Meta: Mary Morstan. Spoilers for HLV

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Morality is fine, it is of great value and is needed in the world without question.  But it can be done to death especially when applied to people that exist in a totally different world then our own. Sherlock Holmes is something other then anyone we will ever see sadly.

 

 Sherlock Holmes and John Watson exist in a place which defy every day logic and sensibilities. It gives us escape and two heroes that we never lose faith in. They have a partnership, a trust and loyalty that has stood the test of time and will remain unbroken even by the likes of any kind of Mary Morstan that writers want to throw at them. 

 

  “They’re both very self-aware and affectionate, but also very truthful with one another. They are a really complementary team. John humanises Sherlock, and Sherlock gives John a shot of adrenaline and adventure and the chance to live a life less ordinary. That’s a very potent combination."   This a quote from an interview by Sue Vertue.

 

  You contend that Sherlock has lied and John has believed it. That is not how these two men work. They never have. Yes, Sherlock Holmes was secretive. Never revealing to anyone certain aspects of a case until the very end. Not even John Watson.

 

  But this thing with Mary, this goes far deeper then that.  If there was something terribly wrong with Mary, in no way would Sherlock have  allowed the marriage to take place. He would have at least, have forced Mary to tell John the truth before Magnussen's flat and the "Empty House" reveal,  or done every thing in his power to drive her away. Never would Sherlock have  forced John to take her back.

 

 Yes, Sherlock did underestimate her at Magnussen's but that didn't change his over all feelings about her. That begs the question why? What does Sherlock know that allows him to keep on trusting her? There is something far deeper going on and that is what we are being asked to look at.

 

 We are being asked to trust Sherlock's intuition as John always has and is still doing.

[Slithytove]

Fiction holds up a mirror to life. It asks us questions, and we find our answers which arre not necessarily the ones the creators of the drama intended us to see.

 

To give an example from another classic work of 19th century literature, many people consider Mr Rochester to be the essential romantic hero. Others, including me, see him differently because of the way he treats the first Mrs Rochester. I would advise Jane Eyre to run like hell from a man who keeps his first wife locked in the attic. It also raises issues of race - Mrs Rochester the first is half Creole - and attitudes to mental illness. Charlotte Bronte didn't intended these issues to be raised. She meant us to see Rochester as a flawed but good man and Bertha Rochester as a savage maniac whom her husband kept imprisoned as an act of kindness. (Even though it would have been considered pretty barbaric in the 1840s, when attitudes to mental illness were already beginning to change.) Now, we can read "Jane Eyre" and never ask these questions. We can say "How romantic. Jane and Rochester loved each other in spite of everything, and Fate meant them to be together. What a great romance." I happen to think that examing the subtext, uncovering different layers and different meanings, enriches the story. I also think it applies to the Sherlock stories, regardless of their era, but I suppose that may be a minority view.

 

I don't know. Your previous post said, in effect, "Shut up", and I feel uncomfortable now, so maybe I will shut up.

[Arcadia]

I love this discussion.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No, by no means did I mean for you to shut up, Slithylove. I don't work that way, nor do I have the right to do so. I'm sorry if you feel uncomfortable and I apologize for making you feel that way.

 

I agree, there are many layers to people and fictional characters if their creators have drawn them deeply enough. Doyle certainly did. I think that is why Sherlock Holmes and John Watson have been such a big draw for the last 160 and looks like they may very well be going strong for the next 160 years and beyond.

[aely]

Basically there are 2 points of view here, which can be boiled down to either pro-Mary or anti-Mary as it's Mary that seems to be the main bone of contention, not Sherlock or John (though their attitudes obviously come into it as well - but in relation to her not each other tbh).

 

Thing is, neither of those points of view are necessarily wrong; they are matters of personal opinion.

All personal opinions are equally valid, even if people don't agree about them. That is unless there is evidence to prove that opinion wrong (the earth moving around the sun, may be a possibly relevant exapmple). As was said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (and wrongly attributed to Voltaire) "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

We have no idea where the writers are going to go with regards to Mary as they've already taken her to unexpected places.

 

I am willing to give Mary the benefit of the doubt, I still like her for all she's a dangerous and manipulative person but then I like Sherlock too and he's also a dangerous and manipulative person (in a different way). We all see John in different ways because he is a multifaceted and complex character with a number of conflicting personality traits (which can't be easy for him to live with either).

 

People might not agree with my comparing Mary to Sherlock,  in fact they might really hate that I have done as they don't see them as anything alike or that Mary is worth being compared to Sherlock, but it is a personal opinion, so I'm entitled to make it.

 

This has become a very interesting - if polarised to some degree - discussion.

I don't agree with some of what has been said because it doesn't sit with my opinions and interpretation of what I've seen. But you know what? Tough on me. I might not like what is said, but that doesn't make it wrong... just different.  As long as we remember to respect each other's opinions as valid, if different to our own, long may it continue!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well said, aely and thank you.  I don't know that I am absolutely in the Mary Morstan camp. I don't like what she did to Sherlock and and to John. And I'm really not happy about what Sherlock was forced to do to protect John and Mary. But hey,  if Sherlock Holmes can still defend her for all of that.....then as I have said... there has got to be a good reason for it. I trust Sherlock Holmes. John Watson trusts Sherlock Holmes and that's the camp that I'm in.

[T.o.b.y]

Fiction holds up a mirror to life. It asks us questions, and we find our answers which are not necessarily the ones the creators of the drama intended us to see.

 

To give an example from another classic work of 19th century literature, many people consider Mr Rochester to be the essential romantic hero. Others, including me, see him differently because of the way he treats the first Mrs Rochester. I would advise Jane Eyre to run like hell from a man who keeps his first wife locked in the attic. It also raises issues of race - Mrs Rochester the first is half Creole - and attitudes to mental illness. Charlotte Bronte didn't intended these issues to be raised. She meant us to see Rochester as a flawed but good man and Bertha Rochester as a savage maniac whom her husband kept imprisoned as an act of kindness. (Even though it would have been considered pretty barbaric in the 1840s, when attitudes to mental illness were already beginning to change.) Now, we can read "Jane Eyre" and never ask these questions. We can say "How romantic. Jane and Rochester loved each other in spite of everything, and Fate meant them to be together. What a great romance." I happen to think that examinig the subtext, uncovering different layers and different meanings, enriches the story. I also think it applies to the Sherlock stories, regardless of their era, but I suppose that may be a minority view.

 

I don't know. Your previous post said, in effect, "Shut up", and I feel uncomfortable now, so maybe I will shut up.

 

Oh, don't. What would become of discussions if everybody were of one mind? I love having someone to argue with and I certainly don't hope or expect to convince you of anything.

 

Yay, a Bronte reader! Now, don't tell me you're versed in Dickens and Austen, too. Oooh, I sense we might need a "Victorian novels" thread... I love Mr Rochester and Jane and their romance is one of my absolute favorites, but I totally see your points about the involuntary subtext of that story.

 

You describe the situation where one (thinks one) understands an author's meaning / intention but does not agree with it and sees other valid interpretations in his or her work, very well. I have that kind of trouble with the scene where John and Mary make up. I know it's supposed to be highly laudable behavior on John's part, that he is meant to come across as magnanimous and heroic and that I am expected to say "awww" at Mary cracking up. But I don't, because this is one of the few (very few) times where this show does not manage to convince me of its very own logic.

 

[aely]

John Watson trusts Sherlock Holmes and that's the camp that I'm in.

 

I think I'm in that camp too. :smiley:

 

 

 

Yay, a Bronte reader! Now, don't tell me you're versed in Dickens and Austen, too. Oooh, I sense we might need a "Victorian novels" thread... I love Mr Rochester and Jane and their romance is one of my absolute favorites, but I totally see your points about the involuntary subtext of that story.

 

 

A thread along those lines could be started at any time in the "Miscellaneous Musings" forum, and would be quite interesting (I love Jane Eyre). Taking of Jane Eyre and Bertha Rochester, Jean Rhys did attempt to tell her story in Wide Sargasso Sea, which has also been dramatised for both film and TV (I've seen neither, and never read the book tbh).

[T.o.b.y]

Basically there are 2 points of view here, which can be boiled down to either pro-Mary or anti-Mary as it's Mary that seems to be the main bone of contention, not Sherlock or John (though their attitudes obviously come into it as well - but in relation to her not each other tbh).

 

...

 

I am willing to give Mary the benefit of the doubt, I still like her for all she's a dangerous and manipulative person but then I like Sherlock too and he's also a dangerous and manipulative person (in a different way). We all see John in different ways because he is a multifaceted and complex character with a number of conflicting personality traits (which can't be easy for him to live with either).

 

This has become a very interesting - if polarised to some degree - discussion.

I don't agree with some of what has been said because it doesn't sit with my opinions and interpretation of what I've seen. But you know what? Tough on me. I might not like what is said, but that doesn't make it wrong... just different.  As long as we remember to respect each other's opinions as valid, if different to our own, long may it continue!

 

Amen, Aely.

 

And as for dangerous and manipulative, that describes both Sherlock and Mary quite accurately, I think. Might I add "lovable"?

 

Do I boil down to pro- or anti-Mary, I wonder? I never liked her original counterpart, that's for sure. She was boring and annoyingly perfect. Neither of that can be said for "Sherlock"'s Mary Morstan, now Mary Watson, of course. I'm definitely very glad they introduced her. I might wish they had played with the original a bit more cleverly, but hey, I guess there just wasn't enough to go on. The actress does a superb job with limited opportunities. And every time I see Mary on screen, I totally fall for her, time and again. She's just too funny and charming and pleasant to look at. I don't want a crime solving trio, though. But so far, we haven't had that, so why would they try it now. If they keep her where she's been in series 3, I don't think her presence will take anything away from what I like best about this series. So in all, pro-Mary, I guess. Although I don't think I'd cry out very loudly in protest if the character left at some point, either. I could worse spare Molly, for example, or Mrs Hudson. Loosing them would be unthinkable, losing Mary I think would be okay, depending on how they wrote that into the story. I am sure I don't want another big tragedy for John. And if they can't resist that at all, then it had better be at least a real tragedy this time, not a fake one.

 

 

[aely]

Although I don't think I'd cry out very loudly in protest if the character left at some point, either. I could worse spare Molly, for example, or Mrs Hudson. Loosing them would be unthinkable, losing Mary I think would be okay, depending on how they wrote that into the story. I am sure I don't want another big tragedy for John. And if they can't resist that at all, then it had better be at least a real tragedy this time, not a fake one.

 

Agree with you there...

 

Mrs Hudson leave Baker Street? England would fall!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I liked the original Mary Morstan (mostly because John Watson loved her, and I was happy for him) and am therefore more than a little perturbed at what Moffat has made of her.  But again, John Watson loves her, and I want him to be happy.  (I was rooting for Sarah Sawyer a few years back, for the same reason.)
 

...  if Sherlock Holmes can still defend her for all of that.....then as I have said... there has got to be a good reason for it. I trust Sherlock Holmes. John Watson trusts Sherlock Holmes and that's the camp that I'm in.

 

Yeah, me too.  Apparently all this makes some sort of sense in his funny old head, so I'm willing to go along for the ride and see what happens next time.  (Not that I have any practical alternatives, other than to stop watching.)  That's my personal take on the matter.

 

More generally speaking, I value this forum, and would hate for anyone to feel compelled to shut up.  I know it's very easy to feel alienated when you're being disagreed with.  I have felt that way myself at times here, but then I remind myself that other members have a right to their own opinions, just as I have a right to mine.  And I usually feel better by morning.

 

We all care about this show and its characters, or we wouldn't be here.  And when we care about something, we're likely to use some pretty emphatic language.  Let's just all try to remember to phrase our opinions as opinions and respect other members' rights to their own opinions.  Let's also remember to cut each other some slack, especially when one of us accidentally comes on a little strong.  It's just our enthusiasm showing!

 

[Slithytove]

Thank you. I have no wish to talk about morality if it annoys people. I don't really know why I find the idea of John forgiving Mary for hurting Sherlock so unpalatable. I suppose I just think that those who harm the innocent and defenceless should be punished, even in fiction. Maybe it's because that happens so rarely in real life.

 

I smiled when I saw that some of you decided to trust Sherlock's view of Mary, because John trusts it. I don't think I would have much confidence in a character reference from the man who thought the Camden Garrotter was the best man he ever knew, on account of his charity work!

 

Regarding Jane Eyre, you have to cheer when she goes back to Rochester, particularly after St John Rivers told her she was "fashioned for labour, not for love." (His marriage proposal must be one of the worst in any literature.) Bad idea, though, to marry a man after you've found his first wife in the attic.....

 

I don't read a lot of Dickens - I acknowledge his genius, but there is something cruel in his writing that disturbs me - but I love Jane Austen. Such a gift for characterisation and what a dry, sly wit. I think Emma might be my favourite but, of course, you have to love Elizabeth and Mr Darcy. I would like to see Benedict Cumberbatch play the roles of Mr Rochester and Mr Darcy. Can't you imagine his beautiful baritone voice growling at Jane when they first meet, or trying to talk her into becoming his mistress after the wedding fiasco? And that rather lovely, old-fashioned face would be perfect for Mr Darcy.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I don't think I would have much confidence in a character reference from the man who thought the Camden Garrotter was the best man he ever knew, on account of his charity work!

 

  That little zinger was lifted right out of canon. I suppose like Sherlock said, all the lives that the Camden Garrotter saved were more important then the ones that he took.

 

  Like Mycroft saying that Magnussen never hurt anyone of consequence as the papers report the suicide of Lord Smallwood.

 

  I'm brought to mind the TV show "Dexter" which was very popular and cheered because he was a serial killer who preyed only on other serial killers.  So it seems if there are mitigating circumstances that people can sympathize with, people can literally get away with murder.

[T.o.b.y]

Thank you. I have no wish to talk about morality if it annoys people. I don't really know why I find the idea of John forgiving Mary for hurting Sherlock so unpalatable. I suppose I just think that those who harm the innocent and defenceless should be punished, even in fiction. Maybe it's because that happens so rarely in real life.

 

Or maybe because you like Sherlock and don't want him harmed, even though you know he's "only" a fictional character? I don't know why I don't mind Mary shooting him, actually. I got livid at Mycroft for just watching someone else beat his brother up, after all, and I can't say I ever had any good feeling towards Moriarty, who didn't even do Sherlock any bodily harm at all. Maybe it's because the shot gave me one of my favorite scenes on the show, which is Sherlock dying and analyzing his own murder.

 

Oh, and I must say, I don't think Sherlock is either innocent or defenseless... But I see what you mean, he was not threatening Mary and was not (visibly) armed.

 

Talking about morality isn't annoying for me at all, it's very interesting. I was going to add something about how I just cannot imagine anybody putting moral principles above love, but then I remembered Jane Eyre and went damn, you have a point!

 

 

[Slithytove]

Well you have a point too, in that I do love Sherlock and can't bear him to be hurt. However, much as I love him, if the situation was reversed and Mary was innocent but he shot her because she might ruin his relationship with John, I wouldn't expect John to forgive him either.

 

Mycroft has grown on me over the three series. Watching his own brother being tortured, and not using his massive intellect to find a way of intervening, was very cold, though.

 

Isn't Jane a good example of ethics over emotion? Not that she doesn't feel it - she is full of passion - but her moral values are the core of her being and she knows it.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It'd be interesting to learn what it was in Mycroft's and Sherlock's upbringing that gave them their world views on ethics.

[T.o.b.y]

Well you have a point too, in that I do love Sherlock and can't bear him to be hurt. However, much as I love him, if the situation was reversed and Mary was innocent but he shot her because she might ruin his relationship with John, I wouldn't expect John to forgive him either.

 

Mycroft has grown on me over the three series. Watching his own brother being tortured, and not using his massive intellect to find a way of intervening, was very cold, though.

 

Isn't Jane a good example of ethics over emotion? Not that she doesn't feel it - she is full of passion - but her moral values are the core of her being and she knows it.

 

Yeah, and she didn't go "oh, just lock the door behind your wife again, I'd like to forget she exists, please, and now lets get married", either.

 

Mycroft has not grown on me one bit, if anything, he's irritating me more and more. Enjoying it, indeed. And sending his brother to die in exile. I hope he gets some kind of a comeuppance in series 4. By the way, why are so many upset that John "let" Sherlock leave with "only a handshake", but I haven't heard of anybody getting angry at Mycroft for initiating that whole scenario in the first place? And I never saw Mycroft take leave of his brother at all...

 

Back to Mary. What really make me think about her and His Last Vow again and again is that on the one hand, Sherlock claims she saved his life and never meant to kill him anyway and we're supposed to trust her because of that and be happy for John when he "gets her back", but on the other hand, they spent at least fifteen minutes showing in excruciating detail how Sherlock did, in fact, die, with even a close up of the flatline and the doctors giving up on his life. Mixed messages, as Sherlock himself said...

 

 

[Ruthyone]

Mary is a strong character and I don't think she will fade into the background in Series 4. I don't think she will just stay being John's wife and look after the baby - not her thing.  There will be some sort of chaos and a lot of heartbreak, I feel, Mary is not a stay-at-home person.

[Slithytove]

Mycroft sending Sherlock back into danger and probable death was very disturbing. I assumed his motive was that Sherlock would rather go down fighting than die in prison (as he would surely have killed himself, if the other prisoners didn't get him first.). It was a cold decision, though. I dread to think what happened to "the other one."

 

The thing I don't understand about Mary is why Sherlock was so slow deducing the truth about her. This is the man who can identify a software designer by his tie and an airline pilot by his left thumb, and instantly deduces the important facts about John's past as soon as they meet, yet he knows Mary for months but doesn't deduce she has a false identity and a criminal past. Admittedly, he deduces "liar" when they meet and gives her a funny look when she mentions the skip code, but apparently makes no attempt to work out the truth. I like the fact that the writers let him make mistakes sometimes, but this is a big one.

 

Mycroft must be slipping too. He knows everything about everyone, he has some undefined role in MI6 and was working with the CIA in ASiB, but he knows nothing about Mary?

 

Either the Holmes boys are badly off their game or a Big Reveal is on its way. If it is, and if they knew a lot more about Mary than they let on, did John know too? If not, it would be very cruel to let him marry her without knowing the truth.

[T.o.b.y]

The thing I don't understand about Mary is why Sherlock was so slow deducing the truth about her. This is the man who can identify a software designer by his tie and an airline pilot by his left thumb, and instantly deduces the important facts about John's past as soon as they meet, yet he knows Mary for months but doesn't deduce she has a false identity and a criminal past. Admittedly, he deduces "liar" when they meet and gives her a funny look when she mentions the skip code, but apparently makes no attempt to work out the truth. I like the fact that the writers let him make mistakes sometimes, but this is a big one.

 

I think I read an interview with Steven Moffat somewhere (sorry, I don't remember where, so no link), where he said that Sherlock liked Mary so much he simply disregarded all the hints about her past that were staring him in the face. It's a case of "caring is not an advantage" - or love is blind, if you will.

Maybe that is why they introduced the story of Redbeard in series 3, to prepare us for Sherlock kidding himself into believing a pleasant lie rather than staring the truth in the face. The little boy who fell for "he's gone away to live in a lovely place" might very well have grown up to be the man who believes "she's a lovely nurse and we will all be very happy together as a little family of three".

 

Mycroft I am afraid is right that Sherlock can be quite "stupid" (I think that is Mycroft's word for naive) at times. And Sherlock is really a die-hard romantic at heart, I guess. I always guffaw when he says John was a romantic at the wedding. John isn't, it's Sherlock himself.

[Slithytove]

That explanation is nicer than the idea that it might all be part of another Holmes plan, like the set-up that supposedly led to the Fall. (I still can't make sense of that episode, in light of Sherlock's "explanation.". If they stopped the sniper, who apart from John was meant to be fooled by the fake suicide?)

 

I can't quite believe Sherlock could stop himself deducing the truth about Mary, as he doesn't seem able to stop himself deducing everyone, but I agree he is a romantic - maybe he could manage to shut off his deductive ability if he was desperate to maintain an illusion. Mycroft, on the other hand, isn't romantic at all, as far as I can see. Surely he would have probed the background of anyone who got so close to Sherlock, and he would have seen straight through her.

[T.o.b.y]

That explanation is nicer than the idea that it might all be part of another Holmes plan, like the set-up that supposedly led to the Fall. (I still can't make sense of that episode, in light of Sherlock's "explanation.". If they stopped the sniper, who apart from John was meant to be fooled by the fake suicide?)

 

I can't quite believe Sherlock could stop himself deducing the truth about Mary, as he doesn't seem able to stop himself deducing everyone, but I agree he is a romantic - maybe he could manage to shut off his deductive ability if he was desperate to maintain an illusion. Mycroft, on the other hand, isn't romantic at all, as far as I can see. Surely he would have probed the background of anyone who got so close to Sherlock, and he would have seen straight through her.

 

It does seem strange that Mycroft apparently didn't do any research on Mary and knew nothing about her. Perhaps she just seemed too unimportant to him.

 

As for desperate to maintain an illusion - consider at what time Sherlock met Mary. He had just been repeatedly punched by an extremely angry John Watson and had to realize that resuming the most important friendship of his life might not be possible. Then there's Mary who smiles at him and promises to talk John round. She seems like the last straw to cling to at that moment, and besides, if he had gone up to John then and told him, on top of everything, that his future wife was an assassin living under an assumed name, Sherlock could have forgotten about John as a friend for good, I think. And I do think there is very little Sherlock would not do to stop that from happening - he and Mary are alike.

 

As for The Fall and The Explanation, I agree with you whole-heartedly. It does seem staged almost entirely for John's benefit, which makes it almost unbelievably cruel. I have a rather convoluted, amateur psychology theory of my own by now that "explains" that, but I doubt very, very much that it is what the authors had in mind...

 

[Ruthyone]

John is probably counted as 'just Sherlock's friend' by Mycroft, who has bigger fish to fry. He probably wouldn't have thought it necessary to check on John's girlfriends - unless he is in a secret plot which hasn't been revealed yet.

[Slithytove]

But Mycroft has always been very interested in the details of Sherlock's life, plus it is part of his job (and his nature?) to be suspicious. Added to that, Sherlock has just returned from two years of taking down Moriarty's network, and Mycroft must have realised that it is possible that some of Moriaty's accomplices may have survived and might have guessed that Sherlock was alive and destroying their organisation. Surely he would be alert for potential assassins. Mary gets under Sherlock's guard and he allows her to get much closer than most people do. I would have thought his brother would want to check her out.

 

It is very possible that Sherlock is close to Mary because they met when he was very vulnerable. My theory is that his wholehearted acceptance of her is based, at least partly, on guilt. He knows he hurt John badly and feels he owes it to him to do everything he can to make him happy. He also realises now how alone and lost John was after the Fall, and that he can't guarantee that he won't die suddenly/disappear again. If he encourages the relationship with Mary, he is helping John to be happy and ensuring John is not alone. It is an act of atonement. I think he does feel jealousy but suppresses it, though it does surface as a voice in his head in TEH. He becomes Mary's BFF a bit like children sometimes cope with jealousy by trying to "mother" the new baby.

 

Just an idea.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

It is very possible that Sherlock is close to Mary because they met when he was very vulnerable. My theory is that his wholehearted acceptance of her is based, at least partly, on guilt. He knows he hurt John badly and feels he owes it to him to do everything he can to make him happy. He also realises now how alone and lost John was after the Fall, and that he can't guarantee that he won't die suddenly/disappear again. If he encourages the relationship with Mary, he is helping John to be happy and ensuring John is not alone. It is an act of atonement.

 

  I think this is right and agree full heartedly.  Like Gatiss said in the interview, Sherlock liked her so much that he threw over all the negative elements he sensed about her for John's sake.

 

  Not a stupid man, just one fully out of his element with nothing in his past to help him navigate this emotional mind field he has allowed himself to wander into for John's sake.

 

  Benedict Cumberbatch did say that in this series Sherlock went through a regression, I guess he did. But that's ok. Makes Sherlock Holmes a more believable and human hero. One that has room to make his mistakes and still grow.