I think we should distinguish between Canon and the show. Harriet's quote was from Canon, as were yours and mine. 
 

Er, Harriet asked me for a Canon ref.
I feel this is the line BBC Sherlock are taking with Mary.

Er, I haven't asked you anything.

SusiGo wrote:

No, she did not. The only thing she did was go to Sherlock. It was him who stopped the motorcycle, drove it, made his way through the crowd, and dug his own hands in the fire to pull John out. If you take a look at the scene you will see that Mary is just standing there, calling John's name. She does not actively participate in the action. Which is confirmed again at Appledore when Magnussen talks about Sherlock saving his "damsel in distress". 

 


That may be, but it was Mary who got the message to Sherlock as soon as she got it.  And she rode on the motorcycle with Sherlock to John's rescue.

kgreen20 wrote:

SusiGo wrote:

No, she did not. The only thing she did was go to Sherlock. It was him who stopped the motorcycle, drove it, made his way through the crowd, and dug his own hands in the fire to pull John out. If you take a look at the scene you will see that Mary is just standing there, calling John's name. She does not actively participate in the action. Which is confirmed again at Appledore when Magnussen talks about Sherlock saving his "damsel in distress". 

 
That may be, but it was Mary who got the message to Sherlock as soon as she got it. And she rode on the motorcycle with Sherlock to John's rescue.

I am not sure that this is sufficient to balance her flaws. Especially if you compare it to what Sherlock does for John (and Mary). 
 

Nobody's denying she's a flawed character.
But personally I don't see the point of that beautiful Christmas reunion, if it turns out to mean nothing.
The whole impact of Mary's original reveal just loses total impact, if we get more that negates this reconciliation.
This doesn't rule out her working for Mycroft, for instance.

SusiGo wrote:

a) No one called Sherlock a random hobo. Are you saying he should have stayed the way he was when he met John? A reasoning machine without deeper feelings? Not what I would care to see. 

That question should probably be aimed at another person because I never saw Sherlock as a reasoning machine without deeper feelings? Did you consider him to be one before S3 was aired? Personally, his behaviour to John, Angelo and Mrs. Hudson persuaded me right away that deep down Sherlock is a nice man, but that he has a prickly exterior towards people who bully him, envious of his intelligence (like Sally Donovan or Sebastian Wilkes). So if he developed as a character in a more subtle manner, I would be quite content with that. Nothing against TSOT, but I could do without Sherlock folding napkin origami or without Sherlock being drunk as a lord and I would still be persuaded he can do emotions.

SusiGo wrote:

b) I cannot remember a single episode without a shred of detecting.

Yet to me, it seems Sherlock´s detective skills are rapidly diminishing.
Examples: In ASIP, Sherlock investigates the death of Jennifer Wilson. We see what he sees (his deductions appear in front of our eyes), then he explains his findings in an ingenious manner.
In more recent TAB, Sherlock enters the flat where the lord was stabbed to death. And... nothing. We see no deductions floating in the air. He sees some bloody tracks but doesn´t explain his findings and never makes his opinion on the case known. Probably because he has no any.

Another example: In ASIB, Sherlock calls Mycroft a queen, later annoys him by fiddling "God Save the Queen" on his violin, meanwhile he deduces he is being led to the Buckingham Palace on the fact that three corgies were in the vicinity of a sinister guards.
In TSOT, Sherlock suddenly doesn´t remember that no king of England exists.

Add to this the various recent Mofftiss claims like "Everybody is cleverer than Sherlock" (from the HVL commentary), Moffat´s claim that Sherlock is mediocre, Moffat´s claim that "Sherlock just pretends detecting" (you cited that in your pevious post) or his assertion that "Mary is the professional, Sherlock and John are just bumbling amateurs"... and to me this seems rather like a decontruction of the hero, not his development. Development should mean the increase of the character´s skill, not him being stripped and deprived of them.

SusiGo wrote:

c) Nobody has sworn what is going to happen and neither have I. This would be quite presumptuous. I am saying that based on what we have seen so far and what we have heard from the team this is not going to be a romcom slash family show. And I have no reason not to believe them. 

I too hope this would not develop into a family drama or a romcom, that´s why I voiced my opinion that it would be better if the author´s avoided another bout of Watson´s marriage crisis or anything in which Mary plays a prominent role and it´s not a case. Of course I can only speak for myself, but Mary´s character bores me to tears. Centering on her again would just steal time authors could dedicate to John´s and Sherlock´s relationship. And I still think it would be most natural if they bonded again while doing cases together.

SusiGo wrote:

This is not Granada Holmes. This is not an episodic, case-centred show but a long, overarching narrative with characters developing, not remaining static.

I was aware that we are speaking about BBC version. Can I point out that we had characters developing also in S1 and S2 and yet that development went hand-to-hand with cases in harmonious ballance? These things are not mutually exclusive + Sherlock´s character makes most sense when he is immersed in what he does best. A random gardener, fire-fighter and the like can take his place when he is stripped of cases - and this show still titles itself "a show about a detective".

Sorry, if you find my opinions annoying, but I would rather voice my thoughts with sincerity than pretend the artificial perkiness I don´t feel. I joined the forum to share my joys or doubts and that would be rather impossible if I held my opinions to myself.

nakahara wrote:

Sorry, if you find my opinions annoying, but I would rather voice my thoughts with sincerity than pretend the artificial perkiness I don´t feel. I joined the forum to share my joys or doubts and that would be rather impossible if I held my opinions to myself.

Please do not put words in my mouth I have not said. And please do not call other people's attitudes artificial. We have discussed our differing opinions, that is all. 
 

Harriet wrote:

nakahara wrote:

Sorry, if you find my opinions annoying, but I would rather voice my thoughts with sincerity than pretend the artificial perkiness I don´t feel. I joined the forum to share my joys or doubts and that would be rather impossible if I held my opinions to myself.

Pls stay down to earth, nakahara. I hope you don't assume pretension of artificial perkiness with any of us, otherwise some might feel hurt.
 

I was only saying that "I" can´t be perky when I do not feel it, it would be artificial of me.
But well, I´ll shut up. 

We've noticed! Ha.