Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Arcadia]

Maybe she isn't a dragon. Maybe she's the wolf that instinctively bites back when cornered.

Oh, good observation, that's how she comes across to me too. She's Princess Mononoke!!!

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

YOU'VE SEEN PRINCESS MONONOKE TOO?!

 

(there aren't any good spazzy emotes I can find so here's my reaction gif)

 

Loved the movie, great soundtrack too!

 

 

And yeah, I'm sure Mary's like a wolf. She's loyal, social, and protective of whom she considers part of her "pack" (John and the baby).

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Absolutely.....if Sherlock would expose her to John as the one who shot him, what is stopping him from going all the way of protecting John from her if she was a very true threat to everyone else Sherlock cares about. He wouldn't shoot someone just to cover for her, of course there are all CAM's other victims and potential victims including Mycroft, if she was a bigger baddy then CAM.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I hope! 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Somehow, I have no doubts.

[T.o.b.y]

 

But why was it necessary to murder CAM to stop him revealing the truth about Mary? If she really killed people, and he really has that evidence, isn't it right to expose her? Not to blackmail her, I agree, but to tell the truth and put the whole thing into the hands of the police. If there are extenuating circumstances, they will be brought up by the defence at her trial. How can it be right for Sherlock to murder someone with the deliberate intention of perverting the course of justice? That's what I don't get.

Exactly. If she's really that terrible -- a cold-hearted murderess of innocents -- why is Sherlock protecting her? Wouldn't he want justice for her victims instead?

 

Which is why I end up thinking there has to be something else. We've either been misled by what someone has said, or we haven't been told everything yet.

 

I don't think shooting Magnussen was so much about Mary as about Magnussen himself and the greater threat he posed to society at large, hey even to international politics, it seems, from the hints we got during the episode. But yeah, if he thought she was thoroughly bad and in herself a source of danger for John, I don't think Sherlock would have handled her secret the way he did.

 

Just the fact that she once killed people for a living wouldn't be enough for Sherlock to disapprove of her, I think. It would depend on what people, and why, and for whom. He does have a code of ethics, I think, but it's a rather unusual one, and not necessarily in agreement with the law or what we would call "good".

 

 

YOU'VE SEEN PRINCESS MONONOKE TOO?!

 

... And so have I. Loved it! My favorite animated film, I think. I'm not too fond of Japanese animation in general, but the Ghibli stuff is great. I saw this scene:

 

 

And what can I say, I was hooked...

 

 

Absolutely.....if Sherlock would expose her to John as the one who shot him, what is stopping him from going all the way of protecting John from her if she was a very true threat to everyone else Sherlock cares about. He wouldn't shoot someone just to cover for her, of course there are all CAM's other victims and potential victims including Mycroft, if she was a bigger baddy then CAM.

 

Right. As I said above, I don't think either that killing Magnussed was just for Mary.

 

Sherlock trusts Mary for some reason. I know the "surgery" idea sounds preposterous, but I am afraid we are asked to accept it as the reason. It's just like Sherlock somehow to claim "she saved my life" because a person chose an only possibly lethal way to shoot him instead of instantly taking his life. Still, it is interesting that she is shown from a very unsympathetic angle inside the mind palace, and only referred to as "that wife". Seems that Sherlock had to do some thinking before he came to the conclusion he presented John with later.

[Arcadia]

YOU'VE SEEN PRINCESS MONONOKE TOO?!

Well, of course. All the cool people have.

 

And yeah, I'm sure Mary's like a wolf. She's loyal, social, and protective of whom she considers part of her "pack" (John and the baby).

And hopefully Sherlock as well? Or is he "too human"?

 

Absolutely.....if Sherlock would expose her to John as the one who shot him, what is stopping him from going all the way of protecting John from her if she was a very true threat to everyone else Sherlock cares about. He wouldn't shoot someone just to cover for her, of course there are all CAM's other victims and potential victims including Mycroft, if she was a bigger baddy then CAM.

Right, Sherlock seemed rather certain she could be trusted. Of course, he seemed rather certain Magnussen had vaults, too.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Seems that Sherlock had to do some thinking before he came to the conclusion he presented John with later.

 

  Did some thinking...more likely some digging....or he contacted Mycroft and his brother gave him the full dossier on her. That's how Sherlock come to know so quickly that her name was an alias. If this happened all on the same night then Sherlock was gaining knowledge awfully fast.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

The supposed vaults were common knowledge.....Mycroft and probably a lot of other people thought they were real. Magnussen made sure of that and had years to plant that idea. Mary didn't have that kind of time. Someone had knowledge that Sherlock was able to get his hands on. He and Mycroft know a whole lot more about the whole set up. The whole story that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet because we haven't been given enough data, really.

[Arcadia]

I don't think shooting Magnussen was so much about Mary as about Magnussen himself and the greater threat he posed to society at large, hey even to international politics, it seems, from the hints we got during the episode.....

Hmmm. Maybe. But I think he did it for John. Full stop.

 

Sherlock trusts Mary for some reason. I know the "surgery" idea sounds preposterous, but I am afraid we are asked to accept it as the reason. It's just like Sherlock somehow to claim "she saved my life" because a person chose an only possibly lethal way to shoot him instead of instantly taking his life. Still, it is interesting that she is shown from a very unsympathetic angle inside the mind palace, and only referred to as "that wife". Seems that Sherlock had to do some thinking before he came to the conclusion he presented John with later.

But "that wife" came from Moriarty, the ugly side of Sherlock's self. In the other mind palace scenes he's just trying to figure her out. And as soon as he had time to really think about it, he decided she was safe. (And then proved it to himself by having her shoot the coin, which makes about as much sense as claiming she did surgery, but this IS Sherlock we're talking about....)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

And Sherlock is famous for playing his cards very close to the chest until he is ready to make the final exposure of the real criminal, make the final big reveal.

[Arcadia]

The supposed vaults were common knowledge.....Mycroft and probably a lot of other people thought they were real. Magnussen made sure of that and had years to plant that idea. Mary didn't have that kind of time. Someone had knowledge that Sherlock was able to get his hands on. He and Mycroft know a whole lot more about the whole set up. The whole story that we haven't even scratched the surface of yet because we haven't been given enough data, really.

Yeh, they were (deliberately?) vague about the passage of time in HLV -- I say deliberately because they were pretty clear about the passage of time in, say, ASiP. But I have to assume some days had gone by before he escaped the hospital.

 

I hadn't considered he may have gotten his information from Mycroft, but it makes sense -- unless he's hiding Mary from Mycroft, too. - ?

 

I'm starting to feel like Sherlock in TSo3 .... "too many, too many!!" Too many questions, that is, to keep straight!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I can't see Mary could have possibly be hidden from Mycroft. Mycroft posses as the "British Government", moonlights as a co-conspiritor with the likes of the Black ops groups and CAM who all seem to know Mary in some guise, is dating then marries Sherlock's moral compass, how can he miss her?

[Slithytove]

I really, really hope that there is some brilliant story arc which will make sense of everything, but somehow I doubt it.  S3 didn't resolve TRF but muddied the waters instead, so I suspect the same will happen in S4.  I'm afraid that Mary's story arc will be designed to wring sympathy for her, particularly if she's going to expire tragically in the last episode.  I'd bet that she either took up killing to avenge her family or she only killed those who "deserve to be killed", or both, and that will be considered okay.  I'd also bet that John has forgiven her completely, even though he doesn't really know what he is forgiving her for (except nearly killing his best friend.)  And, of course, Sherlock will be wholly unchanged by committing murder. Hope I'm wrong about everything!

 

I agree that you can't base your morality on tv programmes.  When 24 was criticised for encouraging violence towards prisoners, Kiefer Sutherland said that if the US army and government were imitating a tv thriller, we were all in trouble!  However, I don't think you can rule out morality when you respond to a story (on tv or otherwise.)  It has often struck me that we have to have a value system which is more or less shared, or stories wouldn't work.  For instance, we can begin to get the idea that someone is a villain even before he gets into villainous mode, if we see him do or say small things which are callous or malicious.  Similarly, when a character refuses to make a sacrifice but then, at the last moment, steps up and does it, we all have the same gut instinct - the same response based on our sense that he is doing the right thing.  Lots of stories are based on someone doing the right thing - or the wrong thing - and they only work if we have a strong, shared belief in what is good or bad.  I haven't expressed this idea very well, so I hope you understand what I mean.

 

My theory has been somewhat shaken by other people's responses to HLV.  For instance, I assumed that everyone would think that shooting an unarmed, non-threatening eyewitness was unforgivable, particularly if the witness was a friend.  Evidently, this is not so.  (Please understand that I'm saying everyone should share this view - it's just that I assumed there would be a general consensus on this one.  I was clearly very wrong!)  However, I think the general theory holds.  We do have a broad moral consensus and film makers depend on it, even when they try to subvert it.  Take Dexter, for instance.  We may or may not feel that it is okay for a psychopath to kill other psychopaths, but we are unlikely to like Dexter if he just murders anyone at random, for fun.

 

I've got no problem with liking the bad guys.  I like Moriarty!  But we are never under any illusion that he is anything but a villain.  With Mary, the writers seem to be twisting our arms to make us still find her adorable, even though she is presumably a killer and certainly shot Sherlock in cold blood.  Also, if we are talking about fictional Sherlock-world, shouldn't morality be reasonably consistent there?  I might like Moriarty as a fictional character but, in John Watson's fictional world, we wouldn't expect John to like him and, sure enough, he detests him.  Yet the same John holds no grudge against his wife who killed (or very nearly killed, depending on your interpretation) the other person whom he loves best.  The same John doesn't even want to know why she is hiding from a life sentence.  It just feels so wrong.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

While I agree that things seem a little skewed in Season Three, my faith in Sherlock is not shaken.  John is holding back on Mary at least in that scene at Christmas and he states it. He throws the thumb drive into the fire but is it really the same thumb drive she gave him. By this time Mofftiss is very aware just to what great length the fandom goes to at ferreting out every possible clue it can....no matter how obscure or far fetched so, that being said....there is a slight difference in the lettering between the two. Happenstance?  I'm not taking that to the bank by any stretch.

 

 Maybe John does know why....but if he doesn't maybe he too hasn't lost his faith in Sherlock. He is still with her even after the events at Appledore. There is certainly more to this story arc and I doubt very much Mofftiss will be able to leave it alone.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

And yeah, I'm sure Mary's like a wolf. She's loyal, social, and protective of whom she considers part of her "pack" (John and the baby).

 

And hopefully Sherlock as well? Or is he "too human"?

 

Oh, he's a good mix of both -- lots of wolfish cleverness, some human sentiment...

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

..."that wife" came from Moriarty, the ugly side of Sherlock's self.

 

Maybe, deep down, Sherlock's resentful of Mary because he thinks she's the only reason why John doesn't live at Baker Street anymore.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

He doesn't act resentful, surely not at the end.  Kisses her and calls her his girl?  Maybe at first he was....but she did seem to grow on him for what ever reason.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I don't think you can rule out morality when you respond to a story (on tv or otherwise.)  It has often struck me that we have to have a value system which is more or less shared, or stories wouldn't work.  For instance, we can begin to get the idea that someone is a villain even before he gets into villainous mode, if we see him do or say small things which are callous or malicious.  Similarly, when a character refuses to make a sacrifice but then, at the last moment, steps up and does it, we all have the same gut instinct - the same response based on our sense that he is doing the right thing.  Lots of stories are based on someone doing the right thing - or the wrong thing - and they only work if we have a strong, shared belief in what is good or bad.  I haven't expressed this idea very well, so I hope you understand what I mean.

I think you expressed that very well, Slithytove, and I agree with you. That's one area where fiction really needs to be tidier than real life, just so we know who to root for.

 

My theory has been somewhat shaken by other people's responses to HLV.  For instance, I assumed that everyone would think that shooting an unarmed, non-threatening eyewitness was unforgivable, particularly if the witness was a friend.  Evidently, this is not so.

The way you state it, yes, I agree with you. But that statement is based on your interpretation of the scene, which differs a bit from mine. Admittedly, I am doing my damnedest to interpret it in a way that will allow me to keep liking the show! But I don't see Sherlock as non-threatening. He is clearly intending to take the gun away from Mary, and she has only a split-second to decide what to do. I'm not saying she made the best choice, but she does (perhaps even more than Major Sholto) have "a lifetime of unfortunate reflexes."

 

[T.o.b.y]

I really, really hope that there is some brilliant story arc which will make sense of everything, but somehow I doubt it.  S3 didn't resolve TRF but muddied the waters instead, so I suspect the same will happen in S4.  I'm afraid that Mary's story arc will be designed to wring sympathy for her, particularly if she's going to expire tragically in the last episode.  I'd bet that she either took up killing to avenge her family or she only killed those who "deserve to be killed", or both, and that will be considered okay.  I'd also bet that John has forgiven her completely, even though he doesn't really know what he is forgiving her for (except nearly killing his best friend.)  And, of course, Sherlock will be wholly unchanged by committing murder. Hope I'm wrong about everything!

 

I doubt you are... Your predictions sound very probable. I must say, I wouldn't mind much of the above, though. Sure, I am not particularly thrilled with how John and Mary turned out in the end, but hey, their marriage isn't the most important issue in this story, so I am almost willing to let it go (until I see His Next Vow for the next time, I suppose). And I would still prefer it if Mary didn't die, but again, that's not the most crucial question for me.

 

Mary, it seems, is turning to the one character on Sherlock whom I like, but not love. I can't quite make up my mind about her. Not enough data, I guess. It makes her very interesting to me, of course.

 

I agree that you can't base your morality on tv programmes.  When 24 was criticised for encouraging violence towards prisoners, Kiefer Sutherland said that if the US army and government were imitating a tv thriller, we were all in trouble!  However, I don't think you can rule out morality when you respond to a story (on tv or otherwise.)  It has often struck me that we have to have a value system which is more or less shared, or stories wouldn't work.  For instance, we can begin to get the idea that someone is a villain even before he gets into villainous mode, if we see him do or say small things which are callous or malicious.  Similarly, when a character refuses to make a sacrifice but then, at the last moment, steps up and does it, we all have the same gut instinct - the same response based on our sense that he is doing the right thing.  Lots of stories are based on someone doing the right thing - or the wrong thing - and they only work if we have a strong, shared belief in what is good or bad.  I haven't expressed this idea very well, so I hope you understand what I mean.

 

I think you expressed that very well! Thank you!

 

My theory has been somewhat shaken by other people's responses to HLV.  For instance, I assumed that everyone would think that shooting an unarmed, non-threatening eyewitness was unforgivable, particularly if the witness was a friend.  Evidently, this is not so.  (Please understand that I'm saying everyone should share this view - it's just that I assumed there would be a general consensus on this one.  I was clearly very wrong!)  However, I think the general theory holds.  We do have a broad moral consensus and film makers depend on it, even when they try to subvert it.  Take Dexter, for instance.  We may or may not feel that it is okay for a psychopath to kill other psychopaths, but we are unlikely to like Dexter if he just murders anyone at random, for fun.

 

I've got no problem with liking the bad guys.  I like Moriarty!  But we are never under any illusion that he is anything but a villain.  With Mary, the writers seem to be twisting our arms to make us still find her adorable, even though she is presumably a killer and certainly shot Sherlock in cold blood.  Also, if we are talking about fictional Sherlock-world, shouldn't morality be reasonably consistent there?  I might like Moriarty as a fictional character but, in John Watson's fictional world, we wouldn't expect John to like him and, sure enough, he detests him.  Yet the same John holds no grudge against his wife who killed (or very nearly killed, depending on your interpretation) the other person whom he loves best.  The same John doesn't even want to know why she is hiding from a life sentence.  It just feels so wrong.

 

And here I am going to prove your point above by demonstrating how far apart our sense of right and wrong apparently is, even though we do share the basic moral principles that make us recognize a villain as a villain and a hero as a hero. Yes, I too think it feels very wrong, but for entirely different reasons. I can't say why, exactly, but I am largely okay with Mary shooting Sherlock. I am not, however, okay with John's way of "forgiving" her, which to me, is not forgiveness so much as denial on an epic scale, and has very little to do with what I consider love. You see, I am mostly indignant on Mary's behalf, not Sherlock's! And what makes this even more absurd is that Mary herself doesn't seem to mind one bit - she's genuinely touched and humbled by John's behavior, and that riles me even more! I want to yell at her, woman, have you no pride?

 

My gut instinct tells me that a person who is willing to accept love on such terms - being valued only as some role, some image of who she was "supposed to be" instead of who she really is - must be pretty starved for it. I know this is probably not at all what the writers intended, but it happens inside my brain or heart or whatever anyway, and it makes me pity Mary. Strange, huh?

 

I am really curious to find out where they will take her character. So far, we have been getting pretty "mixed messages" about her, as Sherlock pointed out, accurate as ever.

 

I should probably try to explain why I am not particularly bothered by Mary's quite, um, unorthodox approach to saving Sherlock's life. I'll try... but I'll have to think about it for a while. Maybe it helps in understanding my point of view to know that I do believe the "surgery" theory. It's stupid, yeah, but I do think we're meant to believe it, that it's supposed to be true inside the strange little world of Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

 

... I don't think you can rule out morality when you respond to a story (on tv or otherwise.)  It has often struck me that we have to have a value system which is more or less shared, or stories wouldn't work.  For instance, we can begin to get the idea that someone is a villain even before he gets into villainous mode, if we see him do or say small things which are callous or malicious.  Similarly, when a character refuses to make a sacrifice but then, at the last moment, steps up and does it, we all have the same gut instinct - the same response based on our sense that he is doing the right thing.  Lots of stories are based on someone doing the right thing - or the wrong thing - and they only work if we have a strong, shared belief in what is good or bad.  I haven't expressed this idea very well, so I hope you understand what I mean.

I think you expressed that very well, Slithytove, and I agree with you. That's one area where fiction really needs to be tidier than real life, just so we know who to root for.

 

My theory has been somewhat shaken by other people's responses to HLV.  For instance, I assumed that everyone would think that shooting an unarmed, non-threatening eyewitness was unforgivable, particularly if the witness was a friend.  Evidently, this is not so.

The way you state it, yes, I agree with you. But that statement is based on your interpretation of the scene, which differs a bit from mine. Admittedly, I am doing my damnedest to interpret it in a way that will allow me to keep liking the show! But I don't see Sherlock as non-threatening. He is clearly intending to take the gun away from Mary, and she has only a split-second to decide what to do. I'm not saying she made the best choice, but she does (even more so that Major Sholto) have "a lifetime of unfortunate reflexes."

 

I think you expressed it very well too, and in most particulars I agree with you.

 

Carol & I were exchanging ideas where I said I like to try and figure out what the writer intended. I think that's why I keep seeking another way to look at it -- because the intention of the writers certainly seems to be (so far) that we're supposed to accept Mary. So I'm trying to figure out -- why? What about her - or her world - makes it okay to overlook/forgive her actions?

 

The answer that suits me best so far is that Mary isn't really meant to be a character in her own right ... she's solely there to illuminate Sherlock, and to a lesser extent, John. When we ask what is Mary, who is Mary, why is she like that .... there's no answer because the answers don't matter; we're asking the wrong question. The right question is: what does Mary and her actions tell us about Sherlock? She's not fleshed out because she's still a minor character, like Molly, Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson. Their have their traits, and we love them, but their purpose in the show is to help/hinder/confuse/enlighten Sherlock and John. They have no life outside of that.

 

Yet.

 

Annnd..... this isn't what I thought I was going to write! But now that I have, I'll add .... I'm starting to think it doesn't matter whether you like or dislike Mary, forgive her or not .... what matters is that Sherlock does, John does, and the next chapter is going to start from there. So now I'm just trying to understand where "there" is, so I can follow the story when it resumes.

 

At the risk of rambling on far too long ... this is what I thought I was going to say. My dad was a humanities and religion professor, and one of his favorite lessons was: just because you understand a thing doesn't mean you have to embrace it. Our minds are capable of holding two (or more!) opposing viewpoints at the same time. So I find myself forgiving Mary in the context of her universe (because Sherlock does), but damning her in the context of mine; and at the same time, trying to figure out how her universe illuminates mine. Because in spite of the fact that her universe is fiction, it still matters to me, and I want to understand it. So on I blather. I'll probably be embarassed by the pompousness of this post when I reread it tomorrow.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Blathering or not....why be embarassed. Pompous or not it does make sense. No two people look at anything in the same way. One of the quotes from Sunday School days goes something like this: You can set ten people down in a room, hand each one a Bible have them read the same passage and have each one write down what they think the passage means and you're going to get ten different interpretations.

 

 Same thing happens here on the Forum all the time. We may agree on certain points but very few agree on all of them. But hey, here we can all say what's on our minds and it's okay. Only watching the future seasons are going to give us more insight in these characters, fleshed out or not. And they are doing that, even with the minor characters like Anderson, Mrs. Hudson and Molly. It's like several Christmas presents all wrapped up individually in the same box. Layer upon layer.  I'm looking forward to the next Season to see what is uncovered about these characters that we love so much and maybe not love so much.

[jesskayding]

I really, really hope that there is some brilliant story arc which will make sense of everything, but somehow I doubt it. S3 didn't resolve TRF but muddied the waters instead, so I suspect the same will happen in S4. I'm afraid that Mary's story arc will be designed to wring sympathy for her, particularly if she's going to expire tragically in the last episode. I'd bet that she either took up killing to avenge her family or she only killed those who "deserve to be killed", or both, and that will be considered okay. I'd also bet that John has forgiven her completely, even though he doesn't really know what he is forgiving her for (except nearly killing his best friend.) And, of course, Sherlock will be wholly unchanged by committing murder. Hope I'm wrong about everything!

 

I agree that you can't base your morality on tv programmes. When 24 was criticised for encouraging violence towards prisoners, Kiefer Sutherland said that if the US army and government were imitating a tv thriller, we were all in trouble! However, I don't think you can rule out morality when you respond to a story (on tv or otherwise.) It has often struck me that we have to have a value system which is more or less shared, or stories wouldn't work. For instance, we can begin to get the idea that someone is a villain even before he gets into villainous mode, if we see him do or say small things which are callous or malicious. Similarly, when a character refuses to make a sacrifice but then, at the last moment, steps up and does it, we all have the same gut instinct - the same response based on our sense that he is doing the right thing. Lots of stories are based on someone doing the right thing - or the wrong thing - and they only work if we have a strong, shared belief in what is good or bad. I haven't expressed this idea very well, so I hope you understand what I mean.

 

My theory has been somewhat shaken by other people's responses to HLV. For instance, I assumed that everyone would think that shooting an unarmed, non-threatening eyewitness was unforgivable, particularly if the witness was a friend. Evidently, this is not so. (Please understand that I'm saying everyone should share this view - it's just that I assumed there would be a general consensus on this one. I was clearly very wrong!) However, I think the general theory holds. We do have a broad moral consensus and film makers depend on it, even when they try to subvert it. Take Dexter, for instance. We may or may not feel that it is okay for a psychopath to kill other psychopaths, but we are unlikely to like Dexter if he just murders anyone at random, for fun.

 

I've got no problem with liking the bad guys. I like Moriarty! But we are never under any illusion that he is anything but a villain. With Mary, the writers seem to be twisting our arms to make us still find her adorable, even though she is presumably a killer and certainly shot Sherlock in cold blood. Also, if we are talking about fictional Sherlock-world, shouldn't morality be reasonably consistent there? I might like Moriarty as a fictional character but, in John Watson's fictional world, we wouldn't expect John to like him and, sure enough, he detests him. Yet the same John holds no grudge against his wife who killed (or very nearly killed, depending on your interpretation) the other person whom he loves best. The same John doesn't even want to know why she is hiding from a life sentence. It just feels so wrong.

 

I think that the story is far more simple & way less complicated than we all make it. I don't know that those of us who approve of the way CAM was disposed of or the forgiveness of Mary by Sherlock and John are less moral than anyone else.

 

I think that all of us have expressed that we are not cool with killing real life people in real life. Those of us who have accepted these things, accept that this is fictional entertainment. The ability to separate the two keeps any of us from becoming Sherlock, Moriarty , Mary, John, Magnussen or even a Mrs. Hudson. If we did in real life, we'd all be in a loony bin somewhere.

 

So taking John @ face value, as a fictional character... It's not far fetched that a man who didn't flich when being confronted by Moriarty on the first time of meeting, tries to date Mycroft's assistant, became instant best friends with a man that @ times was assumed to be the murderer (SIP), stopped @ his flat to pick up a gun for protection, prioritizes his friendship with Sherlock over other women, allows Sherlock to call him stupid time & time again, tolerates Irene Adler after breaking his best friends heart, actually pleased to see her in Sherlock's bed, remains friends with Sherlock upon him sharing that he experiments on him by putting compounds & chemicals in his food... Would forgive Mary for such a horrendous act.

 

He told us right away who he was.

 

 

Dr John Watson: People don't have archenemies.

 

Sherlock Holmes: I'm sorry?

 

Dr John Watson: In real life. There are no archenemies in real life. Doesn't happen.

 

Sherlock Holmes: Doesn't it? Sounds a bit dull.

 

Dr John Watson: So who did I meet?

 

Sherlock Holmes: What do REAL people have, then, in their... REAL lives?

 

Dr John Watson: Friends... and people they know, people they... like, people they don't like, girlfriends, boyfriends...

 

Sherlock Holmes: Well, as I was saying, dull.

 

 

To John, real people don't have enemies. ( very fictional concept, of course real people have enemies)

 

So upon all these events and many others, it is not far fetched to see John forgiving Mary for what she did. What happend fits the character of this fictional person in this fictional show.

[Slithytove]

Your post isn't pompous at all, Arcadia, and your idea that Mary isn't a character in her own right but a way of illuminating Sherlock and John is interesting. I suppose I can tolerate her more if I see her as a plot device than as a fully developed character. I've got to admit, though, that it's hard to do because I felt a strong emotional reaction to her shooting Sherlock. It wasn't just the shooting itself, though the Mind Palace scenes are amongst my favourite scenes from the entire series because they are so gripping, but the subsequent behaviour of Sherlock and John. The former makes ridiculous excuses for his own murderer (sorry, but I do think he died when he flatlined) and the latter wants to close his eyes to everything. So, yes, maybe that is Mary's role, to cast a fresh light on their characters - and it's not a very flattering one.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

To John, real people don't have enemies. ( very fictional concept, of course real people have enemies)

 

  Boy do they ever. The newspapers are full of stories of people who had an enemy so dangerous they do wind up dead. So yeah, John's statement is a bit of fiction.