Zain

To pick this up: I can think of one solution which circumvents repetition. Have John kill Mary. Completely disregarding how unlikely it is, and what kind of circumstances would lead to it, here you go. Mary dead, John does not grieve her but he may regret the decision to shoot her even if he knows it was the right decision to do it. The stress is on the moral decision, not on the grieving which circumvents repetition on a dramatic level. I don't say it is a good option (and definitely, definitely not a likely one). But it certainly would work on a dramatic level.

Or he did have a look at the thumbdrive. And it's part of his ingenious master plan to set up Mary. Who now believes her former employer is back. Okay. Wishful thinking taking over...

And don't we love this series for it? It is very easy to feel the writers' enthusiasm, and it spills over.

Yes and no. I think it is possible to interpret it that way but to me, season three shows how unequal their relationship has become. I've explained my opinion on that part before, especially when I advocated my pet project, bringing Victor Trevor into this mess. At this occasion, I hope it does not seem too narcisstic to quote myself. Thank you Glad I inspired you. I am looking forward to your comment on it once you rewatched s3. I, too, think that Lestrade's comment is somewhat foreshadowing. It is guiding us through the series. Lestrade sums up Sherlock with two specific characteristics: He has got everything needed to be a good man. But he isn't quite there yet. We all expect him to take inappropriate actions along the way but we also expect him to do the right thing at the very end. Because, as Lestrade pointed out, Sherlock is about Sherlock's development. Actually it is a rather clever way to guide the audience into a specific direction. I also thought John was the character the audience was supposed to identify itself with. I think this has changed, though. In s3, we got quite a shift in POV. John has become less accessible to us than in the previous seasons while Sherlock has become our "reflector." The audience now is on a higher level than John. We know specific things he is unaware of. It seems like a very deliberate move, as if the writers decided on this shift. Maybe it is important for the upcoming season. Maybe John for once is supposed to keep a secret from the audience. Before, we were kept "apart" from Sherlock because he needed to keep things from us without tricking the audience. Now we are much closer to Sherlock than to John. Just some food for thought.

It's not like you are truly nitpicking my arguments. It's more like you are enriching them and you are fueling the discussion. It would be rather boring if everybody just nodded my statements off and said "yeah, sounds about right." It's much more interesting to bounce off ideas, to see what people make of one's theories. Elaborating, well... ehm. In this case, though, I have to admit that this particular theory is not a product of careful reasoning and deliberation like most of my theories. It's "gut instinct." So I am afraid this explanation may not be up to my usual standard. I'll attempt to make it more accessible, though. Please bear with me. I hope this will not be as horrible as I fear. My post (for reference - and my sake, mostly ): I emphasized the "important" bits. 1. Going all the way back to ASiP. Before continuing, I'd like to make a crucial distinction between product and process. Sherlock's deductions are a product, Sherlock's ability to deduce is the process. I'll be referring to this in the next paragraph, this is important to understand what I am on about. John was different from most people Sherlock associated with. When Sherlock deduced other people, they reacted defensively. They took offense in the deductions, the product (or result). They did not acknowledge the process behind the product which is Sherlock's ability to deduce them. John was different in that regard: He was impressed with Sherlock's ability. He acknowledged that there was some sort of process happening between "stranger knows nothing about me" and "stranger knows about my life." He acknowledged that there was an ability involved, and he was impressed with Sherlock's ability to deduce things. It's why he asked "How did you do that" instead of reacting defensively, "Piss off." 2. Sherlock's fall did not, and this is interpretation, hit John as hard as the implication behind Sherlock's return. That he had been a mere pawn in Mycroft, Sherlock and Moriarty's game. We mustn't forget that John knows even less about the fall than we do. Sherlock refused to tell him about the snipers. About what he did during his absence. We, the audience, at least strongly suspect less selfish motivation. Sure, Sherlock's explanation somehow confused us but there are still some things about the fall that make it hard to condemn it. There definitely had been snipers, and there definitely is something deeply wrong with Sherlock's explanation of the fall. We've established that some things do not add up, such as Sherlock's reason to jump and the comment about negotiating with John's sniper. John does not have any insight into these matters. He has no reason to suspect that Sherlock was driven by less selfish reasons. At the end of s2, we know that John held certain expectations of Sherlock's character. He believed him capable of love/deep appreciation/good intentions/whatever. That's why he was appalled when Sherlock refused to leave Barts to rush to Mrs Hudson's side. He had a very human image of Sherlock. John was aware of Sherlock's character flaws, and about the fact that Sherlock messed up, and when he did, usually big time. But he also considered him a "good man", to use Lestrade's words. He couldn't believe that Sherlock would not rush to Mrs Hudson's side. When Sherlock returns, it certainly doesn't improve this updated image of Sherlock. During s3, John and Sherlock have many moments that show their bond getting closer. But we never get to see John expect Sherlock to react like a "good man" would. Maybe he doesn't think Sherlock capable of that any longer. Whenever someone points out that Sherlock feels a certain way, John rejects that idea (like when Mary says that Sherlock is nervous). His image of Sherlock is different from before. Disillusioned. John's mental speculations about Sherlock's emotions have ceased. He only thinks of Sherlock as a working unit. Here I'd like to get back to Toby's theory which makes a lot of sense and is quite close to what I think (highlighted from a different angle). John expects Sherlock to function. He isn't very patient when Sherlock messes up or is unable to "perform" because he doesn't see it as a symptom of Sherlock being human, of having emotions, of "being a good man." He doesn't consider the possibility that Sherlock is influenced by emotional entanglement, stress, distraction. Or that the deductions are a trained ability. They don't come naturally to him. He has to work for it, even if some deductions come easily to him because he exercised a lot in his life. I believe, as stated above, that John's image of Sherlock no longer includes those parts. And that's why he does not sympathize when Sherlock fails to observe certain things. He expects Sherlock to function, to work. Like a machine. 3. And - picking up right after 2. - because he expects a flawless "execution", every blunder is badly received. Like when John blames Sherlock upon finding out about Mary's deceit (he should have noticed earlier). Or when Sherlock doesn't remember the room number in s3e2. 4. Concerning their positions. I actually don't think it is necessary to go into it at this point. I've brought up this argument before, and you probably didn't refer to this part of my post.

But it's true, in a way, isn't it? John hasn't been impressed by Sherlock lately. Maybe because he hasn't gotten over Sherlock's faked death yet. Or rather: Over Sherlock's return. He seemed to have accepted his passing. It's why I liked Lestrade hugging Sherlock. He was rightfully angry but he showed that he was glad to have Sherlock back. I somehow missed this reaction from John. They could at least have him say "I am glad you didn't die." I suppose John who before had a weak spot for Sherlock's "brilliance" now is so thoroughly disillusioned that he has a hard time acknowledging Sherlock when he does something right. It comes easy to him, however, to see when Sherlock is doing something wrong. Before, he was looking for Sherlock's "good moments", and now he is primed to expect Sherlock to mess up. For example when John isn't impressed with Sherlock's deductions at his wedding, but he is very "not impressed" with Sherlock not remembering the room number. Or that he lashes out at Sherlock for his stupid comment about "It's what you like." It's a bit of a change from the "usual." In s1 and s3, we had our moments when Sherlock dismissed John. And in s3, John is dismissing Sherlock. I feel like their positions reversed in s3. Sherlock became the, well, dependent character.

Some good points, I guess. Moriarty alive because Sherlock's death scene foreshadows it. Archie foreshadows baby Watson. Sorry for summarizing your post up so badly. It's true that s3 is very open and there's not much to go on. But like you, I think there's some foreshadowing we could turn into hints. I think it's definitely possible but would you say it is possible that: Archie is foreshadowing Sherlock's growth? He awfully reminds me of little Sherlock in HLV. I feel like he was used to show us that Sherlock is stuck between childhood and adulthood. Considering Moriarty: Is he alive or is he not, that is the question. The gif at the end of HLV is somewhat fishy. It's not like they didn't have "Jim" at the set. They could have had another "story teller episode." Instead, they went for a gif. There's of course the possibility that he was hurt rather badly when he faked his death, and thus he decided not to appear on screen. Even if he had shot a blank, he would have caused himself damage. Or he's dead, and someone is using his image. A friend/family member, a successor, or an enemy. To bring up something new: Will Eastern Europe play a role in s4? It has certainly been mentioned often enough in s3. Sherlock's mission, and the beginning of TEH. The term "East Wind." Mycroft was tracking something in Poland when Lestrade went to him. And does this mission possibly have something to do with Magnussen? We know Magnussen is Danish. And Mycroft's mission was called "Ugly Duckling", a story written by Andersen, a Danish writer best known for his fairy tales ( a story teller!). Magnussen tells us before his death that Mycroft had been working against him for some time. Not exactly proof but certainly something to think about?

I pictured it as Sherlock's "ultimate" intervention. It is, after all, the Holmes Christmas "party." So the invitation would have been to John "plus one." I don't think it was John who "invited" Mary along. Rather, it was expected he would bring her along, and so he did. The upcoming proximity then forced him to take a stance because he couldn't ignore the problem any longer. He knew he had to face her that evening, so he had to make a decision. In a way, I think Sherlock manipulated John. He already seemed to have come to the decision that the couple needed to make up. It's one of the reasons why I am very unhappy with John (who had a hard time, so...). I feel like he was pushed into a direction or another. Maybe he wasn't, yes, but from what we get to see, and that is not much, Sherlock basically told him to get back with her. Then there's a skip in time, and John does just that at the Holmes Christmas party. Too much Sherlock and Holmes involved with that decision for my liking. Just... makes me inclined to interpret it as manipulation. Quid pro quo, I suppose, because Mary pushed John towards Sherlock, too, in TEH. Glad at least someone likes my long posts. I really should learn how to express myself in fewer words... To be honest, when I wrote s3 perspective, I meant the in-show agreement that "Mary is forgiven for lying to John. And her shot was perfectly executed, and Sherlock was in no danger, never, so it is nothing she needs to be sorry for. Her past has been dealt with, time to move on." Of course that's the literal "perspective." Free of interpretation which always is part of one's understanding. And free of possible turns coming our way. And of course, I fully agree that it is not appropriate that Abbington was threatened. I was merely bringing it up because there is a part of the fandom, and it is not as small as one might think, who is taking Mary's side because of just this. That's not subjective. They themselves argue that Abbington asked not to be judged based on Mary's actions, so there must be more to Mary, after all, they were told not to judge her (and they equal Abbington with Mary). And anybody who judges Mary for her actions, judges Abbington, and thus is aggressive against her. It is very hard to find logical arguments with a reasoning like that. I can't dismiss it because everybody is allowed their own opinion. I am merely saying that this thinking exists, and it is one part of the pro-Mary "fraction." (God, I still feel bad about using those terms... Maybe we should come up with a better terminology. I mean, not everybody likes Mary who is not against her, just as not everybody who doesn't like her actions dislikes her). Oh, don't worry. I'll stick around for season 4. Like Caya, I'll be waiting it out. Let's see where s4 will be headed, and maybe things will become easier to deal with then. Nobody knows what's in store for us. Until this arc (and I have no doubt it is not over) is finished, there's still hope. But thanks for the encouraging words (about my pet project, too!). Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf. We all interpret the events of HLV differently. I'd really like to know if you see any clear signs where things are headed. Or at least, if you have a hunch. I bet we could get some insight if we share what we noticed. Maybe we actually are able to make some predictions. So, not what we would like to see but rather what we can "deduce."

So you believe they had contact in those months? I actually interpreted it as "Sherlock put a word in for Mary" for some months, and John tends to go with Sherlock's suggestions... Sure, it is never explicitly stated that John moved back to Baker Street but I imagine that he did and that he didn't even go to the check-ups. Only necessary contact, such as texts.

To be honest, that's what I really fear to see in s4. I am not interested in how Mary moped around during those months. I am not interested in getting some sob story to redeem herself just because the writers noticed that no, while things are resolved for John and Sherlock, they are not for a considerable part of the audience. I know that many think her a lovely person, or at least likable. I do not, and the mere thought of her disgusts me. Even if she "redeemed" herself, I'd consider her a vile person. I'd respect her if she truly redeemed herself. Yes. But she would still disgust me. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Maybe the writers will surprise me but I cannot think of anything she could do to rise in my esteem. Well, rise above the respect I had for her before HLV. I didn't care about her back then either, but I had nothing against her either. I considered her a decent/semi-decent person back then. But out of interest: What kind of story do you imagine that could show that she actually regrets her actions and not merely having been caught in the act? I don't, as you put it, condemn her by default. I believe her capable of redemption (as much as any other person) but I do not consider her willing to seek it. And that's why I have a hard time picturing anything in that regard. I'd be genuinely interested in what kind of scenario you are thinking of. Maybe I don't find it half as bad as the mere thought of it.

I am fully with you. It is quite tedious how much pressure is put on fans that do not conform to the "s3 perspective" on Mary. I've talked about this before, and I still think it is a really big issue for the fandom. There's a tendency to declare opinions superior/inferior, and people even misuse the canon to proof their point (which is ridiculous, there's room for interpretation). You aren't the first who mentions that they feel unwelcome. It makes me sad whenever I read a post like this. I feel a bit on the outside, too. But mostly, it's a certain feeling of helplessness. There's nothing to be done to change this development until season 4. Even then, it is unlikely we'll see a decline in this. If s4 paints a good picture of Mary, then this development will be reinforced. If by chance there's a more nasty side of Mary to be revealed, there'll be a "We told you so" side, and that never goes over well. This fandom has gained a lot of tension since s3. And I can't see that going down. It's rather disheartening. Preaching about accepting everybody's opinion, it's futile. The entire subject is emotionally charged: The fact that Abbington received threats, and that she herself asked not to be judged harshly led to a very pro-active side of the fandom. I don't say we should take it out on the actor or anything! But this pro-active side has, and that's my subjective impression, taken it as their purpose in life to make sure nobody will hurt Abbington's feelings, and in that they often talk down other fans. I have to admit that I am not as active on other sites as I am here. I mostly read, and I think about it, and I try to get into people's heads to understand why they argue in a particular way. At times, I've talked to people that I truly couldn't figure out (mostly pro-Mary). And this experience is the reason why I believe that a part of the fandom is especially looking for "fights" because they are guilt-tripping themselves into believing that everybody is either for or against Abbington (and they tend to equal Abbington with Mary). It is quite astonishing how high that number of fans is. I never took it serious until I had a deeper look. Then there are (still on the pro-Mary side) fans that do not accept any criticism on first level dialogue. Which is something I have more problems with than the first group I mentioned. I am someone who interprets a lot. That's not well-received in some quarters, and the "problem with Mary" has led to a lot of interpretations that are even less based on statements and more on subtle hints. They reject such interpretatinos outright. And then there's the third group, the rest: People who like Mary genuinely, those who trust John's opinion, those who do not want to judge without all facts (which we did not get thanks to John), and so on. All I am saying is that there's actually a big diversity of Mary-advocators. They are not all attacking other people's opinions, but it makes for a rather uneven front line, and it doesn't allow for much neutral ground. Even when only a small part of the fandom is looking for a fight, as long as they represent the "right" opinion, not many other fans will take a middle ground. A prototypical fan (and I am not talking about this forum where we actually respect each other a lot, and where we exchange opinions regularly) will not interfere in a fight between a pro-Mary and an anti-Mary fan (and I am not making those terms up. They already exist. A shame, yes but a clear sign that there are two fronts. It's rather worrisome). The prototypical fan is most likely in the advocator group that either trusts the show makers, makes an exception for fiction, or just doesn't understand why people get so worked up about Mary. Their opinion is expressed (a bit more extreme than they maybe feel justified) by the pro-Mary fan. There's no need, from their perspective, to take part in that particular fight. It's actually not a matter of pro-Mary fans outnumbering anti-Mary fans (I personally dislike those terms, and I don't see myself in the anti-Mary fraction because I do not want to fight over this but I will use those terms from a lack of better words). It's a matter of the "neutral ground" being somewhat merged into the pro-Mary fraction, and that's why the pro-Mary fraction feels justified and supported in their efforts to make sure anti-Mary fans understand that they are unwelcome in the fandom. That's my take on it. The sad thing is I've already given up standing up for people that argue against Mary. The antagonistic responses are not worth the effort. It's not an objective debate. I know that some of you have said that this is exaggerated. And that it is not really such a problem. Sadly, it is. When you look at other sites, there's a tendency to antagonize, to form two fronts. And while many do not take part in this, they stand behind the pro-Mary front, which is why it is disheartening for some fans. They feel outnumbered and unwelcome. I myself have seen a lot of posts (and I did not go looking for them!) where people said that they feel unwelcome themselves, and that they decided to stay quiet as of now. Many voices have died down due to this. You do not recognize the problem unless you look for it because a lot of fans simply have quit. Or they became readers instead of participating members of the fandom. Go look for people that have once posted a Mary-critical post. The likelihood that their profile has been abandoned, lacks active posting or simply doesn't exist anymore is about 20 to 30 %. While I have painted the pro-Mary fraction rather black, and the anti-Mary fraction rather innocent and white, this is not the case. Of course they also look for fights. Their numbers are just smaller and their voices more quiet. It's an inequal front line, and that's why I neglected their part. Yes, I am not proposing a solution, because there is none. But we all should be aware that there's a certain toxic tension in the fandom. I've been criticized for this statement once before, yet I dare repeat it (sorry, Carol. Nothing personal.): If it hadn't been for Mary, there wouldn't been this kind of hatred and superiority/inferiority complex going around in the fandom. Not to this degree. A tough post. I really had to first have a debate with myself before answering. I agree that everybody has the chance to redeem themselves. I agree that Mary could still redeem herself. But I do not see that coming. To me, she already threw away a lot of chances to do just that. To redeem herself, in my opinion, she would have to let John go of her own volition. Because it's too dangerous for him, because she made him unhappy, because she hurt Sherlock and would not want to risk ever doing so again. To me, she would have to make personal concessions. In s3, she has done nothing in that regard. Everything happened for her sake, and she got her way. She never offered to step back, either. I probably would have forgiven her if she had shown a sign of remorse. Mary is a perpetual beneficiary. Not a giver. A taker. If I had hurt someone that much: I believe it very important to offer that person that they will never have to look me in the face again. Of course Sherlock would not have sent her away. But I think the offer is very important, and it is essential to show that you feel bad about what you did, and not only about having been caught in the act. If I truly want to atone for something, I have to accept consequences that I will not like. Prison, in Mary's case. Or leaving. Or losing John because her pain of losing him will enable him to get over her deceit and maybe help him to lead a better life. If I atone for something, I will have to burden myself to do something good for someone else. I can't see anything like that in Mary's behavior. Sure, we get told that she helped John to get over Sherlock's death. But after that - she didn't do anything good. And especially not at the cost of her own health/happiness/convenience. I am not saying that she is irredeemable. But she has shown no interest in redemption. Which is, actually, only partly her fault. That's a concession from me! It's not like anybody made her life hard so that she had to face her own mistakes. People fall over themselves to make her look good, or at least, not bad. Then John doesn't even want her to prove her good intentions. As long as they don't have to talk about it. It's why I don't believe in that kind of development. She's rather a flat and static character in that regard. Yep. And I do so hope they'll bring Victor in to do just that. To show what it is like if Sherlock set up home with Victor. I want John to reflect on how lonely Sherlock must have felt after coming back. Just for one episode. And maybe to find that balance between John and Sherlock that mesmerized millions of people but which got lost during the last hiatus... Aaand once again, I am advocating my pet project.

Amen. Bring him back to 221b.

So many great comments. Um, so, I take my pick... (Kind of amazing that we still have something to discuss almost half a year since the episode aired.) I know slithytove already answered this but just a short word paragraph: The legal definition of "death" after cardiac arrest is different from country to country. That's why some really get cross to read that Mary killed Sherlock, while others fervently argue that she did. Neither is wrong. It depends on one's own understanding, and on what one's culture "preaches." I apologize if I offended you before. Interesting point. And Mycroft is the other end of the chain. Maybe Mary is more like Mycroft than she's like Sherlock? I'm still uncertain how much Mycroft really cares for Sherlock -- that is, how much he cares for Sherlock as a person rather than for his national-security uses. Kinda hard to fake an ultrasound scan. Of course, it's possible that Mary went in by herself and merely told John it was a girl. But no, I don't think so. For one thing, John told Sherlock "we've had a scan," and besides I cannot imagine John not wanting to see his kid. I know we're usually representing opposite sides in this matter, but my sentiments exactly! (Well, maybe except for the "kidding" part!) When I see anything against John in particular, I feel like, "Hey, how dare you insult my friend?!" *sigh* An interesting idea. Mycroft and Mary as similiar characters. Well, certainly one can find similiarities. Personally, I've rarely thought of Mycroft as a "real character." He is mostly used as a plot device. It's why I've become interested in him. He represents two roles: brother and "government." We never get to see a different side, the character Mycroft outside of those two roles (season three offers some glimpses but nothing concrete). If we do not interpret his actions, he barely qualifies as a flat character. On the other hand, if we interpret his actions, he becomes one of the major players. I suppose that's why I am anxious to see where they'll take him. He has the makings of a great character even if probably not a good one. To me, it seems like Moftiss (or maybe only Gatiss) have painstakingly set up his character in a way that keeps him from intruding on the show. Yet there are webs everywhere. As if we are not supposed to see the greater picture. Yet? I would really like to see his roles collide head-on. I can't say for sure that's what's in store for us but... I'd call this as a very likely showdown of either season 4 or season 5. I feel like there's a climax coming towards us. HLV already played with the idea that Mycroft has to choose between his roles. And then he didn't have to because of the circumstances. It reminds me of well-placed foreshadowing. Concerning the theory: We know almost nothing about Mary's pregnancy and the circumstances of the past months. Sure, it's a daring theory, and a tad bit conspirational: But I was convinced by a meta essay. I do not think it impossible. And I personally think it is a better solution than to have Mary die in labour (since I wouldn't mourn her, it would be tedious melancholic drama to me...) or have her be killed before giving birth (which would make the entire 'oh she is pregnant' even more tedious. I know it's probably meant to explain why John forgives her but it's a shallow reason. If he wouldn't have forgiven her without the baby, what's the point anyway...). I know there's also the "John is not the daddy" theory. Not my favorite but hell, I'd even take this. If you are interested in the specifics of this Mary-isn't-pregnant theory, there's a great meta. I am notoriously tolerant towards theories but I rarely adapt them. (I got my opinion, you got yours, but I just like my opinion better...) This essay convinced me. I hold it in high regards. It, for example, mentions the Henry VIII hotel that is seen (somewhat out of place) before Mary heads towards the Empty Houses. He was the father of Mary I of England, and she suffered a false pregnancy. Not quite proof but an interesting coincidence. The meta essay highlights different aspects such as this. No proof, certainly, but a chain of interesting coincidences. It's a well-written essay, in any case. And it's quite funny that we feel the same Something we agree on, yay. Glad you didn't feel offended. Rereading it, I realized my sarcastic mood bled into that paragraph. I didn't mean it half as harsh as it sounded. I respect the American culture as much as I respect any other. The topic just got to me. Which doesn't mean I take it back. The words weren't well-chosen, however. I just realized this (so thank you for pointing it out): What if Mary does have family? And maybe that family is after her? If we take "wish your family could have see this" as a threat, that reading is possible, too. I really don't want to have the sob story that she left her assassin family because she didn't want to kill some poor child, and now they are after her. On the other hand, that statement is decidedly fishy. Or is it a reminder that Magnussen knows why her family can't be at the wedding? Because she killed them, too? I hope we will. I really do. I am all in favor of keeping things vague. At least, until now I have been all in favor of it. But I don't know if I could stomach it if season four didn't pick up on Mary's vile actions. I am aware that I am not in the majority, and that other people hope for the opposite. I at this point can't say, though, if I would be able to bear it if it went unmentioned. Because while the writers may think that the matter is over, the subject is closed, and it totally doesn't matter anymore to anyone, and it never did, and why would it, and anyway, we all misunderstood: I can't accept John's decision. And I can't accept that Mary did not face any consequences for shooting Sherlock. I need some sort of real closure in season four. I believe my first post in this thread, the one I made after I watched HLV, started with "I am in mourning." I still am. Because I am not sure if I will like what this series is becoming.

You have very good points, as always. Yes. John kind of takes any redemptive power from Mary when he throws her "explanation" away. Some people have called it a romantic gesture. Some a selfish action. Both, in a way, is true. I've come to terms with that. I think they really wanted to keep her in the series, and they had to somehow hide her past but make it seem like it doesn't matter anymore. So let's have John state that the audience now is supposed to think of her as poor, redeemed housewife Watson. Otherwise it would be too suspicious and foreshadow season three. But I wonder: If she really was a dragon slayer instead of a black sheep - why not tell us? Why not tell John? Interestingly, many have proposed that the thumbdrive was empty and some sort of test of Mary's. After all, it says A.G.R.A. I agree that this is possible. But some have proposed another version (and since then, I like this better). Mary is A.G.R.A. And A.G.R.A. is, as we know from canon, empty. It could be a nice hint that Mary is faking her pregnancy. I would be really happy if it came to that. I neither want a child in the show, nor do I want to see parentlock. I might read stuff like this in fanfictions. But I expect better from canon. Seriously, I never expected them to make Mary into some version of Sherlock. I don't think it a wise decision, either. It's a bit like... mockery. Of the fandom. Because it's like saying "John would love Sherlock if Sherlock was female. But Sherlock is male, so John doesn't love him." I don't have problems with Johnlock. And I don't have problems with Kinsley-Scale-1 John. I actually liked Sarah. But I really don't like this hidden message behind "Mary has to be like Sherlock but with the right bits so that John can love her." And yes, I read too much into everything I wish I got paid for it. I understand your point about Mary's shot, too, but I cannot but think of it as selfishness. If she had not done anything, yes, she would have ended up in prison. But Sherlock would not have been hurt. She hurt an innocent person. Sherlock had no part in her gory past. He isn't at fault. She chooses to hurt someone to protect herself at the risk of hurting/killing that person. That's, in my opinion, inherently wrong. If I was being blackmailed, and let's be very optimistic, for something I didn't do. And I decided to confront that person, and I only carried a gun by chance with no intention to harm that person whatsoever, and I found an entrance by chance instead of breaking in. I haven't done anything wrong. Yet. If someone then sees me, and I suspect that person wants to report me to the authorities for, from his perspective, attempted murder. It does not justify me shooting him. Nothing justifies shooting someone who is not actively threatening your life. To me, this is mind-boggling. Maybe because I am European. Maybe it's different in America, for example, where one's right to do what one wants to do is called freedom, and where it is justified to shoot multiple times at stupid teenagers that break into a garage (nothing against Americans in general! I know not everybody thinks like that! I am using this example because Mary is supposed to be American). But this is simply inconceivable to me. Just as inconceivable as why someone would willingly keep a gun at one's home. To me, pulling the trigger while aiming at a living, feeling being is never justified unless there is truly no other way to protect oneself from severe harm or death. And it still does not warrant a kill. Only a shot intended to incapacitate. If someone shoots at a person's thorax or abdominal area - that is not meant to incapacitate. In court, unless there was a lot of movement or other circumstances that prevented the shooter from taking better aim, only extremities are seen as spots to incapacitate. Even police men face severe consequences if they appear to be using more force than needed. Mary definitely used more force than needed, even if it did qualify as self-defense (which, imo, it doesn't). But I completely disagree on the notion that it would have been Sherlock's fault if John and Mary had divorced in case he had taken Magnussen's side. Mary lied to John without consulting Sherlock. She committed the mistakes in her past without consulting Sherlock. If they divorced, it would have been Mary's fault. Mary's fault for hiding her past and lying to John. And Mary's fault for assaulting Magnussen. Which in itself is a crime. She commits a crime to hide her crimes. Well done, Mary, I totally see how much you feel bad about your past, and how much you want to change yourself... Just rewatched it. And yes, you're right. He only tells Sherlock to shut up. There's never any mention of the fact that she shot Sherlock outside of Sherlock explaining the surgery theory. John never mentions it, nor does he confront Mary about this particularly deed. Yes. It really depends on that. And I understand why people do believe Sherlock's theory, just as much as I do understand why people doubt his words. Personally, I am not convinced because of two facts ( outside of the minimal likeliness...): No evidence. Sherlock's entire idea that Mary did not want him dead rests on the arrival time of the ambulance. It has been proposed before that Magnussen could have phoned the emergency service. It could simply be that there was already an ambulance nearby, maybe only a few blocks away. Sherlock never mentions that he checked any records. It's strange that everything is based on only one fact. And, well, it is quite fishy that Mary never mentions it in her defense. Or that she never confirms his theory. Everything Sherlock deduces about Mary's motives is based on the arrival time of the ambulance. Either it is a rather poor attempt at deduction by the writer, or it is one fueled by sentiment. I've gone into this once before, and it is boring to most, so I rest my case. Second. Sherlock never explains why Mary came after him with a gun. He says she had no intention to kill him whatsoever. He claims she "saved him." I really wonder why he thought it necessary to have her picture projected on the house front if he truly believed that she had no intention to kill him whatsoever. To me, it seems like he wasn't quite sure. And he would not risk John's life like that. The writer explicitly tells us in Sherlock's words that the projection is a safeguard to keep Mary from shooting him (or rather: John). And only minutes later, Sherlock claims Mary had only the best of intentions. Doesn't add up. Until the writer admits it is a plot hole, I will doubt Sherlock's deductions. There's something decidedly off here. Glad to have offered you the opportunity to get back onto this topic I can't say I enjoy discussing Mary and all of this. It just irks me sooo much... whenever I see this, my fingers itch with the need to write. And afterwards I always feel bad because it doesn't lead anywhere (and curse you, Moftiss, two years of this?... kidding.).

Exactly. Here something to think about. I also disliked how much they tried to tell us "yeah, Mary is Sherlock in female so that John can be heterosexual" in the first two episodes. It got on my nerves. Either let him be bisexual, or forget about it. It's not terrifingly clever. Why can't his girlfriend be her own person? Why does she have to be a female Sherlock? But I've come to see this from another perspective. I am not the first person to point this out in the fandom, sadly I cannot take any credits for it. The parallels aren't drawn to tell us "it's alright because she is like Sherlock." The parallels are drawn to show us that while they are two sides of the same coin, they have completely different values, and that's why their motivation is different as well. To me, there's a very fine line that separates them. And it is grave enough to fuel the moral discussion we've been having for months. I don't know if they will present us with an answer in season 4 but to me, this is deliberate. They wanted us to fight over this. Well, at least to engage ourselves. I doubt they anticipated that it would harden the front lines. Even if you look at it, it is suspicious. Sherlock comes back. Mary helps him with John. Mary falls in disgrace, and Sherlock helps her with John. Sherlock gives John away. Mary "receives" him. Mary almost kills Magnussen with a gun while facing him. Sherlock kills Magnussen with a gun while facing him. Mary probably used Janine to get close to Magnussen. Sherlock uses Janine to get close to Magnussen. Mary is ready to begin her new life, now that Magnussen is dead and her secret is safe. Sherlock is ready to die. Mary lied to John about her past life. Sherlock lied to John about his death. John excludes both from his life He keeps Mary at distance until Christmas. He keeps Sherlock at distance until the bonfire. John lets both back into his life because he is being manipulated by the other. He seeks out Sherlock after Mary planted the very idea in his head. Manipulation. He forgives Mary at Christmas because Sherlock invited her along. He basically forced them into each other's proximity. Manipulation. I don't think it can be disputed that they are set up to be called "alike." But Mary's motivation is selfish. Sherlock on the other hand acts because he wants to protect John. As Magnussen put it. Mycroft cares about Sherlock. Sherlock cares about John. John cares about Mary. And Mary cares about Mary. I agree that she likes John, but he is not her first priority. She's the end of the chain. And Magnussen actually shows us each time what people care most about. He humiliates John in front of Sherlock. He uses Sherlock's weakness, his first priority, to hurt him. He threatens Mary's life to get to John. We will never know if he would have made good on his threats or if it was simply his way to use John's weakness, his first priority: Mary. Both bow to Magnussen's will. He "owns" them because he shows them their weak spot. For Sherlock, it's John. For John, it's the prospect of Mary dying. We know Magnussen found some dirt on Mary's past. When she plans to murder him, he (unsuccessfully) uses John as leverage: Mary doesn't care about John's opinion as much as about hiding her dirty laundry. He's not her priority. Mary cares about Mary. The often overlooked part of the not-so-romantic, rather selfish sentence. I suppose it was necessary for Sherlock to kill Magnussen. From a writer's perspective. If Sherlock hadn't done anything morally wrong, he'd become the moral guide in season three. Because he does something deplorable at the end, there's another parallel to Mary. It doesn't redeem her in my eyes, but I suppose it did in some people's eyes. I just wonder, at times, if I am reading into this to make sense of these ludicrous parallels, or if they truly intend to pick up on this. On the two sides of one coin, on these shades of morality. Because... honestly: Why show us how Mary doesn't care about John if they want to redeem her? Why is there no apology from her side? No thank you? Why does John not even once mention that she almost killed his best friend? Why does John have to throw away the thumbdrive? Why are we not allowed to get at least one good reason, or strike that, not even one bad reason for Mary's actions? And did John suffer amnesia? To me, Sherlock getting shot is an important part. Sure, lying to John is a big deal, too, but I would say it would weigh quite on my mind if my partner almost killed my best friend. It would at least be worth to be mentioned. It is something that needs to be forgiven, too. It's not quite a "No hard feelings" matter. The Mary arc is either completely ridiculous or it simply remains unsolved. I don't know what would be worse. Maybe they had to come up with some ridiculous approach to keep Mary in the show because they need her for the next season. But to me, she is "the weakest link."

And herein lies the problem. For me, at least. I don't think anybody should feel justified to take such actions. I condemn Sherlock just as much for killing Magnussen. With the one big difference that he at least does know it is wrong. He never complains about being punished. He accepts it. Because, and that's interpretation, yes, but we do not see him hesitate to accept the consequences of his act, because he knows it is wrong. Mary doesn't. She considers her vile actions to be justified, as you said. And that's why I perceive her character as very twisted and beyond the point where I can feel with her. Her morals are too screwed for me to sympathize with her. I suppose this is very subjective as well but I can't spot any repentance in her words at the Christmas scene. She only seems sorry that her past and lies have been discovered. Not that she caused other people's death, that she lied to him in the first place, and that she almost killed Sherlock. There's no "I should have never done that" nor any apology. Au contraire: She is snappish. If the writers really intended for the audience to forgive Mary as well, I don't know why they didn't include a proper apology. I never was a great fan of her character (more like indifference to a slight weariness) but I find myself disgusted with her. Yeah, we've had our fair share of weapons last season, didn't we? It's an important device to escalate a situation, so I doubt we'll be rid of them. Maybe a nice case which is a lot about brain power in season four. The second one always tends to be an interlude, so... would be interesting. Maybe John and Sherlock out of town and solving a mystery in the countryside (with Victor Trevor. I am still hoping he'll appear in the show.... one can hope. My one and only pet project: to make this a popular trope. It has begun to establish itself thanks to great writers like ImpishTubist and WindRyder..).

Oh, yes. That's what I went for when I did my "what would I like to see in season 4" post with predictions (or well, wishful thinking ). So, I second that, Arcadia.

Well, how about a "good" twin, then? That'd be a plot twist. And to show Sherlock that he's not angry at him for being involved in his brother's suicide, he sent out the message to keep him in England.

It's not the voices that are wrong. I honest to god don't know why the translators don't consider it ridiculous that John and Sherlock treat each other like business men or officials. In German, you get a formal way to address people, and an informal one. And John and Sherlock still haven't managed to address each other informally. It really sounds horrible, especially when they call each other by their first names, and it is followed by a formal marker. It's good that Sherlock is translated into other languages, and that it is received by a large audience. But you cannot take the German version seriously. You just start to laugh like a hyena or shout exasperatedly whenever the characters talk to each other. I wonder what they'll do with season three. Probably John will call Sherlock his friend while still using the polite form of address. Okay... rant end. This really doesn't belong here. Sorry.

May I ask why you mistrust Magnussen? I can't say he's my favorite character but to our knowledge he does not deal with falsified information. He himself states that he could "print whatever he likes." And yet he collects dirt on people instead of fabricating it. I sincerely believe he is not a liar. Doesn't make him into a good or nice person. But I cannot recall one moment in season three where Magnussen lies. That's why I take his words about Mycroft at such a value. To me, he seems the most sincere character in HLV even. He neither pretends to be something he isn't nor does he deceive people.

But isn't that the problem: that her cover is rather bad? Sherlock himself tells us that she didn't create any convincing background story. Her past only reaches back five years. That's why he should know about her if he had her checked.

I don't say it is impossible but it seems unlikely to me. If Mary was working for Mycroft, or if she had a grasp of his character, she would rather have shot herself than Sherlock. The chance to kill him is always there. Even if you shoot someone in the leg. You risk hitting the femoral artery. There's no safe shot. Just those that are less probable to kill. I doubt any of Mycroft's henchmen would take the chance to stir Mycroft's wrath. Sherlock brings out the best and the worst in him. If Mary believed Mycroft to know of her inglorious past... I doubt she would have attacked Sherlock knowing he would suspect her due to her training and proximity to Sherlock. I really can't see how it fits with her shooting him. It would have been safer to emigrate. But again. It's possible that you are right. I just can't see it. But like anybody else, I am biased I honestly have no clue. It's a very good question. And that's why I hate to open that can of worms. It would be an interesting twist, but I can't even speculate on the details. Usually I am able to at least find some sort of "path" that roughly leads to a conclusion. With this... nothing. Blank. Because there are few scenes with Mycroft, and while we get to know that something happened off-screen, the writers seem to deliberately hold it back. Yes, that is possible. And a theory to avoid calling "plothole." I could live with that. I'd be more satisfied with a clever twist but it would be alright. I suppose. On another note: I never saw this part of the dialogue as more than a writer's quirk (until you pointed out that it could explain his disregard for Mary). There has been some speculation concerning Mycroft's ring. I thought this was the writer's answer to it, or at least a hint that Mycroft is more comfortable with men.

Thanks I made that up while typing. Well, most of it... so glad it seems at least somewhat credible. Mycroft's involvement sure is interesting. Because it might determine where season 4 will be heading. Was he involved in the Christmas plot? Does he know about Mary? If he does, did he find out on his own, or was he told by Magnussen/Sherlock/unknown source important in season 4, maybe Irene who sent Sherlock the rose after he was hospitalized? Or did he, I didn't want to open that can of worms in the last post, know about "Jim's return", and is that what "here be dragons" refers to? I do believe he was involved in the Christmas incident. But I don't think he knows about Mary. I had expected him to know. But somehow this season didn't convince me that he does. We know he's aware of her. And the "usual" Mycroft would investigate her. But I believe Mycroft would have gotten rid of her if he knew. She is quite a liability to his brother, and to himself. He wouldn't have waited for Christmas to come round. And I doubt he would have seen this as enough incentive to get rid of Magnussen. As long as Sherlock doesn't come to any physical harm, Mycroft doesn't care (much). If Mary died, Sherlock might grieve. Or he might become angry. But it's no real danger to him. Mycroft doesn't have any reasons to want Mary alive. To him, she's either "John's boring wife" or a liability. If Mycroft knows about Mary, there are three main questions, and all three are like pandora's box. How did Mycroft find out? When did he find out? Is it connected to the Christmas incident? And season three doesn't give us any hints at all in this direction. Heck, it's even only speculation that Mycroft is more than what HLV makes him appear: a trusting person who antagonizes his entire family and brings classified information to a party.

Your reasoning is sound, slithytove. Of course I agree that the outdoor discussion between the brothers has got its flaws. Both ways. I've spent the last few minutes looking at it, and checking it with the possible theories (and I still consider it a possibility that the punch glass is just a genuine mistake.) So, I'll attempt a close reading. Again, doesn't mean I am fully convinced that's what happened. But I would like to open up the possibility. And maybe someone else feels inspired to do another close reading..? Extract(s) from Ariane de Vere's transcript. Before that, we get to see the newspaper. Lord Smallwood committed suicide. Mycroft (as far as we know) is not aware of Mary's past and her entanglement with Magnussen. Apparently Sherlock stopped working on the Smallwood case, and thus on the case which brought him closer to Magnussen. For Mycroft, this means the connection to Magnussen "is dead." I believe Mycroft referred only to the Smallwood case. He's glad Sherlock gave up on it. Now it's over. No use investigating anymore. The chapter Smallwood is finished. Sherlock's response already doesn't quite fit. Mycroft told him in the beginning of HLV that he would not be pleased if Sherlock investigated Magnussen. His answer is either snarky/bitter, or it could be a hint at what Magnussen implied. Mycroft wants to get rid of him. Sherlock is basically challenging Mycroft's statement. Maybe he knows that his brother isn't all too happy about Magnussen recently. We as an audience know that Sherlock hates Magnussen. He told John so. But why does Mycroft believe Sherlock hates Magnussen? To him, Sherlock's interest in Magnussen was intiated by the Smallwood case. Sherlock hasn't worked on that one in quite some time. So why does Mycroft believe Sherlock this interested in Magnussen? Mycroft shouldn't have any knowledge about Sherlock's personal and emotional involvement. To his knowledge, Sherlock took the Smallwood case, broke into Magnussen's office and was hurt. Afterwards, he dropped the case. That doesn't speak of a strong personal interest in Magnussen. Something within the last months must have shown Mycroft that Sherlock is still interested in Magnussen, even after he dropped the case. Possibly Sherlock's agreement to help Mycroft get rid of Magnussen? Somehow they must have talked about Magnussen before, apart from their conversation in the beginning of HLV. Otherwise Mycroft wouldn't have gotten this impression. Again, this is peculiar. Magnussen himself tells us that Mycroft wants him gone. Mycroft tells us his reasons why he doesn't hate Magnussen. But maybe that's a hint. Maybe Magnussen caused too much damage to someone important. Did he, for example, make his power over Sherlock known? Months have passed since Mary assaulted Magnussen. It's a vague possibility. On the other hand, maybe Mycroft doesn't hate Magnussen. But he considers him now an inconvenience. And that's enough to overrule Magnussen's usefulness. Again. We know thanks to Magnussen that Mycroft is not exactly enamoured of him. Which makes me very wary of his metaphor. I've mentioned it once before: What if Magnussen is a dragon, but not one for Sherlock to slay? Just by changing the stress this gets a whole new meaning. Is Magnussen maybe a dragon for Mycroft to slay? It would fit with Magnussen's statement that Mycroft wants to get rid of him. It also makes sense that Mycroft denies that he thinks of Sherlock as a dragon slayer. If Sherlock's not a dragon slayer, then of course he shouldn't tackle a dragon unless he wants to get burnt. Mycroft believes Sherlock thinks of himself as a dragon slayer. So does he fear the possibility that Sherlock will soon try to slay "a dragon?" Remember: In the beginning, he states that Sherlock has given up on the business with Magnussen. This does not match either. Mycroft explicitly warns Sherlock off of doing something too drastic to Magnussen. Why would he feel the need to do so when Sherlock dropped the Smallwood case? And now that Lord Smallwood is dead and his secret leaked, there's no need to pick it up again either. To him, there should be no danger of Sherlock rushing off to slay "Magnussen." I'll try to make sense of this: Mycroft "recruited" Sherlock to set Magnussen up. He did so after he believed Sherlock to have dropped the case. Or maybe it was a deal between them: Drop the Smallwood case, and in return we'll take Magnussen down when the opportunity arises. Whatever. Their plan will soon commence. Mycroft warns Sherlock not to do anything drastic. He will take care of Magnussen. Sherlock will not get into trouble as long as he sticks to the plan. I know that "Here be dragons" is a valid expression to say "who knows what's to come." But only a few lines above it, there's another context. Dragon is a synonym for a villain. Or more specific, Magnussen. Unless Mycroft is aware of "Jim's return", he must be referring to Magnussen. I cannot reject the former. But that's even less known territory for us. Let's stick with the latter. Mycroft tells Sherlock he is needed at home. And he is needed there because "here be dragons." If we assume that Mycroft is referring to Magnussen, he could be saying "You have utlity at home, for example in this instance, you help me with Magnussen.", or, let's equal "Here be dragons" to "There's Magnussen, for example." Most probable reference: direct context - Sherlock's supposedly deadly assignment. On another note, Mycroft just warned Sherlock off. He told him not to "slay the dragon because he's no dragon slayer." A possible meaning behind the words: If you do anything drastic to Magnussen, if you don't stick to our plan, it's dangerous. Don't do that." Possibly only dramatic irony. But it's just too odd a line to ignore, especially when he seems to have drunk straight from the pot... Sherlock then tells him to have some more. We never get to see Mycroft drink before their conversation. Nor is there a glass on the table. Mycroft could be calling Sherlock on his bluff. Maybe he noticed what was going on. Then we'll have to ask ourselves why he allows Sherlock to drug him. It's not like Mycroft has got any incentive to go with a plan he doesn't know. Sherlock also checks Mycroft's pulse. If Mycroft had not been "in" on the plan, why would he drink the punch? The only solution I can see is that Sherlock checked on Mycroft for John's sake (so that he can state that Mycroft was truly asleep and definitely had no part in bringing Magnussen down), and Mycroft didn't drink any punch. Yeah. So again. Doesn't make fully sense, but it gives some sort of direction, maybe. Anybody who has got a better idea, you're quite welcome to use my close reading and argue against it. I am not terribly fond of it anyway

I only wanted to point out that there's either a genuine mistake or a deliberate hint. There's definitely only one glass on the table, and it belongs to mother Holmes. Personally, I do like the theory that Sherlock and Mycroft planned this. I've proposed this idea quite soon after HLV was first aired. I believe it's around page 20 of this thread. The problem with Mary threw me off track. I totally forgot about it until I got back to watching Mycroft's role in HLV. Then I stumbled over the "punch line." Right now, I am uncertain if it truly can be taken as "evidence." But it makes for an interesting line of thought. Assuming it's deliberate, then this means Mycroft pretended to be unconscious. He also told Sherlock in advance that he was aware of the drug in the punch. If he simply wanted to see what Sherlock was up to and thus pretended to be asleep, then he would have intervened as soon as Sherlock took the laptop. So it must have been in his interest that Sherlock took the laptop to Magnussen. I believe Magnussen was right. When Sherlock enters Appledore, Magnussen accuses him of setting him up. He mentions the GPS locator in the laptop, and that Mycroft had been looking for a chance to imprison Magnussen for some time. Magnussen himself states that the laptop on his premises will give Mycroft Carte Blanche to search his house (and find his believed-to-be-in-existence vaults). All I am saying is that I always found it strange that Magnussen claimed that Mycroft had been looking for a chance to get rid of him for some time. In the beginning of HLV, we didn't see anything of that sort. And at Christmas, nothing of Mycroft's lines seems to hint into that direction. It's clear that something happened off-screen. Whether Mycroft simply changed his mind, or whether he actively intervened... I don't know. But I consider it likely that Mycroft planned to set Magnussen up with Sherlock's help. I doubt however that Sherlock told him about his incentive: Mary. That's why Mycroft finds himself in a very tight spot. He hadn't anticipated Sherlock's movements, and while he could have exonerated Sherlock before, suddenly this grew over his head. I believe Sherlock tricked Mycroft. He didn't want to endanger Mary and John, so he kept this a secret from his brother. I doubt Mycroft would have allowed Sherlock near Magnussen if he believed Sherlock to have a vested interest. Mycroft had no clue why Sherlock would be interested in Magnussen at all. That's why he asks Sherlock at Christmas why he hates Magnussen that much. That's a theory of mine. Can't prove it, though. But I do believe there's something decidedly odd about the Christmas scene. The dialogue does not match up to what's truly going on. Mycroft states Sherlock lost interest in Magnussen altogether. That he's glad Sherlock let this business pass (probably referring to Sherlock not interfering in the Smallwood business, Mycroft doesn't know about Mary). One sentence later, he tells Sherlock that Magnussen is not a dragon to be slayed. So, if he believes Sherlock to have lost interest in Magnussen, why does he warn him off? On the same note: Mycroft calls Magnussen a necessary evil. Which clearly contradicts Magnussen's statement given not even an hour later: That Mycroft is trying to get rid of him. Then Mycroft refers to the punch. We get to see Mary drink the punch. We get to see Mrs Holmes drink the punch. We don't get to see Mycroft drink anything. Which is odd. Wouldn't it be more important to show how he drinks the punch? Then there's the missing glass.