Offline
Quite so.
Offline
Shooting someone is definitely a strange way of trying not to kill someone though. He did in fact die and it was only the thought of John that brought him back. Did Mary count on that when she shot him?
Offline
Well we'll never know.
Offline
I don't think she had much time to think it through, but presumably she thought she could shoot accurately enough for her purposes ... and failed. Not so much that she was trying not to kill him, but that she wasn't trying to kill him. That was just an unplanned side effect!
Offline
I get what your saying...though maybe to be extra on the safe side she should have just shot him in the foot or something haha.
Offline
I agree. If her intent had been to murder Sherlock,she would have aimed for his head or heart, and she was too good a shot to miss, especially since she was only about six feet away from him.
.
Last edited by kgreen20 (May 18, 2017 8:22 pm)
Offline
Although I have to admit, as a reader of mystery novels in my youth, that's one aspect that really irritates me! Sherlock dying "should" have proved that Mary intended to kill him, in my book. However, I can see that wasn't the intention and have to accept that!
Offline
Meanwhile I've come to the conclusion that the whole Mary shooting Sherlock just served ONE purpose: Allowing the writers - after Mary was shot in a similar way - to place the sentence: "I think we're even now, okay?"
Offline
Good enough reason, I suppose.
Offline
Liberty wrote:
She knew that John could walk in at any minute so she wanted to incapacitate Sherlock (not kill him) and negotiate with (or threaten) him later.
Negotiate about what?
TST established that Mary was practically a British agent, working for Mycroft and probably under his protection all the time - so what exactly was the issue she wanted to negotiate Sherlock with?
And why shoot him if she could ask him to keep silent and disappear from CAM´s office after that? (He offered to help her, he would certainly be silent about the matter.)
Offline
Indeed. I still see no reason for such a drastic step after Sherlock's vow and the friendship she has shown her.
Offline
BTW, in HLV didn't she say something like John would no longer love her if he knew about her past? I have heard nothing shocking in TST, so what was she talking about?
Offline
This is true. The only thing he - and we - learned about her past was about the Tbilisi operation in which she was a victim herself.
Offline
Possibly John recognised that, too.
Offline
SusiGo wrote:
This is true. The only thing he - and we - learned about her past was about the Tbilisi operation in which she was a victim herself.
Yes. So, no matter WHAT it is, SOMETHING about her past is still not known.
Offline
Well, she's taken it to her grave.
Offline
I know this is a very naive and stupid question, but it's been on my mind for quite a while now.
As I understand it; Eurus felt left out. She wanted to play with Sherlock, she wanted to get to know and understand him, she wanted his attention.
Well, when she went undercover as Smith's daughter, she certainly got ALL of that. Seeing from Sherlock's reactions, I am quite sure that if she had approached him as his sister from the start, he would have been very interested in getting to know her. Something she probably saw and learned while being "undercover".
So why the eloboarte set-up? Why the mental torture? If it was his attention she wanted, she could have gotten that so much easier by just popping up at his door step and saying "hi".
Offline
Because she is crazy. And because Mofftiss desperately wanted to show us their version of Saw. ;-)
Offline
Hahaha! Good as answer as any. ;)
Offline
Thankfully I've never seen Saw, I thought it was supposed to be gory.