I can see how you would come to the conclusion that Mary is a complex character occupying a moral middle ground - there is certainly space for that reading.
I can't quite get to that place, however. My problem with the way she's being written is a) that we know so little about her past, and b) that she's so passive from the moment John knows.
Regarding a): All information we have about her past is really vague. We don't know why she took up her past career, we don't know why she ended it, we don't know what exactly she did. Was it morally grey stuff? Like killing mob bosses/Magnussen-like characters? Or was it darker, less easy to excuse - did she torture 15-year old Pakistani boys to get information on their maybe-terrorist uncles? Did she murder people like Edward Snowden for the CIA? We just don't know. We can make up a compassionate backsory for her - or not. She says that John wouldn't love her if he knew her past; Magnusson calls her very naughty... does that mean her past really is that bad, or does she misjudge John and Magnusson is just trying to rile him up?
(BTW, the one thing we do know about her is that she was an "assassin" - and that means that she is a murderer. The question is, is she the kind of murderer that we can forgive and root for or not)
Also, was she forced to end her assassin career or did she do it because she wanted to? Did she try to make amends for any harm she caused? Does she regret it, or is she basically fine with that part of her life but now wants to move on?
And regarding b): "Mary may not be a reformed character - but she is on the road to reformation and this is why I personally like her. She is very flawed and very human. She shows us all that the road to redemption is rocky and littered with failure, but we can get there."
I would have loved to see her her way to redemption. To see her work with Sherlock and John to bring down Magnusson, to make some sacrifices herself, to be given an active role. But we don't get that. All she did was 1) let Sherlock tell her story (and then repeat his points); give John the USB stick to do with as he pleases; 3) wait and see what happens.
This is not taking the rocky road to redemption. This is not a troubled, flawed human being working to become a better person. She doesn't give John access to her past because she decided after a long deliberation that it is the right thing to do. She only did it when it was her only option. Now, I'm not asking her to beg for mercy on her knees or suddenly become this perfect kitten-rescuing super-human. But I don't see her moving along any kind of road.
Again, it's absolutely possible to read her as a sympathetic character, if we fill in all the gaps with the right story (I do the same thing for Sally Donovan - the text doesn't give us much, but with the right backstory, she's a great character). But honestly, right now, I need a little more prompting from the text to be so generous.
Hit the nail right on the head as to why Mary's character bothers me so much. I would love to believe that there's a bigger picture to unfold in future seasons but I'm generally a pessimistic person so I'm not holding out. Honestly, I would LOVE her to be the big bad next season, she has so much potential. Obviously she's a master of deception, and Sherlock and John seemed so quick to write her off as being good and trustworthy DESPITE that she had them completely fooled for so long. I know John wouldn't talk to her for a long time while he processed everything, and then everything is good and okay and he throws the USB in the fire. And we don't know what was on that USB stick. Hoping against hope this comes back to bite everyone on the ass because that could seriously get interesting.
The reason why she is a character in her own right, is because she is very different to both Jim Moriarty and Magnussen. I completely agree that Mary doesn't do very much. For a central character, she is incredibly passive.
The only real piece of action she got throughout the entire series is shooting Sherlock. The show would have definitely benefited from more action from Mary particularly in the form of some kind of redemption after shooting Sherlock.
However I do not think that John and Sherlock's decision to trust Mary is bad writing or a setup for Mary to be the ultimate villain. I see the forgiveness as testament to the sacrifices we will endure for the ones we love. Both John and Sherlock have been wounded by Mary but they chose instead to put their faith in her. It takes a great deal of courage to trust someone who has betrayed but if you truly love them, it is the right thing to give them a second chance. This shows us that Sherlock has progressed along his archetypal hero's journey.
Now if she was cast as the ultimate villain in season 4, it would be a very interesting situation not because of what Mary can do, but because of Mary's character. All the major villains we have seen so far are portrayed as entirely irredeemable. Magnussen is made up of pure vileness with absolutely no redeeming qualities what so ever. Jim in the end was both evil and completely unhinged, so there is no redemption possible there either. Mary is not solely bad, in fact we have seen that she does love, she does care and ultimately there is a conscience there even if she compromises her morality as easily as shooting a fifty pence piece.
a)that we know so little about her past. It's always very hard to judge a character that we do not know enough about. Perhaps when we do get Mary's backstory it will change our perspective but even if we never know about Mary's back story it doesn't change what we know she had done. She has exited that world, she has married John and she definitely loves him. We may not know her past or her motivations for leaving the assassin's world but we do know why she stayed. If John finds suburban life dull, I can only imagine what Mary is going through. That is enough for me to believe that Mary is at least prepared to make the effort to leave her past behind. I think this shows a great deal of resolve and courage. If anything she lasted longer than John - who couldn't help but go into a drug den and beat up some junkies.
Yes, Mary does eventually relapse and what she does is very difficult to forgive. However, both John and Sherlock do forgive her, which is an essential part of their character development.
Of course the rest of His Last Vow would have mean more meaningful for Mary if she actually did something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock. She gave John her entire past and the space he needed at such a difficult emotional time. I completely agree with you that we don't see her doing anything for Sherlock.
I do see this lack of agency as an ongoing problem in Sherlock. Mary is not a main character, she's not the lead but she is a central character. Certainly more central than any other female character and yet she still doesn't function as a central character in her own right. The only truly independent act she did throughout the whole series was shoot Sherlock. I like the idea that Mary is morally grey because apart from Mycroft we don't really have other characters like that. However I don't like that fact that this is thrust upon us with such extreme melodrama. There were so many better ways of unveiling Mary as an assassin that don't involve her shooting Sherlock and then having Sherlock "come back from the dead".
The entire scene was designed to wring the maximum amount of emotion out of the audience. However this came at a cost to Mary's characterization. It setup Mary as a woman on the road to redemption and then knocked her right off it again. She never even got the chance to actually do something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock.
I do see this lack of agency as an ongoing problem in Sherlock. Hallelujah amen.
She never even got the chance to actually do something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock. Yes exatcly, and the thing I don't for the life od me understand why. It could have been a perfect set-up for a suspenseful dramatic rest-episode-3, a gigantic cliffhanger, and a suspenseful, dramatic series 4.
Imagine if Mary, John and Sherlock would have been allowed to remain in this "she lied about her past, but she loves John, but she shot Sherlock, but she tried not to kill him and had her reasons, but she was an assassin, but John loves her, etc."-situation for a while longer, with the threat of Magnusson looming in the background. The characters agree that they need to work together in order to defeat him, safe their lives, protect the Empire and so on, even if they have a ton of interpersonal conflict. But circumstances force them. You have the genius, the assassin and the soldier-doctor pooling resources to bring down the big bad. Mary works for her redemption. We get to see some part of her assassin character. John and Mary develop a newfound respect and understanding for each other, even if they don't quite forgive each other yet. All three hatch a brilliantly dangerous plan, which in the end goes (semi-)wrong and we get a cliffhanger (Sherlock has to decide whether he saves John or Mary; Mary and John have to team up to save Sherlock, whatever).
Magnusson survives and is the big bad throughout series, during which we get Mary and John's eventual reunion, maybe Mary saving Sherlock's life for real, and in the end the defeat of Magnusson.
Point is: it was the ideal set up for high-quality drama and action, including believable character development and emotional tension. I just don't understand how they could throw this away.
(Sorry for derailing. I think I just started outlining a fic ;)
I can see how you would come to the conclusion that Mary is a complex character occupying a moral middle ground - there is certainly space for that reading.
I can't quite get to that place, however. My problem with the way she's being written is a) that we know so little about her past, and b) that she's so passive from the moment John knows.
Regarding a): All information we have about her past is really vague. We don't know why she took up her past career, we don't know why she ended it, we don't know what exactly she did. Was it morally grey stuff? Like killing mob bosses/Magnussen-like characters? Or was it darker, less easy to excuse - did she torture 15-year old Pakistani boys to get information on their maybe-terrorist uncles? Did she murder people like Edward Snowden for the CIA? We just don't know. We can make up a compassionate backsory for her - or not.
She says that John wouldn't love her if he knew her past; Magnusson calls her very naughty... does that mean her past really is that bad, or does she misjudge John and Magnusson is just trying to rile him up?
(BTW, the one thing we do know about her is that she was an "assassin" - and that means that she is a murderer. The question is, is she the kind of murderer that we can forgive and root for or not)
Also, was she forced to end her assassin career or did she do it because she wanted to? Did she try to make amends for any harm she caused? Does she regret it, or is she basically fine with that part of her life but now wants to move on?
And regarding b):
"Mary may not be a reformed character - but she is on the road to reformation and this is why I personally like her. She is very flawed and very human. She shows us all that the road to redemption is rocky and littered with failure, but we can get there."
I would have loved to see her her way to redemption. To see her work with Sherlock and John to bring down Magnusson, to make some sacrifices herself, to be given an active role. But we don't get that. All she did was 1) let Sherlock tell her story (and then repeat his points); give John the USB stick to do with as he pleases; 3) wait and see what happens.
This is not taking the rocky road to redemption. This is not a troubled, flawed human being working to become a better person. She doesn't give John access to her past because she decided after a long deliberation that it is the right thing to do. She only did it when it was her only option.
Now, I'm not asking her to beg for mercy on her knees or suddenly become this perfect kitten-rescuing super-human. But I don't see her moving along any kind of road.
Again, it's absolutely possible to read her as a sympathetic character, if we fill in all the gaps with the right story (I do the same thing for Sally Donovan - the text doesn't give us much, but with the right backstory, she's a great character). But honestly, right now, I need a little more prompting from the text to be so generous.
Reply
Reply
The only real piece of action she got throughout the entire series is shooting Sherlock. The show would have definitely benefited from more action from Mary particularly in the form of some kind of redemption after shooting Sherlock.
However I do not think that John and Sherlock's decision to trust Mary is bad writing or a setup for Mary to be the ultimate villain. I see the forgiveness as testament to the sacrifices we will endure for the ones we love. Both John and Sherlock have been wounded by Mary but they chose instead to put their faith in her. It takes a great deal of courage to trust someone who has betrayed but if you truly love them, it is the right thing to give them a second chance. This shows us that Sherlock has progressed along his archetypal hero's journey.
Now if she was cast as the ultimate villain in season 4, it would be a very interesting situation not because of what Mary can do, but because of Mary's character. All the major villains we have seen so far are portrayed as entirely irredeemable. Magnussen is made up of pure vileness with absolutely no redeeming qualities what so ever. Jim in the end was both evil and completely unhinged, so there is no redemption possible there either. Mary is not solely bad, in fact we have seen that she does love, she does care and ultimately there is a conscience there even if she compromises her morality as easily as shooting a fifty pence piece.
Reply
a)that we know so little about her past. It's always very hard to judge a character that we do not know enough about. Perhaps when we do get Mary's backstory it will change our perspective but even if we never know about Mary's back story it doesn't change what we know she had done. She has exited that world, she has married John and she definitely loves him. We may not know her past or her motivations for leaving the assassin's world but we do know why she stayed. If John finds suburban life dull, I can only imagine what Mary is going through. That is enough for me to believe that Mary is at least prepared to make the effort to leave her past behind. I think this shows a great deal of resolve and courage. If anything she lasted longer than John - who couldn't help but go into a drug den and beat up some junkies.
Yes, Mary does eventually relapse and what she does is very difficult to forgive. However, both John and Sherlock do forgive her, which is an essential part of their character development.
Of course the rest of His Last Vow would have mean more meaningful for Mary if she actually did something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock. She gave John her entire past and the space he needed at such a difficult emotional time. I completely agree with you that we don't see her doing anything for Sherlock.
I do see this lack of agency as an ongoing problem in Sherlock. Mary is not a main character, she's not the lead but she is a central character. Certainly more central than any other female character and yet she still doesn't function as a central character in her own right. The only truly independent act she did throughout the whole series was shoot Sherlock. I like the idea that Mary is morally grey because apart from Mycroft we don't really have other characters like that. However I don't like that fact that this is thrust upon us with such extreme melodrama. There were so many better ways of unveiling Mary as an assassin that don't involve her shooting Sherlock and then having Sherlock "come back from the dead".
The entire scene was designed to wring the maximum amount of emotion out of the audience. However this came at a cost to Mary's characterization. It setup Mary as a woman on the road to redemption and then knocked her right off it again. She never even got the chance to actually do something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock.
Reply
Hallelujah amen.
She never even got the chance to actually do something to redeem herself for what she did to Sherlock.
Yes exatcly, and the thing I don't for the life od me understand why. It could have been a perfect set-up for a suspenseful dramatic rest-episode-3, a gigantic cliffhanger, and a suspenseful, dramatic series 4.
Imagine if Mary, John and Sherlock would have been allowed to remain in this "she lied about her past, but she loves John, but she shot Sherlock, but she tried not to kill him and had her reasons, but she was an assassin, but John loves her, etc."-situation for a while longer, with the threat of Magnusson looming in the background. The characters agree that they need to work together in order to defeat him, safe their lives, protect the Empire and so on, even if they have a ton of interpersonal conflict. But circumstances force them. You have the genius, the assassin and the soldier-doctor pooling resources to bring down the big bad. Mary works for her redemption. We get to see some part of her assassin character. John and Mary develop a newfound respect and understanding for each other, even if they don't quite forgive each other yet. All three hatch a brilliantly dangerous plan, which in the end goes (semi-)wrong and we get a cliffhanger (Sherlock has to decide whether he saves John or Mary; Mary and John have to team up to save Sherlock, whatever).
Magnusson survives and is the big bad throughout series, during which we get Mary and John's eventual reunion, maybe Mary saving Sherlock's life for real, and in the end the defeat of Magnusson.
Point is: it was the ideal set up for high-quality drama and action, including believable character development and emotional tension. I just don't understand how they could throw this away.
(Sorry for derailing. I think I just started outlining a fic ;)
Reply
Leave a comment