tonnaree wrote:

I still maintain we've been shown nothing to confirm that any of her good parts were real.

And we've been shown nothing to confirm that they were not.

I am still of the opinion that if the writers had wanted to show her good sides after the reveal, they could have done so. And not by comforting a neighbour for about two seconds but by making her truly regret what she did, by giving explanations, by not kicking the coin, by not getting patronising again one second after John has burned the flash drive. 

Even after more than two years of discussion I still cannot why I should give her the benefit of the doubt as long as she does nothing to deserve it. And, btw, since DW was mentioned - I remember very well the  Moffat episode in which River Song had to shoot the hero and the way she reacted to it (a complicated and sometimes flawed character but one I could understand because her actions were sufficiently justified and explained). 

  "they love and like her" - like in Little Britain - "Jesus LIKES you"

besleybean wrote:

John and Sherlock appear to have forgiven Mary and love and like her.
I'm happy with that.

And I´m deeply unhappy with that and I´m convinced both Sherlock and John suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
 

nakahara wrote:

Whisky wrote:

I don't agree with the strong opinion that Sherlock is the only suffering one here. He wants magnusson. He pulls everybody in this. I'm not sure how early he catches on that Mary and therefore john are part of it. It starts with lady smallwood's letters, not Mary's past.
If Sherlock would have stayed out of it, what would have happened?
Mary only acts when she has to. She could have told John the truth on the first date. But John wouldn't have continued dating, would he, then? Mary's actions aren't any good. But understandable, yes. Imo-

Victim blaming, full stop.
Mary was involved with CAM way before Sherlock took Lady Smallwood´s case. Mary received CAM´s letter on the day of wedding when Sherlock didn´t yet know that he will be involved with this blackmailer in the future. So Mary was already the part of CAM´s affair - Sherlock certainly didn´t pull her into it.
Also, when Sherlock took CAM´s case, he was not aware that Mary and CAM are somehow connected, he only found out second before Mary shot him. Sooo, once again - how did he pull her into it?
You simply accuse him that he was not a claivoyant and he "selfishly" pursued the case despite other parties of which he was unaware at the moment were active in it.
It would be better if he stayed out of it? Very interesting thought - so because he knows nothing about Mary´s past, he should preventively stop taking up any cases, because she could be theoretically involved in any of them. Superb detective that would be - not allowed to solve any cases and castigated as selfish because he does his job and pursues the case to its solution.
Plus, he only invited John to help him with cases, he never tried to bring Mary into it.

I don't see how that's victim blaming. Maybe I put it wrong, but still.
I said that Sherlock chose the Magnusson case because of the letters of Lady Smallwood. Against warnings. And in the end, he gets shot. He takes a high risk.

I don't understand why this is blaming the victim. It's still Mary who shoots someone and is cruel and violent towards another human being. Yes, I agree. And there's Sherlock, who took a risky case and ended up badly hurt.
What I'm not saying is that it's Sherlock's fault he got shot. I see a difference there. I'm saying Sherlock would have a lower risk to be shot by assassins if he didn't engage in high risk cases. He broke into that office. He is no saint. I'm not connecting the two threads here. Mary is still the one who shoots, and Sherlock still the weaponless victim of her action. Still, Sherlock ended up in the situation not just by chance, but by deceiving Janine to break into an office, well knowing there might be others after Magnusson, AND he climbs up the stairs to check upon the intruder without calling any police. It's not exactly clever. That's all I wanted to point out.

It is not the same as saying it's Sherlock's FAULT he was shot.




Similar thing is happening with the "making excuses" for Mary. Looking for reasons behind an action is not making excuses, it's not even looking for excuses. It is to get the full picture. Every court would check backgrounds and motivations. And depending on those, shooting someone can be self-defense, can be the last way out for an abused wife. Which does not justify the action - they will get  a sentence. But it puts the character in a certain light, sometimes a different one. It makes people see the person behind the murder charge. Which is why I find judging without even looking further not the best approach - in my opinion, and other opinions are fine. But I don't want to feel judged for my opinion.
In Marys case, I can see she was under pressure. I'm not saying it excuses what she did to Sherlock.


Sorry for writing so much, but I'm trying to discuss this reagrding to content. I feel it gets to a personal level when someone tell's me I engage in victim blaming, even if it's justa tv show we're talking about. I'm not happy to let that pass by. No hard feelings, just... well. Whatever. Back to Mary.
 

Last edited by Whisky (May 4, 2016 8:43 pm)

I think we have some information. That she wants to get rid of her past, that she loves John, that she did bad things, maybe CIA things... You are right though, but I wouldn't even know - what background are we waiting for? what do we want to know? What don't we understand without background?

I would like to know for whom she worked. But not sure that helps the story (except it was Mycroft).

I would like to know if she got family, or not. Maybe she just left them behind. But again, would it change things, knowing this?

Her true motivations, wishes, hopes, feelings... but what if what we are shown are already all these?

besleybean wrote:

We do know Sherlock murdered an unarmed older man in older cold blood..

...for which he took full responsibility and was punished by being sent to an exile. Which cannot be said about Mary. 
 

Magnussen knew Marys past , it sounded very very bad ,and he had no reason to lie . Had he been lieing his blackmail wouldn't have worked. Had Marys past been palatable she would have just told the truth.

Done a lot of wet jobs / killed a lot of people / rougue / freelance / She's wicked /people hate her /people want to kill her etc .

Sherlock said Mary was bored playing the Drs wife John writes on his blog Mary insisted on coming along on a case . Maybe Mary is now like John and going to be reliant on Sherlock and his cases for her adrenalin fix . And thats going to annoy everyone .

nakahara wrote:

besleybean wrote:

We do know Sherlock murdered an unarmed older man in older cold blood..

...for which he took full responsibility and was punished by being sent to an exile. Which cannot be said about Mary. 
 

Well, he did it publicly, so took responsibility in that sense.  But we didn't see him stand trial for it.  There was no chance for any relatives to see "justice" being done, perhaps not even to find out who did it or why.  He was sent on an ultra-dangerous mission, but only because that's what his brother wanted for him, so he avoided prison.  He then was called back within minutes (and we know that he won't actually get sent off to his death, because we need him for the story!), so only had those few minutes of any sort of organised punishment.   Not that I want Sherlock to go through any punishment, but I think that in this case, they're not as different as it seems.  Neither went to prison.

Liberty wrote:

nakahara wrote:

besleybean wrote:

We do know Sherlock murdered an unarmed older man in older cold blood..

...for which he took full responsibility and was punished by being sent to an exile. Which cannot be said about Mary. 
 

Well, he did it publicly, so took responsibility in that sense.  But we didn't see him stand trial for it.  There was no chance for any relatives to see "justice" being done, perhaps not even to find out who did it or why.  He was sent on an ultra-dangerous mission, but only because that's what his brother wanted for him, so he avoided prison.  He then was called back within minutes (and we know that he won't actually get sent off to his death, because we need him for the story!), so only had those few minutes of any sort of organised punishment.   Not that I want Sherlock to go through any punishment, but I think that in this case, they're not as different as it seems.  Neither went to prison.

Sherlock´s exile, as we were told, was equal to death. He was still willing to do it and to atone for his crime that way, although his sole motivation for committing that crime in the first place was the protection of John and Mary (so a very unselfish reason). Also, the moments after he shot Magnussen, it was obvious Sherlock believed he will be shot dead on the spot. Plus, he never arranged it for himself not to stand trial. Never attempted to bump off witnesses to his crime (John and Mycroft) Mary-style, so that his reputation still appears to be clean in the eyes of the world. 

Compare that to Mary who not only committed murders, but also escaped any responsibility for committing them, whose past was conveniently burnt in the fire, who is still a lovely smiling nurse in the eyes of the world and who sasses out Mycroft despite the fact she shot his little brother...

...they are as different as night and day in my eyes.

Also, Sherlock´s murder didn´t make him nice in the eyes of the audience, he was not praised that he is "a strong male character" the way Mary is praised to be "a strong female character" for her murders... just the opposite, the whole show was slammed as an example of unprincipled amorality:

http://violethuntress.tumblr.com/post/73653368979/psychopathy-criminality-and-you-bbc-sherlock