Slithytove

If you do something terrible to someone - like breaking their heart - then motive has to be important. If Sherlock jumped to save his friends's lives, and then kept silent to continue to preserve their safety, then I think it was a noble thing to do. Harsh, yes, but noble because it was an act of self-sacrifice. If it was all a deliberate plot, exploiting John's trust all the way through and then staying silent when there was no pressing reason to avoid contact, then it was just cruel. That's why I prefer to think that Sherlock's explanation in TEH was yet more bluff - as Anderson himself says, he is the last person to whom Sherlock would tell the truth. I prefer to think that it was what it seemed to be in TRF, i.e. a desperate plan pulled together at the last moment (hence the appeal to Molly for help), resulting in Sherlock having to jump because he was under duress, and crying because he knew he was saying goodbye to his old life, perhaps forever, because he had no other choice. Works so much better that way, I think.

Each time I watch TRF, it makes less sense to me in terms of TEH. If it was all a set- up, a plot by Sherlock & Mycroft, what were they trying to achieve, exactly? What did they learn from the rooftop confrontation? It makes much more sense as a showdown between a man whose life is being destroyed around him and the man bent on his destruction - a confrontation which only one can survive, like the original meeting between Holmes & Moriarty at the waterfall. As part of an elaborate plan, it doesn't achieve anything. If it was a set-up, Mycroft's conversations with John at the Diogenes Club are cruel, manipulating his emotions - and for what purpose? They make more sense as a genuine warning and a genuine apology. One of the craziest things, whether it was a set-up or not, is John's sniper. He must have expected John to stay at Bart's with Sherlock, but then he would have had to follow John back to Baker Street and then dash with him back to Bart's. Was he in the next taxi? And Mycroft's men catch him inside a building, so presumably he had to dash inside a suitable building with a view of where John was standing and run upstairs to a window...... TEH strips all of the sense out of TRF.....As an episode, I enjoyed it but the explanation was daft. No wonder Anderson didn't buy it.

Thanks for the link. Even if you don't agree with the sub-text, the idea that the chair was in Sherlock's bedroom rather than John's makes sense. Why would he bother to lug it upstairs - and then down again - when his own room is on the ground floor?

The hospital question interested me, so I looked it up. Everyone asking about recovery times from gunshot wounds seems to be a writer doing research......and the general answer from various medical people seems to be " it takes a bloody long time to recover", particularly if the bullet penetrates the body rather than grazing it. In fact, everyone seems to think that the chances of surviving a wound to the torso are very, very low indeed. Weeks in bed, and at least six months to heal, if you are amongst the few who survive. As for the chair, maybe Billy moved it for him. Sherlock had evidently been in touch with him, as he gave the phone to Mary near the empty house.

I have a feeling that my dad took me to see the film about the Alamo when I was a kid. John Wayne, was it? I didn't really like him, but my dad was a big fan. Thinking about identifying as English more than British, Sherlock is very much an English gentleman, even in his latest incarnation. For instance, "England would fall!" or "Who needs me?" "England.". However, there is a strong impression that, to him, England basically means London. Even in the original stories, Holmes and London seem intertwined and he never seems very keen to leave it. Admittedly, he ventures further afield on a few occasions - to Dartmoor, for instance - but London is his natural habitat. When he was travelling during the hiatus, I can't imagine that he was pining for the provinces. He just wanted to get back to London. That's why I was never really convinced that he would retire early to Sussex to keep bees. Obviously it's canon, but it never really seemed believable to me. He loved London so much, and his work was his life, but then he suddenly decided to pack it all in and bury himself in the countryside...I wish ACD had given us a convincing reason for such a massive change.

Yes, that was what I thought he must be doing, judging by his actions towards the end of the last episode, but some of the things he did in the previous episodes don't seem to make a lot of sense in that context. It was quite a difficult plot to follow from the beginning but did gradually become clearer, except for Robert Carlyle's role. I enjoyed it, though - I quite like to be baffled! I would rather watch something that is confusing than something too predictable.

I've always assumed that Americans don't want to be called Yanks, so I would never do so. I don't think it is usually meant as a term of abuse, as so many words referring to ethnicity often are, but it doesn't seem very respectful. Similarly, I don't think that most people who call us Brits are trying to be nasty, but it never sounds very flattering. From what I've read of the Civil War in America, which admittedly isn't a huge amount, it seems to have been a terrible tragedy with enormous losses on both sides. Can't help admiring the spirit of Texas, though, believing that they could go it alone as an independent republic. As if somewhere like Somerset, for instance, decided to break away from the rest of the UK and declare independence.....

No, I don't suppose you refer to yourselves in that way. . I would never call an American friend a Yank. It would be very rude. I think that people who call us Brits don't quite realise that we have, in a way, two identities - British but also English, Welsh, etc. I suppose it is because we are four small nations joined together to make one (slightly!) larger nation (although Scotland may vote for independence in the upcoming referendum.). We have our shared history and culture but, within that, we also have our individual histories and cultural differences. Being British is a sort of overarching identity which unites us, but most of us probably identify by our country of origin. For instance, I think of myself as English and, as such, I am conscious of being different from a Scot, for instance, but we would both be aware of a shared identity as British. (Of course, as I said, that may change after the referendum.) In my family's case, it is a bit more complicated as my husband is Indian and our kids are bi-racial, but we are all "Brits.". My husband got British nationality more than 35 years ago and I've never been more relieved in my life!

Hmm......Tom is quite cute, isn't he? My 16 year old granddaughter has a massive crush on him. I was amused to hear him refer to himself and his fellow actors as "Brits", which is a term none of us use. We might call ourselves British sometimes, but more usually we are English, Scots, Irish or Welsh. Presumably his script was written by someone who was not British..... Considering that he was talking about villainy, John of Gaunt's speech was an interesting choice. It isn't a villain's speech but a reproach to an ineffectual king ( though you can't help feeling sorry for Richard by the end). Worked quite well in the ad, though.

You are probably right that John tends to see Sherlock as superhuman. On the other hand, he was with him a few minutes after the shooting and saw him dying in the ambulance. As a doctor, he knows about the long recovery period that would follow such a grave injury. Even a great man doesn't mend overnight. Personally, I would cut John a lot of slack when he has had such a terrible shock. I think he can be forgiven for thinking of himself first, given that he has just found out that his wife is a liar, a killer and the person who committed a horrible crime which nearly cost the life of his best friend. If I was in his situation, it would be some time before I got round to seeing Mary's point of view - if, indeed, I ever did.

Just watched the final episode of The Last Enemy. The whole series was intriguing, and Benedict was excellent as usual, but can anyone explain to me who Robert Carlyle's character was supposed to be working for? I am a bit confused.

Though John disappointed me a lot in HLV, particularly in the Xmas scene and at the airfield, I thought he got a raw deal in the Baker Street confrontation. He is understandably outraged to learn that his wife has lied to him about everything, even her identity, and that she is a killer who nearly caused the death of the other person he loves most in the world. On top of that, he can't easily walk away from her because she's carrying his child. No wonder he wants to shout and kick the furniture. Then Mary and Sherlock, who have both deceived him in different ways, tell him he is in this situation because he likes it! Because he is addicted to danger and to dangerous people......They imply that he somehow knew subconsciously that Mary was dangerous and thus chose to be with her, even though she had never shown this side of herself to him or given him any clues and even though the brilliant detective himself apparently failed to deduce the truth. If Sherlock took Mary at face value, how was John expected to know what she was? So John, who had done nothing wrong, is told that he brought this upon himself - and he believes it, because Sherlock and Mary tell him so, Doesn't seem fair that he should end up getting the blame. The only thing I would blame him for, a bit, is not noticing that Sherlock is on the verge of collapse. Even though John is naturally upset and angry, as a doctor he might be expected to notice that the victim of a very recent gunshot wound, who should have been in a hospital bed, was bleeding internally and about to go into cardiac arrest for the second time.....

I'm so happy that Benedict is going to play Richard the Third on BBC2. If ever anyone had the voice for Shakespeare's beautiful words.....It is going to be made by the same company which made the Hollow Crown plays, starring Ben Wishaw as Richard the Second and Tom Hiddlestone as Henry the Fifth. Wonderful stuff - I urge anyone who hasn't seen them to do so, as soon as possible. I am not a royalist but I am a bit partisan over Richard the Third, as many people are. We are not far here from Bosworth Field, where he fought his last battle, and of course his remains were found here in Leicester quite recently, having been lost for five hundred years. I do feel he was probably maligned by Tudor propagandists such as Shakespeare and Sir Thomas Moore. Having said that, it is a tremendous play and I am sure Benedict will be brilliant in the role. When I heard the news, I said to my daughter that I hoped they didn't try to make him look ugly, as Richard is supposed to be malformed, and she pointed out that I had thought Benedict was still quite attractive as Frankenstein's Creature. So, no worries there.....

How many scenarios did Sherlock say they had worked out? Lemme check -- first he tells John and Mary I calculated that there were thirteen possibilities once I’d invited Moriarty onto the roof. ... and later he tells Anderson There were thirteen likely scenarios once we were up on that roof. (Thanks to Ariane DeVere's transcript for those quotes.) OK, so 13. That's not a power of 2, so apparently they considered some combinations to be either impossible or implausible. But note that just four yes-no factors will have 16 combinations. And you've already mentioned five factors. Seems like Sherlock must've done a good bit of winging it, regardless of what he claims. P.S.: You mention not liking the pro-Mary metas that you've seen, and I can certainly sympathize with you, considering my general reaction to the anti-Mary metas. But you seem to have done far more reading than I have, so I'd be interested in knowing your pick of the best-thought-out meta from each camp, if you can recall after all that reading. I have read some intelligent, cogent pro-Mary arguments but my gut reaction is still, "No, what she did was so wrong.". For me, she was damned the moment she shot Sherlock. You can't shoot someone just because he is a witness. Even worse if he is unarmed, offering help and is a friend. I can still appreciate a good argument, though. I wanted to post links but kept losing them - I am a dumb bunny where computers are concerned - so I will just mention the authors and titles..... To start with something already discussed, there is Wellingtongoose's defence of the "surgery" theory ( though it is on tumblr, not on archiveofourown) which can be compared to Let's Play Murder by cookieswillcrumble, which takes the opposite line. I am prejudiced, of course, but I think the latter is more convincing. Basically it boils down to "Bad luck hitting the inferior vena cava" vs "What did you expect when you shot someone in the abdomen? He was lucky the bullet didn't hit his heart." One of the best pro-Mary metas is A Defense of Mary Morstan by azriona. Tammany writes interesting metas and there are pro-Mary chapters in Dramatic Through-lines And Narrative Arcs: What Is The Central Concern? There is also Mary And Sherlock And The Undoing (Or Not) Of TSoT by tilted syllogism, which argues that Mary's affection for Sherlock was real, despite HLV. There are also a couple of sympathetic metas which try to tie Mary's past to ACD's The Yellow Face,though I think this would be hard to include in the show, given the difference in 19th and 21st attitudes to race. Anti-Mary metas include Mary - Did She Shoot To Save Sherlock? by curlyfuchuck, The A.G.R.A problem: What Was On The Bloody Flash Drive? by nothingislittle and The Problem With Mary by xistentialangst. One of the best of the anti camp, I think, is Penitence, Paradox And Psychopathy: Why Mary Is A Bit Not Good by TheConsultingActor. Zain has also written a very good meta called His Last Vow, which I recommend....

I have now read Kizzia's thought on Sherlock, and it was highly interesting. I cannot wait to re-watch TEH with these thoughts in mind. I cannot say for sure that Gatiss had all of this in mind when writing the episode, but I do feel Kizzia's interpretation makes a lot of sense.Thanks for posting the link! I thought it was interesting. There are some thought-provoking metas on archiveofourown.org. I don't agree with all of them - like the pro-Mary ones! - but they are food for thought. Zain's TRF makes a lot of sense, which is more than I can say for the original. Do Moftiss not care about plot holes, do they have revelations in store which will explain everything or are they relying on the fans to work out some coherent explanations? I fear it may be the latter. As resolutions to cliffhangers go, TEH was almost as cheeky as the episode of Dallas, years ago, where a previously dead character emerged from the shower and informed his startled wife that the previous series had been a dream. I would like to have been at the meeting where the brothers came up with the LAZARUS plan. "So, IF Jim tries to make me jump off the roof....and IF he isn't there to watch me....and IF I can let you know what threat he is using to coerce me....." and, presumably, "IF John dashes back from Baker Street in time....and IF the sniper is still at large....then this is what we'll do...." That's some remarkable forward planning!

Absolutely, Zain. Why undermine the whole plot line of TRF, which worked so well and had so much emotional impact? As you say, the fans provided plenty of solutions (and wrote at length about the pain which Sherlock suffered because he had to deceive John to save his life, and about John's rage turning to acceptance and forgiveness when he understood Sherlock had no choice), so why did the writers decide to make it all a set up, with no lives at stake and no compelling reason either for Sherlock to jump or to keep John in the dark? The explanation in TEH just tears down everything that TRF built up, and for no good reason. I too don't accept that Sherlock's emotions were faked. What would be the point? Jim is dead, John is much too far away to see tears, so who would Sherlock be trying to fool? Mycroft's ignorance regarding Mary is baffling. No photos of her in John's file, no background checks, despite the fact that she would be in very close proximity to Sherlock, who had just spent two years undercover working against a criminal network. Wouldn't you think Mycroft, with his Secret Services connections, would want to be sure that anyone getting close to Sherlock wasn't a survivor of that network? Apparently not.....And yet he abducted John as soon as he moved into Sherlock's life, and had done an extensive background check on him within 24 hours, even to the extent to learning confidential information about his therapy. Are we also expected to believe that Mycroft, who is supposed to be even more brilliant than his brother, couldn't find out the identity of Sherlock's shooter? Or that he would be forgiving, as Sherlock apparently is? When I think about the things that bug me about S3, I sometimes wonder why I love it so much. Maybe it is because it has so much drama and so much pace that it sweeps us along, even when we are aware of gaping plot holes and some really annoying plot developments (the Xmas reconciliation scene - aargh!). Maybe it is because the performances are so good. Or maybe it is just because I am prepared to make allowances for Sherlock Holmes. Still hoping S 4 will make sense of it all, though.

I must admit I loved the nods towards the fan theories - they seemed so affectionate. Don't you think that Sherlock's assumption that John will happily welcome him back is just bravado? There is an interesting meta at http://archiveofourown.org/works/1115589 which explores Sherlock's character regression/progression in TEH, and I have to agree with the suggestion made by the writer, Kizzia, that Sherlock has clung to the idea of John throughout the hiatus and is terrified by the idea that John might have moved on. So he covers up his fear with arrogance, just as he covers his fear of rejection and John's grief with childish humour. Makes sense to me.

It is very hard to second-guess Moftiss. Look what they did to TRF. Took a storyline which was perfectly coherent and destroyed it. So we had Sherlock, cornered by the destruction of his reputation and realising that a confrontation was inevitable, sending John away to protect him, turning to Molly for help and finally jumping to save his friends. Okay, the logistics were never going to make sense - when did he get time to set everything up? what if Jim hadn't shot himself? - but the story made sense. Then, in TEH, they tore it to bits. Sherlock and Mycroft planned the whole thing, he only needed Molly's help with a small (and seemingly pointless) part of the plan and need not have asked her at the last moment, and he didn't need to jump really because Mycroft's people got to the snipers..... So I'm not very hopeful that S4 will preserve the integrity of S3's storylines. I suspect they will throw in whatever they want, even if it leaves us going, "What? But how....? Didn't he....?"

I agree that we are probably supposed to accept the surgery explanation, and that is what makes me feel the writers are trying to twist our arms - to make us say, "Oh, okay then...." to something which is very much not okay. And it is such a feeble excuse, and improbable too. John, with his experience as an army doctor on active service, would surely be the least likely person to believe it, particularly as he was present after the shooting and clearly expected (judging by his words in the ambulance and when Mary arrived at the hospital) that Sherlock would die. Of course, I may be misjudging the writers and they may have all sorts of surprises in store for S4, maybe proving that neither Sherlock or John really believed the surgery nonsense for a minute. Hope so, anyway. To return briefly to CAM.....Were the letters fake? I don't remember that bit. They must have existed at some point, as Lady Smallwood obviously knew about them. I suppose his blackmail evidence might be scattered, but why should it be? If I wanted to blackmail people, and had hard evidence against them, I would make sure I kept it somewhere very safe and that I could trust the person who had to send it to me when I needed it.

Mary has already taken up arms again - against Sherlock. I don't see how John can consign that event to "the problems of your past" and write it off. He lived through it, he was affected by it and it must still have repercussions for everyone involved. It can't become irrelevant. I don't understand how a man like John could take the line that their lives begin now and what went before doesn't matter - even if he doesn't want to know about her previous murders (!), he does already know what she did to his best friend and he can't delete it from his memory. It makes sense that CAM enjoys the possession of power rather than its use. It does seem a bit inconsistent that Sherlock knows CAM possesses some evidence at least (e,g, the Smallwood letters) and admits he can send for anything he needs, thus suggesting that he does keep evidence somewhere, yet Sherlock seems to believe in the Mind Palace and kills CAM after confirming that the Appledore vaults exist only in his mind. If CAM does have evidence he can send for, then someone is keeping it for him. That person could still use it for blackmail, so killing CAM doesn't really solve anything.

Love this! However, to be picky :-) -- his threat to John was to expose Mary's new identity to her enemies -- he wouldn't need "hard" evidence for that, just a word in the right ear. Also he claimed he could lay his hands on hard evidence if he needed too. (Oh, really?) But I agree, all in all I didn't really find CAM that credible a villian - just a slimy, disgusting person. That was his threat to John, but Mary believed he had enough info on her to put her in prison for life, so presumably he told her he had hard evidence. Then he tells John and Sherlock that he doesn't, which is just plain stupid. Anyway, is it believable that all his evidence existed only in his Mind Palace? Lord Smallwood's letters were real, for a start, and if CAM could send for evidence when he needs it, then he did have a vault of some sort, somewhere. I agree with everyone that people love gossip, but it does appear that CAM was blackmailing people with the truth. Lord Smallwood did write letters to an under-age girl. Mary really was a killer. Tabloid newspapers do get away with a hell of a lot but it is much safer for them to base stories on real evidence (Lord Smallwood's letters, for instance), particularly when the allegations are serious. In real life, for instance, the Daily Mail seems to have a grudge against Benedict and prints stupid stories about him which are presumably made up or distorted, but they aren't running any real risks because they are not actually libellous. To give another example, I read a newspaper headline recently (can't remember which paper) which claimed that Prince William had resigned from the RAF ostensibly to do charity work but really to hunt down his mother's killers. Absurd but who is going to sue them, when it is so obviously ridiculous. But grave allegations such as CAM would have to make in his media outlets - allegations, for example, of paedophilia and murder - would surely have to have to have solid evidence. That is why he hangs on to the letters and why, if I was Sherlock, I would have thought he was lying when he claimed all the evidence against Mary was in his head. Apart from giving Sherlock a motive to kill him, he undermined his own threat. "I'll tell everyone what you did" isn't as frightening as "I'll tell everyone what you did and I've got the evidence to prove it.". I repeat - he was an idiot.

Mycroft appears to be more or less in charge of MI6. (And a member of the diplomatic service as well, somewhat improbably.). Presumably he understands vulnerability to blackmail extremely well, given that it has always been both a tool and a weakness for spies. (The laws against homosexuality, for example, weren't called "the blackmailer's charter" for nothing - entrapment, usually in the form of compromising photos, was a favourite way of getting people to betray their own country.). He seems to be a sophisticated man who would be aware of his own vulnerability - he does care about Sherlock's emotions, as the morgue scene and the cafe scene in ASiB showed. If nothing else, I think he would not want Sherlock "back on the sauce", which would probably happen if anything befell John. To be fair, we don't know that Lord Smallwood killed himself because Lady Smallwood wouldn't oblige CAM. He might have done it to forestall her having to make her decision or simply because he knew that his secret was known and would inevitably come to light at some point. Personally, I think CAM was a rubbish blackmailer. What sort of extortionist tells his victims that he doesn't actually have any solid evidence against them? Idiot.

I agree that the line "I would lose him forever - and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen" is important. For one thing, it kicks the legs out from underneath the argument that Mary was remorseful for shooting Sherlock, as it is a clear threat that she would silence him for good rather than let him tell John the truth. (I also think it makes the claim that she didn't intend to kill him seem less likely.). However, it also says something about the nature of her love for John. Of course, we all want to keep the person we love, but Mary's love does seem to be selfish - to keep John, she is prepared to break his heart all over again by killing the man whose supposed death had plunged him into grief. What would happen if John wanted to break up with her? Would it be something else she would never let happen? We get several suggestions in the confrontation scene at 221b that Mary and Sherlock are very alike, and we are then shown how they are different. One loves selfishly, the other selflessly -Sherlock, having already "given away" John in TSoT, commits a murder which will (as far as he knows) separate them forever. One kills to protect herself,the other to protect those he loves. One is able to detach herself from her actions and resume her pleasant persona, the other commits murder and bursts into tears..... I do think, Zain, that life means more to Sherlock than it does to Mary. Her job as an assassin would naturally have hardened her to killing people, even when the victim is someone she knows well and treats as a friend. Sherlock, on the other hand, is a detective, not a killer. Yes, it is possible that he killed people during the hiatus but we don't know that he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he used his intelligence to bring down the criminal network. Maybe CAM's death was the first one he had ever caused. Maybe that is why he cries, because he knows he has done a terrible thing and will never be quite the same again (even if he believes it was his only choice.). However, I still wouldn't blame him for feeling a bit of self-pity too. After all, he has just thrown his life away.

Interesting, isn't it, that Sally was right about Sherlock killing someone but wholly mistaken about the reason why he would kill - not a bored psychopath but a man driven by love to make a vow and to go to such extreme lengths to keep it? When you think about it, Sally's warning to John was rather ironic, considering that he would be committing a murder himself, very soon after that conversation.

The murder of CAM is difficult, I think, particularly if you see Sherlock as a flawed hero, as I do. Committing murder is a bloody big flaw. Basically, I agree (unsurprisingly) with Zain that killing someone when there is no immediate danger cannot be justified as an act of defence. You can't shoot people just because they make threats. If you did, how many murders would there be? CAM is, of course, quite capable of making good on his threats but he is not going to do so immediately, so there is time and opportunity to find other ways of preventing him. In fact, it seems unlikely he would really contact Mary's enemies, as this would deprive him of a "pressure point.". Mary's value to him lies in being a target for blackmail. His threat just enables him to humiliate John, which is something CAM clearly enjoys. As for his power to print lies, that applies to all media magnates but you can't go around murdering them! Of course, the story plays on the gut reaction we all have when evil is vanquished and the dragon is slain. When the hero conquers the villain, you want to go "Yes!" and not think "Well, that was morally wrong, really.....". It is a wonderfully dramatic scene, there is no denying that. I do think there is a big difference between Sherlock's act and Mary's, though both are legally and ethically wrong. Mary's motives are selfish - to avoid prison and keep her husband in ignorance - and it is committed secretly. She never shows genuine remorse, is prepared to do it again and never accepts responsibility. Sherlock kills to protect other people, commits the murder in front of witnesses and accepts responsibility. I think he cries because he knows that it was a terrible, irrevocable act but maybe some of the tears are for himself. He must think he has destroyed his own future - I would not blame him for weeping. Sherlock does seem, from the very beginning, to have his own sense of values, which are very skewed but strong - for instance, he seems indifferent to IreneAdler's fate and yet he goes all the way to Karachi to rescue her. I believe he killed CAM for the same readon that he saved John & Mary's marriage after the shooting - because he felt he had to fulfill the vow he made at the wedding - to protect the Watsons, even if it costs him everything. I wish, though, the writers had allowed him to use his intellect, instead of a gun.