BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Clues that Mary is Birdy Edwards & Valley of Fear will adapted for s4

Harriet · February 27, 2016 6:18 pm

True, you find it funny - I call it cheap and I expect an apology from you.

besleybean · February 27, 2016 6:27 pm

Well I don't think you'll be getting one.
I wasn't insulting anybody about anything.
It is common English parlance to say something on the lines of " Well if You haven't read any Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes-and if you haven't, why the heck not(laughter)..."
My comment was just a version of.
Do we all have to type in set cliches all the time?
I make allowances for other peoples styles all of the time.
It's called being in a community.

Last edited by besleybean (February 27, 2016 6:27 pm)

Harriet · February 27, 2016 6:32 pm

Ah, there goes some famous English politeness! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

besleybean · February 27, 2016 6:45 pm

I say again: I wasn't insulting anybody about anything.
However, you calling my joke 'cheap' is a direct insult.
So rather than my offering an apology, perhaps it should be the other way around.

Harriet · February 27, 2016 6:47 pm

ukaunz wrote:
Reading back over the relevant parts of the story, it seems that Mrs Douglas knew/guessed something of her husband's past, but not everything. I think she and Barker were given a very quick explanation after the shooting, and only then did she conspire with Barker to hide Douglas from the Scowrers and the police.

I'll have to think more on your other points... but anyway, Moftiss don't always follow canon exactly to the letter.

ukaunz, I'm curious how this thread will continue. I'm sorry, I just had to get rid of this.
Now, Birdy Edwards, what a poetic name! Is Mary him?

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 12:32 am

My brain was working on this theory while I was asleep, I think. I'm not even sure I can make any sense of what I came up with. It's all a bit of a jumble, sorry.

I was thinking about how Sir Eustace has kind of similar elements to Douglas from The Valley of Fear. He spent some time in America where he made an enemy of Emilia Ricoletti. His wife, Lady Carmichael, supposedly didn't know of his past. He receives a warning of danger in the form of five orange pips. He is pursued (and killed) by a secret society. A message is left on his body (in VoF a card is left by the body with "V V" written on it). Obviously TAB goes a bit loopy from the moment Sherlock finds the message "Miss Me?" on Sir Eustace's body, but the story goes on and we reach the scene in the crypt with Sherlock deducing who is behind it all, and he thinks it is Lady Carmichael. But instead Moriarty steps out in the bride's costume. In VoF, Moriarty is behind Douglas' eventual death. Anyway, this is a bit of a stretch and largely irrelevant to whether Mary=Birdy, I'm just wondering if Moftiss have used some elements of VoF in TAB.

If Mary is meant to be Birdy Edwards/Douglas/McMurdo, then she could be hiding from a criminal gang which she was part of but then escaped to start a new life. CAM threatens her exposure (think of that wedding telegram – is her "family" that he mentions actually the criminal gang that he is threatening to give her up to?). Sherlock disposes of CAM, Mary thinks she is safe. Then the "Did you miss me?" message is broadcast, and Mary seems a bit confused and worried (she's a good actress, she could be hiding her real distress well) and says "But he's dead. I mean, you told me he was dead." Someone else has risen up to take Moriarty's place, perhaps Moriarty's second in command who can takeover the consulting criminal business. This new criminal mastermind could still be a threat to Mary, if her old gang contracts the new "Moriarty" to kill her, which means the VoF story hasn't really started yet. The "consequences" that Moftiss talk about would be Mary's past finally catching up with her.

Last edited by ukaunz (February 28, 2016 12:47 am)

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 12:49 am

I've also read a clever meta that the Waters Gang from TSOT is Mary's "family." We never do see their faces properly... Perhaps we'll be seeing more of them in s4.

Last edited by ukaunz (February 28, 2016 12:52 am)

besleybean · February 28, 2016 8:29 am

Not entirely certain why Mary would want to be involved with burglars...

ukaunz · February 28, 2016 8:38 am

It could be a reference to The Sign of Four, in which Mary Morstan's father is involved in the theft of stolen treasure from Agra, India.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 8:40 am

I am also about to reread The Sign of Four...revisiting my first ever Sherlock Holmes.

Ivy · February 28, 2016 11:19 am

besleybean wrote:
Yes I really hate telling people they need to read the Canon.
Obviously people can please themselves and maybe for some bizarre reason if you are some kind of alien(tee hee)- the stories may just not be your thing!
Ha, only joking.
Seriously, I honestly don't care what people read!
But seriously, I do feel you get so much more out of BBC Sherlock, if you do know your canon.
Mark and Steven take so much from it and they fairly faithfully recreate it, albeit in a modern setting.

I don't want to rule out that I'd enjoy reading it. When I'll read it one day I'll get back to you. At the moment I've so many books on my list and so little time.
For me Sherlock Holmes is Benedict now, I don't need another version of him for now, even it's the original. But I do enjoy following your discussion about what stories Mofftiss used or will use as inspiration for upcoming episodes.

Crime or dedective story are in general not my first choice to read, I'm weary of crimes, I feel confronted with it too much in real life via news and such already. But I do watch some series because I like the actor or the character. It took me over a year to watch my first Hannibal episode because I knew my imagination is too vivid for that and things I see wouldn't leave my for a while. It is a blessing and a curse. But I enjoy Mads as an actor too much to miss it.

Harriet wrote:
It makes a lot of sense, I myself started watching it rather in spite of Sherlock Holmes - since already in my late teenage years I realised I had simply grown out of Canon, which had been fascinating to me only for so long.
Nowadays I think there are some interesting things in Canon to discover. But far from being favourite books, to me.

It's like with every other hobby or interest, just a matter of taste. Although I sometimes shake my head in disbelief when I see what people like to read (like the 50 Shades stuff or autobiographies or people who have done nothing but breathe.) But it would be weird and complicated if we all had the same taste. Whatever floats your boat.

The good news is we all here enjoy BBC Sherlock, so that's what matters.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 11:29 am

Oh, I confess I'd actually missed this part of the discussion.
Well although Mark and Steven are huge ACD fans, they point out: the continuity errors, the(in some cases) frankly not very good characters or story lines. The infamous case being the one where they believe Doyle told a porky pie in saying that random woman killed Milverton. They are convinced it was Holmes, but Doyle thought it may have been too much for Strand readers, to conceive of Holmes as a murderer.
Though judging by the majority fan reaction to BBC Sherlock killing CAM, I don't know if that would have been the case.
So we can enjoy something without thinking it perfect.
The Canon is Victorian literature, so yes, it does have that limitation.
I certainly think it's possible to fully enjoy BBC Sherlock without having read any Canon at all and indeed have always said so.
It just causes a little smile, when you do remember the Canon stories or pick up on the Canon references.
Further, I watch BBC Sherlock for the friendship and I feel ACD wrote the best male friendship in literature.
But I am not a snob and would never conceive to think someone a lesser fan, for not knowing Canon.
That would be absurd, especially as ACD himself could be quite scathing about his own work!

Last edited by besleybean (February 28, 2016 11:29 am)

Ivy · February 28, 2016 12:49 pm

Yes that would be absurd because that not a university course where you have to read a book to pass a test.
And the series is "based on the works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" it has most of it 's characters from the book and the scripts are inspired by the stories, it's not a one to one apaptation and even if it were a TV series and books are obviously different things. So the series is a stand-alone for me, also because it's 21. century. So calling someone a lesser fan wouldn't make any sense because that person isn't even a fan of the canon. ( and it actually would be a bit haughty, too).

When I found that forum 4 years ago I was a bit surprised to find so many canon fans, because the people I came across in real life or different forums disliked the TV series or didn't want to watch it, because it wasn't Sherlock Holmes for them, mainly because it plays 21.century and because they mix part of the original stories and Mofftiss' new inventions.

besleybean · February 28, 2016 1:17 pm

Yes, over the past six and a half years(it really is that long, now!) and the 4 different forums I've been on...I have encountered a whole range of fans with a variety of views.
The first forum was run by an absolute ACD freak and I think he eventually let his forum die, because he felt BBC Sherlock were going too far off piste, as it were.
It was during the period his site was down and there was a chance he might get it going again, that I decided to usefully use the time in reading the Canon.
The second one(which I believe has just recently crashed completely) was run by a girl who was mad on both Canon and BBC Sherlock. That was where I first encountered real Canon buffs and I found it difficult to keep up with them.
I confess I still do: I've only read it all once, some of it twice and some of it three times...to date.
If there was a gun to my head and I had to choose between BBC Sherlock and Canon, I would definitely go with the former.
To me it's obvious that so much more can be done with a TV show, than can be with a book,
Also, BBC Sherlock has the advantages of by being written by two brains and not having any Victorian constraints put upon them.
So although I do like Canon, I personally think the BBC team do it better.

Last edited by besleybean (February 28, 2016 1:19 pm)

ukaunz · June 17, 2016 11:17 am

The Final Problem has the most brilliant meta for this theory
http://finalproblem.tumblr.com/post/91922571645/down-in-the-valley
It almost feels like a spoiler for s4!

Another little clue that Mary might be Birdy Edwards: the bird themed wedding invitations and wallpaper

Mothonthemantel · June 17, 2016 1:24 pm

A lot of this has already happened ish . Mary already has three or more personas.
Personally I think she only has an exit line left to her story -her past would be timely and uninteresting to most viewers who tune it to see Sherlock.

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (June 17, 2016 1:25 pm)

besleybean · June 17, 2016 6:23 pm

Uninteresting though unforgivable to some.

GimmeCat · June 17, 2016 8:40 pm

I think everyone's right on the money with the Birdy theory. As John would say, it's brilliant. This shot says it all, tbh.

It draws a direct parallel with the "my husband is three people" case heard earlier.

ukaunz · June 17, 2016 10:34 pm

Well spotted, GimmeCat

If s4 does go with this story, I trust the writers to make it an interesting case with Sherlock at the heart of it.

besleybean · June 18, 2016 7:26 am

I am sure they would and it would also be interesting to combine two characters...
But I find it difficult to get past Mary Morstan being Mary Morstan.
It's even harder than when it's a created character: I'm reminded of the old theories of Mummy being Moriarty...