Swanpride wrote:

...The other is the plot-level. Does it make sense from a story-telling point of view? And yes, I think it does. It makes sense for John and Sherlock to act that way, because that's how their characters have been established. It makes sense from the dramatic aspect - otherwise we wouldn't still discussing it. And it has the plus that it makes Mary a more useful character for future episodes than she would have been as simple nurse.

I agree on all counts. Without some dramatic, thought-provoking dialogue and action, it'd be a pretty dull piece of fiction, wouldn't it. I'm *glad* S/J forgave Mary enough to stay in relationship with her, simply because I think she's fascinating, and I want to see more of her in further seasons.

Everyone knows Moriarty works for Microsoft! (This is a joke btw). 

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

...I think that's a fundemental difference in the way we're all looking at things; I think some of us think that Love excuses all, and some of us don't. Of course, I could be on crack. 

*smile*  Yeah, crack, there is that. Most of us are on that, one time or another, in some form or another.

The Sherlock writers didn't give us all the backstory about Mary, or let us see much of her inner thought-life, really. Plus there was that huge gap in time between Sherlock in the hospital and all of them going to the 'rents' for Xmas, and what went on during those months? So when people stand around and discuss the Mary subject, it's practically wide open; no wonder there are such diverse opinions. I rather like hearing everyone's widely divergent ideas, just because hey, why not?
 

besleybean wrote:

Is 'rents' U.S slang for a holiday let?

Sorry, bb. Parents.

ancientsgate wrote:

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:

...I think that's a fundemental difference in the way we're all looking at things; I think some of us think that Love excuses all, and some of us don't. Of course, I could be on crack. 

*smile*  Yeah, crack, there is that. Most of us are on that, one time or another, in some form or another.

The Sherlock writers didn't give us all the backstory about Mary, or let us see much of her inner thought-life, really. Plus there was that huge gap in time between Sherlock in the hospital and all of them going to the 'rents' for Xmas, and what went on during those months? So when people stand around and discuss the Mary subject, it's practically wide open; no wonder there are such diverse opinions. I rather like hearing everyone's widely divergent ideas, just because hey, why not?
 

You just made me think of something, too-- this season is told primarily from Sherlock's POV, not John's. 

Sherlock-- has been, well, having difficulty navigating feelings he's blocked himself from for many years, correct? On the other hand, suppose that's not the case? Suppose this is what being inside his head is actually like? There's a lot of confusion, a lot of fear, a lot of love for John-- but an awful lot of hurt there, too-- caused by John, who probably didn't realize that he'd hurt Sherlock at all; after all, John's POV opinion is that "Sherlock's a machine." 

As messed up as Sherlock is, he just might be in a "give John whatever he needs to be happy", space, and also beleiving that he can never give John what he needs-- well, there might be the reason he was so quick to "forgive" Mary. 

I also keep thinking that there's also an element of forcing John to take responsibility for his choices, and stop blaming everyone else for them, paricularly the pull towards dangerous situations and people. The violent tendencies. And, I'm just going to say it-- internalized homophobia.

John (consciously) chooses Mary because she represents what *he's* supposed to want, what he's supposed to *be*. And of course, he chooses another (in his words) psychopath. 

He almost *has* to forgive her, if he wants to keep his very carefully crafted facade of "I'm the normal, human one" intact. 

But I found it very interesting when CAM referred to Mary and John and Mrs and Mr Psychopath. 

So very unhealthy, but interesting storyline-- 

And, no-- I'm not forgiving Mary. :-)

 

How odd - I've only just read the last few posts after posting in another thread that I felt season 3 shifted focus slightly from being all about John's reactions and feelings, to being more about Sherlock's.
I completely agree also, that John was very much not looking at the wider picture throughout the whole season - everything was about how it affected HIM - even when Mary almost killed Sherlock, it was very much about how could she have lied to him, not how could she have almost taken Sherlock's life.
I'm really hoping that next time around they can both be on the same page and be more open and generous with their friendship to each other, and that we can move away from the idea that one must be constantly hurting the other .

Tinks wrote:

How odd - I've only just read the last few posts after posting in another thread that I felt season 3 shifted focus slightly from being all about John's reactions and feelings, to being more about Sherlock's.
I completely agree also, that John was very much not looking at the wider picture throughout the whole season - everything was about how it affected HIM - even when Mary almost killed Sherlock, it was very much about how could she have lied to him, not how could she have almost taken Sherlock's life.
I'm really hoping that next time around they can both be on the same page and be more open and generous with their friendship to each other, and that we can move away from the idea that one must be constantly hurting the other .

I entirely agree with you. I suspect that Moftiss do not really write for people micromanaging the emotional state of the characters, they play fair in telling us never to trust a word they say, and they expect people to use their brains, should they happen to possess any, though that's not a requirement; this is, after all, the BBC.

And John was not a fun person for much of this season, but we have Canon on our side; we know that he'll stop acting like an idiot and start being Dr John Watson again in the fairly near future. For his sake I do hope that someone will explain to him that he is not legally married, so filing a joint tax return with Mary is a definite no-no.

Actually, the absence of a legal marriage, coupled with Mary not being British in origin, is sufficient for her to be deported, should Mycroft choose to set the wheels in motion; that's one way of dispensing with her which does not require bloodshed nor costly expenditure paid for by the taxpayer putting her into a Protected Witness Scheme. We could have another airfield scene with Mary getting on the plane
 

besleybean wrote:

With ot without child and will it be John's?

Well, if it is John's child it would possess British nationality; born here to one parent of undisputed British nationality.

Of course, given that we still haven't a clue who Mary is we have no means of determining whether the child is likely to be John's; that's yet another point left unanswered. Moftiss are really good at leaving themselves room to go in a myriad different directions within the framework of ACD laid down.

Great, isn't it!
 

Swanpride wrote:

I wouldn't say that the people who are pro-Mary are arguing less fact-based than the ones against her. The pro-Mary action is simply inclined to belive Sherlock's explanation for her actions and are ready to understand them, and they are ready to take what the show presents to us as face-value, meaning that Mary really loves John and John really loves Mary. (And I wouldn't agree that John doesn't look at the bigger picture...he is the one who reminds Sherlock "she shot you" and Sherlock is the one who says "mixed messages, I know". John forgives Mary, but Sherlock is the one who proclaimes his forgiveness first by taking her as "client"...never mind that the point of the whole scene with her on the stool is to decide if "we want you". "We" not "John")
The anti-Mary fraction is just more cynical about the whole thing. They are inclined to belive that Mary has ulterior motives, see her love as selfish and are ready to judge her based on a past we know next to nothing about.

I may not be understanding you here, so bear with me. What I hear you saying is that because Pro-Mary characters *liked Mary to begin with* , they are willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, even though she shot Sherlock, and he died (briefly) that she lied to John from the beginning, that John actually has no idea who she is. Pro-Mary people see her as inherently good? How does that excuse her actions? Just curious. 

Swanpride wrote:

@RavenMorganLeigh  That's not what I meant (or wrote)...I meant that the people who now like Mary (independent from the question if they liked her to begin with or maybe even like her now that she is more than just the nice little shipper on deck) take what Sherlock told them face value and are ready to believe that despite the lies, she truly loves John and John truly loves (and needs) her. Their view of Mary is not less "factual" than the one view of the ones arguing against her - just less cynical. If I followed the argumentation correctly they don't excuse her actions, but they understand them, and they are ready to forgive her because Sherlock and John did too.

While the anti-Mary fraction basically argues that is was wrong of Sherlock and John to forgive her because she did something utterly despicable in their eyes.

 
Well, I don't know whether there is an 'anti-Mary fraction' sic, so I leave that to others.

I'm not anti-Mary, nor am I pro-Mary; it's hard to be that if, like myself, you took a degree in drama and theatre arts. My perspective is that of someone accustomed to analysing dramatic works, whether it's Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes; the same principles apply. I don't, and indeed cannot, treat these characters are real people because they are not real people; they are characters in a dramatic work, and if I had ever written an essay suggesting that I viewed characters as real people, then it would not have been well received by my tutors. Or, for that matter, the University shrink.

I am distanced because I know a lot more of the mechanics of putting the structure together; my criticisms are far more likely to be technical, in terms of construction; or whether a particular actor, given a particular part, played that role well.

But I never import assumptions about characters on the basis that they seem nice, because I have seen vast numbers of dramas in which supposedly nice characters ended up doing dreadful things; which is just as well because nice people doing nice things isn't exactly compelling, unless it's Top Hat, of course.

And when it comes to Mycroft and the Civil Service stuff I do have long experience of the way the thing works in practice; I was one of them, so the way I watch those scenes is informed by that long experience. I dealt in facts, because no investigator ever starts by asking themselves what all the possible reasons for something might be, since there could could be millions of them. Investigators start by establishing the facts, which can be, and frequently is, exceedingly tricky, but that's the only way it can be done. People lie all the time, so you judge them on what they actually have done, rather than what they say they have done...