I wonder about that too.

It could be as simple as an apology scene not fitting well into the episode.   I agree, definitely, that it feels we get very, very little from Mary's side - it's even Sherlock who explains her past, and she has it on a memory stick rather than telling us.   But I'm not even sure how she could apologise.  It's not a little slip up, it's her whole identity, and she couldn't really have told John from the beginning, so it's not as if she could truly regret not doing so.

tonnaree wrote:

besleybean wrote:

The other thing is(well apart from her freelance stuff), if she was a James Bond type agent...it was just her work, a bit like a soldier.

I feel pretty deeply that we should not compare an assassin for hire to a soldier.  In my view there is a huge moral difference.

Yes, first and foremost, a soldier acts dressed in a distinct uniform and he is bound to start fighting after the formal declaration of war to an enemy. If he commits atrocities, he might get sued in accordance with the rules of international law and declarations of human rights.

Incomparable with the base assassin who kills anonymously, cowardly, with no declaration of enmity to his/her victim and in secrecy so as to escape punishment...
 

besleybean wrote:

But that's what they do...many of our governments employ them or certainly have in the past.

Noted.  Governments do use assassins.  The point is there's a  HUGE difference between an assassin and a soldier.
 

This all depends on how you view it. You could also say that a soldier kills random people that he doesn't have any personel quarrels with, nor have they done anything wrong, because someone at the top has told him that they are his enemies. (Or you could say that the people on the top of either side have a quarrel with each other, and they use soldiers to fight their battles for them).

Not saying that being an assassin is "better", just that you can argue for and against either way.

As for getting very little from Mary herself - that is true. I wonder if it may tie into the fact that Sherlock is always the main focus of the story. Even in the one episode dedicated to John and Mary's wedding, we didn't get to see the wedding itself nor did we get to see one single romantic moment between the bride and groom. Everything was focused on Sherlock, his relationship with John and how the wedding affected him. 

Same thing here. It seems that the focus is how Mary's behavior affect John and Sherlock, and that Sherlock quickly becomes the focus point - he (and John) are the ones affected, and he is the one explaining both to John and the audience the why's and how's. 

It seems that Moftis never lets us forget that this is mainly Sherlock's show, and whatever happens to the characters around him are seen either through him or how it affects him. Not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that, but it might help explain why there is so little from Mary herself. She played but a small bi-role in her own wedding, and so she does the same in her big reveal. 

Last edited by Vhanja (June 13, 2016 7:02 pm)

Definitely a good point. It has been used by TJLC as well, if I remember correctly.

But the series didn't end there and we've had another episode since...
John and Sherlock both seem to have both moved on from the incident, so presumably it's not too great a stretch for them.

besleybean wrote:

But the series didn't end there and we've had another episode since...
John and Sherlock both seem to have both moved on from the incident, so presumably it's not too great a stretch for them.

 
Not relevant to what I said.
I don't care about professionals or whomever shooting at bad guys.
Shooting innocent people because they see you do it is a completely different thing.

Governments do not approve agents and police and soldiers to murder bystanding civillians do they ?
Agents acting with agency are answerable to superiors who one assumes either covers up or punishes after them...as happened with Sherlock ?

I don't view that as a fact. I find nothing honorable in killing strangers who have done nothing wrong for the sake of whomever your politicians deem "the enemy".

Neither do I find it any more honorable to kill people for money (as I assume an assassin does).

But there are circumstances when war is, not honorable, but necessary. And there are circumstances where an assassin killing one person might improve or save the lifes of many.

So to me, being as assassin or soldier, is not better or worse than the other in itself. It all depends, as with so many things.

I had to google this... even if Mary had a government sanctioned "license to kill", she isn't exempt from the law: she could still go to prison if caught or her actions exposed. (Here's one of the results I came up with https://www.quora.com/Do-secret-agents-really-have-license-to-kill). Her freelance work is obviously another matter... I think we are going to find out more about that in s4.

As for John not loving her if he found out her past, perhaps she assumes that since he is a law-abiding man (or at least on the side of the angels if he does break any laws whilst helping to catch murderers and other criminals), he would judge her actions as bad and wrong. Since John didn't read the thumb drive, we don't know what those actions were or how he would judge them. If he believes she is essentially good but had to do bad things, maybe he would have forgiven her. But Mary would not have wanted to risk that if she could avoid it.