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

SusiGo · February 23, 2016 8:03 am

Swanpride wrote:
I am not insulted that he killed her, but that he did it in half a sentences. The Death of Sherlock Holmes was a big even. The assumed demise of Mary Watson was just lazy writing imho.

Sherlock Holmes is the main character. He is absolutely central to Canon. We do not learn anything about Mrs Hudson either. True, Mary's death is sloppy writing, he could at least have mentioned an illness or accident in one sentence. But this does not give her any entitlement to be treated in any way equal to Holmes. She is a minor character, a plot device, if we like it or not. I really do not understand your indignation.

nakahara · February 23, 2016 8:05 am

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
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.

Very true. If John was the one shot, fans would move heaven and earth in outrage...

But it´s just Sherlock, so no big deal here. He´s a machine anyway.

Harriet · February 23, 2016 8:08 am

Harriet wrote:
I don't know and have no idea, only noticed it Sorry for getting OT

Ah, wrong thread, sorry, I got confused...

nakahara · February 23, 2016 8:21 am

besleybean wrote:
Mary has become a major character because that reflects the modern position of women.
The writers have made it clear they want their drama to have good, strong female characters.

The problem is that the more feministic the authors want to be, the more inherently repulsive characters they create...
There´s no strength and goodness in violent and treacherous acts, so if they aimed at making Mary sympathetic through her shooting of Sherlock, they failed... she is probably more interesting this way than if she was only a harmless Doctor´s wife, but... is that not the exact opposite of the point of feminism? The idea that a woman is worthless if she is a decent human being and only gets her worth if she becomes a ruthless, insensitive killer...

And I noticed the authors started to drag other female characters into this direction too. In TAB, the sweet, shy Molly was transformed into a killer as tough as nails.... but isn´t this besides the point? Weren´t people actually attracted to Molly because she was a normal, very civil person among these extraordinary characters in the first place - and so the female members of the audience could easily identify with her? But how do you identify with a character who kills people for sport?

SolarSystem · February 23, 2016 10:38 am

Just for the record: I don't hate Mary. Can we please get over all this haters-bullsh**...?

I simply have to disagree with anyone who calls Mary a "good strong female character". Because she is not. She is weak. She is too weak to tell John, her husband, the truth. She is too weak to face up to the consequences of her actions. She is looking for the easy way out. That's not strong, that's weak.
If I want to see strong female characters, I watch shows like "Broadchurch" or "Jessica Jones", I'm sorry to say. Especially JJ also deals with women who have a past, a dark past sometimes, but they aren't afraid to deal with the demons of their past. Mary, as far as we know right now, is not interested in facing her demons and just makes the decision to lie about them. Even to her husband.
Molly is a far more interesting character, imo, like nakahara already mentioned. She is strong because she deals with everything life is throwing at her. She is very normal, absolutely, but I think it's far more difficult to write interesting characters who aren't ex-CIA-or-whatever-agents... and in Molly's case I would say that Mofftiss did a fine writing job.

SusiGo · February 23, 2016 11:50 am

Swanpride wrote:
This aside, I do like what they did with her. I also don't think that the show is in any danger of losing the focus on Sherlock. To me her presence adds to his character, because it allows us to explore another aspect of it. And him being the main character is NO excuse for sloppy writing regarding her. It is possible to love the work of ACD and still pointing out his weaknesses.

Sloppy writing may be one of ACD's weaknesses but this has nothing to do with one special character. What about Lestrade? Mycroft? Moriarty? Mrs Hudson? Compared to what we get in Sherlock they are all merely sketches with one or two strong characteristics, if at all, and nothing else. And why? Because his focus was on Holmes and Watson alone. He did not write Mary any different because his stories were about Holmes and Watson and not about Watson's wife. I really have no idea why one should demand something from a work of fiction that it never set out to deliver in the first place.

British literature of the 19th century has given us many authors who wrote brilliant and many-sided female characters - Austen, Gaskell, the Brontë sisters, and many others. So why demand something from ACD that simply is not there and never was meant to be?

Liberty · February 23, 2016 12:18 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
I simply have to disagree with anyone who calls Mary a "good strong female character". Because she is not. She is weak. She is too weak to tell John, her husband, the truth. She is too weak to face up to the consequences of her actions. She is looking for the easy way out. That's not strong, that's weak.

I'm not sure about this. If she wanted to tell John, but couldn't find the courage to do it, then I suppose that could be seen as weakness. But I get the impression that she is quite determined not to tell John, and prepared to live with that secret (and even kill to keep the secret). She does face the consequences of her actions (she leaves Sherlock to deal with Magnussen while he's a risk to her, and waits to see if John is able to forgive her. It would have been safer for her to disappear.). As for handing herself into the police, I think it would risk exposing her identity, which would mean that she would again be at risk of being killed. It would not be in her interests, and I don't think it's something Sherlock or John would want her to do. So again, I don't think she's necessarily weak for not doing it.

nakahara · February 23, 2016 12:32 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Swanpride wrote:
This aside, I do like what they did with her. I also don't think that the show is in any danger of losing the focus on Sherlock. To me her presence adds to his character, because it allows us to explore another aspect of it. And him being the main character is NO excuse for sloppy writing regarding her. It is possible to love the work of ACD and still pointing out his weaknesses.

Sloppy writing may be one of ACD's weaknesses but this has nothing to do with one special character. What about Lestrade? Mycroft? Moriarty? Mrs Hudson? Compared to what we get in Sherlock they are all merely sketches with one or two strong characteristics, if at all, and nothing else. And why? Because his focus was on Holmes and Watson alone. He did not write Mary any different because his stories were about Holmes and Watson and not about Watson's wife. I really have no idea why one should demand something from a work of fiction that it never set out to deliver in the first place.

British literature of the 19th century has given us many authors who wrote brilliant and many-sided female characters - Austen, Gaskell, the Brontë sisters, and many others. So why demand something from ACD that simply is not there and never was meant to be?

If I may recommend some reading, this book by Doyle´s contemporary, Baroness Orczy, features one of the first female detectives ever. It´s quite amusing and because the heroine is female, readers can enjoy it without feeling opressed on behalf of any character:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks06/0602751h.html

nakahara · February 23, 2016 12:45 pm

And here´s another female detective - Violet Strange - written way before Sherlock Holmes was conceived:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/c00032.txt

Why centering on the author of predominantly "male" fiction, when you can freely choose from fictional female detectives?

SusiGo · February 23, 2016 12:56 pm

nakahara wrote:
And here´s another female detective - Violet Strange - written way before Sherlock Holmes was conceived:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/c00032.txt

Why centering on the author of predominantly "male" fiction, when you can freely choose from fictional female detectives?

This.

And thank you for the interesting links. I knew Baroness Orczy only as the creator of The Scarlet Pimpernel.

nakahara · February 23, 2016 1:03 pm

SusiGo wrote:
nakahara wrote:
And here´s another female detective - Violet Strange - written way before Sherlock Holmes was conceived:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/c00032.txt

Why centering on the author of predominantly "male" fiction, when you can freely choose from fictional female detectives?
This.

And thank you for the interesting links. I knew Baroness Orczy only as the creator of The Scarlet Pimpernel.

She also created "The Old Man in a Corner", one of the first "armchair detectives" (I consider Mycroft to be the first one, hehehe).

nakahara · February 23, 2016 1:05 pm

Swanpride wrote:
And I am honestly surprised which direction this discussion just took. My blog is as a general rule very positive. It is about praising improvements and not about ranting how unfair the world is. But in order to praise improvements, I have to point out what exactly was improved upon. Female representation in the media is a topic which has to be discussed, for various reasons. You don't have to agree. But basically telling me "why are you even discussing this?" - wow. I am actually not sure what to say about that.

I just tried to point your attention to the female Victorian detectives in belief you may find them interesting to explore. But of course, if you don´t want them, let them be...

besleybean · February 23, 2016 4:49 pm

Victorian female detectives, modern female detectives...I'm happy with them all.
Go, Mary!

Mothonthemantel · February 24, 2016 12:42 am

Swanpride. Perhaps you should give Doyle a break and consider his Stoneyhurst / Jesuite upbringing. Over a decade of indoctrination must of had an effect.

besleybean · February 24, 2016 6:48 am

Well at least the BBC team try and correct those errors!

RavenMorganLeigh · February 24, 2016 7:07 am

The problem is that when it comes to sticking up for Mary because she's female and automatically that makes her a feminist character---

--is that she isn't a feminist character. She's not Good. She's not strong. She has NO integrity. She's ruthless and cruel-- but that isn't the same thing as Strong Female Character. She's not a Feminist Role Model. She's not even a well-developed, nuanced character-- I can find more of that in Megan Follows' performance of Catherine De Medici in Reign, for crying out loud!

Or Xena. Lagertha from the Vikings. Olivia Benson from Law and Order SVU. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Dana Scully from the X-Files. There are hundreds and hundreds of those elusive Strong Female Characters. They exist! They're not that hard to find!

Why are we trying so hard to make Mary a Feminist Role Model TM, and at the same time-- June Cleaver with Assassin Tools?

I don't get it.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 24, 2016 7:07 am)

besleybean · February 24, 2016 7:09 am

I'm actually not that interested in Mary carrying the banner of feminism and don't really see why she has to.
I just like her.

Liberty · February 24, 2016 7:24 am

No, I'd hate if every character Moftiss wrote had to be a "feminist role model", just because they were female!

Mary in ACD is fine, but features heavily in one story, then more or less disappears. She's a client in a case rather than an ongoing character.

SusiGo · February 24, 2016 8:06 am

Exactly, Liberty. And I see no problem in that. ACD clearly did not wish to write in detail about Watson's wife because she was not the focus of his stories. She is a minor character, maybe even a plot device who was employed to end the "domestic bliss" of Holmes and Watson because in these days men were expected to marry. And we should not forget that ACD never meant to continue Holmes as long as he finally did. He wanted to kill him off. Had he died at Reichenbach, no one would have cared what happened to Mrs Watson. Only when CD re-introduced the domestic arrangements at 221B, Mrs Watson had to go. Not the best way to do it but nothing I would hold against him.

nakahara · February 24, 2016 8:49 am

SusiGo wrote:
Exactly, Liberty. And I see no problem in that. ACD clearly did not wish to write in detail about Watson's wife because she was not the focus of his stories. She is a minor character, maybe even a plot device who was employed to end the "domestic bliss" of Holmes and Watson because in these days men were expected to marry. And we should not forget that ACD never meant to continue Holmes as long as he finally did. He wanted to kill him off. Had he died at Reichenbach, no one would have cared what happened to Mrs Watson. Only when CD re-introduced the domestic arrangements at 221B, Mrs Watson had to go. Not the best way to do it but nothing I would hold against him.

I agree and I want to add that Doyle has written the Sherlock Holmes series for so long, that both his heroes and their surroundings became almost an anachronism by the time he wrote their last adventure. Society, technique, even the very London changed so much they were practically unrecognisable from the world described in Study in Scarlett.

It may happen that you make continuity mistakes when you write your story from week to week. How much easier it is to make such mistakes when you write your stories in a time-span of almost 40 years?

Also, Doyle written his stories in a entirely new genre. Detective stories didn´t exist before. What existed were "mystery novels" where some mystery or crime appeared, but the focus was not entirely on this aspect of the story, writers described familiar and societal background of their characters in a high detail. The good example of such novels are Wilkie Collins novels, for example "Woman in White" or "The Moonstone":

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/c00061.txt

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/c00052.txt

Detective story, of which Doyle was one of the pioneers, changed that and made the mystery and crime the main feature of his storytelling. That´s why the background information on his characters may be sloppy - it was not a main goal of this new type of story to bore the readers with these details, because it centered on the problem and its solution, not on the human relationships and the like. This was the aim of an author, so it can hardly be considered a mistake when it was deliberate.