Mary Morstan

[Van Buren Supernova]

Records get broken.

[Arcadia]

Yes, but ... whut?

[sfmpco]

Quiz

 

The following words have been used by the members of this forum to describe which "BBC Sherlock" character?

smart

manipulative

witty

patronizing

taunting

charming

dangerous

clever

liar

cocky

observant

unrepentant

attractive

 

Pretty much all of them, except Molly and Mrs. Hudson.

[Arcadia]

Some of them even fit Molly.

 

But I'm assuming everyone sees my point. I don't want to say that Mary is being held to a different standard, but ... is she?

[Boton]

 

But I'm assuming everyone sees my point. I don't want to say that Mary is being held to a different standard, but ... is she?

 

I think she is.  For one example, people react to the "gone a bit freelance" part of her background that we hear from CAM in HLV.  Well, I was watching SiP last night, and Sherlock explains to John that Mycroft is "the CIA on a freelance basis."  Why do we assume that saying an intelligence agent has gone freelance means that she has become a gun for hire with no moral code, but that a government official who actually works for some of the same organizations is freelancing for Queen and Country and therefore is honorable?  I'll bet Mycroft has done his share of "wet work;" you don't get to his kind of position without doing some things that are ethically pretty sketchy.

 

So, yeah, if we're going to look at these characters and try to take in their motivations and their fundamental character and their behavior and make a judgement accordingly, then we have to do so for Mary, IMHO.  She is the one that we know has tried to turn her life around and make a new start; just because her past skills came through doesn't negate that.  Even John "had bad days" as a soldier rather than a doctor.  (And heck, even Sherlock knows this: not only did he get throttled by John on two occasions that we saw, but Victorian Hallucination John said he could break every one of Sherlock's bones while naming them, and yet we view that as a funny line, not a threat.)

[Caya]

Because John wouldn't do that. Mary, on the other hand, has already killed Sherlock once and stated that she's perfectly willing to do so again. So yes, definitely different standard because, well, different people.

 

As for the oft-repeated argument of "who knows if Mary did bad things as a freelancer", again, she herself definitely thinks so; see her statement to John that he won't love her anymore once he reads about her past on the A.G.R.A. stick. John's an ex-soldier and definitely no fainting flower.

 

And I don't think Mary has turned her life around. She has run from her past - that's something different altogether. Note her lack of remorse for what she did or any kind of attempt to make up for the harm she caused.

[Boton]

Because John wouldn't do that. Mary, on the other hand, has already killed Sherlock once and stated that she's perfectly willing to do so again. So yes, definitely different standard because, well, different people.

 

As for the oft-repeated argument of "who knows if Mary did bad things as a freelancer", again, she herself definitely thinks so; see her statement to John that he won't love her anymore once he reads about her past on the A.G.R.A. stick. John's an ex-soldier and definitely no fainting flower.

 

And I don't think Mary has turned her life around. She has run from her past - that's something different altogether. Note her lack of remorse for what she did or any kind of attempt to make up for the harm she caused.

 

So, just to play devil's advocate with  your second point, are we sure that Mary even feels like she needs to have remorse over what she's done?  She says John won't love her any more, but that's in a context in which he's still struggling to see that his wife is a former intelligence agent who "wasn't supposed to be like that."  Maybe he wouldn't love her any more if he knew what she did for the CIA, and that would be above-board by most reckonings.  

[Caya]

 

So, just to play devil's advocate with  your second point, are we sure that Mary even feels like she needs to have remorse over what she's done?  She says John won't love her any more, but that's in a context in which he's still struggling to see that his wife is a former intelligence agent who "wasn't supposed to be like that."  Maybe he wouldn't love her any more if he knew what she did for the CIA, and that would be above-board by most reckonings.  

 

Well, let's see - scenes in Vow that say that whatever Mary did, it was bad:

 

  * Mary's statement that John wouldn't love her anymore once he knew what she had done, see above

 

  * CAM's statement that Mary had been a "bad girl" and "wicked".

 

Scenes in Vow that say that maybe she wasn't all that bad:

 

  (crickets)

 

 

Sure, everything is possible. But considering the evidence, certainly not likely.

[Inge l-w]

Clever, clever Arcadia! They have been used for Sherlock, Mary, and if memory serves, Mycroft. The point being?

P.S. If records get broken, CDs are easily corrupted, should use cloud storage method, perhaps?

[Arcadia]

The point being, I wonder if some of Mary's characteristics are being held against her, when the same characteristics in another character are not. Take "manipulative", for example; both Sherlock and Mycroft are masters of it, yet I don't see that being used a lot as a reason for not liking them. Usually it's more of "Sherlock is a manipulative bastard but I love him anyway" kind of thing. (Actually, I imagine John has said that to himself many a time! )

Now that I think about it, maybe that could be an explanation for why John finally decided to forgive Mary. The two people he loves most have betrayed him in the most awful ways imaginable; maybe he thought he couldn't, in fairness, forgive one but not the other. Although I'm not sure I believe John thinks that way, he seems more the impulsive type to me.

Anyway, I'm watching Boton's and Caya's exchange, and I think they both make valid points, so clearly I'm not going to be much use when it comes to answering my own question. I like Mary but I don't like what she is. I love Sherlock but I hate what he did. I dislike Mycroft but I appreciate his loyalty to his country. (Sorry, Myc, that was the nicest thing I could think of to say about you! :P )

 

....  Well, I was watching SiP last night, and Sherlock explains to John that Mycroft is "the CIA on a freelance basis."  Why do we assume that saying an intelligence agent has gone freelance means that she has become a gun for hire with no moral code, but that a government official who actually works for some of the same organizations is freelancing for Queen and Country and therefore is honorable?
 
... [Mary] is the one that we know has tried to turn her life around and make a new start; just because her past skills came through doesn't negate that

 

Because John wouldn't do that. Mary, on the other hand, has already killed Sherlock once and stated that she's perfectly willing to do so again. So yes, definitely different standard because, well, different people.
 
As for the oft-repeated argument of "who knows if Mary did bad things as a freelancer", again, she herself definitely thinks so; see her statement to John that he won't love her anymore once he reads about her past on the A.G.R.A. stick. John's an ex-soldier and definitely no fainting flower.
 
And I don't think Mary has turned her life around. She has run from her past - that's something different altogether. Note her lack of remorse for what she did or any kind of attempt to make up for the harm she caused.

I've already indicated I come down somewhere here in the middle, but I can't resist putting my two cents worth in anyway. :P  As to the CIA ... I confess to having little love for, or much trust of, said organization. I recognize its utility, but I don't like much of what they do. So for me, that is a negative for both Mycroft and Mary, to say they have done work for the CIA. But for some reason, I'm more willing to believe this: what Mycroft does for them is more likely to be for the world's betterment than what Mary did for them. But why should I? Because Mary shot Sherlock? I'm frankly quite willing to believe Mycroft would shoot him too, if he thought it necessary. And cry about it afterwards no more than Mary did.
 
But to be fair; I think Mycroft would only do that if he thought Sherlock was a grave danger to Britain. I think Mary did it because she thought he was a grave danger to herself.
 
But then I have the other side of the dilemma; Sherlock shot CAM because he was a grave danger to Mary. Yet I get the feeling I am somehow supposed to find it acceptable for Sherlock to do that. Why, then, is it not acceptable for Mary to eliminate a threat to herself? Because the threat was the hero of the story? But that's hardly her fault, is it? She was reacting to the threat, not to Sherlock's status in the world. And whether you believe she actually "killed" Sherlock or not (I don't, because he's still walking around), I think it's hard to argue she didn't genuinely try to give a Sherlock a chance to live, however slim. Which is more than Sherlock did for CAM.
 
Having said that, though, I can't condone Mary's action. She may have thought Sherlock was a threat; but she should have known he wasn't. He was offering to help when she pulled the trigger; that should have been enough to stop her. But I do believe it was enough to keep her from killing him outright.
 

Well, let's see - scenes in Vow that say that whatever Mary did, it was bad:
 
  * Mary's statement that John wouldn't love her anymore once he knew what she had done, see above
 
  * CAM's statement that Mary had been a "bad girl" and "wicked".
 
Scenes in Vow that say that maybe she wasn't all that bad:
 
  (crickets)

Scenes in Vow that say that maybe (emphasis mine) Mary wasn't all that bad:
 
MARY: I'm sorry, Sherlock. I truly am.

HOMELESS MAN (hoarsely): Oh, come on, love. Don’t be like all the rest. (She [Mary] stops, turning back to him, then takes a handful of loose change from her coat pocket, bends down and drops the coins into the tub.

SHERLOCK: John ... You can trust Mary. She saved my life.

 

(Quotes from Ariane DeVere's transcript, which my current browser will not allow me to link to, because it's evil. your kindly co-moderator has added a link to)

Plus ... Sherlock risked his life to save her. Twice. Is his judgement really that poor, or does he see something in her that we don't? Can't say ... he was off his game for all of S3, imo. But I choose to believe he wasn't that off.

 

I suspect Toby's got it right about me; Moftiss has got me believing exactly what they want me to believe. Waghghg!!! I'm doomed!

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by Caya

[J.P.]

Twice? (I see I need to watch it again :D)

[Arcadia]

Thank you, Caya!!!

 

First time; in 221B, where he collapses from blood loss. Second time; getting a virtual death penalty for shooting CAM (plus he might have gotten shot there on the veranda if Mycroft hadn't been so quick to tell his men to stand down.)

[Arcadia]

Actually, you could even say three times ... by taking a step towards her, with the intention to help, in CAM's office. He almost wound up dead that time too. I don't think he knew his danger that time, though. I think he genuinely believed she wouldn't shoot.

[Boton]

First time; in 221B, where he collapses from blood loss. Second time; getting a virtual death penalty for shooting CAM (plus he might have gotten shot there on the veranda if Mycroft hadn't been so quick to tell his men to stand down.)

 

I think this is a good in-universe reason for at least semi-trusting Mary: the protagonist of the show trusts her. Ultimately, any of us can like or dislike a character, and some of those reasons will point to things that would keep us from liking the character in real life.  But to go with the story, you have to at least allow the emotional landmarks the creators put in to guide you, since you never have as much information or the same kind of information you would have in real life, to say nothing of the fact that the standards of fiction are different than RL.

 

For example, I wouldn't have had anything to do with either Sherlock or John throughout season 1, really. Sherlock is a recent enough drug user that a drug bust is a plausible event, someone who other people suspect could murder to alleviate his boredom, and a self-diagnosed sociopath, whatever that means to him.  John is actually a fairly morose and emotionally scarred vet who doesn't have enough friends to find a roommate and can't manage to make enough money as a doctor to get a flat on his own.  There are a lot of reasons I came to love them, but I wouldn't have taken either of them as a flatmate just on the information I got at first introduction. I'm kind of the same with Mary.

[Arcadia]

While I'm here, I want to add that Mary only thinks John will hate her if he knows the truth about her. He might not; he's already demonstrated that he can be more accepting of bad behavior than most people ... after all, he still loves Sherlock! And Mary underestimated Sherlock, imo, so why not John? She must have a flaw somewhere. :p

 

At any rate, my point is ... I don't take the "you'll hate me" remark as conclusive evidence that there's something truly unforgiveable in her past, just that she can't forgive herself for it. Odds are that it is something truly heinous, but ... this IS Moftiss, after all.

[Arcadia]

Ooops, cross-posted with Boton. But yeah, for myself, I'm quite certain that's the reason I'm inclined to trust Mary; Sherlock told me to.

[Boton]

While I'm here, I want to add that Mary only thinks John will hate her if he knows the truth about her. He might not; he's already demonstrated that he can be more accepting of bad behavior than most people ... after all, he still loves Sherlock! And Mary underestimated Sherlock, imo, so why not John? She must have a flaw somewhere. :P

 

At any rate, my point is ... I don't take the "you'll hate me" remark as conclusive evidence that there's something truly unforgiveable in her past, just that she can't forgive herself for it. Odds are that it is something truly heinous, but ... this IS Moftiss, after all.

 

And we don't know how inadvertently complicit John is in Mary's belief that he'd hate her.  She may fundamentally be a "liar," but I think their marriage is very real.  And in marriages, you have conversations about your hopes and dreams.  

 

What if John has said things like "thank heavens you're sane" or "I don't miss living with someone who'd shoot up the walls every time he got bored"?  Even if that was partly a story he told himself, perhaps saying it made Mary wonder if letting her carefully-constructed facade drop for a second would disappoint John and not give him the kind of cozy domesticity he was saying he wanted?  And I do believe that she loves John; I think that's the most redeeming factor about Mary is that, between the two of them, Sherlock and Mary love John as much and in as many ways as any one man could hope to be loved.  So what if they are both potentiallly-murderous sociopaths?  Even the Camden Garrotter had his bad days, but on balance he was the best man.   :D

[Caya]

 

I think this is a good in-universe reason for at least semi-trusting Mary: the protagonist of the show trusts her. Ultimately, any of us can like or dislike a character, and some of those reasons will point to things that would keep us from liking the character in real life.  But to go with the story, you have to at least allow the emotional landmarks the creators put in to guide you, since you never have as much information or the same kind of information you would have in real life, to say nothing of the fact that the standards of fiction are different than RL.

 

Creators, however, aren't always objective about their own creation, or TV Tropes wouldn't need categories such as The Scrappy or Creator's Pet (and we haven't even entered Mary Sue territory yet). Just because, say, the Babylon 5 folks loved Byron, Gene Roddenberry thought Wesley Crusher was wonderful or George Lucas found Jar Jar Binks funny (sorry for only Sci-Fi examples coming to my head right now) doesn't mean that we as viewers neccessarily agree with the sentiment. Moftiss may opine that Mary is just great and forgiven and make the boys love her, just like Wesley Crusher was loved by everyone on the Enterprise, but I respectfully disagree with that sentiment (with no disrespect meant to Wil Wheaton nor to Amanda Abbington, btw, who are by all accounts great human beings).

[Boton]

 

 

I think this is a good in-universe reason for at least semi-trusting Mary: the protagonist of the show trusts her. Ultimately, any of us can like or dislike a character, and some of those reasons will point to things that would keep us from liking the character in real life.  But to go with the story, you have to at least allow the emotional landmarks the creators put in to guide you, since you never have as much information or the same kind of information you would have in real life, to say nothing of the fact that the standards of fiction are different than RL.

 

Creators, however, aren't always objective about their own creation, or TV Tropes wouldn't need categories such as The Scrappy or Creator's Pet (and we haven't even entered Mary Sue territory yet). Just because, say, the Babylon 5 folks loved Byron, Gene Roddenberry thought Wesley Crusher was wonderful or George Lucas found Jar Jar Binks funny (sorry for only Sci-Fi examples coming to my head right now) doesn't mean that we as viewers neccessarily agree with the sentiment. Moftiss may opine that Mary is just great and forgiven and make the boys love her, just like Wesley Crusher was loved by everyone on the Enterprise, but I respectfully disagree with that sentiment (with no disrespect meant to Wil Wheaton nor to Amanda Abbington, btw, who are by all accounts great human beings).

 

 

True, and I never liked Wesley Crusher.  But I went with the fact that he was brilliant and everyone on the Enterprise thought he was the bee's knees and he was capable of doing things that maybe other kids his age did not.  Now, I might have thought it was shoddy writing (because seriously, you have no one else to give a bridge shift to other than Wesley?), but I understood his place in the storytelling structure.

 

Anyway, it's a good point that you make, and a nuance to consider.

[Inge l-w]

Wesley Crusher could be seen as an iteration of the original, James Tiberius K himself in his young days, a space cadet, bright as s button, straight-arrow, no obvious hang-ups from being orphaned through Captain. Picard's actions. It's all to the good, it's positive reinforcement. But an ex-assassin, ex CIA, ex-freelance whatever, has no tenable position in a Sherlock Holmes series, no matter how "constructive with the truth" of ACD the creators want to be.

If other members "believe in Moftiss" (isn't that fusion a bit overly familiar, by the way?) I believe in PlaidAdder's pronouncement, that she wouldn't believe Mr Moffat if he told her water was wet.

Guess we shall all have to contain ourselves in patience, after all! What's another nine months, after two years of drought?

[Arcadia]

Well, I'd believe Moftiss or anyone else if they told me water was wet, because that's something I already believe. :P

 

Okay, we had a good time with that, what other subject can we beat to death? Shall we have another go at "does Sherlock really have Asperger's/autism/a personality disorder? XD

[sfmpco]

Well, I'd believe Moftiss or anyone else if they told me water was wet, because that's something I already believe. :P

 

Okay, we had a good time with that, what other subject can we beat to death? Shall we have another go at "does Sherlock really have Asperger's/autism/a personality disorder? XD

 

 

I believe there is already a thread for that somewhere....

[J.P.]

[Inge l-w]

Of course there is! SherlockedCamper has been a frequent contributor, and I find it interesting that from one off-hand comment made during Hound, a whole sub-stratum of stories in ff and Ao3 have sprouted.

Going off on a tangent, in that group photograph of film students visiting on location, the fake curls are back, but one consulting detective seems alone and separated from his faithful blogger and his least annoying DI, who have chummed up three ranks lower: perhaps it's a football and beer night for the boys, but it gives off peculiar sensations.

[Shadow Dweller]

 

 

Well, I'd believe Moftiss or anyone else if they told me water was wet, because that's something I already believe. :P

 

Okay, we had a good time with that, what other subject can we beat to death? Shall we have another go at "does Sherlock really have Asperger's/autism/a personality disorder? XD

 

I believe there is already a thread for that somewhere....

I personally think that Sherlock doesn't have any of the aforementioned obstacles. He was inexperienced (could be because he choose to isolate himself in the world of intellectualism) and very much unpolished but he already show us that he is capable of acting/being nice to other people, means all the rudeness is by his own choice.