More spoilers!
[[MORE]]
Of course Mary is a bad person. (spoilers)
I agree that Mary has acted in ways that are a bit not good. But I am having a problem with the fact that everyone believes CAM in this instance. Does freelance necessarily mean Killer for Hire? At this point I am still conflicted about exactly how I feel about Mary and Sherlock. I believe it was you who stated Sherlock did not research Mary because he was in love with John and didn’t want to cause him pain. I sort of explored this very superficially in my very first post. http://toooldforthissh—stuff.tumblr.com/post/73338641454/wtf-with-season-three-of-sherlock. I understand that love can blind you to the faults of the beloved, but find it hard to think that it would over-ride the urge to protect them. My understanding of Sherlock is that he would always endeavor to find the whys and wherefores of any situation, especially if it had the potential of affecting John in a negative way. All that said, everyone is composed of good and bad (except Magnussen) and everyone makes mistakes in deed and judgment. I guess it may take me a while longer to settle my head canon with the canon presented to us by Moftiss in season 3.
He says, “She’s gone a bit freelance.” Yeah, it had occurred to me that ‘contract assassin’ wasn’t the only way that might be read. But the other ways aren’t significantly better. If your job is killing people for the government, then ‘going freelance’ can mean either ‘taking money from other people’ or else just ‘killing people because you feel like it.’ Or ‘killing people for other countries,’ I suppose.
In any of those cases: still a terrible person.
But even if she ‘only’ killed people for the government: still a terrible person. Yes, in that case she’s doing it for a higher cause (maybe), but do you think that people who kill for a living are in any way nice? I mean…do you think the ranks of CIA hitmen are made up of idealistic, caring people whom YOU would trust to decide who deserves to live and die? Going by history, I wouldn’t advise it.
As for Sherlock (and also Mary) when it comes to love…it’s so idiosyncratic. Just look around at all the real people you know, and what they do in relationships. Some people stay clear-headed. Others are deeply emotional. Some people are selfless in their love. Others are self-absorbed. Some get lost in their passion. Others are wary about their commitment.
Sherlock is brilliant. I know brilliant people who are positively incapacitated by emotion. I know others who seem to apply logic seamlessly to people as well as things. I can see how he might have let himself be blinded.
I can even see how he might have CHOSEN to let himself be blinded, because a thing about Sherlock is that along with being a brilliant, coldly logical scientist, he is also a hedonist. He loves fine things and beautiful things and being whisked away by his passions, be they nicotine or casework or music or John. And he’s never loved someone before, the way he does John. It’s a novel and heady thing, that first time you find someone who touches you so deeply. It can feel so wonderful, to throw yourself in and let yourself be carried off by the passion of it.
I can see how he might’ve stayed clear-headed, too. But the show seems to have decided that he didn’t.
It’s a bit weird, I admit. But I think that on balance I like it. Sherlock needs flaws. He can’t be perfect or things will get very boring. That he can let his own emotions blind him to the truth is a pretty cool flaw for a smart man to have.