Jump to content

How would you fix "His Last Vow"?


Carol the Dabbler

Recommended Posts

They really need to make a story which is partly about him, imo. I'd love the special to be a flashback. Wouldn't it be amazing if we got to see how Sherlock succeeded in getting Lestrade to listen to him?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically how they met, you mean?  Yeah, that would be really cool -- though the two actors would have to play at least ten years younger than they are, so the sooner the better -- either that or wait for Louis Moffat to grow up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I loved this episode and although the 'surgical precision' bit grated somewhat, I could still live with that. The one thing I would change is Mary's pregnancy - the episode would start with a scene that Sherlock's deductions were wrong and she was never, in fact, pregnant because I really, really, really dislike the thought of a kid on Baker Street as well as the possibility of 'dead child' angst. I'm just not feeling the parenthood angle.

 

I did not even mind Sherlock shooting Magnussen because it showed the lengths to which he would go to protect John, and I did not mind his sense of morals being jumbled a bit - after all, he is a highly functioning sociopath ;) I just felt it was a very powerful and emotional scene and thought it was great that Sherlock could still surprise and disturb us.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a very good point.  Why is it that we're able to accept Sherlock treating his best/only friend heartlessly on a regular basis -- after all, as you point out, he doesn't have the usual sense of morality -- but then we're horrified when he shoots CAM?  If he felt that was his only option, then he simply did the logical thing -- which I think explains why Sherlock is OK (after the fact) with Mary shooting him -- because he realizes he had put her between a rock and a hard place.

 

I'm puzzled by the pregnancy myself (since it isn't canon), but not unhappy with it.  I'm really curious, though, to see how that plot thread plays out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an odd thing about fiction - I would be immediately and violently put off by anyone taking matters into their own hands like that in real life, but in fiction, I find myself almost cheering them on if it is well written and suits the character.

 

I guess I should indeed just patiently wait to see how the pregnancy plays out. I just hope we won't be treated to 3 x 1,5 hours of diaper changes and milk burps

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we've never seen either John or Sherlock in the bathroom, and we've seen grocery shopping only once -- so no, I doubt that they'll base any episodes on baby care, even though such matters will presumably be going on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to have part of a scene where Sherlock holds the baby and we see how he handles it.  Possibly some deduction that she is going to need parental assistance (diaper or feeding), he passes off the baby then grabs his coat and leaves the flat to work on the case.  Maybe something about the baby clears his brain to help solve the case or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I really don't want a baby in the show. Even less than I want Mary around. If I am as lucky as I expect to be, there'll be some disgusting (I know, subjective) scene with the new mummy and her oh-isn't-she-a-darling daughter who just came home from hospital. May I be sick in advance?

But I won't begrudge you that scene. I know that some really enjoyed HLV. I will be looking forward to reading what happened in the thread, and then I'll decide whether I want to watch the series or not.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we've never seen either John or Sherlock in the bathroom, and we've seen grocery shopping only once -- so no, I doubt that they'll base any episodes on baby care, even though such matters will presumably be going on.

 

Right. I mean, they even did a whole episode set around a wedding, without so much as showing the wedding ceremony (or the real proposal, or the bride / groom kiss, or...). While this series shows us a lot more of the characters' private lives than most other detective stories do, they're still just more or less backdrop for Sherlock and John having adventures.

 

It would be interesting to have part of a scene where Sherlock holds the baby and we see how he handles it.

 

:D I'm still in favor of the formal English handshake like in "The Sussex Vampire".

 

... I really don't want a baby in the show. Even less than I want Mary around. If I am as lucky as I expect to be, there'll be some disgusting (I know, subjective) scene with the new mummy and her oh-isn't-she-a-darling daughter who just came home from hospital. May I be sick in advance?

 

:lol: It's not exactly something I'm looking forward to either, but I am kind of curious how they will make the child fit in. My best guess is that we won't see much of it and that they'll use it as an excuse for why bad-ass-assassin-bored-out-of-her-wits-at-home Mary does not routinely come along on the above mentioned adventures, now that she has nothing to hide from the boys any more as far as her skills are concerned. "She gave it all up for children", remember? Then there can be a nice controversy around whether the series is sexist (again).

 

I also cannot imagine John Watson having a baby and that baby managing not to be kidnapped throughout four entire episodes. Finally, someone he can farm the "damsel in distress" role out to...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a very good point.  Why is it that we're able to accept Sherlock treating his best/only friend heartlessly on a regular basis -- after all, as you point out, he doesn't have the usual sense of morality -- but then we're horrified when he shoots CAM?

Because there's a big difference between hurting someone's feelings and shooting them in the head?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 It's not exactly something I'm looking forward to either, but I am kind of curious how they will make the child fit in. My best guess is that we won't see much of it and that they'll use it as an excuse for why bad-ass-assassin-bored-out-of-her-wits-at-home Mary does not routinely come along on the above mentioned adventures, now that she has nothing to hide from the boys any more as far as her skills are concerned. "She gave it all up for children", remember? Then there can be a nice controversy around whether the series is sexist (again).

 

 

 

I was thinking about that "gave it all up for children" line this weekend.  Leave it to Sherlock to try to fix John and Mary's marital problems partly by showing them that his mum gave up mathematics to raise a family, so surely Mary could just take a pass on the whole assassain thing now that she's expecting.  :D

 

I'm a vote for little or no baby in the upcoming series.  Not that it wouldn't be cute and all, but I don't want to see Sherlock Holmes fumbling around with a baby in great confusion, nor do I want to see him be a natural like he was with wedding planning.  I basically don't want to see him touch the baby at all.  Maybe one shot of the child in John's arms when Sherlock texts him or something.

 

I'm really nervous, though, about that child's life expectancy, since it isn't canon.  Moftiss are going to have to tread very carefully if they want to keep that baby alive but in the background, and it will change the John Watson character in ways I don't know how they'll handle.  I'm kind of hoping the baby is Moriarty's by artificial insemination or something.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a very good point.  Why is it that we're able to accept Sherlock treating his best/only friend heartlessly on a regular basis -- after all, as you point out, he doesn't have the usual sense of morality -- but then we're horrified when he shoots CAM?

Because there's a big difference between hurting someone's feelings and shooting them in the head?

True, and I will concede that Sherlock has never shot John in the head. But he doesn't just hurt John's feelings. He thinks he's dosing him with an unknown drug in "Hounds." Then he jumps off a building to his apparent death right in front him -- John appeared to be considering suicide in "Study" and Sherlock's cute stunt could have driven him right over the emotional edge (as at least one facfic writer has pointed out). Maybe other people can remind us of additional examples.

 

But I think Tunguska's point (which I was attempting to paraphrase) was that if we accept Sherlock as having very little sense of the usual sort of morality, then why should we be surprised when he takes a coldly logical approach to defeating Magnussen?

 

I'm really nervous, though, about that child's life expectancy, since it isn't canon.  Moftiss are going to have to tread very carefully if they want to keep that baby alive but in the background, and it will change the John Watson character in ways I don't know how they'll handle.

I'm expecting her to remain "alive but in the background" for the foreseeable future, simply because offing a baby would be really dreadful. And I will admit to being curious about how John will handle fatherhood. But considering how completely they blindsided me with "Last Vow," I doubt very much that I can predict what they'll come up with for Series 4, so I don't see the point of fretting too much about the above.  What they come up with will probably be nothing like any of it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really nervous, though, about that child's life expectancy, since it isn't canon.  Moftiss are going to have to tread very carefully if they want to keep that baby alive but in the background, and it will change the John Watson character in ways I don't know how they'll handle.  I'm kind of hoping the baby is Moriarty's by artificial insemination or something.

 

Blech. I don't know why, but the very notion that the child is not John's is kind of repulsive to me. I mean, really. It's enough that she's an ex-killer who didn't even bother to let him know her real name before they got married. If it turned out she'd been cheating on him sexually on top of that as well, that would be total overload.

 

I do not want Mary to be a villain. She can be grey, dark grey, very dark grey in fact, as far as I am concerned, but for me to enjoy her story, she can't be a real villain, and she really, really has to love John. If their love does not have this "you are the one" quality, then their story just wouldn't be as gripping(ly sad) as it is.

 

As for killing the baby, I am opposed to that as well. Mary, fine. I guess she was meant to die in canon, even though Doyle never explicitly said so, therefore I suppose I could live with that, and it's not like she's my favorite character or anything. They got along just fine two series without her. But in my book, you do not invent an infant only to kill it off. That is immoral, somehow (as opposed to cheering on a hero who shoots people in the face while yelling Merry Christmas, I know, but still).

 

Whatever odd reason they might have had to introduce Miss Watson, they cannot just off her now. Not that I want to see much of her (at least not until she's old enough to be a kind of female Archie, and even then I'd be quite contented with homeopathic doses). I simply feel that it's the creators' responsibility to provide for her somehow. Either they let Mary live, and John and she have a fairly normal family life when he's not on a case with the world's only consulting detective, or some other guardian(s) will have to be found. Sherlock's parents, Mrs Hudson, Harry (if she gets off the booze), whoever.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want Mary to be a villain. She can be grey, dark grey, very dark grey in fact, as far as I am concerned, but for me to enjoy her story, she can't be a real villain, and she really, really has to love John. If their love does not have this "you are the one" quality, then their story just wouldn't be as gripping(ly sad) as it is.

Yes. For one thing, I won't have John be made a complete idiot (though he can of course approach it asymptotically). And I really, really hate characters who are bad because they're bad. Boring!

 

I am greatly encouraged by Moffat and Gatiss's recent analogy between Mary and the TV/movie character Callan. Anyone who is not familiar with Callan, you might want to read the Wikipedia page. He sounds really complex and murky-but-relatable.  I would love for Mary to have that sort of textured background.

 

Whatever odd reason they might have had to introduce Miss Watson, they cannot just off her now. Not that I want to see much of her (at least not until she's old enough to be a kind of female Archie, and even then I'd be quite contented with homeopathic doses). I simply feel that it's the creators' responsibility to provide for her somehow.

Amen!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a good decision to cut out those bits where it seems they meant to show Magnussen developing a creepy kind of interest in Sherlock as a person. That's Moriarty's thing. All villains cannot be the same... besides, it's just too disgusting with Magnussen. The way it works in the final version, it's merely as if Magnussen is immune to Sherlock's charm.

 

I'm taking the following here because I felt it didn't fit the thread it was in as well as this one:

 

Hmm, right, I see your point.  Lemme see -- how about this -- Sherlock says he's OK with Mary shooting him (because she also "saved his life" -- yeah, right!), and John figures that part is Sherlock's lookout, so OK fine, he'll go with Sherlock's interpretation (at least it beats trying to make sense of everything all at once).  And Sherlock also says that John should trust Mary in the future, so fine, that's settled too.  Which leaves just the part where Mary didn't tell John the truth in the past -- dealing with that is left up to John.  So of course he focuses on that part.  How's that?

 

That would be very plausible, if John's priorities shifted after the Baker St talk, but as I see it, he brings them to the table the way they are, i.e. "first of all, I am totally pissed off that my wife is actually a complete stranger who did not think it at all necessary to inform me of the fact that her name and identity are fake before we tied the knot. Oh, and on second thoughts, I'm also not happy that she shot my best friend. Plus it seems she killed a lot of people in the past, but... oh what the heck, I don't want to know about that. Mainly I'm just mad at her for lying."

 

Poor John. But such is my impression. I like him anyway. And my strange, twisted sense of humor finds his lookout quite funny, actually.

 

It just stretches my capabiity of willful suspension of disbelief. John is supposed to be a GP, and he was the first to arrive at the scene of the crime. He basically saw Sherlock heart stop in front of him twice. You save somebody's life by getting a bullet out of a body, not by putting it in there in the first place. And that's something he should know by heart. I never took him for a character who deludes himself to such great lengths. But that's what it is, in a way. He is not questioning it. Because he might not like the alternative, I suppose.

 

Well, that's my pet theory. That John is so badly in love with Mary, was so damn happy when he finally, finally found a nice woman to be his wife (and he'd been looking for a very long time, hadn't he), that he simply cannot, will not contemplate anything that would make him love her less. Because losing your affection for somebody can actually hurt more than losing the person her- / himself. In my book, it was simple fear which kept him from reading the information on her past ("you won't love me when you're finished"), rather than a noble spirit of magnanimity, and it could also be the reason why John does not dwell much on the shooting in Magnussen's office.

 

I mean, poor John. "The two people whom I love and care about most". How terrible would it be for him to have his loyalties conflicted. Luckily, Sherlock doesn't even begin to make him go there. He brushes off the shot with "she saved my life" and urges John to do what I think John at heart wants most: forgive Mary and get back together with her. I don't think that takes much effort on Sherlock's part. He seems genuinely not angry with Mary. He respects her for being such a good shot and having the nerve to put that talent to use the way she does. Maybe he blames himself a teeny bit for the situation, too, because he failed to figure out what was wrong with her earlier. This is just an instance where it's really to everybody's advantage that Sherlock is not like ordinary people.

 

I think Carol is right insofar that the only issue Sherlock really cannot help John with is Mary keeping the truth from him. Sherlock can convince John that Mary is basically trustworthy, no matter what she may have done in her past, and that it's really not such a big deal that a bullet of hers ended up in his chest, but Sherlock is exactly the wrong person to excuse or explain away any betrayal of John's trust. I mean, it's precisely what he did himself not too long ago, on a similar scale, and he hasn't even come up with a convincing justification for that yet.

 

In a way, "then what exactly is the point of you" is kind of the theme of the "domestic" at Baker St for me. As if John were thinking "wait, you're just like Sherlock? Then why the F*** did I marry you? The whole idea was to find someone who isn't a lying manipulative bastard!" Poor John, really. I'm convinced that he was able to get over Sherlock's massive betrayal of his friendship by contemplating how he's now got this lovely partner with whom he can have a real, equal, honest relationship, and then that rug is pulled out from under his feet.

 

 

Wow, long ramble of mine. I know it's ridiculous to think about fictional characters in a television series this way, as if they actually existed and had inner lives like that. I bet that the writers would laugh their heads off if they knew to what extent their creations get analyzed. But oh what the heck. No harm, I suppose, is there.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rats! Now I've just realized I took this to the wrong thread after all. I just wanted to post it in the "His Last Vow" thread. Um... Carol? Anyone? Move post?

 

Oh well, it doesn't really matter where I spill my thoughts, does it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm really nervous, though, about that child's life expectancy, since it isn't canon.  Moftiss are going to have to tread very carefully if they want to keep that baby alive but in the background, and it will change the John Watson character in ways I don't know how they'll handle.  I'm kind of hoping the baby is Moriarty's by artificial insemination or something.

 

Blech. I don't know why, but the very notion that the child is not John's is kind of repulsive to me. I mean, really. It's enough that she's an ex-killer who didn't even bother to let him know her real name before they got married. If it turned out she'd been cheating on him sexually on top of that as well, that would be total overload.

 

I do not want Mary to be a villain. She can be grey, dark grey, very dark grey in fact, as far as I am concerned, but for me to enjoy her story, she can't be a real villain, and she really, really has to love John. If their love does not have this "you are the one" quality, then their story just wouldn't be as gripping(ly sad) as it is.

 

As for killing the baby, I am opposed to that as well. Mary, fine. I guess she was meant to die in canon, even though Doyle never explicitly said so, therefore I suppose I could live with that, and it's not like she's my favorite character or anything. They got along just fine two series without her. But in my book, you do not invent an infant only to kill it off. That is immoral, somehow (as opposed to cheering on a hero who shoots people in the face while yelling Merry Christmas, I know, but still).

 

Whatever odd reason they might have had to introduce Miss Watson, they cannot just off her now. Not that I want to see much of her (at least not until she's old enough to be a kind of female Archie, and even then I'd be quite contented with homeopathic doses). I simply feel that it's the creators' responsibility to provide for her somehow. Either they let Mary live, and John and she have a fairly normal family life when he's not on a case with the world's only consulting detective, or some other guardian(s) will have to be found. Sherlock's parents, Mrs Hudson, Harry (if she gets off the booze), whoever.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I actually agree with you.  But the addition of a family for John is just so problematic, I kind of keep wishing it away.  Which is mean, but then again, they are fictional characters.  

 

I guess, from a storytelling perspective, I have to hope the Watsons hire a really good nanny, we basically never see the baby, and we know that Mary can get called in to help the boys if they really need a third hand.  Otherwise, maybe she'll freelance.   ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... I really don't want a baby in the show. Even less than I want Mary around. If I am as lucky as I expect to be, there'll be some disgusting (I know, subjective) scene with the new mummy and her oh-isn't-she-a-darling daughter who just came home from hospital. May I be sick in advance?

 

:lol: It's not exactly something I'm looking forward to either, but I am kind of curious how they will make the child fit in. My best guess is that we won't see much of it and that they'll use it as an excuse for why bad-ass-assassin-bored-out-of-her-wits-at-home Mary does not routinely come along on the above mentioned adventures, now that she has nothing to hide from the boys any more as far as her skills are concerned. "She gave it all up for children", remember? Then there can be a nice controversy around whether the series is sexist (again).

 

:D This thread is getting better and better.

Good point about Mary being kept in the background because she needs to take care of the baby (if that indeed will be the case). But if so, Mofftiss have gone to great lengths to make His Last Vow... Planning her pregnancy in order to have a way of putting her back in the background. The sexist part doesn't bother me, to be honest. I don't care. What I do care about is the pregnancy, in that I don't like the idea of bringing a baby into the show for either drama or fluff. It's a baby, so I don't want it to get hurt. I also don't want to see more "pink, fluffy unicorns"-fluff like in TSoT. One scene wouldn't be bad, but please... let's get back to crime solving!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In a way, "then what exactly is the point of you" is kind of the theme of the "domestic" at Baker St for me. As if John were thinking "wait, you're just like Sherlock? Then why the F*** did I marry you? The whole idea was to find someone who isn't a lying manipulative bastard!" Poor John, really. I'm convinced that he was able to get over Sherlock's massive betrayal of his friendship by contemplating how he's now got this lovely partner with whom he can have a real, equal, honest relationship, and then that rug is pulled out from under his feet.

 

 

 

Great point.  I like the way throughout that scene that Sherlock and Mary keep exchanging looks:  the little nod as she sits down for the "client interview," the smile Sherlock gives Mary when she says "that's why there are people like me" and John says maybe Mary and Sherlock should have been the ones to get married.  It's like Sherlock and Mary are staging a little intervention to help John figure out how to let himself accept the psychopaths in his world.  I love that -- I love that Sherlock and Mary have increasingly been two peas in a pod, starting with them conferring about how much weight John has gained (a nice little lift from ACD canon).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been travelling, coming late to this conversation, so pardon a bit of backtracking....

 

 

You make a very good point.  Why is it that we're able to accept Sherlock treating his best/only friend heartlessly on a regular basis -- after all, as you point out, he doesn't have the usual sense of morality -- but then we're horrified when he shoots CAM?

Because there's a big difference between hurting someone's feelings and shooting them in the head?

 

True, and I will concede that Sherlock has never shot John in the head. But he doesn't just hurt John's feelings. He thinks he's dosing him with an unknown drug in "Hounds." Then he jumps off a building to his apparent death right in front him -- John appeared to be considering suicide in "Study" and Sherlock's cute stunt could have driven him right over the emotional edge (as at least one facfic writer has pointed out). Maybe other people can remind us of additional examples.

But I think Tunguska's point (which I was attempting to paraphrase) was that if we accept Sherlock as having very little sense of the usual sort of morality, then why should we be surprised when he takes a coldly logical approach to defeating Magnussen?

 

True, although "hurt his feelings" was a bit of shorthand on my part for all the "a bit not good" things Sherlock does to John. Still ... I don't see any intent to harm John in any of Sherlock's actions. Disregard for his emotional well-being, yes, but intent to harm, no.

 

Also I'm not sure I believe killing Magnussen was coldly logical. At first (and 2nd thru ?th) viewing, my reaction was that it was an act of passion (and by passion I mean hatred, fury, loathing, etc., not sexual passion, k? :smile: ) Later on I held in mind the "coldly logical" concept (and even the "coldly logical act of passion" concept!) while viewing, but I don't really feel it, if you get what I mean. Maybe I just don't want to. I still want Sherlock to be a "good man" someday, and coldly logical murder doesn't fit into my personal definition of "good." But I can accept "made a horrific decision under duress." (As long as it doesn't become a habit! Sherlock as avenging angel in no way appeals to me; been there, done that, yawn, zzzzzzz. I want a protagonist who uses his brains, dammit, not weapons. I admit it; I'm selfish that way. ;) )

 

Also (and this perhaps reflects more on me than on the show), but I am frequently surprised by Sherlock. The leap from Bart's surprised me, experimenting on John surprised me, the silly stunt in the tube car surprised me. Shooting CAM definitely surprised me. I haven't read many Doyle stories, so I don't know what to expect (nor do I want to know). But mostly I think it's because, Moftiss' protestations all to the contrary, I don't see a psychopath. Frankly, BC projects too much humanity into his portrayal, I'm not able to see past it enough to find a heartless, amoral killer underneath. My fault, perhaps, for not looking deep enough. For my own, selfish sake, I hope not, though.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In a way, "then what exactly is the point of you" is kind of the theme of the "domestic" at Baker St for me. As if John were thinking "wait, you're just like Sherlock? Then why the F*** did I marry you? The whole idea was to find someone who isn't a lying manipulative bastard!" Poor John, really. I'm convinced that he was able to get over Sherlock's massive betrayal of his friendship by contemplating how he's now got this lovely partner with whom he can have a real, equal, honest relationship, and then that rug is pulled out from under his feet.

 

 

 

Great point.  I like the way throughout that scene that Sherlock and Mary keep exchanging looks:  the little nod as she sits down for the "client interview," the smile Sherlock gives Mary when she says "that's why there are people like me" and John says maybe Mary and Sherlock should have been the ones to get married.  It's like Sherlock and Mary are staging a little intervention to help John figure out how to let himself accept the psychopaths in his world.  I love that -- I love that Sherlock and Mary have increasingly been two peas in a pod, starting with them conferring about how much weight John has gained (a nice little lift from ACD canon).  

 

 

Hm. For my part, I'm biased about these little incidents. On one hand, it is quite heartwarming how they "get" each other. On the other hand, it's just a little too cute. But I suppose it needs to be that way in order for us to believe in their bond, which makes us accept that Mary really cares about Sherlock (not that everyone believes that even with all the sweet scenes), despite the fact that she put a bullet to his chest.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also I'm not sure I believe killing Magnussen was coldly logical. At first (and 2nd thru ?th) viewing, my reaction was that it was an act of passion (and by passion I mean hatred, fury, loathing, etc., not sexual passion, k? :smile: ) Later on I held in mind the "coldly logical" concept (and even the "coldly logical act of passion" concept!) while viewing, but I don't really feel it, if you get what I mean. Maybe I just don't want to. I still want Sherlock to be a "good man" someday, and coldly logical murder doesn't fit into my personal definition of "good." But I can accept "made a horrific decision under duress."

 

 I haven't read many Doyle stories, so I don't know what to expect (nor do I want to know). But mostly I think it's because, Moftiss' protestations all to the contrary, I don't see a psychopath. Frankly, BC projects too much humanity into his portrayal, I'm not able to see past it enough to find a heartless, amoral killer underneath. My fault, perhaps, for not looking deep enough. I hope not, though.

 

 

Oh, shooting CAM was definitely a "crime of passion."  And, it just occurs to me, but I wonder how much influence Mary had on the situation by being part of the dynamic?  Not that she suggested that Sherlock shoot CAM or anything overt, but, as we saw the episode, Sherlock spent a lot of time trying to "be Sherlock Holmes" while he solved the case -- he tried to out-think CAM over and over.  Now, he failed a lot, in part because he was high on morphine for about half of the episode, but he tried to pursue the elegant solution.

 

But then Mary says, "People like Magnussen need to die; that's why there are people like me."  And Sherlock likes (maybe loves) Mary, and he desperately wants his friend John's marriage to work out, and he knows that John really wants Mary to be more like his own mum (who "gave it all up for children"), and Sherlock has already accepted that his role is to facilitate his best friend's marriage (whether or not he should be doing this is up for debate), and he decides in the heat of the moment that yes, CAM needs to die, but it's Sherlock who will take him out.  

 

Sherlock is not a psychopath, IMHO.  But he's not an angel, as he pointed out.  He has flaws, he gets tempted, and he makes choices that are not always black or white.  I love that about him.  I love that about BC's portrayal.  I love that I can see a Sherlock Holmes who has quite a lot in common with normal human beings rather than just being a big bag of amusing quirks wrapped in an amazing intellect.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, fast forward to the topic under discussion before I interrupted ... I want it all! I love the fluff, and the drama, and the laughs (especially the laughs), and the heartbreak, the deductions, the cuteness, the sparring, the love, the shocks, the ambiguity ... I want Sherlock (the show) to run the gamut! But no dead babies, please.

 

Annnnnnd, back again... :smile:

But then Mary says, "People like Magnussen need to die; that's why there are people like me." And Sherlock likes (maybe loves) Mary, and he desperately wants his friend John's marriage to work out, and he knows that John really wants Mary to be more like his own mum (who "gave it all up for children"), and Sherlock has already accepted that his role is to facilitate his best friend's marriage (whether or not he should be doing this is up for debate), and he decides in the heat of the moment that yes, CAM needs to die, but it's Sherlock who will take him out.

I like this interpretation, stealing. :)
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's my pet theory. That John is so badly in love with Mary, was so damn happy when he finally, finally found a nice woman to be his wife (and he'd been looking for a very long time, hadn't he), that he simply cannot, will not contemplate anything that would make him love her less....

When you put it that way, it sounds like me -- being so fond of John that I routinely give him the benefit of the doubt. While I can rationally understand other people's interpretations of his actions and attitudes, I don't think they're any more rational or plausible than my own interpretations -- and I like mine a whole lot better! Maybe it's just as well that the show lends itself to so many different interpretations, so we're all free to pick and choose.

 

How terrible would it be for him to have his loyalties conflicted. Luckily, Sherlock doesn't even begin to make him go there. He brushes off the shot with "she saved my life" and urges John to do what I think John at heart wants most: forgive Mary and get back together with her. I don't think that takes much effort on Sherlock's part. He seems genuinely not angry with Mary. He respects her for being such a good shot and having the nerve to put that talent to use the way she does. Maybe he blames himself a teeny bit for the situation, too....

Right, Sherlock brushes off the shot, and John is willing to go along with that. So in this case, Sherlock is acting as John's moral compass, and I don't see anything wrong with that. They're in strange territory where John is floundering -- but assuming that Sherlock is right about Mary's innate trustworthiness, then his guidance helps everything to work out well (for everyone except CAM).

  

Rats! Now I've just realized I took this to the wrong thread after all. I just wanted to post it in the "His Last Vow" thread. Um... Carol? Anyone? Move post?

 

Oh well, it doesn't really matter where I spill my thoughts, does it...

If I'd seen your posts a bit sooner, sure. But everything seems a bit tangled together now, and it's a related thread in any case. So what the heck.

 

... I don't see any intent to harm John in any of Sherlock's actions. Disregard for his emotional well-being, yes, but intent to harm, no.

If you're willing to amend that to "disregard for his emotional and physical well-being," then I will agree with you. Even though Sherlock doesn't actively intend to harm John, the poor fellow could have ended up in bad shape on several occasions, due to Sherlock's cavalier attitude. I guess this is one situation where the Golden Rule is simply not adequate -- Sherlock really does do unto John as he does unto himself! (And yes, I realize I'm misquoting the Rule a bit there, though not misinterpreting the spirit of it, I think.)

 

Also I'm not sure I believe killing Magnussen was coldly logical. At first (and 2nd thru ?th) viewing, my reaction was that it was an act of passion (and by passion I mean hatred, fury, loathing, etc., not sexual passion, k? :smile: ) Later on I held in mind the "coldly logical" concept (and even the "coldly logical act of passion" concept!) while viewing, but I don't really feel it, if you get what I mean.

I think part of Sherlock's decision was coldly logical, the part where he makes a mental flow chart of his options. But yes, I do see fury in the act itself. So the logical part was his decision to allow himself to be furious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 48 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.