Very interesting, how Mary´s name can be explained:

http://recentlyfolded.tumblr.com/post/137972947885/thememacat-according-to-the-urban-dictionary-a

Though of course the pattern only becomes apparent when we  are given the complete picture.

Literally bursting with glee:

Last edited by nakahara (February 4, 2016 12:45 pm)

Neither can I. And this is how Sherlock sees her in his mind. So much for the wonderful friendship. 

Swanpride wrote:

I am currently writing a series about the female Sherlock Holmes characters and naturally I discussed Mary, too: https://swanpride.wordpress.com/2016/02/20/honoring-the-heroine-mary-morstan/

 

I read this with interest. It is an ingenious idea to honour the women of Sherlock in the series of articles. I hope you will not be dismayed or insulted if I will discuss some of the points you made in this article – it is not my intention to troll, merely to compare opinions.
 
I found it a bit surprising that you called Doyle´s treatment of Mary Morstan a mess and declared her a „writing opportunity“. Isn´t this a bit unfair? Doyle centered on mystery and adventure in his stories, it was not his intent to write psychological treatises. If you check his writing, he even leaves his two main characters, Sherlock and John, very mysteious and doesn´t speak about them much? Why would he loose his time on the side-character who was only truly relevant for one of his stories? It´s like declaring „Jane Eyre“ a mess, because it did not spend more words on Mr. Brocklehurst, his past and his eventual fate. But wasting time on Mr. Brocklehurst would be quite besides the point in the story about a female heroine, wouldn´t it?
 
Of course, Mary´s character can be examined more closely – that´s what pastiches are for. But why complaining about an original author? He couldn´t humanly manage to please the taste of every human reading his short stories anyway…
 
I find it very strange that for so many people, Mary gains weight as a character and is praised for shooting a helpless and friendly person dead. People often compare her deed with Sherlock shooting Magnussen (or John shooting the cabbie) but that is only possible if one completely disregards the context of all three situations, IMHO. Personally, I don´t find these situations similar at all, they were coming from very different motivations. But even if one accepts all three as same violent deeds, one thing is still different – Sherlock was never praised for shooting Magnussen. Most fans bemoaned the fact that their hero, the great thinker and a brilliant mind, was reduced to a bully who can only solve his problems through violence… others pointed out that Sherlock screwed up the whole case and his shooting of Magnussen was a big failure. Sherlock´s violent deed was regarded as a thing that bared his flaws and his weakness to the world.
 
But with Mary it´s another story. Mary is admired for the same violence as if it was something empowering that she shot her friend. Which, for me, is quite incomprehensible and in my opinion, it goes even against the basic human psychology.
 
Greek author, Aeschylus, faced a similar problem while writing Oresteia. How to make an apology of his hero who avenged the murder of his father by killing his own mother? Aeschylus tried to do it by inventing an ideological spin-off: according to him, only a father is a true parent of a child. Mother is only an empty vessel who carries the child for a while, but she does not give it life…
 
But for all his effort, no person actually bought this ideology. The bond between the person and his/her mother is something given by the nature from the time immemorial and as such, it surpasses every ideology… you simply cannot twist the basic feelings of a human being that way, it will always ring false.
 
And this is precisely the core of „Mary-shooting-Sherlock“ problem. You simply don´t shoot friends offering you help for such a flimsy reason the authors offered to us. This goes against the basic morality that people universally share, no matter what place on the planet they live and what religion or philosophy they believe in. If you feel friendliness towards the person, you simply can´t hurt them that way… this will always be a false note in this song, no matter how much we will force ourselves to think otherwise.
 
Also, I noticed that such an apology of Mary often comes hand in hand with denying Sherlock his humanity.
 
John´s injury is treated with a due importance in the story. It is emphasised how it makes his life miserable even after it was healed. How it continues to hurt, how it psychosomatically tortures John… John is human and suffers as a human.
 
I noticed Mary´s apologists never give the same treatment to an injury Mary caused to Sherlock. They behave as if Sherlock was a piece of wood – even if you stick knife into him, it is not supposed to really harm him…
 
Sherlock´s injury would to some extent cripple him for life. He would never again sleep, wake up or do any strenuous activity without feeling pain in his chest. The scar from an operation would heal very slowly and would continue to make his life miserable every minute of the rest of his life. He could also develop complications that would shorten his life and could die prematurely because of this injury…
 
And all this torment would belong to him for what? That he offered help to this „heroine“? That just can´t be right…. Yet people continue to pretend Sherlock´s pain and torturous torment are entirely forgettable.
 
Bringing the argument that „Sherlock treated Janine badly“ in this context is… weird, TBH. On the level of nastiness shooting stands far above any lie or false promises Sherlock gave to Janine…
 
So even after reading your article, I stand puzzled over these points, I confess… 

So you call as good as killing Sherlock "a slight slip"? And where is she shown as a good ally after that? Because of a hug? 
 

Harriet wrote:

I wonder why Swanpride deleted her post?

Did she get insulted?
I tried to make make my post in a most non-confrontative way possible, but one can never know... 

Swanpride wrote:

???? I deleted nothing....The post about Mary is still there, as is the link I posted in the other threat because, yes, I wanted to avoid starting another controversy here. I mostly wasn't in a mood for another discussion about the moral implications of her actions and her motivations, when the actual point of my article was the fact that Mary if a character worth exploring, even though ACD himself never did. If not for herself, than for the impact she has on the relationship of Sherlock and John. Sherlock leaving the wedding alone, him having to deal with John no longer living in Baker Street, aren't those some of the best moments of season 3? AO3 is FULL of angsty stories about Sherlock, but when the show runners add a little bit of angst to the show, we get all angry? Why? The fluffy moments would become very boring very fast if not for the dramatic ones in-between.

Angry? No one is angry here... I was just wondering over your claim that Mary´s shooting of Sherlock somehow made her more than a plot device. I was mostly responding to that.

Swanpride wrote:

Concerning missed writing opportunities: I think it is quite of insulting how Mary Morstan is removed from canon in half a sentences. ACD didn't even have the decency to elaborate how exactly Watson's "sad bereftment" had come to pass, or that it refers to Mary. Considering that Sign of Four is above all a romance (it really is, with all the tragic "Watson is too honourable no to search for the treasure with all his might, even though it will put Mary out of his reach forever" paired with Mary's "rich? I don't want to be rich, I want to be happy with this man"), I think he should have at least mentioned what actually happened to her. Even better would have been to make her loss the topic of a story. It is a disregard for her character which always bothered me. Though the fact that Watson is suddenly married again in later stories bothers me even more. It adds insult to injury.

I love ACD stories, but his continuity is a mess, especially when it comes to when John is married and when he isn't.

I find it a bit strange that you feel so insulted over her.
Do you realise ACD even killed Sherlock Holmes, his main character, with glee? Why would he pay more attention to his side characters, if he even got rid of his hero so easily?

I have to say this: I really resent that Mary has become a major character on the show. She wasn't meant to be, but somehow she's actually become more important in some ways than even Sherlock! 
I also think that the show's writers have primed the audience to be sympathetic to Mary and John, while usually thinking the absolute worst of Sherlock, and taking injuries to him very lightly. Imagine how fandom would obsess , if John had been the one betrayed, shot and nearly killed. There would be absolutely no sympathy for whoever shot him. None.

Err... but how is being a psychopath a "good, strong, female character"????

How is shooting the friend who planned your wedding, who your husband grieved over for two years-- because you don't want your husband to know about your murderous past-- how is that a "good, strong, female character"? Do women have to be harsh and cruel and ruthless to be considered strong? 

Just-- get over her shooting Sherlock? 
 Because that's not important??????

One other thing-- okay. If we're to now accept Mary as a Major Character-- one of the Team, and according to Canon, she's smarter than all of the guys on the show-- the guys are "bumbling amatuers"--  and we're to accept that John really adores Mary--  what is the point of a show called "Sherlock"? Why not just make it the Molly and Mary show, as Amanda Abbington suggests? Or give her her own show? 

As for Sherlock-- quite frankly, if Mary's totally forgiven-- I don't want her anywhere near Sherlock-- and, as much as it kills me to say so-- John, either, if he's decided to stay with her. Why-- because of his ties to Mary, Sherlock can't ever really trust John again. :-(

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 23, 2016 8:01 am)