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

besleybean · April 9, 2016 10:59 am

I love your positive attitude!

Liberty · April 9, 2016 11:00 am

I never really got a chance to like Mary properly because I already knew that she shot Sherlock before I "met" her. And I agree that she doesn't tend to do anything particularly endearing. But I do think a lot of her comments are similar to what passes between Sherlock and John - I think she has been deliberately made rather similar to them. I read the tumblr post that, for instance criticised her for saying that she was the best thing that ever happened to John, but if I imagine, Sherlock saying the same thing to John, it seems absolutely fine. (And the writer does say that most people liked Mary up until HLV, so obviously she was likeable enough until we knew).

Yes, she's a liar, but mainly over one huge, big thing that she has to lie about. I'm not making excuses for her here, because probably she just shouldn't have got involved with John in the first place, but she had changed her identity - there was no way she could just be open about her past and live as an ex-assassin/agent. (Not on the same scale by any means, but I know there are people who believe that John is lying to Mary about his attraction to Sherlock, but that doesn't seem to brand John as a liar). Possibly there are other things that Mary is lying about, and possibly her whole personality is "liar", but so far, it's kind of up in the air - we seem to have discovered her big lie, but don't know for certain if she's lying about anything else.

besleybean · April 9, 2016 11:03 am

Indeed, all may yet be revealed!

nakahara · April 9, 2016 7:27 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I view it as she enjoying adventures just as much as Watson does, so can't understand why she can't join them. I see it as a way to highlight early on in the episode how women were viewed in that time and what role they played (or didn't play).

But that´s not true, is it?
In TAB it´s revealed that Mary actually has as many adventures as Watson does because she is an agent working for Mycroft. She only pretends to be a poor, left-behind wallflower at the beginning, but this proves to be faulty.
Also, in words of Steven Moffat "Mary is a professional while John and Sherlock are bumbling amateurs".
A professional does not need to ask for a work she already has from people who do the same work just for fun. A professional surgeon would not beg children playing doctors if he could join them - and professional agent like Mary has no reason to be bothered by her husband solving cases without her somewhere.
Making Mary beg for John´s attention as if her work has no value without his approval or consent does the very opposite thing to making her a strong heroine - it makes her look overly dependent on John emotionally, to the point of overcontrolling hystery.
If she is truly strong and independent, she has no reason to pursue John like this, to stick herself between him and Sherlock.
Plus, because John doesn´t know about Mary´s true job as an agent, he is rightfully concerned that it would be dangerous for her to visit shady criminal scenes with him. Victorian London was a nasty place full of poverty, desperation and crime - John´s concern for his wife´s safety in this environment is rather rational and mindful, not some backward thinking of an old misogynist.

nakahara · April 9, 2016 7:30 pm

Lola Red wrote:
Is she a woman who is not satisfied with cooking for her husband?

Sorry for a little historical nitpick but as I mentioned elsewhere, Victorian Mary would never prepare food for John herself. Victorian upper and middle-class households had servants - so the servant - cook would actually prepare the food. It may well be a male cook even.

Last edited by nakahara (April 9, 2016 7:31 pm)

Vhanja · April 9, 2016 7:33 pm

The comment abougt Mary being a professional was for modern day Mary, not the Victorian one.

I still don't see the issue. She wants adventures, and as I understood it, she went and got it elsewhere because her husband wouldn't bring her along on his. And it make sense to me that she would really like to be a part of her husband's adventures.

Yes, it might be dangerous - but it might also be dangerous for him. To me, it's discrimination to say that a woman can't be a part of something because it's dangerous. Well, in that case, he shouldn't do it either as it could also be dangeorus for him. Victorian Mary seems able to look after herself.

nakahara · April 9, 2016 7:53 pm

Vhanja wrote:
I still don't see the issue. She wants adventures, and as I understood it, she went and got it elsewhere because her husband wouldn't bring her along on his. And it make sense to me that she would really like to be a part of her husband's adventures.

The issue is: she demands from John the thing she already has.
Also, we Slovaks have a saying: "even its own mother cannot understand the mute child". John doesn´t know that Mary is that super-professional because she never told him. How is he supposed to know she can handle the danger same way as him? In this light, his attitude towards her is understandable.

Vhanja wrote:
Yes, it might be dangerous - but it might also be dangerous for him. To me, it's discrimination to say that a woman can't be a part of something because it's dangerous. Well, in that case, he shouldn't do it either as it could also be dangeorus for him. Victorian Mary seems able to look after herself.

But we speak about Victorians here and in Victorian times this attitude was prevalent.
TBH, I don´t understand your POW here - should we rewrite history and pretend such attitudes did not happen because we regard it as a discrimination now?
Plus, I´m not sure it´s feminism if we pretend that both sexes are the same and do not have physiological and mental differences. I rather thought feminism is a fight for equal treatment which is given to people despite their being different. As such, Mary would be in a bigger danger in such shady places than John, despite her profession - the chance of her being assaulted or killed would be much higher.

Last edited by nakahara (April 9, 2016 7:54 pm)

Vhanja · April 9, 2016 8:00 pm

Yes, that attitude was prevalent in the Victorian times, and as I see it, this is what Mary reacts towards. The very idea that Mary has to stay home and only worry about knitting and dinner plans when the boys are out doing fun stuff. (What she, and the boys, consider fun stuff).

As I see it, she went to someone else to get the adventures as her husband wouldn't let her join his. Yes, if my hubbie wouldn't let me join him on holidays, I might go on holidays with friends instead. But I would still prefer to join him (or even better: have both).

I have no problem understanding where she comes from, and having this so early in the episode immediately put foucs to women's role in Victorian times (and how Mary naturally would be one to oppose such treatment). To me it makes perfect sense.

nakahara · April 9, 2016 8:25 pm

Vhanja wrote:
Yes, that attitude was prevalent in the Victorian times, and as I see it, this is what Mary reacts towards. The very idea that Mary has to stay home and only worry about knitting and dinner plans when the boys are out doing fun stuff. (What she, and the boys, consider fun stuff).

John only considers Sherlock´s cases "fun" because he is a danger freak. Sherlock considers them "fun" because his overly active mind would kill him otherwise. But their work is actually a dirty, gritty, messy, dangerous stuff.

If some woman (who would outwardly play a role of frail young nurse - as Mary does) insisted to stick herself into this mess only because her husband is there, regardless of possible consequences, Victorians would look upon that as upon petulant childishness - and rightfully so.

Vhanja wrote:
As I see it, she went to someone else to get the adventures as her husband wouldn't let her join his.

That´s possible but it´s also possible Mary worked for Mycroft far longer than she knows John.
TBH, I was under impression Victorian Mary got into acquantanceship with John only in consequence of Mycroft setting her to "look after his mad younger brother". She met John as a result of this and fell in love with him afterwards.

Vhanja wrote:
I have no problem understanding where she comes from, and having this so early in the episode immediately put foucs to women's role in Victorian times (and how Mary naturally would be one to oppose such treatment). To me it makes perfect sense.

To me not that much, because Mary is not a typical Victorian woman (she is unrealistically successful career-wise) and as I already said, she gets treated very rationally according the role she plays (young nurse who wants to needlessly march into horrorrs of criminal underground). When it comes out that she is an agent, John immediatelly starts treating her with increased deference - so it was her own fault she was not more honest with him beforehand.

nakahara · April 9, 2016 9:10 pm

Liberty wrote:
Yes, she's a liar, but mainly over one huge, big thing that she has to lie about.

That´s true but this lie is so big it actually swallows her whole personality, does it not? Like, it includes just about everything?

Reminds me of this cheeky satire:

http://marymorstanismyhero.tumblr.com/post/87988976259/help-i-am-so-relieved-to-being-able-to-tell

Harriet · April 9, 2016 9:12 pm

And she does not only not like the homeless, but unlike Sherlock her fashion style is awful. Esp. in TAB.

Edit: cross, nakahara

Last edited by Harriet (April 9, 2016 9:13 pm)

besleybean · April 9, 2016 9:14 pm

I'm assuming that's a joke.

mrshouse · April 10, 2016 7:12 am

Harriet wrote:
And she does not only not like the homeless, but unlike Sherlock her fashion style is awful. Esp. in TAB.

Oh.God.Yes.
The Christmas outfit....gah....
Poor Amanda, she's really not an ugly lady....

besleybean · April 10, 2016 7:28 am

Think I've entered an alternative universe.

Liberty · April 10, 2016 7:55 am

nakahara wrote:
Liberty wrote:
Yes, she's a liar, but mainly over one huge, big thing that she has to lie about.
That´s true but this lie is so big it actually swallows her whole personality, does it not? Like, it includes just about everything?

Reminds me of this cheeky satire:

http://marymorstanismyhero.tumblr.com/post/87988976259/help-i-am-so-relieved-to-being-able-to-tell

Yes, it does, but it's what she lies about that's the problem rather than the fact that she's a liar. In fact, her lying is quite understandable (mostly self-protection, but also, what would be the point of changing her identity if she was going to tell people who she really was?). The others lie too, when they think it's necessary ... it's not necessarily a huge crime in itself. What she did was way, way worse than lying about it.

But yes, I agree that it kind of swallows her personality up, and also that we still don't know enough to have an idea of what sort of person she is (why did she go into that line of work, why did she leave, what did she actually do, etc.?). We've just got to rely on Sherlock and John's judgment.

Anyway, I agree with Vhanja that I think Mary was highlighting the role of women - because in this case it was necessary for Sherlock to understand women to solve the case, and that seemed to be one of the themes of it. In Mary's favour, unlike Molly, she wasn't part of the criminal gang, but appeared to be on the good side (in Sherlock's MP). If she's going to be a villain, it appears that Sherlock doesn't know about it yet.

mrshouse · April 10, 2016 7:56 am

besleybean wrote:
Think I've entered an alternative universe.

Why? Costumes are an important part of story telling and visuals.

besleybean · April 10, 2016 7:59 am

I think most actors wear what they are told to.
In TAB, for me, all the cast were in appropriate Victorian costume.
I think Mary's costume was appropriate for both the period and the character.
Thank goodness neither modern nor Victorian Mary is portrayed as an airhead fashion victim...
And I don't care if that does offend Martin clothes-horse Freeman!

Vhanja · April 10, 2016 8:00 am

Yeah, if were going to the level of "...and she dresses ugly", then I think I will take a break from this thread.

besleybean · April 10, 2016 8:03 am

That's exactly why I assumed it was an attempt at humour.
If I'm being charitable, possibly to lighten the atmosphere.
But we are just discussing a TV character, after all.

mrshouse · April 10, 2016 8:03 am

nakahara wrote:
Reminds me of this cheeky satire:

http://marymorstanismyhero.tumblr.com/post/87988976259/help-i-am-so-relieved-to-being-able-to-tell

That one is brilliant, nakahara....