Zain

Well, usually occam's razor works best. We know Sherlock spent quite some time on that rooftop. John went to Baker Street, and he returned. That's the time span we're working with. Sure, Sherlock had to go up to the roof and they talked a bit. Even then it leaves a comfortable amount of time to notice that the person who shot himself in front of you is still breathing. And while Sherlock is spectacularly ignorant at times, this is not something he would have missed. That's why I think it is unlikely the person who shot himself up on that rooftop survived. I am deliberately being unspecific. The main question is rather who sent the message. Depending on that the reason behind the return message changes. And the prospects for season 4. 1. Let's say it's another Moriarty relative... is it a challenge for Sherlock (revenge? Or maybe Jim's legacy that he left behind for one last game beyond the grave?), or advertisement that his ( or her?) business is once again taking on clients? If that was the case, the name Moriarty would be more like a brand name than a one-person business. 2. Then it might be a new "villain" who is trying to take over Jim's business. The return message could be advertisement of his services. 3. And the last situation I can imagine: the return message also is rather nicely timed to keep Sherlock in England. Two reasons why someone would want just that: They need Sherlock for something (case, leverage on Mycroft, want to take revenge?) or they like him. The return message was rather public and either the perpetrator has got very good connections or is in a position of power. I doubt Mycroft would have seen off Sherlock if he was behind it. It is a rather emotional statement. Mycroft hates those, especially with witnesses. While Sherlock is good at faking emotions sometimes, the goodbye seemed rather genuine to me. Season three has somewhat shifted the POV from John to Sherlock. If he was behind it, I think they would have given us some smirk at the least. These are the possibilities I see. Surely there are dozens more. I personally think there will be some twist with a sibling. Mycroft's comment seems somewhat foreshadowing. If they revealed both a Moriarty brother/sister and a Holmes brother/sister within one season, it would be a bit too cliché. Two "secret" siblings is a bit ... not clever. But that's my opinion. On another note: Apparently the other "Holmes sibling" (if they exists in Sherlock canon) is a bit of a rotten apple. Or was mistaken for one and Mycroft didn't have any mercy with him/her. They more than likely are not on good terms with Mycroft. We had a ploy to get to Mycroft in season three, so it would be a bit repetitive. On the other hand, it was somewhat buffered and wasn't taken to the extreme. They could be playing with that element. Maybe the return message is the third sibling challenging Mycroft/Sherlock. For now, I find it hard to go with one possibility and dismiss the others. And those are only the ones I can think up that make somewhat sense... God, already looking forward to more information on season 4.

I fear that the end of season three (with John choosing not to deal with Mary's past) leaves barely room for anything but potential family melodrama. I suppose it at least opens up the possibilty to bring the Watson family arc to an end. I know that not everybody was as displeased with it as I was but it gives me some hope. So thanks for bringing it up, Toby The more I read in this thread, the more I am starting to look forward to season 4.

Then how do you imagine they could adapt the story? Out of curiosity.

Actually, they've done that already -- with "they" in this case being Elementary. So I very much doubt that we'll ever see that in Sherlock. Carol, honestly? Damn. I didn't know that. I watched two episodes of Elementary, but I couldn't stop myself from comparing it to Sherlock. Maybe I would have liked it better if I had found it before watching Sherlock. And the Sussex Vampire, interesting idea.

Intriguing idea, your number 5. I also consider it somewhat fishy that Moriarty "returns" just in time to save the day for Sherlock and right after Magnussen's death. It's not a direct reaction to Sherlock's return, there are months between that. I consider it possible that Magnussen had something on Moriarty and due to his untimely death, Moriarty now is able to show his face once more. If that's true, it must be something personal. Magnussen collects secrets. It must be something that would force Moriarty to keep a low profile, the disadvantage must be great enough to warrant him bowing to Magnussen. Identity or family secret, more than likely. Would fit well with a brother. I also read a theory that mentioned Jim to be the third Holmes brother. Not my personal favorite but worthy of note. Moriarty's return also fits well with Sherlock's "departation". Maybe a plot to keep him here. Not initiated by Mycroft, his reaction was genuine, especially since there was no witness to impress. Sherlock also seemed rather moved when saying his goodbye to John. I could imagine Irene finally returned the favor. Other characters seem unlikely to gain anything from him staying or they do not have the necessary ressources to pull off something like this. I sincerely doubt that Jim is alive. If you wanted to impress people and make them believe that you returned, you'd give them some sort of performance. Maybe another story by the story teller. The picture is more than fishy. I surmise somebody is using him. Someone who has access to old footage. Maybe the "real" Moriarty - I always thought it a bit strange that Moriarty would sell away his clients that easily. Everything we saw Jim do was rather counter-productive to his business. Perhaps Jim was more like the eccentric brother messing up his brother's business. If that mysterious Moriarty had sent his brother out to keep himself unknown and in the shadows, it would give Magnussen some leverage and explain the state of inactivity. I'll have to sleep on this. And have a look at the old episodes. I somehow don't like my own conclusions yet... maybe someone else has already gotten reaquainted with the old episodes and a more elaborate theory?

To be honest, I think they are very happy to have a fandom. Sherlock came out of nowhere back in 2010. Well, not nowhere, but it was one of many adaptions. And it kind of has become the adaption. I mean... yes, I am sure Moffat and Gatiss hoped that their adaption would be well-received. But I doubt they expected more than a polite "yes, you did well" and maybe a re-run the year after. So I suppose that's why they take the fandom more serious than other writers do.

I like to think of John and Sherlock's feelings as love - as agape, love of the soul. Like many I can totally see them together but while it sure is more canon than in other adaptions, it never becomes physical. I wouldn't mind a one-episode return for Irene. Like you, I find it difficult to give their relationship a name. Irene truly was taken with Sherlock (body and mind). I think maybe it's that what got to Sherlock unlike ever before - the interest in his mind. I cannot say I got the impression that he was taken with her mind. He respected her intellect, yes, but did he desire her because of it? I actually think it was more like he desired the idea of Irene, someone who would want him for his mind. Sherlock seems to have sworn off relationships, whether out of experience or not. He believes that love rules over one's head, and that's something he fears. Sherlock fears to become a different person, to lose the tight control he has got over his body and which he executes through his mind. Irene then became tempting to him. She's what he fears but also something new. Someone that values his mind just as much as he does. Someone who understands his priorities. And, Carol, I completely missed that canon reference. Damn! Well-spotted. That makes sense. I still like to think of it as something that characterizes John.

Mh, I wonder if there is so much to explore about John. There's his sister, and there are his unnamed parents. I doubt the war will ever be truly introduced to the series. It's not like he truly suffers from PTSD. So it doesn't make for much character background (not from a writer's perspective). Actually, I don't see any problem with Sherlock heading for a 5th season. I rather fear the 4th one. I think it is very difficult to pick up from season 3. The end is a bit edgy, and unlike TRF, you do not have a clear path to head for. Cliffhangers are easier, you get a starting point. While Moriarty's return (I don't believe it's him, but until we get other hints..) is a leading factor, it's not really suitable for a episode to episode cliffhanger. It's more like foreshadowing. If they manage a good fourth season, there's definitely room for season 5. The main idea behind Sherlock is beautifully chosen, and I see the creative potential behind it. Something that came to me tonight; I'd so love to see Sherlock in rehab. For an undercover mission. Just for the hilarious aspects when he has to go to group therapy. Not something I expect them to do but I want to see that...

Yep, loved those moments with Lestrade. One of my favorite's, definitely. I always see him as a somewhat paternal guardian. More head canon than actually confirmed but I think it suits the actor. He's a bit like Mycroft but less controlling. Lestrade keeps an eye on Sherlock and his antics. It felt really good when Lestrade hugged Sherlock. The reunion fit just right with my head canon (and a lot of stories I like). Hope we'll see more from him next season, especially after we see how much Lestrade values Sherlock.

I think it's Sherlock we should give some credit; He's human. Not some supernatural, omniscient force. Sherlock is very intelligent, observant, and excellent at deductive reasoning. And that makes him just as prone to human error as anybody else, maybe even more because he expects to see more than others. I really cannot see how Sherlock planned in advance everything that was to happen at Appledore, especially not Magnussen's death. Why bring John if the ultimate goal was to frame himself? It leaves too much up to chance. Ultimately, it's John's weapon. The question "why did you bring a gun" would be one of the first questions an investigator were to ask. The answer isn't that easy, and it makes him seem just as suspicious. Even if Sherlock pulled the trigger, this does not mean John is off the hook. If you suggest he brought him on purpose and risked just that, that means he acted very selfishly. And I cannot see that, the entire episode seems to point to the contrary. It would be fundamentally stupid and destroy the purpose of his mission (to protect Mary and John). While Sherlock has got his flaws and he has been reckless more than once before, this seems a bit far-fetched to me. Personally, I agree with whoever mentioned that idea (sorry, can't find the post right now): Sherlock could have brought John as a witness to the fact that he did not hand over the password to Magnussen and did not trespass but was invited to Appledore. Besides the fact that he probably wanted one more adventure with his friend (the less practical reason ^^).

I second most of your points. I also prefer Mary to be gone by the end of 4 x 1. I suppose it is too much to ask for a divorce behind the scenes and never dealing with the baby. I just already cringe when thinking about this soap opera trope being realized. Don't get me wrong, I don't wish death on any child/mother/whatever, but I'd prefer even that. It would be enough for me to have John stand in front of Baker Street and tell Sherlock "that it didn't work out because he was too angry and couldn't stop thinking about the fact that she shot Sherlock." Would be alright with me. Don't mention her, topic closed. Maybe have her phone, discuss how to deal with the baby if the writers don't want to kill it. But keep that off-screen. Will improve the quality a lot. I don't want an entire episode on how Mary loses her child and everybody is sad. Or have it be someone else's child, and let that be the end of their relationship. Whatever works to get this family melodrama out of the series. For once I do not have any high expectations how to deal with that. They don't have to pull something special like Mary sacrificing herself. Just... be done with her. And fairly quickly. (Nothing against the actress, it's just this horrible family melodrama that bothers me) I'd actually love for Victor Trevor to get an appearance. Just for the fun of it - I'd be hilarious to have an old friend of Sherlock's there in the flat with him when John returns. If he were a doctor, too, that'd be even greater. And have him be totally cool with Sherlock's experiments, act normally over all those madness. A piece of my head canon. I always like it when John gets slightly jealous and realizes that Sherlock's not just on stand-by while he's gone. I want to see more of Mycroft. Definitely. And Sherlock. Their interaction always is really great. They have a very special way of communicating, and Gatiss and Cumberbatch are very good at portraying this strangeness. It also would be nice if season 4 picked up straight after season 3, maybe only two weeks later or so. It's been some time since the shooting, but I want to see somebody talk to Sherlock about it, anyway. Maybe Lestrade, asking whether he's fine or something. Just... show that at least somebody cares enough not to forget about it within days. I mean, it's actually a bit poor for John to not notice when his friend collapses next to him and is sweating and probably has got a fever. Sure, he had other things on his mind, but I would like for somebody to truly show that they care about Sherlock and Sherlock's health (other than his mother). Openly. Can't get that from Mycroft, he needs schemes and underlying messages for that. I know Sherlock wouldn't appreciate it, but that's not what it is about. It is about... something everybody deserves. So I don't have many wishes for actual changes, more like bringing season three to a close in season four.

So, watched the episode for the second time. Took me a bit, especially since the first time felt like a punch in the face. Still can't understand why John thinks it's okay to forgive Mary her recent crimes. It's not good not to deal with the past, but alright. I buy the "letting that be" excuse. Her recent crimes, however, are as much his issue as her future. That's no privilege, mind you. I agree with whoever stated hat a few posts before me: It is actually a fairly sad thing that Sherlock is able to forgive her that quickly. If we hadn't seen his parents, I'd surely wonder what kind of abuse he was used to if getting shot by your best friend's wife wasn't that much of a deal to him. On another note since that discussion leads nowhere; anybody any good guesses on season four? Actually I wonder whether what we saw in HLV was what happened. First of all things, Mycroft, despite his statement that "Magnussen is under his protection", seems to have been looking for an opportunity to get rid of him. Magnussen himself tells Sherlock just that. I do not think Mycroft ever faced Magnussen before, not in an antagonistic way. Lady Smallwood awfully quick thought of Sherlock after stating that nobody ever tries to stand up to Magnussen. I suppose she was thinking of Mycroft; it would explain why her thoughts turned to Sherlock. Here I go a bit "wild" with speculation: I don't believe she truly thinks Sherlock will stand up to Magnussen. He hasn't enough power to do that. She knows Magnussen and his modus operandi well, even investigates him - why would she assume he'd accept Sherlock as an intermediary? I guess it wasn't her plan. Lady Smallwood used Sherlock. As an intermediary to get to Mycroft. Mycroft reacted almost horrified when Sherlock told him that he was on a case involving Magnussen. He did not know. In the episode, it seems to me like Lady Smallwood and Mycroft work rather close together, she even calls him by his first name. Why not go to Mycroft? Because he wouldn't agree to take the risk. So she went to Sherlock... I think she used him as leverafge, to get Mycroft into the game. To make him move from his comfy chair of blissful ignorance towards Magnussen's meddling. Lady Smallwood must have known that Sherlock does not possess enough power or connections to truly get to Magnussen but would take up the challenge. Sherlock even knows that he needs an official invitation, otherwise he'll never get into Appledore. His power isn't far-reaching enough. His first break-in depends on a lot of coincidences falling together. It's more desperate and a one time chance than anything else. No. I think Lady Smallwood used him. This episode seems to center around Mycroft, at least when it's about Magnussen. The second thing I found odd: Mycroft calls Magnussen a necessary evil, not a dragon for Sherlock to slay. Then he states that Sherlock has more utility at home (England) because here be dragons. I wonder, however, what Mycroft's referring to. Sure, normally you'd think he was talking about the assignment Sherlock just declined (unknown territory, dangerous). However, Sherlock reacts rather peculiar. He stops in his movement, then looks towards Mycroft. What if Mycroft means that Magnussen is a dragon, just simply not one for Sherlock to slay? I also think Mycroft is calling Sherlock on his bluff; the "perhaps there was something in the punch" line could be interpreted as dramatic irony, I am less inclined to see it as suc, on a second viewing. It just fits too much with the heavy subtext conversation they are having. Always seems like smoking connects them, thinking of the morgue scene in ASiB. To me, it sounds like Mycroft tells Sherlock that he knows what going on. I can imagine that Mycroft is more than suspicious of the reason why Sherlock would bring Higgins to their family home. Let's not forget he's even more clever than Sherlock. And I believe Sherlock realizes that when he tells him to go have some more. So why does Mycroft go back in? I doubt he'd trust his brother to drug him with nothing more to go on than an educated guess what he's planning. Which brings me to another speculation: What if Mycroft was in on the plan? What if the smoking scene is nothing more than Mycroft reminding Sherlock of the boundaries of their plan? That he is not to take on Magnussen on his own. That this is rather Mycroft's dragon to slay. There's a warning, in this dialogue. Mycroft tells Sherlock that he'd hate to lose him (which would happen if he were to do anything outside their plan to Magnussen, because then he couldn't protect him from the backlash). Actually, Magnussen lays out exactly that; he tells Sherlock straight in the face that this is something Mycroft would stage. The laptop with the GPS tracker is in Magnussen's hands. It's Mycroft's carte blanche he's been waiting for. I believe that Magnussen is quite right. This was staged, to a certain degree. I doubt Mycroft was aware of the leverage Magnussen has got on Mary. And this leads to Sherlock abandoning their plan. I also think it's possible to pinpoint the moment Sherlock abandons the actual plan. It's when he realizes that he is running out of options to get Mary out of this affair. Mycroft's plan more than likely was to get a hold of Magnussen's archive. Which is not of material existence. Sherlock can't smuggle out Mary's file. If Mycroft takes Magnussen, there's no chance to get to him again. There must be a reason why Sherlock waited until Mycroft's arrival. It's clear that he came to the conclusion that he needs to kill Magnussen before he stepped outside. What has he got to gain from waiting for his brother's arrival? Mercy? No. Sherlock wanted to be seen. There mustn't be any doubt that it was him that killed Magnussen. I can only think of one reason: So that John wouldn't be suspected. If John were under suspicion, they'd probably screen Mary, too. No. Sherlock had to wait for witnesses otherwise his plan to get Mary out unscathed were to fail. Mycroft definitely is shocked when Sherlock shoots Magnussen. I believe he thought their original plan to still be active. Why ask Sherlock and John to stand back? It's not the criminals you ask to stand back. Why not ask Magnussen to get away from them? The "innocent" is more likely to cooperate. I believe to this point Mycroft was acting upon the belief that this was the end of their plan. They found his laptop in Magnussen's possession. As Magnussen laid it out before, while iz would hit the news, Sherlock would be exonerated. There would be no lasting damage besidethe one to his image, and even that is uncertain. Magnussen would have been whisked away by M.I.6. I doubt Moriarty ever saw a lawyer during his stay with M.I.6. Why would Magnussen get the chance to tell people about Sherlock's part in the scheme? The real problem arises when Sherlock strays from the plan. Mycroft's first reaction: Shout twice not to shoot Sherlock. Twice. Why would he be this shocked about the shot and the further betrayel by his brother if he had been drugged against his knowledge, got his laptop stolen by Sherlock and thought that Sherlock had sold him out? The sort of panic he suddenly feels tells a different story. I'd like to think that he saw this plan already as "worked out" when Sherlock, seemingly without reason, shoots Magnussen. His words are as following: "What have you done now?" His reaction to the shot. Now. Not "what have you done" referring to the entire day. It's the shot that Mycroft did not anticipate. Yes, some might seem a bit more far-fetched but at least it's something to go on. And it makes him seem less harsh than the episode paints him. I always saw Mycroft as a very strict (to others and himself) and ruthless person whose one weakness was named Sherlock. He's not kind towards his brother but his eyes rarely stray from him. I further like to believe that he sent Sherlock away to protect him. Sherlock killed somebody in front of lots of witnesses. Sent away in the name of queen and country means that he was exonerated and not to be further punished for his crime. Mycroft's efforts might not be to show Sherlock the errors of his ways, but to spare him from life-time imprisonment. If he was to be dragged in front of a jury, there's no chance he'd walk free. Mycroft essentially nipped that in the bud. Sherlock walks free. And I believe he was ready to call him back before these six months were up. Mycroft was awfully quick to phone Sherlock after Moriarty's message presented him with the opportunity to get him back. I believe Mycroft was playing with the odds that he'd get an opportunity sooner or later to call his brother back. If he had gone to prison, there'd be no easy way out. The short span between the message and the phone call tells me that Mycroft didn't even spare a minute or two to think about the pros and cons of calling Sherlock back. He saw the potential, and used it. There was no ill will in him that made him send Sherlock on that mission. On a second viewing, I think this episode proves even more than every episode before that Mycroft would even risk his job to protect his younger brother. I can't take much joy from the Watson solution but this at least gets me interested in the next season. I don't say everything will turn out the way I presented it. But I sincerely hope there was more to this case than met the eye. I also think it could be interesting to give the third brother theory a go. Would have to rewatch the Sherlock/Mycroft interactions. If there was truly a third brother, apparently only Mycroft knows of his existence. Or Sherlock erased him, which would make for an interesting turnabout.

But wouldn't you say that Mary deserves to be sent to prison? Apart from her past, one of the things I lack most in this episode is some form of consequence for her. Something that tells her that it was not okay to go on a murder spree, kill your husband's best friend, and when he by miracle bounces back after being clincally dead, hunt him down with a gun. Instead, she achieved everything she had wanted. John remained at her side. It's positive reinforcement. She got away with deliberately breaking in, hurting innocent people (Magnussen's staff), ambushing him, and killing Sherlock. That's what she should legally be responsible for. In a moral way, she also lied to her husband and married him under false pretense. I wouldn't call getting the silent treatment punishment. Let's face it; Mary got away with all of that, and suceeded. She got barely her fingers slapped. This will not change her. She will not have learned anything from this, she did not have to face any consequences. Sure, as an avid Johnlock fan (I ship other pairings, too), I like them living at Baker Street. But my complaint isn't about that. It's the fact that John positively reinforces her criminal streak. He should have moved out, at least. To Harry's, if he wanted to avoid Sherlock. And Mary and John weren't together that long when Sherlock returned. She did not get him through the dark times, even though it is a redeeming thought. I hope it will be used in fanworks, to at least smooth over this blunder of characterization. Actually, that's why I think John betrayed Sherlock. It's the duty of a friend to stand up for your friend when he does not do it for himself. Sherlock defends Mary, and that's the more reason for John to lash out. Sherlock doesn't stand up for himself. He died. She did not spare him. Sure, she could have given him a head shot, but letting him bleed out seems not that much nicer. He was in shock, he was in a lot of pain. He later collapses again. If Mary truly had wanted to spare him, she'd have shot him elsewhere. It was only Sherlock's quick thinking that saved his life. John should know. He was there when they were losing Sherlock, he was in the ambulance, he was at hospital, he was at Baker Street when Sherlock collapsed again. If Sherlock was truly pushing for the reunion, it is even more reason for John not to do so. Sherlock still doesn't stand up for himself, and as a friend, how can he accept that? How can he accept that Sherlock has to deal with the person who shot him cold-bloodedly? I am not saying that this is the right way to deal with things; but it is the right way to act as a friend. Friends should protect each other. And I lack just that protection from John's side. I agree. John could not have done anything to save Sherlock; to me, it's more about the gesture, a sign of good will. Of friendship. Sherlock just killed somebody for him, and they are in danger of separation. It would be really stupid to shield Sherlock, yes, but it would be the right things to do as a friend. In that spirit, I see the airport scene as another betrayel. Sure, Sherlock wanted them back together. But isn't that why John should show Sherlock that this is not what John wanted? I don't think John wanted Sherlock to give his life, his work, his family for him. That would make things even more horrible. And John should have shown Sherlock in some way that it is not what he had wanted. Being there with Mary and saying goodbye is not what he wanted. To me, it would mean true friendship for John to stand there on his own, or to board the plane with him. It would mean "You idiot, that's what I want." Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion. And I didn't even touch your second point. The episode just clashes with my entire concept of friendship and my impression of John.

Yep, I cannot say I'd mourn her. But I don't think that will solve the current issues at hand, sadly. Even her death would leave this ugly cracks in John and Sherlock's friendship. Funnily, season three has caused a bigger rift in their relationship than people anticipated. I truly missed one gesture of closure, one sign that John will stop hurting Sherlock now... Maybe if he had boarded the plane together with Sherlock. Or if he had tried to shield Sherlock when the guns were directed at him. It would have been a gesture of good will. Something to grasp, to hold on. To find hope.

John is a military man. He too has killed people in the past. So both he and she are killers. I beg to differ, though. John, to our knowledge, has killed. In war, then in London. In the very first episode, we see him kill the cabbie. He killed him in a life-threatening situation. Mary, however, is a murderer. She deliberately kills. She broke in, she hurt all those people that were simply working for Magnussen. Then she tries to kill him. It was deliberate. That is murder. The issue at hand with this episode is just that: Morals. With Mary, we know that she was a criminal before. And she still is. While people might argue about "letting go of past wrongs", she very recently went on a murder spree, killed Sherlock, and when he survived by his own merits, she went after him with a gun. There's no feeling of guilt in her. She does not regret it. And it seems like she never regretted her past either, murder is part of her present self. I do have problems with John's decision. We got to know him as a man who is ruled by his morals. He became Sherlock's guide in those matters. Now we get to know that he does in fact not know the difference between killing someone and murdering someone. What does that tell us about his heart? It also makes for a rather ridiculous conclusion: Sherlock is a better man than John. Sherlock, from the very beginning of the series, knows the difference between those two kinds of killing someone. When he deduces the "mystery shooter", he does just that: he makes this distinction. He was aware of the difference before John influenced him. And this goes against everything John always stood for. That's why I cannot accept his decision. I wish Sherlock just was drugged out of his mind and season 4 picks up after John found him in the drug den. I usually am good at thinking things further, but for once, I cannot see Sherlock heading in anything but a soap direction, with a baby on the way, and Sherlock's deus-ex-machina return, as well as Mary's exoneration (without her even regretting that she killed her husband's best friend). I am tired, and I can only imagine how Sherlock feels. He has given, and given. And John and Mary have taken whatever he offered. His work, his integrity, his family, his life. John cannot be this blind. He cannot. He just can't. I can't see him making it up to Sherlock in any way... what could season 4 include that would redeem him? I have no idea. He'd have to decide, to truly choose, to stand beside Sherlock. To go down with him. And he already made it clear in His Last Vow, that he will not do that. I feel so sorry for Sherlock. That is not what I had hoped. I hoped back in season one that John would give him friendship, and that John would be someone he could trust with his life. Now we know, Sherlock can't.

You know, I've been thinking these past minutes. Maybe that's what the writers were after. This feeling of unfairness. Because everything it boils down to is that: Caring is not an advantage. It certainly isn't for Sherlock. We fans like to see them happy. Sure, there needs to be action, and a good case, and maybe some shouting and Sherlock behaving well... Sherlockian. But in the end, we like to see Sherlock playing his violin, and we like to see John read his newspaper, and Mrs Hudson making tea. Maybe they want to tell us that life is unfair, and that it doesn't work like that. John's attraction to Mary overrules his head. His caring isn't an advantage; his best friend dies at the hands of his wife, the one woman who should respect his feelings. Then there's Sherlock. He cares about John, and within three seasons, he loses everything. He loves London, and is almost exiled, he was gravely injured, died, had to kill somebody, hurt his own family, and betray his brother. They might not get on, but I think this is even worse than everything else. Sherlock relies on Mycroft, whether he likes it or not. He often goes against Mycroft, but that's when he knows that Mycroft will be there, in the end, to save the day. This time, he incapacitated Mycroft. He deliberately (he told Mycroft to go back in and drink some punch) rendered him unable to save the day. Sherlock knew that Mycroft might protect him, but he wouldn't care about Mary or John. So he made sure Mycroft wouldn't be able to protect him. Because Sherlock was too afraid John would get hurt in the follow-up. He cared too much about John. And lost everything he loved in the process (London, his brother's protection, John). All that would have been lost if it weren't for Moriarty's return. And for now, it's just a delay. Sherlock lost. That's what season three boils down to. Season three is about Sherlock's loss and John's gain. I think that's heart-breaking, in a way. It has put their relationship in imbalance. And John did not measure up, in the end. He chose to keep his gains instead of going down with Sherlock. It's human, I guess. Nobody likes loss. But it makes their friendship seem more fragile than ever. I feel disillusioned. I see cracks I didn't anticipate. And I wonder if behind all the glory... if it's hollow. Because isn't it meaningless to call somebody a friend if you are not ready to go down with them? I fear this will influence how I look at the previous episodes. And for the first time, I truly feel like caring is not an advantage. It hasn't been for Sherlock. That makes me... I don't know. Feel hollow myself. It's not what I want for life. And it's not what I want for Sherlock and John.

That's a great idea I suppose we'll have to see the potential for crack fic in this. Will be a nice wait this time. Last time was serious action/suspense/on-the-run/grieving. This time... crack. And yep, Janine got at least to see Sherlock in the bath. I think the fandom would have liked her to share that sight.

Well, I might have gotten it wrong because everything moved so fast, but didn't someone say at some point that Magnussen had been actively threatening Mary? Oh, by the way, can anybody make sense of the bonfire now? I didn't understand that bit. I just wish this show would calm down again. Back off from the superlatives. But I sense that is not going to happen any time soon. I think he reminded her of the leverage; but to get to John, then to get to Sherlock, then to get to Mycroft. She was not really his target. Besides John finding out that she had lied to him "big time", there wasn't anything to lose. It was selfish from her side. Nobody she was protecting but her own interests when she hurt all those people in Magnussen's flat and tried to kill Magnussen (and ends up killling Sherlock - he was clinically dead). Magnussen stated that it was to get to Sherlock; to test where his weakness lies. It lies with John. He already knew Mycroft's weakness (maybe he knew about A Scandal in Belgravia), he however did not have a full grasp of Sherlock after his reappearance. That's how I understood it.

I understand that, and I also believe that John loves Mary. I just don't think his decision is justified. While he might ignore her past, the recent murder attempt on an innocent (Magnussen might be a blackmailer, but he was no threat to her life or that of her child) and two murder attempts on Sherlock clearly happened in the present. I can't believe he can overlook those. Sherlock nearly died on John; he in fact was clinically dead before his heart beat returned. Then Sherlock collapses again in front of John. Mary pointed her gun at John believing him to be Sherlock. Even if he loves her... how can he live with himself knowing that? Even if he wants to keep her, this should be something where morality wins over emotions. On that note: I don't think John would have forgiven Sherlock if he had murdered Mary without provocation. Or Harry. And even if he had... he would not have continued to live with him. John did not even leave Mary and, I dunno, sleep on Sherlock's couch, until he had enough time to process all of this.

Yes, and for what? A woman who had been lying to him since day one? If I were John, I'd have been wondering if she set her sights on me deliberately. You're right, that was so not on. Possibly because he was "always at work" - remember Watson hadn't seen him for a month. Maybe, but I don't know. I mean, you've been dating someone for a month or less, and you're already sleeping over in their bed and rearranging their kitchen? How does it move that fast, if you haven't even had time to have sex once because he's always working? I guess it could all be blamed on the fact that apparently she was an opportunist who was just using him. As long as he was letting her get close -staying over, moving in, whatever - and she thought she might get some social elevation out of it, she didn't care if they actually got to be physical. She didn't even appear to notice how lackluster his kisses were, though it could be argued that he was clamming up in front of an audience and was more physical in private. And he did seem comfortable enough with her on his lap. Yep. So not on... It's actually taken from canon. Holmes once got engaged to a girl without even getting into too much physical proximity. He wooed her with his charming attitude *cough*. It's a bit unbelievable in modern times but I actually could accept it because it was a direct reference.

God, I am in mourning. Like some of you, I can't believe the Mary conclusion. I liked the episode until John forgave her. So not on... I mean, Sherlock nearly died twice. And John was there, he knows that she even hunted Sherlock down after he left hospital, with a gun in her pocket. Wonder what she planned to do with that, light a cigarette for him?... Yes, she so did not plan to kill him. No. John was never my true favorite, I liked him, but I was more interested in Sherlock. This episode ruined John for me, however. We see him react to Sherlock's betrayel in The Empty Hearse. That was horrible. He forgave him. Yes. But I do not think trying to kill someone who was not threatening your life (even when he was blackmailing you) is forgivable. Not for him. John did not kill the cabbie because he was evil. He did because the cabbie was about to kill Sherlock. It was a moral decision. Mary's decision was anything but that. Effectively, she also killed Sherlock. I don't know how John can forgive that. I can't. That goes against everything I ever thought about him. I don't think I want him to be Sherlock's friend. He's rotten at it. He allowed Sherlock to ruin his entire life for Mary. Sherlock betrayed his own family, risked to be killed by his own brother, killed somebody, and was almost exiled (where Mycroft told him he'd get killed). And John did not intervene. He did not stand up and tell Sherlock that it was alright. That he did not WANT him to do all that for Mary. Nor did he decide to leave with Sherlock. He shook his hand while standing next to his wife. Just like he stood back after Sherlock killed Magnussen. He did not stand on his side, nor did he try to protect him in any way. He stood back. I don't know if I can ever accept that end. Maybe if he had tried to shield Sherlock. Just one gesture, but to me, this episode is purely about John betraying Sherlock and the effort he makes to protect John's happiness.

I don't think she explicitly stated it; I suppose she wanted it confirmed that she had "dated" somebody "real" instead of a ghost. That's why she brought them to the flat where she spent time with him. If she truly believed in the "dating a ghost" idea, she wouldn't have sought confirmation through a website and a private (consulting!) detective.

Well, I am itching to read through the spoilers for the next episode, but I can't get myself to do it. It could be the greatest episode to date, or it could be mediocre. And I don't think I could stand it to be mediocre. Not with this set-up. I actually like series three so far... but only because I am fully anticipating that they lead up to something good. If all we saw in the previous episodes were red herrings at best, I don't know how I'd deal with the disappointment.

Before we see him watch the camera footage; we get a short view of the room.

Related to witchcraft? Really, that's interesting. Do you remember the short camera walk through Magnussen's flat/room/whatever? There were lots of strange things, for example a rabbit and a magician's hat. Back then, before I watched the episode for the second time and noticed that Magnussen apparently is a politician, I was convinced he saw himself as a "magician".