Mary Morstan

[T.o.b.y]

I hope you are right... I don't think they will kill her because it would be too predictable. And it would not be like them to let the fact that it's never explicitly stated she died in canon slip by. Of course it is the most probable interpretation there, but "my sad bereavement" could theoretically mean anything and they sure love to play with ideas like that.

 

I do wonder why they introduced the idea of her expecting a child. It seems so... unnecessary. Did they think they needed it for added plausibility that John would be willing to get back together? Or because, unlike John and Mary simply being married, it would change their lives a lot and so be "the end of an era" for Sherlock, thereby making The Sign of Three work as a story at all?

 

 

[Janie]

I don't like the idea of a baby either. I still like Mary a lot though and I don't want her or the baby die. That would be too cruel for poor John. I just think that they shouldn't have let her being pregnant at all. I like the idea of John and Mary divorcing and staying good friends so John could move back to Baker Street.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I like the Watsons as a couple. I wish they could have stayed the way they were (or appeared to be) in The Sign of Three. But now that they have introduced that stupid "she was a killer and lied to John and married him under an assumed name and shot Sherlock and so on" storyline, I would not find it one bit believable (and therefore not satisfying) if John's glorious solution "throw it all in the fire and ignore it" really worked....

 

So, sadly, the only plausible development for me now would be the marriage falling apart and the Watsons ultimately splitting up....

 

Then again, very few people expected the "Mary is a former CIA operative" storyline -- so who who knows what Moftiss will come up with next?  You don't necessarily have to give up on Mary just yet.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, I'm not giving up on her. I have a feeling the writers like the character (and probably the actress, too) too well to "get rid of her" any time soon.

 

I just can't make up my mind about the shot. On the one hand, I usually believe anything that Sherlock says. So if he tells John (and thereby the audience) that it was "surgery" and not meant to kill him, that she actually did the best she could under the circumstances to protect John without sacrificing Sherlock's life, then it must be the truth. But, on the other hand, we were shown minutes upon minutes inside Sherlock's consciousness and out of it showing how he did, in fact, die. So all those who insist that she killed him aren't exactly wrong either.

 

Why couldn't she have shot Milverton and just knocked Sherlock out instead of the other way around? Okay, because the episode would have been over. But why show us in painful details just how nearly Sherlock ended up dead only to claim the clever assassin knew what she was doing all along and actually saved his life? It makes very little sense to me.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 This story is also based on "The Illustrious Client" in which Holmes was severely beaten. So badly, that London's most prominent surgeon was called in to treat him. In that case too, Holmes refuses to stay in the hospital landing back at Baker Street.

 

True, in the original, Holmes seems to be faking at least some of his injuries, but even several days later, he is still pale, weak, and bleeding. It's not getting shot, but that Mofftiss for you.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Why ... show us in painful details just how nearly Sherlock ended up dead only to claim the clever assassin knew what she was doing all along and actually saved his life? It makes very little sense to me.

 

My best guess is that Sherlock is putting a good face on the situation for John's sake.  I realize that shows an awfully good understanding of John's potential feelings -- not our usual bull-in-a-china-shop Sherlock -- but maybe he really exerted himself this time because he knew it was vitally important.

 

My corollary to that is that Sherlock realized that he got shot because he stupidly tried to call Mary's bluff.  I see a parallel between the scene we're discussing ...

 

MARY: Oh, Sherlock, if you take one more step I swear I will kill you.

SHERLOCK: No, Mrs Watson. You won’t.

(He starts to lifts his foot off the floor. Immediately she pulls the trigger....)

 

... and a similar scene from "Sign of Three":

 

JOHN: Major, let us in.

MARY: Kick the door down.

SHOLTO: I really wouldn’t. I have a gun in my hand and a lifetime of unfortunate reflexes.

 

In the latter scene, Sherlock believes the Major and reasons with him.  In the former, he doesn't believe Mary and things don't turn out so well.  Why doesn't he take Mary seriously?  He may be asking himself the same question.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Good eye, Carol.

[Zain]

Oh, I'm not giving up on her. I have a feeling the writers like the character (and probably the actress, too) too well to "get rid of her" any time soon.

 

I just can't make up my mind about the shot. On the one hand, I usually believe anything that Sherlock says. So if he tells John (and thereby the audience) that it was "surgery" and not meant to kill him, that she actually did the best she could under the circumstances to protect John without sacrificing Sherlock's life, then it must be the truth. But, on the other hand, we were shown minutes upon minutes inside Sherlock's consciousness and out of it showing how he did, in fact, die. So all those who insist that she killed him aren't exactly wrong either.

 

Why couldn't she have shot Milverton and just knocked Sherlock out instead of the other way around? Okay, because the episode would have been over. But why show us in painful details just how nearly Sherlock ended up dead only to claim the clever assassin knew what she was doing all along and actually saved his life? It makes very little sense to me.

 

 

Interestingly, I've made my peace with that even though I still find it highly immoral...

I've read some meta and I agree with some of the other fans. Sherlock miscalculated. Just a theory but maybe it works for you too.

 

Sherlock's entire forgiveness relies on one fact. The ambulance takes too long for John to have called it first. Someone else called the ambulance before him. Sherlock then thinks it was Mary, and that this is proof of her not-quite-so-vicious intentions. for him. And the shot was not fatal shot by default, so it seems logical that she only planned to incapacitate him. The fact that he flat-lined and was actively fighting desperately to stay alive does not register, after all, Mary doesn't do regret. So the shot must have been executed the way she planned.

 

The problem, however, is that Mary never confirmed that she called the ambulance. Nor did she bring it up in her defense to placate John's anger.

 

What about Magnussen? When John enters the room, he had already regained consciousness but wasn't in a good state. Why shouldn't he have called for help (mobile phone..)? Someone had broken into his home, ambushed him, and he could have a severe concussion. There were other people that more than likely had been taken out. Besides the guy who was bleeding onto his carpet and might get him into some trouble if he were to die there.

Then there's the matter of John who was taking care of Janine who was slowly regaining consciousness. Maybe he already dialed help for her but forgot that the help that arrived wasn't meant for Sherlock in the first place. Janine herself could have called the ambulance, maybe for the guard. Less likely but probably just as much as that a woman would call an ambulance for someone who she intended to hunt down with a gun later on.

 

So, it was part of his deduction that it was Mary that called the ambulance. And as he told us in ASiP, there's always something....

Okay, misquoting is a bit unfair^^ But maybe this helps you to find some peace with the scene as well. If not, it was worth a try... 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Janine herself could have called the ambulance, maybe for the guard. Less likely but probably just as much as that a woman would call an ambulance for someone who she intended to hunt down with a gun later on.

 

  A good point, but if Janine was hit first and was just coming to, it couldn't have been her that called the ambulance, not even for the downed guard as she was still unconscious when John and Sherlock get to the penthouse. Charles Magnussen could have called the ambulance. Not sure he would have cared if Sherlock lived or died. All he had to tell the police that the intruder who hit him, had shot and killed Sherlock.

 

  It is a puzzle why Sherlock would say that she didn't intend to kill, while it has been pointed out that she did hunt him out after he left the hospital. Maybe this will be answered later on. Moffat and Gatiss can plug up plot holes, whether they will on this is yet to be seen.

 

 

[Slithytove]

Good point about the ambulance. Along with the claim that the shot was "surgery" and not meant to kill, this amounts to Sherlock's claim that Mary actually saved his life. Seems like he fabricates a flimsy excuse for John's sake, and John accepts it because he wants to forgive his wife.

 

One thing which seems a bit absurd is that Sherlock explains the placement of his injury to John, i.e. that it was meant to incapacitate but not kill. And what was John's previous profession? Army doctor in a war zone? You would think that a man with that CV could draw his own conclusions about the site of a gunshot wound...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

One thing which seems a bit absurd is that Sherlock explains the placement of his injury to John, i.e. that it was meant to incapacitate but not kill. And what was John's previous profession? Army doctor in a war zone? You would think that a man with that CV could draw his ouown conclusions about the site of a gunshot wound...

 

   I think John is having a hard time swallowing that story, why else would he be so angry at her? He's the one in the back of the ambulance, shouting, "Sherlock, we're losing you!" and he's not even the one working on him, but he knows. He calls Mary a sociopath and his voice has tears in it when he says "But she wasn't supposed to be like that!" 

 

 He doesn't want to take her back, but Sherlock takes her as a client...and John isn't happy about it.  "Your way then! Always your way.!"

 

And after Sherlock suffers his relapse, he doesn't talk to her for a whole month and even then he says that is still really....really pissed at her. And that it would come out at times. So he's not going to be over it for awhile and he's letting her know it.

[T.o.b.y]

I think John is having a hard time swallowing that story, why else would he be so angry at her?

 

Funny, I never got the impression that John's main source of anger was Mary shooting Sherlock. It seemed to me that he was mostly upset that she had lied to him about who she was and gone so far as to even marry him under an assumed name. That and finding out she was not, as he had thought, finally a "nice, normal" person for him to love.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

That and finding out she was not, as he had thought, finally a "nice, normal" person for him to love.

 

  And she did call the ambulance first. After she shoots Sherlock and pistol whips Magnussen, the camera shows her picking up a phone and she is punching numbers. It comes up 999 Emergency and we can hear the operator saying: Emergency.....  (Thank you, Ariane DeVere, once again.)

 

 

  I think it would be kind of difficult to swallow that the woman you fell in love with, and who professed a real like for a self proclaimed sociopath, and this self proclaimed sociopath seemed to like, should turn out to be someone who could and would shoot this self same sociopath that she claimed to like so well, and who was someone she was kind of like after all.

 

  It was very clear in the restaurant that Mary knew how much John had mourned. She had visited Sherlock's grave with him.

 

Like John said. "Is everyone in my life a sociopath?"  And "What in my life, did I ever do to deserve you!"

 

  Of course he's angry that she's no a 'nice, normal person'.  But he's angry with Sherlock as well for making John put up with her.....John doesn't like the idea that she's going to be a client. She forced Sherlock to take a runner from the hospital and went hunting for him, with a gun.

 

And John did answer that phone call from Sherlock and had no problem taking his place in that chair in the dark.

[Karie]

Good point about the ambulance. Along with the claim that the shot was "surgery" and not meant to kill, this amounts to Sherlock's claim that Mary actually saved his life. Seems like he fabricates a flimsy excuse for John's sake, and John accepts it because he wants to forgive his wife.

 

One thing which seems a bit absurd is that Sherlock explains the placement of his injury to John, i.e. that it was meant to incapacitate but not kill. And what was John's previous profession? Army doctor in a war zone? You would think that a man with that CV could draw his own conclusions about the site of a gunshot wound...

 

One thing that really gets me about that whole "surgery" bit... Mary's shot was in a very, very dangerous location. To not cause serious (even fatal) harm, would have been a very, very lucky break. But the thing is... no matter how precise she was, or what knowledge she may have had about anatomy, she still couldn't have known that she wouldn't kill him. I've had my hands inside enough chest and abdominal cavities to tell you that no one's anatomy is identical to anyone else's. Organs are smaller or larger in different people, things are off a bit in their location. I've been standing over patients in the OR where the surgeon outright admitted that he was having a slow time finding his way around, because the anatomy was far from "text book".  

 

So no matter how "precise" she tried to be, and no matter how much knowledge she had, she had to have known that there was always a chance that he would die. And she still pulled the trigger, even knowing that. She took that big of a risk with Sherlock's life.  I still can't forgive her for that.

 

I haven't watched the episode in a couple of weeks. I didn't want to burn out on it before my dvds came. Maybe I'll have a fresh perspective when I finally get to watch it on the big screen, but I'm not holding out any hope that Mary's character will be salvaged for me.  As it stands, I still want her gone as soon as possible. 

 

I'm also feeling very wary about watching The Empty Hearse and The Sign of Three again. I loved Mary in the first two episodes, and particularly in TSoT (and I just loved that episode so much by itself), and I'm afraid my enjoyment will be compromised now that I've seen His Last Vow. Kind of like how my enjoyment of TRF is not the same after having seen TEH. 

 

 

 

 

I think John is having a hard time swallowing that story, why else would he be so angry at her?

 

Funny, I never got the impression that John's main source of anger was Mary shooting Sherlock. It seemed to me that he was mostly upset that she had lied to him about who she was and gone so far as to even marry him under an assumed name. That and finding out she was not, as he had thought, finally a "nice, normal" person for him to love.

 

 

Speaking of which... someone brought up a good point on tumblr the other day. Because Mary married John under false pretenses and while she was committing identity fraud, their marriage is not actually valid. I wonder if that will ever be brought up? I doubt it.  I guess the whole "Is Mary Watson good enough for you?" bit underlined the fact that John doesn't seem to care that Mary Watson is not Mary Watson and not his wife. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect that what actually impressed Sherlock about where Mary shot him was that it was not what you might call a guaranteed kill shot.  A trained killer doing that, and at such close range, is perhaps equivalent to hesitation -- not hesitation in time, but equivocation in her aim.  Also, Sherlock knew that he had made a serious error in judgement when he tried to call Mary's bluff, which he presumably found very embarrassing.  So he may have been trying to cover his own tracks as well as Mary's when he came up with that bit about surgical precision (which I agree is nonsense).

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

This thread has evolved into a general discussion of Mary-the-character, so its original title ("How much Mary Morstan will there be?") now seems too specific.  I have therefore generalized it to "Mary Morstan."

 

Couple of little things I've just noticed that puzzle me:

 

The wedding invitation (shown in "Sign of Three") gives the location as "St. Mary's Church, Sutton Mallet."  According to Google Maps, Sutton Mallet is a village way the heck over on the west side of England fairly near Bristol (and very near a town called Milverton, oddly enough), over 100 miles from London.  Why drag everyone all the way over there?  Usually a wedding is in the bride's family church, but Mary doesn't have a family, or at least not one that she dares to acknowledge.  And if she grew up under another name in that little corner of the country, why would she risk being identified?  (The canon's Mary Morstan was born in India and then educated in Edinburgh, and Amanda Abbington was born near London, as was Martin Freeman.)  If John is supposed to be from that area, why isn't that mentioned?  (Do we have any idea where the canon's Watson is from?)  The only thing I can think of is that the church scene was actually filmed in or near Sutton Mallet (it isn't all that far from Cardiff) -- but Google doesn't seem to turn up any functioning churches there, just one historical site.

 

Also, Sherlock says (in "Last Vow"), "Mary Morstan was stillborn in October 1972. Her gravestone is in Chiswick Cemetery...."  It's my understanding that people who take on the identity of a deceased infant do so in order to get a usable birth certificate.  But when an infant is stillborn, surely that fact is noted on the birth certificate, if one is even issued.  So what would be the point?  The gravestone would do her no good whatsoever, unless she wanted to prove she's a fake.  (By the way, there are two Chiswick Cemeteries -- Old and New -- and both are in greater London, nowhere Sutton Mallet.)

 

[T.o.b.y]

...Sherlock knew that he had made a serious error in judgement when he tried to call Mary's bluff...

 

What I don't understand (okay, one of the many things I don't understand) is why Mary said she would shoot him if he came closer. If Sherlock's analysis of the situation later is correct, which I assume it is because he's Sherlock Holmes, then Mary would have shot him no matter what he did once she'd spotted him and knew that he was a witness to her attempt at killing Magnussen.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

One article on the web puts John's birthplace as Hampshire.

[Carol the Dabbler]

What I don't understand (okay, one of the many things I don't understand)...

I'm definitely right with you there! 

 

... is why Mary said she would shoot him if he came closer. If Sherlock's analysis of the situation later is correct, which I assume it is because he's Sherlock Holmes, then Mary would have shot him no matter what he did once she'd spotted him and knew that he was a witness to her attempt at killing Magnussen.

 

If she'd intended to shoot him no matter what, then presumably she'd have shot him on sight. My impression is that when he took that step, she thought he was going to try something physical on her -- confiscating her gun, at the very least.  Perhaps she was considering his offer to help -- but wasn't interested in being coerced into it.

 

He really was being awfully patronizing there.  (Not that I'd have shot him for it.  Just sayin'.)

 

[Caya]

Interview with Amanda Abbington.

 

Personally, I think that her view "but then she's redeemed" is a tad optimistic, but well, I guess you gotta like the char you play. Peter Weller thought Admiral Marcus was a patriot, too -_-.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Personally, I think that her view "but then she's redeemed" is a tad optimistic....

 

Well, I do have to say that her apparent take on the characters, and on John in particular, is not my take.  For example:  "John shoots people. He shot the psycho cabbie in episode one, and that was fine. He beat up a crack addict, and that was fine. So, Mary fits in really well with those two. They’re all psychopaths."  I do hope she's joking about the psychopath part.  I mean, John shoots a serial killer who's trying to poison Sherlock, and he disarms a guy who's trying to stab him -- and that makes him a psychopath?!

 

I wish she had elaborated on the "redeemed" part.  It seems to me that her shooting Sherlock is either justifiable on the spot (and I think a good case can be made for that) or it's not justifiable at all.  If she's talking about Sherlock's "surgical precision" claptrap, I don't see that as redeeming her.  I think that was just Sherlock's way of giving John his permission to work things out with Mary.

[wildwoodflower]

 

Personally, I think that her view "but then she's redeemed" is a tad optimistic....

 

Well, I do have to say that her apparent take on the characters, and on John in particular, is not my take.  For example:  "John shoots people. He shot the psycho cabbie in episode one, and that was fine. He beat up a crack addict, and that was fine. So, Mary fits in really well with those two. They’re all psychopaths."  I do hope she's joking about the psychopath part.  I mean, John shoots a serial killer who's trying to poison Sherlock, and he disarms a guy who's trying to stab him -- and that makes him a psychopath?!

 

I wish she had elaborated on the "redeemed" part.  It seems to me that her shooting Sherlock is either justifiable on the spot (and I think a good case can be made for that) or it's not justifiable at all.  If she's talking about Sherlock's "surgical precision" claptrap, I don't see that as redeeming her.  I think that was just Sherlock's way of giving John his permission to work things out with Mary.

 

 

Okay, but we're all clear that If she had intended to kill him she would have killed him. I think it was explained very well by sherlock's later analysis of events. If she had no qualms about killing him and wished only to protect her secret and her relationship with John than she would have killed Sherlock, killed Magnussen and got out before it was discovered.

 

But it is confusing (human beings are sort of confusing and conflicted at times) because she clearly shoots to thoroughly incapacitate. She doesn't want Sherlock talking too soon (and is maybe conflicted about whether she wants him able to talk at all, certainly not about her). And when John tells her Sherlock pulled through then she looks relieved (for him) and worried (for herself) at the same time. So, I thought it was interesting and entertaining. Exciting and thrilling and heart-wrenching and heart-pounding and I was shaking during that scene in Magnussen's office. That's good television, isn't it? 

 

I kind of love Mary Morstan for being so very very interesting. I hope they don't kill her off. I hope they all figure out how to be one weird dysfunctional little family. John can be the moral center for both of them. And baby makes four.

[Caya]

 

Okay, but we're all clear that If she had intended to kill him she would have killed him. I think it was explained very well by sherlock's later analysis of events. If she had no qualms about killing him and wished only to protect her secret and her relationship with John than she would have killed Sherlock, killed Magnussen and got out before it was discovered.

 

Except for that, you know, she did kill him. He flatlined.

[wildwoodflower]

 

 

Okay, but we're all clear that If she had intended to kill him she would have killed him. I think it was explained very well by sherlock's later analysis of events. If she had no qualms about killing him and wished only to protect her secret and her relationship with John than she would have killed Sherlock, killed Magnussen and got out before it was discovered.

 

Except for that, you know, she did kill him. He flatlined.

 

 

Yes, but I was speaking of INTENTION. I'm arguing that she could have done it more efficiently if that was her intention. And maybe it was and she just hestitated too long so that her aim dropped from a killshot between the eyes to somewhere in the vcinity of his gall bladder. And yes, it was clear that he underesitmated his influence over her behavior, but she did not aim to kill. The audience is given evidence of her aiming skills later. We are supposed to take away from that evidence that we can trust Sherlock on this. You don't have to of course, I'm just speaking from the persepctive of writing and direction. The fact that the character technically died (with a perfectly beautiful tiny hole in his whitest-man-on-earth body even though we were previously given the impression they had cut him open and were actually squeezing his heart to make it work) has no bearing on Mrs. Watson's intention.

 

I like the character. I like the twist. I intend to watch the show when it's back partly to see what they do with her. I want to see what they do with all these wierd, dynamic people. And I doubt anyone on this forum will choose not to watch Series 4 because it might compromise a moral stance they took all the way back in January 2014 Anyway we can always write fic that fixes the problem. That's what a thousand fans are likely doing this very minute.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, good heavens, the fanfic must be going crazy!  (Not sure I have the steel nerves required to read any of it.)

 

I believe there are some who disagree with that interpretation, but I think I agree with you on the "intention" angle.  Let me say it my way and see if you agree:  If Mary had been determined to kill Sherlock, she was perfectly capable of making a guaranteed-kill shot.  She was not prepared to cave in when he tried to call her bluff, so in a sense she had to shoot him (she's certainly not big enough to wrestle him for the gun).  But she wasn't going for a kill, so she made a halfhearted shot that happened to hit something fairly vital.

 

At least that's how I currently see it.