is to me like tea is to an Englishman.
Last edited by Vhanja (September 17, 2015 8:52 pm)
Offline
Is this still about the snarky bit? Or what else gets judged differently depending on who´s doing it? Shooting people? (I am a bit at a loss to be honest.)
If it is I have thoughts on it, but first I want to make sure what it is we´re talking about..
I think the discussion is not unfair or overly one-sided, there are always people who present different aspects of her actions and possible motivations. Personally it helps me to perceive different shades of grey (omg..) in a character I would really love to be pitch-black..
Offline
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
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.
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.
Sorry, just got back on here, and wanted to say - thank you Raven. How can we even compare the situations?? Yes the cabbie's children didn't have any fault and shouldn't have lost their dad but the cabbie was a murderer. Yes CAM's family didn't have fault and shouldn't have lost a member of their family but CAM was a blackmailer and bully who drove his victims to suicide.
How do they even compare to Sherlock?? He didn't do anything of the sort and compared to them he was indeed an angel!
Last edited by Dorothy83 (September 17, 2015 10:03 pm)
Offline
Dorothy83 wrote:
RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Vhanja wrote:
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.
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.
Sorry, just got back on here, and wanted to say - thank you Raven. How can we even compare the situations?? Yes the cabbie's children didn't have any fault and shouldn't have lost their dad but the cabbie was a murderer. Yes CAM's family didn't have fault and shouldn't have lost a member of their family but CAM was a blackmailer and bully who drove his victims to suicide.
How do they even compare to Sherlock?? He didn't do anything of the sort and compared to them he was indeed an angel!
Thanks-- the point I was trying to make was that motivation matters.
Offline
Lola Red wrote:
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.
We do not, indeed.
Still, in John´s case, we see his behaviour around a dead victim of the cabbie in ASIP and the expression on his face: his compassion and regret being mirrored there. This and the fact that we witness John shooting the cabbie in a situation when Sherlock´s life is in danger results in an impression that John is a goodhearted, compassionate man, althrough hardened by the battle on surface.
In Sherlock´s case, we witness his utter devastation in Appledore, the desperation being written into his face, the nasty humiliation of John in CAM´s hands and the threats to Mycroft and Mary before we see him shooting CAM. Once again, it´s hard to judge him when it is obvious that it was the sheer abyss of his hopelessness and desperation what put gun into his hand.
Because of the way HLV is structured, we lack such things with Mary - her previous behaviour could have been a facade and the cold, controlled killer we witness in CAM´s office doesn´t give us any emotional scene before she shoots Sherlock. She shoots Sherlock when he offers help, she thraetens him again in hospital and again in "the empty house", she remains unmoved when he collapses and bleeds in Baker Street... the only occassion when she cries is motivated by her self-regret, not the regret that she hurt a friend and put his family and her husband through hell....
Plus, Sherlock and John are never put to the test - they never meet cabbie´s or CAM´s family, so we don´t know how would they react if that happened. But Mary IS put into such situation, she meets Sherlock´s parents and is their guest even - still, we never see a shred of regret in her behaviour then.
It´s things like these that make the difference between Sherlock, John and Mary. Untill the show itself gives us something akin to real sympathy and regret from Mary´s side, she will and remain the cold hearted psychopatic killer and the attemps to paint her white will remain just headcanons.
Offline
Zatoichi wrote:
Is this still about the snarky bit? Or what else gets judged differently depending on who´s doing it? Shooting people? (I am a bit at a loss to be honest.)
If it is I have thoughts on it, but first I want to make sure what it is we´re talking about..
It's about the snarky bit, the shooting, the avoiding punishment, the lack of remorse for one's actions, the lack of empathy, and everything else that you can think of that would bother some more in some characters and less in others. Is it just something of how the character is overall perceived? So if a character I like does something wrong or questionable, I will forgive him/her, but if I don’t like the character I won’t? Or is it about the complete picture (in that case I encourage everyone who usually joins with one-liners to give their comprehensive view, I would really like to read what everyone thinks)?
Zatoichi wrote:
I think the discussion is not unfair or overly one-sided, there are always people who present different aspects of her actions and possible motivations. Personally it helps me to perceive different shades of grey (omg..) in a character I would really love to be pitch-black..
lovely to read. that is exactly what I am also getting out of this discussion, different aspects to compliment the ones I have found for myself.
Offline
nakahara wrote:
Lola Red wrote:
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.
We do not, indeed.
Still, in John´s case, we see his behaviour around a dead victim of the cabbie in ASIP and the expression on his face: his compassion and regret being mirrored there. This and the fact that we witness John shooting the cabbie in a situation when Sherlock´s life is in danger results in an impression that John is a goodhearted, compassionate man, althrough hardened by the battle on surface.
In Sherlock´s case, we witness his utter devastation in Appledore, the desperation being written into his face, the nasty humiliation of John in CAM´s hands and the threats to Mycroft and Mary before we see him shooting CAM. Once again, it´s hard to judge him when it is obvious that it was the sheer abyss of his hopelessness and desperation what put gun into his hand.
Because of the way HLV is structured, we lack such things with Mary - her previous behaviour could have been a facade and the cold, controlled killer we witness in CAM´s office doesn´t give us any emotional scene before she shoots Sherlock. She shoots Sherlock when he offers help, she thraetens him again in hospital and again in "the empty house", she remains unmoved when he collapses and bleeds in Baker Street... the only occassion when she cries is motivated by her self-regret, not the regret that she hurt a friend and put his family and her husband through hell....
Plus, Sherlock and John are never put to the test - they never meet cabbie´s or CAM´s family, so we don´t know how would they react if that happened. But Mary IS put into such situation, she meets Sherlock´s parents and is their guest even - still, we never see a shred of regret in her behaviour then.
It´s things like these that make the difference between Sherlock, John and Mary. Untill the show itself gives us something akin to real sympathy and regret from Mary´s side, she will and remain the cold hearted psychopatic killer and the attemps to paint her white will remain just headcanons.
Thank you for your elaborate response. I will not go too into my views of John and Sherlock in those scenes as that would lead us off-topic again, but I have a question: How is it that any attempts to understand why Mary did what she did (which btw is different from painting her white, she is still a dark shade of grey, but instead of a “cold hearted psychopathic killer” she is a “loving friend and wife and (ex-) assassin who has lied about her past and shot her good friend Sherlock in an attempt to keep it concealed”) is head canon, while disregarding everything we see on screen before HLV and parts of what we see during is a accurate representation of the facts? I would say either head canon is allowed for everyone. I have no problem if it is treated as such, but then please also for everyone, not just for those we disagree with.
Offline
May I mention as an aside: it might help to follow the discussion much easier if there were not hole books quoted.... I get that it's for making clear who we answer to, but the "readability"....
It's a pity that the discussion gets lost in comparing the moral standards of deeds done by different characters. I have trouble with comparing Sherlock,John and Mary. With the former I had three seasons now as main characters, so they had much more time and space to grow on me, albeit being grey and flawed. Why compare this with a character I have barely got to know in one season? She's not a main character, she's "Mary sued" in every facet, and at the end of HLV I'm left back knowing nothing. That's not comparable to start with IMHO.
Offline
Lola Red wrote:
How is it that any attempts to understand why Mary did what she did (which btw is different from painting her white, she is still a dark shade of grey, but instead of a “cold hearted psychopathic killer” she is a “loving friend and wife and (ex-) assassin who has lied about her past and shot her good friend Sherlock in an attempt to keep it concealed”) is head canon, while disregarding everything we see on screen before HLV and parts of what we see during is a accurate representation of the facts? I would say either head canon is allowed for everyone. I have no problem if it is treated as such, but then please also for everyone, not just for those we disagree with.
Well, an official authority, that is Amanda Abbington herself, declared Mary a psychopath not that long ago. Plus, we witnessed her emotioneless, calculating behaviour right there on the sceen.
I already pointed out that everything we saw on the sceen before HLV could be an act or a facade from Mary´s side. Show is deliberately ambivalent here in the manner that never occured with Sherlock or John. So until we get more data on Mary in S4, the outlooks on Mary (that she is a loving friend or wife, that she loves John and likes Sherlock, that she has a heart of gold etc.) will remain headcanons, because they are not supported by sufficient evidence yet. But of course, it may happen that they will be all validated in S4. Because of the deliberate ambivalence, the writers have numerous possibilities where to lead her character next....