Mary Morstan

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I suspect she's gonna turn out to be a highly-conflicted good guy. But we'll see . . . .

Agreed on the conflicted good-guy. One with a dark past.

[Arcadia]

If she is a good guy ... with her past, I hope she's highly conflicted! :D

[sfmpco]

I hope she's a highly conflicted good guy and not someone who has been pretending even further than we know (i.e. her reason for meeting John in the first place).  

[Arcadia]

I just hope her past isn't as preposterous as the "it was surgery" explanation....

[T.o.b.y]

An ex-agent turned freelance assassin's story must be pretty preposterous by force of the very idea...

 

I'm hoping that the question of whether Mary is a "good guy", a "bad guy" or something in between will be left for us to decide. I don't think they'll make her a villain, they seem to like the character too much and in my opinion, it would hurt the drama of series 3 considerably.

[Arcadia]

You are so right. I guess I meant, "even more preposterous than it already seems!"

Since one could argue that TEH hurt the drama of series 2 considerably, I'm not sure that's much of a brake on the Moftisses.  At this point, I have virtually no expectations any more; it's easier on my poor little nerves that way.....

[T.o.b.y]

Since one could argue that TEH hurt the drama of series 2 considerably, I'm not sure that's much of a brake on the Moftisses.

 

True... But "Mary is a villain" would be such a letdown. And boring - way too simple.

 

I do sort of want her to go one day, though preferably not die, because I still don't see how they can make John grieve the death of a loved one again and not repeat themselves or invite horrible comparisons. (The only thing worse would be another fake death). And I really don't want it to be a "good riddance" kind of loss, not for the characters and not for the audience, either. If they get rid of Mary, they have to make a stronger case for her first than they have managed so far. And if they can't make it believably tragic, they should better leave the matter alone and just keep her as a secondary character.

[sittything]

I'm OK with Mary being another damaged, neither wholly good or bad person.  It works with everyone else around Sherlock, including himself.  It's complicated...

 

Why is the surgery explanation preposterous?  

[T.o.b.y]

I'm OK with Mary being another damaged, neither wholly good or bad person.  It works with everyone else around Sherlock, including himself.  It's complicated...

 

Why is the surgery explanation preposterous?  

 

Well, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense within Sherlock's world. But in our reality, it would be virtually impossible to shoot someone in the chest (or the upper abdomen) and still make sure the hit will not be fatal. It is just not possible to perform surgery with a gun, no matter how good a shot you are.

 

[sfmpco]

The thing is... her "surgery" didn't work in any regards because at the moment she shot Sherlock she saw him as a in the way of her objectives.  She had no problem pulling the trigger although she was a bit sorry it had to be him.  Just because it was him, however, did not make her any less willing to shoot.  He had to be taken out of the way.  The only "surgery" kind of metaphor that doesn't even work for me is that he's like a cancerous tumor that has to be removed.  Apparently "surgery" meant something to Moffat because he wrote it, and no one seemed to object enough to the word for it to be changed.  Whatever the case, she performed her "surgery" and removed a part of the body (Mary/John/Sherlock) that no longer functioned for her needs.  

 

She had to know that her shot at nearly point blank range, could kill him no matter what Sherlock's feeble explanation was later.  Then again, he was trying to get to the bottom of the mystery with her at Leinster Gardens, and he would have said anything to get her to confess in front of John.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I hope she's a highly conflicted good guy and not someone who has been pretending even further than we know (i.e. her reason for meeting John in the first place).  

 

Agreed, but that wouldn't have to mean that she really did just meet him by accident.  As has been suggested already, she could have been hired by Mycroft to keep a protective eye on John while Sherlock was away.  She could even have been hired by Moriarty to kill John if it turned out that Sherlock faked his death -- but then really did fall in love with him, assignment be damned.

 

Why is the surgery explanation preposterous?  

 

What T.o.b.y said.

 

But that doesn't mean Sherlock was wrong.  As he later pointed out, as a trained assassin she could easily have killed him outright at that range.  So she apparently did her best to incapacitate him while giving him a reasonable chance of surviving.  (Note to those who say why didn't she just shoot him in the leg, then: It apparently wasn't his mobility that she needed to incapacitate, it was his mouth -- she didn't want him telling John what had happened, at least not immediately.)  So Sherlock figured she'd done the best she knew how in a bad situation.  Convoluted, I know, but that seems to be how Sherlock saw it, and I don't see any major flaws in his logic.  It was inherently a convoluted situation.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I'm not saying it doesn't make sense within Sherlock's world. But in our reality, it would be virtually impossible to shoot someone in the chest (or the upper abdomen) and still make sure the hit will not be fatal. It is just not possible to perform surgery with a gun, no matter how good a shot you are.

Come to think of it, in our reality it's not even possible for a surgeon to perform surgery with a scalpel and make sure that the result will not be fatal.  There are occasional fatalities even with routine surgeries, and there are certain surgeries where death is a very real possibility.  I assume Sherlock is well aware of that.  But it's always a relative matter, and analogies are never perfect.

 

[Caya]

Yeah, but a well-trained surgeon can reduce the risk of a fatal outcome. No matter how much of a sharpshooter an assassin is, you just can't reliably shoot someone in the chest area - people breathe, and that makes the whole shebang move around. That wasn't a crack shot so much as a crap shot.

[sittything]

I have never found it preposterous, but then I bought what Sherlock was selling. She's a phenomenal shot, meant to incapacitate him, was a bit off (nobody is perfect), the end. Maybe it's naive of me, but it's the only way I can rationalize it so that I don't hate Mary.

[Arcadia]

I have never found it preposterous, but then I bought what Sherlock was selling. She's a phenomenal shot, meant to incapafor fantasy but I do like the physics of it to be grounded in reality. Oh well. If you step away from the show and look at it crosseyedcitate him, was a bit off (nobody is perfect), the end. Maybe it's naive of me, but it's the only way I can rationalize it so that I don't hate Mary.

That is more or less how I regard it too, but for me at least it requires a huge suspension of disbelief! I'm all for fantasy, but I like mine at least rooted in real physics. Oh well. If we step away from the show and look at it crossways, nearly the whole thing is preposterous. (It's never too warm to wear The Coat? ) But I'm assuming we're not supposed to look at it that way, because it's not that kind of show. What you feel about it is more important than what you think about it, I'd say. Does that make sense?

[T.o.b.y]

 

I have never found it preposterous, but then I bought what Sherlock was selling. She's a phenomenal shot, meant to incapafor fantasy but I do like the physics of it to be grounded in reality. Oh well. If you step away from the show and look at it crosseyedcitate him, was a bit off (nobody is perfect), the end. Maybe it's naive of me, but it's the only way I can rationalize it so that I don't hate Mary.

That is more or less how I regard it too, but for me at least it requires a huge suspension of disbelief! I'm all for fantasy, but I like mine at least rooted in real physics. Oh well. If we step away from the show and look at it crossways, nearly the whole thing is preposterous. (It's never too warm to wear The Coat? ) But I'm assuming we're not supposed to look at it that way, because it's not that kind of show. What you feel about it is more important than what you think about it, I'd say. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, it does make sense, and that is very ironic considering how cerebral the show is supposed to be. But that's one of the things I love about Sherlock - nothing is as it seems. :lol:

 

For some funny reason, I do not find it very difficult to suspend my disbelief in this particular case. Partly because I will believe anything Sherlock says (except "Jim must be gay because of his underwear", I mean, come on!), partly because I love how he defends his own attacker and partly because it makes sense to me that Mary wouldn't really want to kill Sherlock although her assassin side probably told her it ought to be a necessary move.

 

I see this as summing up Mary's personality: She can't let the part of her that breaks into people's houses and shoots them in cold blood rest entirely, but she's not really a killer by nature, she does have feelings and loves people, and she's torn between her Mary persona and her assassin persona and the result is slightly scary and very interesting.

 

[Arcadia]

Yup, an explanation of Mary's past could be a very interesting. Wonder if we'll ever get one.....

[sfmpco]

Well, let's put it this way.   I doubt she will just become Mrs. Housewife Watson and fade into the background.  No no no.  Her story will be resolved

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Well, let's put it this way.   I doubt she will just become Mrs. Housewife Watson and fade into the background.  No no no.  Her story will be resolved

 

 

I agree that Mary is not likely to fade into the background as a housewife.  Not sure if her story will ever be fully resolved though.  Moftiss doesn't always resolve things clearly leaving plenty of room for speculation and questions plus what appear to be gaping plot holes.  I can definitely see more of her past coming up without her story being resolved.

[sfmpco]

Just going through John's blog (the dates are screwy) and noticed on 3rd June that he mentions that he, Sherlock AND Mary broke into someone's house to get evidence.  

 

As a side note - Harriet  (aka Harry) Watson does read and respond to John's blog.

[Arcadia]

Yes, and she's very bawdy and funny. 
 
It occurs to me that maybe one reason we haven't seen Harry in person is because she and John have a "difficult" relationship, same as Sherlock and Mycroft .... and two of those relationships in one show may seem a bit much. ??? - just speculating. (It's what we DO! )

[sfmpco]

Could be.  Or it could be that they're not wanting to introduce another non-canon character.

[Arcadia]

John Watson didn't have a brother Harry in the books?

[sfmpco]

You're a moderator!  You're supposed to know these things!

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia and sfmpco, you are both right!

The brother is in ACD stories, which personality became the invisible Harriet of the series. We now have to wait for S4, when Mary will definitely be confronted with her unsavoury past, whether Aunt Harriet steps in to look after Baby Watson, or whether Mary and the unborn embryo will disappear together, won't we?