Topic closed
Posted by SolarSystem  February 23, 2014 10:23 pm | #21 |
LoveIsAViciousMotivator wrote:
But...erm, the character Mary is a creation of the writers. That means she is what they wanted her to be. She can't independently up and decide to be a great person and then be mad that the writers didn't portray her that way... she is the way she is because the writers wrote her that way, and that is what fans are responding to.
So, I don't quite understand what you mean...
I don't understand how you can't understand what I said there. I know she is a creation of the writers. No where did I say that this character is magically this. What I said in my post was that I believe the writers made a mistake in not showing us moments of geniune affection from John and Mary, especially the wedding scenes.
The writers seem to tell us Mary loves John and John loves Mary. I just wish we were shown more rather than told. That's all.
But maybe this is exactly the point...? They seem to tell us something, but by not showing us certain things, they might deliberatly keep some things ambiguous - just like in TSoT. There is a wedding going on, but we don't see all that much of the happy couple... we see a lot more of the 'other couple', if you know what I mean. 
Last edited by SolarSystem (February 23, 2014 10:24 pm)
___________________________________________________
"Am I the current King of England?
"I see no shame in having an unhealthy obsession with something." - David Tennant
"We did observe." - David Tennant in "Richard II"
|
Posted by RavenMorganLeigh February 23, 2014 10:28 pm | #22 |
@ Ani: I agree. We must keep in mind that it is Sherlock and not an imaginary Moriarty speaking. It is Sherlock thinking "That wife!" And he thinks it in the most crucial moment of his life (or death) so it must be important.
I actually started writing all this because I simply cannot believe Sherlock's explanation in Baker Street. I felt totally unwell with this and tried to find out if there is a reason for his saying these things to John.
That whole scene contradicts Sherlock's assertion that Mary tried to save his life: I mean, an awful lot of that was instruction in how Not To Die from the gunshot wound delivered via Mary. And, yeah-- CAM going on about how "wicked" Mary is, and that she went 'freelance", rogue-- "so many dead bodies", That doesn't help Mary's case.
And Cam referring to John and Mary as "Mr. and Mrs. Psychopath"-- sort of like when men will demean another man by calling him "Mr. The wife or girlfreind's last name meaning that the guy is whipped. That doesn't help either, it tells me that at least CAM thinks that John is married to someone very, very dangerous.
Moriarty seems to represent Sherlock's fear, and his fear of emotional pain. But Moriarty was also a genius, and that part of Sherlock is telling him that Mary is dangerous, and John's life is in danger... from her.
Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 23, 2014 10:29 pm)
|
Posted by SusiGo February 23, 2014 10:34 pm | #23 |
There may be several ways to interpret Moriarty's words but my reading is that Sherlock is warning himself not to leave John alone with his wife. I have tried to see Mary in a different light and to believe Sherlock when he says that she is right for John but I simply could not. It does not work for me, not based on what we get in series 3.
------------------------------
"To fake the death of one sibling may be regarded as a misfortune; to fake the death of both looks like carelessness." Oscar Wilde about Mycroft Holmes
"It is what it is says love." (Erich Fried)
“Enjoy the journey of life and not just the endgame. I’m also a great believer in treating others as you would like to be treated.” (Benedict Cumberbatch)
|
Posted by LoveIsAViciousMotivator February 23, 2014 10:38 pm | #24 |
But maybe this is exactly the point...? They seem to tell us something, but by not showing us certain things, they might deliberatly keep some things ambiguous - just like in TSoT. There is a wedding going on, but we don't see all that much of the happy couple... we see a lot more of the 'other couple', if you know what I mean.
I love ambiguity in Mary's past, but I think the writers really want us to know she does indeed love John. I see it and it seems Sherlock does too. Maybe I just have alittle problem with execution, but that's just me so that's thats. XD
LOL I know what you mean! Sherlock and John! At least, we know they love each other. XD Even if John is always shocked that Sherlock comes to his rescue every now and then. Get a clue, John! XDD
Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (February 23, 2014 10:39 pm)
|
Posted by Willow February 23, 2014 10:40 pm | #25 |
SusiGo
Food for thought indeed; I have commented before that I thought it strange that she didn't dive into the bonfire alongside Sherlock to haul John out but I hadn't thought to analyse that dialogue in the way that you have. Now that you point it out I must confess that it is very strange; most people would not remain in a bonfire, doused with petrol and about to be set on fire, if they had any choice in the matter; urging them to extract themselves seems exceedingly odd. I had hitherto construed it as evidence that her apparent devotion did not extend to actually risking being burned, but the lines themselves have an artificial air; it's as if she's trying to sound as if she's helping him whilst not actually helping him.
If we rerun the restaurant scene without the soft focus lighting, the soft focus hairstyle and the vintage dress, and had Mary speak the lines in the tone she adopts once she's been outed, then I think your point about the dialogue would become obvious; kudos to you for spotting it in the camouflage, as it were.
So we are left with a Mary who never says 'I love you', never risks herself for John, is prepared to shoot Sherlock on more than one occasion, and has been left alive by CAM for reasons which completely elude me unless there is a previous connection between them which tips the scales against having her taken out.
I am puzzled that discussing a fictional character in a tv series, even one as dramatic as Sherlock, should generate such passions; I suppose one could argue that it's a tribute to Moftiss' abilities as writers that it has. But I do feel that much of the passion is not actually about the show itself; it seems that, to a certain extent, the show has become a vehicle for arguments which have nothing to do with what is on screen. I don't believe that the writers thought that people would construe it as polyamory, they are aware of the JohnLock but don't believe that what they write is JohnLock.
They deliberately finished the shooting of the first two episodes before giving the actors the script for HLV; they had, up until that point, encouraged people to believe that Mary was, indeed, a Mary Sue. Good writers don't write Mary Sues; if you come across a Mary Sue character it is a very obvious signal that something is wrong somewhere, and, being Moftiss, of course it is horribly wrong. It is pretty unlikely that they accidentally omitted Mary saying 'I love you', just as it is pretty unlikely that it never occurred to them that urging John to remove himself from the bonfire was distinctly strange.
Of course, I hadn't noticed that before you pointed it out 
|
Posted by RavenMorganLeigh February 23, 2014 10:49 pm | #26 |
But maybe this is exactly the point...? They seem to tell us something, but by not showing us certain things, they might deliberatly keep some things ambiguous - just like in TSoT. There is a wedding going on, but we don't see all that much of the happy couple... we see a lot more of the 'other couple', if you know what I mean.
I love ambiguity in Mary's past, but I think the writers really want us to know she does indeed love John. I see it and it seems Sherlock does too. Maybe I just have alittle problem with execution, but that's just me so that's thats. XD
LOL I know what you mean! Sherlock and John! At least, we know they love each other. XD Even if John is always shocked that Sherlock comes to his rescue every now and then. Get a clue, John! XDD
I actually have no doubt that Mary loves John-- not at all. But I think her love is toxic, because it doesn't put his needs first. Of all people, she knows what Sherlock's death would do to John; we see her holding hands with John at Sherlock's grave at the start of series 3. John is still grieving. She shoots Sherlock anyway, even knowing what kind of pain that will put him in-- and it's to "protect her relationship."
She knows exactly how John views lies and betrayal-- and she does it anyway-- "to protect her relationship." She even knows that "It would break John", and she has no problem living that lie-- until Sherlock traps her into outing herself.
If a man did this to his wife, we'd have absolutely no problem describing the man's actions as wrong, abusive, sinister, controlling, pathalogical. I'm just sayin'. :-)
|
Posted by LoveIsAViciousMotivator February 23, 2014 11:08 pm | #27 |
If a man did this to his wife, we'd have absolutely no problem describing the man's actions as wrong, abusive, sinister, controlling, pathalogical. I'm just sayin'. :-)
Mary loves John. Can it be seen as possessive? Yes. Dangerous? Yes. But wasn't Sherlock a bit possessive of John too? Dangerous? And Sherlock loves John too. =)
It's not perfect, but I don't see Mary as abusive, sinister, nor controlling. I see Mary as a woman who is trying to escape her past as a professional killer to led an ordinary life for a man she has come to love. Would it hold? That's for the writers' to decide in S4.
Last edited by LoveIsAViciousMotivator (February 23, 2014 11:10 pm)
|
Posted by Wholocked February 23, 2014 11:09 pm | #28 |
I also feel that her character is quite complex and that's what I enjoy about her. I love the character of Mary; not because I think she's a good person but I think she's a very human person. I think the writers have done a brilliant job of creating a character that has multiple motivations (as most people do); who is carrying around baggage from a difficult past and is making decisions based on that baggage (as most people do). She's not a caricature or a stereotype and I personally think that's brilliant.
Some people have expressed the view that they felt betrayed by Moftiss and Mary's character because they were "made to love her" in the first two episodes only to learn that she's "not who they thought she was" in episode three. I love that fact. I think it is a beautiful demonstration that people are not two dimensional and that people make mistakes. I agree that most of her motivations are selfish - but without knowing exactly what has happened in her past, it's impossible to make any kind of judgements as to whether that is justified. Maybe she has never experienced selfless love - does that make her evil for recreating the only kind of love she's known? No, I don't think it does. I think it makes her human.
I think part of my issue with people's discussions regarding Mary, her shooting of Sherlock, her selfish need to protect her relationship with John through lies, etc etc etc is that they are all viewing it very black and white. People are not black and white; motivations are never straight forward and people make bad choices. Mary's choices are more catastrophic than most, but it still boils down to her making choices based on fear and a past we know nothing about.
So many TV characters are one- or two-dimensional and I love that Moftiss put so much effort into creating complex, well rounded, royally screwed up characters in this show.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dislike being outnumbered. It makes for too much stupid in the room
|
Posted by Willow February 23, 2014 11:12 pm | #29 |
But...erm, the character Mary is a creation of the writers. That means she is what they wanted her to be. She can't independently up and decide to be a great person and then be mad that the writers didn't portray her that way... she is the way she is because the writers wrote her that way, and that is what fans are responding to.
I don't understand how you can't understand what I said there. I know she is a creation of the writers. No where did I say that this character is magically this. What I said in my post was that I believe the writers made a mistake in not showing us moments of geniune affection from John and Mary, especially the wedding scenes.
The writers seem to tell us Mary loves John and John loves Mary. I just wish we were shown more rather than told. That's all.
But the writers chose not to show us moments of genuine affection; unless you are arguing that they are incompetent then the logical conclusion is that they didn't intend us to see it because they knew perfectly well that the genuine affection did not exist.
John may love Mary, but Mary loves herself first and foremost; she may have a possessive and obsessive desire for John, but it isn't love as I understand it. ACD wrote a number of stories about such emotions; the Sussex Vampire and Thor Bridge are obvious examples which highlight this in canon.
I share SusiGo's view of Sherlock's behaviour in Baker St; Mary is exceedingly dangerous. That is why Sherlock's 'Tell Mary she's safe now' at Appledore works for me; a Mary who feels threatened will kill without compunction, whereas a Mary who believes she is safe is far less likely to leave a trail of corpses in her wake...
|
Posted by LoveIsAViciousMotivator February 23, 2014 11:12 pm | #30 |
I also feel that her character is quite complex and that's what I enjoy about her. I love the character of Mary; not because I think she's a good person but I think she's a very human person. I think the writers have done a brilliant job of creating a character that has multiple motivations (as most people do); who is carrying around baggage from a difficult past and is making decisions based on that baggage (as most people do). She's not a caricature or a stereotype and I personally think that's brilliant.
Some people have expressed the view that they felt betrayed by Moftiss and Mary's character because they were "made to love her" in the first two episodes only to learn that she's "not who they thought she was" in episode three. I love that fact. I think it is a beautiful demonstration that people are not two dimensional and that people make mistakes. I agree that most of her motivations are selfish - but without knowing exactly what has happened in her past, it's impossible to make any kind of judgements as to whether that is justified. Maybe she has never experienced selfless love - does that make her evil for recreating the only kind of love she's known? No, I don't think it does. I think it makes her human.
I think part of my issue with people's discussions regarding Mary, her shooting of Sherlock, her selfish need to protect her relationship with John through lies, etc etc etc is that they are all viewing it very black and white. People are not black and white; motivations are never straight forward and people make bad choices. Mary's choices are more catastrophic than most, but it still boils down to her making choices based on fear and a past we know nothing about.
So many TV characters are one- or two-dimensional and I love that Moftiss put so much effort into creating complex, well rounded, royally screwed up characters in this show.
I agree with you! =DDD
|
Posted by Willow February 23, 2014 11:28 pm | #31 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.
Moftiss have no intention of allowing a character to upstage Sherlock, and they have no intention of overturning conventional morality beyond the point of no return. A TV show with a psychopathic hero has already been done, and they have no intention of looking as if they are trying to rewrite Dexter with a baby 
That doesn't leave much scope for the character...
|
Posted by RavenMorganLeigh February 23, 2014 11:47 pm | #32 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.
Moftiss have no intention of allowing a character to upstage Sherlock, and they have no intention of overturning conventional morality beyond the point of no return. A TV show with a psychopathic hero has already been done, and they have no intention of looking as if they are trying to rewrite Dexter with a baby
That doesn't leave much scope for the character...
Actually, you and I are thinking along the same lines, I think-- and Dexter did have the family and the baby-- and none of that worked out well for him in the end. He was a serial killer-- and when he tried to be "normal", "human"-- the effect was charming for awhile, and then, inevitably became lethal and tragic for those he loved. I thought it was interesting that near the end of the show, it's pointed out that he loves his sister -- but his love is about what she gives him-- she makes him feel real, good about himself-- he doesn't love her just about her, for herself. He cannot love unselfishly.
There's a parallel here.
So, again-- nobody's saying that Mary cannot love-- but her love is narcissitic and I think we may find out later, deadly.
|
Posted by Willow February 24, 2014 12:35 am | #33 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.
Moftiss have no intention of allowing a character to upstage Sherlock, and they have no intention of overturning conventional morality beyond the point of no return. A TV show with a psychopathic hero has already been done, and they have no intention of looking as if they are trying to rewrite Dexter with a baby
That doesn't leave much scope for the character...Actually, you and I are thinking along the same lines, I think-- and Dexter did have the family and the baby-- and none of that worked out well for him in the end. He was a serial killer-- and when he tried to be "normal", "human"-- the effect was charming for awhile, and then, inevitably became lethal and tragic for those he loved. I thought it was interesting that near the end of the show, it's pointed out that he loves his sister -- but his love is about what she gives him-- she makes him feel real, good about himself-- he doesn't love her just about her, for herself. He cannot love unselfishly.
There's a parallel here.
So, again-- nobody's saying that Mary cannot love-- but her love is narcissitic and I think we may find out later, deadly.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that, if John had a pet rabbit, I wouldn't have have given much for its chances of survival should John have decided that he simply couldn't carry on with Mary; Sherlock may well have felt the same thing about John's chances of survival in that event.
And as you note, vis a vis Dexter, giving people a baby and a family doesn't fix a psychopath; in the end it brings down Götterdämmerung where everybody suffers...
|
Posted by RavenMorganLeigh February 24, 2014 12:45 am | #34 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.
Moftiss have no intention of allowing a character to upstage Sherlock, and they have no intention of overturning conventional morality beyond the point of no return. A TV show with a psychopathic hero has already been done, and they have no intention of looking as if they are trying to rewrite Dexter with a baby
That doesn't leave much scope for the character...Actually, you and I are thinking along the same lines, I think-- and Dexter did have the family and the baby-- and none of that worked out well for him in the end. He was a serial killer-- and when he tried to be "normal", "human"-- the effect was charming for awhile, and then, inevitably became lethal and tragic for those he loved. I thought it was interesting that near the end of the show, it's pointed out that he loves his sister -- but his love is about what she gives him-- she makes him feel real, good about himself-- he doesn't love her just about her, for herself. He cannot love unselfishly.
There's a parallel here.
So, again-- nobody's saying that Mary cannot love-- but her love is narcissitic and I think we may find out later, deadly.
I think I mentioned elsewhere that, if John had a pet rabbit, I wouldn't have have given much for its chances of survival should John have decided that he simply couldn't carry on with Mary; Sherlock may well have felt the same thing about John's chances of survival in that event.
And as you note, vis a vis Dexter, giving people a baby and a family doesn't fix a psychopath; in the end it brings down Götterdämmerung where everybody suffers...
Now you've got me wondering if this is the conflict that the writers used quite knowingly when writing Mary's character arc; we ( the viewers) *want the myth* that love redeems all, love is all you need, love solves everything---
Dexter's character arc ends with him realizing that *he's* what's wrong." It's a theme that they repeat throughout the show-- he is what's wrong.
With Mary, you've got the beginnings of that same trope; we build up the idea that the character can be redeemed "by the love of a good man", and they may tear that all down come season 4 or 5.
Weird thing that ocurred to me; "The love of a good man (or woman) is often what some idiots have said when trying to "cure" someone's gayness. Hmmmmm.....
Nice Fatal Attraction referrence. :-)
Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (February 24, 2014 12:47 am)
|
Posted by jenosborn February 24, 2014 4:46 am | #35 |
I think it's been fantastic to include so many good specific examples and quotes for this discussion,
thanks all! For me, the ambiguity of Mary's character and motives have been a really
fascinating piece of writing. She's so well written IMO. I do find the love between her and John is
palpable, albeit often unsaid or off-screen. We already know that the bond between Sherlock
and John was also unconditional and had been unspoken for many years. However we feel about
Mary, and whether we believe this terrific character belongs in the future episodes, I for one am in awe
of the performances and the skillful writing.
|
Posted by SherlocklivesinOH February 24, 2014 5:01 am | #36 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.
I thought she worked for the CIA...which would mean she was paid by them but also that, theoretically, she would be in the service of the US government and interests, which would be aligned with the UK. I know the CIA is different from the military but there are similarities in method and purpose, and they were both in Afghanistan fighting al Queda...remember the big story about the CIA agent killed soon we went into Afghanistan following 9/11?
.
And Mary also tells us the kinds of people she killed were people like Magnussen.
I think they could also have set it up to eventually reveal that her background was a fake, planted to trap Magnussen or that someone confused her with someone else...IF it weren't for the shooting of Sherlock. That's what there's really no going back from.
|
Posted by SherlocklivesinOH February 24, 2014 5:08 am | #37 |
I will agree with Swanpride on TEH. I don't see anything wrong with Mary's actions in this episode. She is very supportive and seems to want to help John try and fix his relationship with Sherlock.
Susigo, you make a good point about the fact that in TSoT, we never saw the marriage vows nor did we see Mary and John show declaring their love for one another. Mostly, the episode focused on John and Sherlock. Mary seemed to just be there in the wedding dress. I think that is the fault of the writers, not of the character herself.
Up until HLV Mary seemed to be facilitating Johnlock. She is almost shipping John and Sherlock, to the point it really does feel like they're all three getting married. And of the three of them planning the wedding, it is John who is the LEAST into it - Mary and Sherlock plan.
As I have said, there is fanfic where they're a threesome, or triad (some of it canon-based, some of it Guy Ritchie-based) and I can actually see this Mary going for that.
What hurt the Johnlock for me was John's still having conflicted loyalties to both of them after Mary shoots Sherlock, and allowing Sherlock to sacrifice himself. Then it's implied that John's married life is now more important...I don't have that hard of a time believing John still loves a former CIA assassin, (he and Sherlock both find killing justified in some circumstances) but I have a hard time believing he'll stay with someone who shot Sherlock Holmes, and with the suggestion that John is more upset at being lied to about Mary's past (which he partly blamed Sherlock for) than about the shooting.
But it occur to me that there's been a "trading of favors" between Mary and Sherlock: Mary promised Sherlock she would convince John to forgive in TEH (though I'm not sure there that her influence made the difference.) And then in HLV, Sherlock convinces John to forgive Mary.
|
Posted by Zatoichi February 24, 2014 6:34 am | #38 |
Wholocked
I doubt that many people can understand what motivates people who kill for money; Moftiss made quite sure that there is no get out route along the lines of 'she did it for her country', or 'she did it because she was attacked'. They deliberately made her someone alien to most of us; I can imagine myself killing someone for a number of reasons, but I can't imagine that.I thought she worked for the CIA...which would mean she was paid by them but also that, theoretically, she would be in the service of the US government and interests, which would be aligned with the UK. I know the CIA is different from the military but there are similarities in method and purpose, and they were both in Afghanistan fighting al Queda...remember the big story about the CIA agent killed soon we went into Afghanistan following 9/11?
.
And Mary also tells us the kinds of people she killed were people like Magnussen.
But she also says that John wouldn´t love her if he knew what she had done, what made me think it wasn´t actually all noble "dealing with the devil" / "dragonslayer"-stuff.
Still one of Sherlock´s first intuituions about her (I hesitate to call them "deductions") is "guardian", so maybe there is some kind of backstory here. After all the "freelance" and "so many dead bodies" come from Magnussen, we don´t really know what it means and if he was even telling the truth or playing on John´s and Sherlock´s feelings. Maybe the evidents on the memory stick had proven her to be not as bad as we were made to think. I´m really wary about her, and inclined to hate her because "she put a bullet in my boy and I turn absolutely monstrous" , but then Sherlock is my main concern, it is only natural that he isn´t hers. We love him and tend to see Mary´s actions in this light, but maybe she is guarding someone else she loves at all costs (I mean apart from John´s sentiments, maybe there is a child or family left in a vulnerable position who would be endangered by her exposure - CAMs wedding telegram might be a hint in that direction).
So I think my point is I don´t trust her as far as I can throw, but I´m also aware that my notions about her are biased and we miss substantial data to make a final conclusion - she might surprise us in the end.
Last edited by Zatoichi (February 24, 2014 7:58 am)
|
Posted by Tinks February 24, 2014 8:01 am | #39 |
She didn't just work for the CIA, though - the implication was that she'd gone rogue and was now on the run.
In fact it seems she maybe did some bad things, and then got a conscience and wanted out of that life.
Which makes me think that she'll now be presented as a character we should love .
I can't get past the brutality of what she did to Sherlock and why, though, and no amount of people offering up dubious things that Sherlock has done and saying that it was similar behaviour will convince me that there's any reasonable explanation for putting a bullet into someone in case they tell your Husband about you.
I'll say it again - Sherlock sometimes works in dubious ways but it's always to help others.
Mary did an awful thing to help herself.
So my take on it all at the moment is that the writers gave us someone who was a brilliant, loveable,
Intelligent character for two episodes, and then midway through the last episode they turned her into an unlikeable charicature.
I think they did a disservice to both the character and the Actress in the way they went about it.
"And in the end,
The Love you take
Is equal to the Love you make"
The Beatles
|
Posted by Zatoichi February 24, 2014 8:09 am | #40 |
I think they did a disservice to both the character and the Actress in the way they went about it.
It´s a little OT, but I really felt a bit bad for Amanda when I watched some interviews.. it seems she really gets a lot of hatred and is not happy about how things turned out. I don´t know if we can blame the writers though, I wish people would be able to distinguish fiction from reality..
