BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / How Mary could have shot Sherlock and everyone forgave her for it

**Posted by Willow** February 5, 2014 11:07 pm

Swanpride wrote:
The idea was to shot Sherlock at a "less dangerous" place and then knock him out before he can recover - my point is that this wouldn't have been less dangerous. All the blood and the mess aside, when he is unconcious he can't stop the bleeding himself and John might not have turned up early enough (in fact, he didn't) .

My point was that Sherlock was sure that she wouldn't try to shot him immediatly but try to talk to him first. Not that he was sure that she wouldn't shot him at all - I am the one who it pretty sure that she wouldn't have done it. (Plus, I wonder if Sherlock was testing a theory when he was waiting for the paramedics, taking the time to figure out if she called them or not).

And I could swear that Sherlock, after saying that she wont, did try to take said step.

John couldn't, by definition, turn up early enough to put a tourniquet on Sherlock because there was nowhere he could put a tourniquet on: Mary had rendered that impossible by putting a bullet into Sherlock's chest. Mary did not have to aim at an artery in his arm or leg; strangely enough there are quite large areas of one's arms and legs which are not arteries, and suggesting otherwise simply suggests that you are unwilling to accept basic anatomy. If Mary is a brilliant shot then she could have placed her shot in a part of the arm or leg where there are no arteries.

Mary had already managed to knock two people unconscious without shooting them; in those circumstances claiming that she had no choice but to shoot him in the central mass is unreasonable. She had choices; she chose not to shoot Sherlock through the head-the definitive kill shot- because if she had done so John would have gone straight after her. Instead she chose to put a bullet where it would almost certainly kill him.

And frankly, your belief that she wanted just to talk to him in Leinster Gardens has no evidence to support it; people do not usually take loaded guns with them when all they want is a chat. She was hunting him and she thought she was being clever...

**Posted by Willow** February 5, 2014 11:42 pm

Swanpride wrote:
To make my point of view clear: Yes, she had other options. But all those other options involved either killing Sherlock or John finding out.

So the question is for me less if the shoot was the right decision for the goal she wanted to reach. It was (though I would call what she did not "rescueing Sherlock" but "Sparing him and giving him a chance to survive"). The real question is for me if it is forgivable that she considered keeping her true identity hidden from John as more important than risking Sherlock's life.

My first reaction is "no, it certainly wasn't". The risk she took was too high. But then I remember that she had split seconds to decide and that she was trained to do this kind of decisions. And then I am inclined to let the characters decide if they can forgive her or not. And since Sherlock and John were able to understand and forgive I can too.

Was it in character for them to do so? Yes, I totally think so. Sherlock would understand her reasoning and he would understand her desire to protect her relationship with John, no matter the cost. And John just is the forgiving type (though not the trusting one - who knows when he will fully trust her again). He tries to preserve his relationship with his alcoholic sister despite the fact that they don't get on, he forgave Sherlock again and again for thoughtless actions, so I can totally see him forgiving the woman he loves.

Basically, I am good.

On the whole the Courts take a dim view of people claiming that they were not to blame for nearly killing someone because they'd killed lots of people before and they were just following their instincts. Equally, Mary is pregnant and neither John nor Sherlock are much for blowing away a pregnant woman; canonically John is noted for his abysmal judgement of women, whereas as Sherlock Holmes was noted for his understanding that love isn't necessarily about sparkly unicorns and sweet little kittens. It can be perverted, and in Mary's case it was. She was perfectly prepared to put John through the hell of losing Sherlock provided it didn't interfere with what she wanted; she will carry on being prepared to put people through hell in order to get what she wants.

I have no difficulty in forgiving the original Dr Watson for his abysmal judgement of women, just as I have no difficulty in forgiving the current Sherlock for his romanticised view of motherhood, given the back story that Moftiss have provided. But the pregnancy is what is driving their actions, not the fact that Mary is forgivable; Moftiss have put that in because it is the only way they could keep her alive for S4.

These are, after all, fictional characters based on the works of ACD; John is and always will be a sucker for a pretty face and a sob story, and Sherlock will have to try navigating around that fact as he does in canon. But clearly we are going to find out a lot more about Mary in S4, and I have no doubt that Moftiss have a reason for keeping her around, given the hoops they have jumped through to provide even a thin veneer of plausibility for that fact. Besides, Mycroft has certainly not forgiven Mary, and we have a pretty good idea of the reaction of Sherlock's parents should they discover the truth. Mathematicians are not noted for their sentimentality

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 9:50 am

Swanpride wrote:
I am neither trying to win a court case, nor am I trying to argue my point of view in a way that I expect you to agree with it. I am just explaining why I am totally okay with what happened in the episode - and at least for me, it had worked just as well if Mary hadn't been pregnant. And I still think that the main reason for that was to give an explanation why she sits back while Sherlock does the dirty work in the very end. Without her pregnancy, I would have expected of her to take out Magnusson herself.

But Moftiss would never have written a script which allowed Mary to murder someone for purely selfish reasons, and allow the main characters to condone it. That would go so far against canon as to make a mockery of calling it Sherlock, and Moftiss are ACD fanboys. They wouldn't do it.

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 6, 2014 10:43 am

Willow wrote:
Mary did not have to aim at an artery in his arm or leg; strangely enough there are quite large areas of one's arms and legs which are not arteries, and suggesting otherwise simply suggests that you are unwilling to accept basic anatomy. If Mary is a brilliant shot then she could have placed her shot in a part of the arm or leg where there are no arteries.

Mary had already managed to knock two people unconscious without shooting them; in those circumstances claiming that she had no choice but to shoot him in the central mass is unreasonable. She had choices

Those are the points I've been trying to make all along (and somehow I get the impression we're repeating ourselves here). Mary is a trained CIA agent, she knows where she has to shoot someone without causing a damage that would kill that person in the next three minutes. And then knock him out. If she is the person that CAM claims she is (and I'd say she is, otherwise why go to all that trouble to hide the truth from John and everyone else?), she's probably done stuff like this hundreds of times.
John and Sherlock have forgiven her, fine. But sadly, I haven't seen any true regret on Mary's part. Not in the scene in which she shot Sherlock, and not afterwards. It's all having a sort of bitter aftertaste to me.

**Posted by Tinks** February 6, 2014 10:58 am

SolarSystem wrote:
Willow wrote:
Mary did not have to aim at an artery in his arm or leg; strangely enough there are quite large areas of one's arms and legs which are not arteries, and suggesting otherwise simply suggests that you are unwilling to accept basic anatomy. If Mary is a brilliant shot then she could have placed her shot in a part of the arm or leg where there are no arteries.

Mary had already managed to knock two people unconscious without shooting them; in those circumstances claiming that she had no choice but to shoot him in the central mass is unreasonable. She had choices
Those are the points I've been trying to make all along (and somehow I get the impression we're repeating ourselves here). Mary is a trained CIA agent, she knows where she has to shoot someone without causing a damage that would kill that person in the next three minutes. And then knock him out. If she is the person that CAM claims she is (and I'd say she is, otherwise why go to all that trouble to hide the truth from John and everyone else?), she's probably done stuff like this hundreds of times.
John and Sherlock have forgiven her, fine. But sadly, I haven't seen any true regret on Mary's part. Not in the scene in which she shot Sherlock, and not afterwards. It's all having a sort of bitter aftertaste to me.

These are some of the points that I keep repeating.
I'm probably not expressing myself very well, but what it comes down to with me is:
It seems we are supposed to forgive Mary and accept her as one of the flawed-but-good guys, but I feel that what she did and the way she went about it makes this hard to do.
I get that much of it was designed to show us that Sherlock is not the selfish and unemotional person he pretends to be, but I wish they'd not been so hard on Mary's character - and to a certain extent John's - to achieve this.

**Posted by ancientsgate** February 6, 2014 11:14 am

Swanpride wrote:
Comparable harmless? Where? I guess you mean arm and legs, but that is not as "harmless" as some people believe. If you happen to hit an ateria, the victim will bleed out very, very fast. In fact, the only place in the body which you can shot without mayor risk of hitting an important one is on the right side of the upper body (on the left side is the aorta) - and that's exactly where the bullet ended up.

Let's examine the situation. Mary has two mayor goals: The first one is getting rid of Magnusson, the second one is keeping John in the dark of her true identity.

She could get both by simply killing Magnusson and Sherlock. But that would result in
1. John being devasted because Sherlock is dead and
2. John being in trouble and pehaps even under the suspicion of murder.

She could try to salvage the situation by convincing Sherlock - but that would cost time and John might enter any minute. So to avoid John finding out, she has to act fast.

She could try to knock out both, Magnusson and Sherlock. But Sherlock doesn't head her warning that she will shot so she has basically no control over him. If she allows him to come closer, the result will be a messy fight.

So her solution is to take out Sherlock with one precise shot which won't kill him immediatly (giving the ambulance time to arrive) and knocking out Magnusson. She calls the ambulance and leaves, hoping that she'll have the opportunity to talk to Sherlock before he tells John.

Would she have killed Sherlock to protect her secret once and for all later on? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Sherlock would have never put John in the place of the dummy if he had believed that she was ready to shot first and ask questions later. Her main goal was to convince Sherlock, not to kill him.

I like your thoughts here.

The thing that occurs to me is that the showrunners have already thought all of this to death, well before words went to paper, scenes were planned, and acting was in the can. To DEATH. I mean, if we think we're tossing around ideas in the forum, imagine what they went through as they wrote and met together to make creative decisions, etc. One thing about the show Sherlock, it seems as though each major scene often can have many possible reasons behind it. Of course, we're not privy to what TPTB have pre-planned for S4 and beyond..... I absolutely trust that they had their reasons for what they wrote into each scene-- ie, Mary did what she did because they wanted her to, yes, but perhaps also because she needed to, in order to lead into what's coming. And the fact that Sherlock and John et al seemed to forgive her so very easily, that probably was necessary to just move the story ahead. So just a thought.

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 6, 2014 11:29 am

I agree, Mofftiss know exactly what they're doing.
And that's why I don't believe that they let Sherlock and John forgive Mary so easily only because they wanted to move the story ahead. They had other reasons for that, I'm sure. They wouldn't let the need to move the story ahead interfere with their story-telling. If they'd wanted to tell us something else, they'd done that. But they wanted it to be this way, so they did it this way.

**Posted by ancientsgate** February 6, 2014 11:47 am

SolarSystem wrote:
I agree, Mofftiss know exactly what they're doing.And that's why I don't believe that they let Sherlock and John forgive Mary so easily ....

Sherlock and John forgave her enough to move ahead, for the sake of the baby, for the sake of John and Mary's sanity (both of them), for Sherlock to at least get a bit of reassurance that his friend John would be okay, at least enough okay. But they didn't forgive easily-- especially John, who apparently went through a real "time" after his wife tried to take Sherlock out and she was proven to be a total liar. In the Xmas scene in the 'rents' sitting room, it's obvious that John pretty much hasn't spoken to his wife in *months*, and their hug was stiff as a board, as though between two old lovers who hadn't been together in a long, long time. Mary's scared of him, scared of what he might decide, and my heart went out to her in those moments, that she'd had to live that way for *months*, live a life of limbo with a husband who shut her out, and especially at a time that usually is a happy one, expecting a child and all. Yes, I know she'd made her bed, and then she had to lie in it, but months of silence in their home? And they supposedly continued working together, too? Sheesh, that's dreadful.

So yeah, the two men forgave her, but I got the feeling that they took it out of her hide emotionally, and that they never even tried to "forget", in spite of a facade of "forgive."

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 12:23 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
I agree, Mofftiss know exactly what they're doing.And that's why I don't believe that they let Sherlock and John forgive Mary so easily ....
Sherlock and John forgave her enough to move ahead, for the sake of the baby, for the sake of John and Mary's sanity (both of them), for Sherlock to at least get a bit of reassurance that his friend John would be okay, at least enough okay. But they didn't forgive easily-- especially John, who apparently went through a real "time" after his wife tried to take Sherlock out and she was proven to be a total liar. In the Xmas scene in the 'rents' sitting room, it's obvious that John pretty much hasn't spoken to his wife in *months*, and their hug was stiff as a board, as though between two old lovers who hadn't been together in a long, long time. Mary's scared of him, scared of what he might decide, and my heart went out to her in those moments, that she'd had to live that way for *months*, live a life of limbo with a husband who shut her out, and especially at a time that usually is a happy one, expecting a child and all. Yes, I know she'd made her bed, and then she had to lie in it, but months of silence in their home? And they supposedly continued working together, too? Sheesh, that's dreadful.

So yeah, the two men forgave her, but I got the feeling that they took it out of her hide emotionally, and that they never even tried to "forget", in spite of a facade of "forgive."

Actually, there is no evidence that John and Mary were living together in the months preceding Xmas; Sherlock remained in hospital for those months, and John would have been pretty busy juggling his practise with making sure that Sherlock stayed in hospital. And, of course, John's chair had been replaced where it should have been, in Baker St.

Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that 'they took it out of her hide emotionally'; you have conjured that one from thin air as well. You are remarkably swift at making things up to fit the conclusion you want, but your willingness to accuse both Sherlock and John of emotional abuse is pretty tawdry.

You are flip flopping; one moment it's 'they forgave her to get it over with so they could get on to the next story line, and the next it's 'poor sad Mary afraid that her fake husband might be annoyed with her just because she'd lied through her teeth and deliberately shot his best friend so he flatlined on the operating table'.

It's silly. And whilst Moftiss do good silly, they don't do stupid silly, and 'poor sad Mary' emotionally abused by her fake husband and Sherlock is stupid silly, as well as entirely contrary to canon, which, since Moftiss are ACD fanboys, is not going to happen...

**Posted by ancientsgate** February 6, 2014 12:57 pm

Willow wrote:
Actually, there is no evidence that John and Mary were living together in the months preceding Xmas; Sherlock remained in hospital for those months, and John would have been pretty busy juggling his practise with making sure that Sherlock stayed in hospital. And, of course, John's chair had been replaced where it should have been, in Baker St.

That's true. They never said, one way or the other. She was invited for Christmas, though, so that implies (at least, to me) that she and John were still a couple, still capable of being civil to each other, etc.

Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that 'they took it out of her hide emotionally'; you have conjured that one from thin air as well. You are remarkably swift at making things up to fit the conclusion you want, but your willingness to accuse both Sherlock and John of emotional abuse is pretty tawdry

Did I say abuse? I don't remember saying abuse. I wasn't "accusing" anyone of anything-- I just meant that they're simply human-- forgiving is possible when one chooses to, but the forgetting and truly putting whatever it is behind is very very hard. Most of us who've reached a certain age know that very well. Tawdry? Let me go look up that word, just so I can be sure what you meant-- tastelessly showy, cheap and shoddy-- wow. How do you really feel? Don't hold back, now. *rolls eyes*

This is a discussion, not a debate; at least, I thought so. I'm not an idiot, and I have nothing to gain by making things up (how come when I say things, I'm making stuff up, but when you hold forth about something, it's the god's honest truth?) I am not remarkably swift about anything-- just throwing ideas out there. Do you spend an hour or more thinking everything through before you post your oh-so-correct ideas? Doubtful.

You are flip flopping...It's silly. And whilst Moftiss do good silly, they don't do stupid silly....

And now I don't know my own mind (flip flopping), and I'm stupid and silly. Hmmm. You know what? You're no fun, Willow, putting words in my mouth and all and name-calling. Thanks for taking all the fun out of it [for me--- I can't speak for what kind or amount of fun anyone else is having here].

Last edited by ancientsgate (February 6, 2014 1:00 pm)

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 1:15 pm

Swanpride wrote:
Who said anything about emotional abuse? The point ancientsgate made was that they didn't just turn around and everything was okay. It was a long process. A long time John spend to come to terms with his feelings, a long time Mary lived with the knowledge that she might have lost him forever. So she didn't exactly escape without "punishment". She did pay a price, and she will still pay everytime she mowes the lawn.

Ancientsgate asserted, without any evidence to support a pretty foul allegation, that Sherlock and John

'Took it out of her hide emotionally'

which is a clear assertion of emotional abuse. If they had taken it out of her hide physically it would be physical abuse.

Since you appear not to have come across the concept there are many helpful charitable websites which clearly explain both emotional and physical abuse; the important point is that they are abuse, and are recognised as such in law. A quick Google should bring you up to speed...

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 6, 2014 1:34 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
That's true. They never said, one way or the other. She was invited for Christmas, though, so that implies (at least, to me) that she and John were still a couple, still capable of being civil to each other, etc.

I've still got some questions about that Christmas sequence, btw, because I still wonder why Mary is there if she and John really haven't spoken a word with each other for months. Could this be Sherlock's doing? Did he want both of them there? Or did John insist that Mary should come along because he already knew that he wanted to talk to her...? And if so, why didn't he just talk to her at home?
I've got questions... but it's a bit off topic here...

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 1:37 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
Willow wrote:
Actually, there is no evidence that John and Mary were living together in the months preceding Xmas; Sherlock remained in hospital for those months, and John would have been pretty busy juggling his practise with making sure that Sherlock stayed in hospital. And, of course, John's chair had been replaced where it should have been, in Baker St.
That's true. They never said, one way or the other. She was invited for Christmas, though, so that implies (at least, to me) that she and John were still a couple, still capable of being civil to each other, etc.

Nor, for that matter, is there any evidence that 'they took it out of her hide emotionally'; you have conjured that one from thin air as well. You are remarkably swift at making things up to fit the conclusion you want, but your willingness to accuse both Sherlock and John of emotional abuse is pretty tawdry
Did I say abuse? I don't remember saying abuse. I wasn't "accusing" anyone of anything-- I just meant that they're simply human-- forgiving is possible when one chooses to, but the forgetting and truly putting whatever it is behind is very very hard. Most of us who've reached a certain age know that very well. Tawdry? Let me go look up that word, just so I can be sure what you meant-- tastelessly showy, cheap and shoddy-- wow. How do you really feel? Don't hold back, now. *rolls eyes*

This is a discussion, not a debate; at least, I thought so. I'm not an idiot, and I have nothing to gain by making things up (how come when I say things, I'm making stuff up, but when you hold forth about something, it's the god's honest truth?) I am not remarkably swift about anything-- just throwing ideas out there. Do you spend an hour or more thinking everything through before you post your oh-so-correct ideas? Doubtful.

You are flip flopping...It's silly. And whilst Moftiss do good silly, they don't do stupid silly....
And now I don't know my own mind (flip flopping), and I'm stupid and silly. Hmmm. You know what? You're no fun, Willow, putting words in my mouth and all and name-calling. Thanks for taking all the fun out of it [for me--- I can't speak for what kind or amount of fun anyone else is having here].

What you are doing is flailing around trying to find some means of justifying what your preconceptions; whenever somebody points out the holes in your argument you drop it and try and find another one. And when the holes in that one are pointed out it's all change and onwards to the next.

Furthermore, you are now trying to transmute my criticism of your ideas into a criticism of you personally; I criticised your arguments, which are silly in this instance, not you. However much you might like this to be about you, it is not; it's about a television programme called Sherlock, which is written by exceedingly fine writers who don't do stupid silly.

And if you really are so naive as to believe that 'taking it out on her hide emotionally' does not constitute emotional abuse then I suggest that you look it up; incredible as it may seem to you there is a substantial volume of both legislation and case law on the subject.

You are the person who chose to argue that this is what our much loved heroes did; no one put those words in your mouth. You typed them. I am perfectly happy to wait whilst you educate yourself on the clear meaning of your own words; it's really not difficult...

**Posted by SusiGo** February 6, 2014 1:52 pm

Mod's note:
This is getting a bit out of hand. This is meant to be a discussion and there are certain rules of fairness, among them quoting people correctly and not getting personal. Thank you.

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 1:56 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
ancientsgate wrote:
That's true. They never said, one way or the other. She was invited for Christmas, though, so that implies (at least, to me) that she and John were still a couple, still capable of being civil to each other, etc.
I've still got some questions about that Christmas sequence, btw, because I still wonder why Mary is there if she and John really haven't spoken a word with each other for months. Could this be Sherlock's doing? Did he want both of them there? Or did John insist that Mary should come along because he already knew that he wanted to talk to her...? And if so, why didn't he just talk to her at home?
I've got questions... but it's a bit off topic here...

John's first remark to Mary at the Holmes home is "So, are you OK?" which suggests that this is the first time he has seen her for some time. And we get Mary's statement that Sherlock invited them there for a reason, which John takes to be the sight of a happy family, doing happy family things, though Heaven knows how they fit Mikey into that one.

So no, I don't think John could have talked to her at home; I think John was in Baker St and would have been profoundly conflicted by the fact that Sherlock had spent months in hospital as a result of her actions.

**Posted by SusiGo** February 6, 2014 2:54 pm

I agree with you. One may discuss things on several levels but without getting personal just because one does not share another's opinion.

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 6, 2014 2:59 pm

I also agree. And let's face it, not everyone will ever agree with everyone on everything. Won't happen and would be boring. Still no reason to get personal.

**Posted by Willow** February 6, 2014 6:10 pm

I do apologise for unwittingly appearing to play the man rather than the ball; for those unfamiliar with idiomatic English, and our sporting obsessions, English football tackles are supposed to be with the aim of getting the ball and not the player. It is completely unlike rugby in this respect, and, from the little I know of American football, unlike American football as well. Hence the phrase.

I shall now return to trying to make sense of Windows 8; I assume that it must make sense to someone or they wouldn't have made it that way, but after hours of trying to set up my new laptop I have concluded that Moriarty must have been hiding out as a software designer, in which case he will probably do less damage if he returns to a life of crime...

**Posted by lil** February 6, 2014 7:35 pm

I don't think the shooting thing is supposed to be rationalised.
Mary is a pregnant " lethal killer nurse " that gets caught in the act and has a crazy / seems like a good idea at the time type moment and solves her problem with the gun .
An ordinary normalish example of somthing similar outside of tvland is a pregnant woman gets into a row about shoes , throws an ashtray and breaks her partners kneecap.( yes I did that)
After.. it's lol...whoops ok it doesn't make sense and a bit not good, but he did shut up about the shoes, and for Mary, SH was shut up for now and Magnusson was temporarily appeased.
( she couldn't annoy Magnusson by deliberately killing SH with a headshot)

So I can easily see why the shooting is forgiven , and even maybe a bit lol later.

The things that are revealed later become the problem.
Marys past and her lies make her seem a " bad guy " and that doesn't fit with our image of Sherlock/John as the "good guys".

It seems to me that is also the problem John has, and why it takes him months to decide what to do about it. In the end the symbolic style burning of the memory stick indicates ...they will deal with that later / in future episodes.
He hasn't forgiven or forgotten it, it is put aside for now.

In the meantime , we are left with the more than a bit not good , Mary " bad guy " uncomfortabe feeling.

They will probably try to balance that before they write her out for good, because ultimately Mary is a changes everything but nothing type character.

Personally I dislike the extremes, in the first two she seemed too perfect and a sugary Mary sue type persona...and in HLV that becomes a morally repugnant, selfish , two faced liar type persona.
It's reminiscent of the nursery rhymes..when she was good she very very good but when she was bad she was horrid....and Mary Mary quite contrary....maybe thats where they got the idea....
I guess we are yet to see the real Mary...the third middle of the two type persona.

Last edited by lil (February 6, 2014 8:04 pm)

**Posted by ancientsgate** February 6, 2014 8:10 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I agree with you. One may discuss things on several levels but without getting personal just because one does not share another's opinion.

My apologies to the readers of this thread. One of these days, I may remember to take up my list concerns with a moderator, rather than responding personally. My last reply has not appeared, so I suppose it was withheld by a mod, no idea. I was going to go back and delete it and just move on, but if it doesn't get posted at all, then it's been taken care of. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.