Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I warned you all earlier I was known as "The Instigator!"

 

  Oh well, that's one way to keep everyone talking.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I do not believe that people like Magnussen exist in real life. Only in fiction could there be a creature so thoroughly vile. So I have no problem with him being killed, because I don't believe there ever could be a parallel case in reality; I don't see that scene in His Last Vow as legitimizing or glorifying any real life violence, because the situation is in itself impossible.

I believe that if an officer of the law did what Sherlock did here, killed (or otherwise punished) someone because there was strong evidence that they intended to do a bad thing, that would be termed "prior restraint," which is not considered proper behavior for the law.  However, there's no point in having laws against things that might happen once in a hundred years, so when that one-time event does occur, there's no legal way of dealing with it.

 

Mind you, I don't believe in capital punishment, I'm a vegetarian, and I don't even swat flies.  But I don't think what Sherlock did was wrong, and I don't think he did either.  He knew it was illegal, and that there would therefore be serious consequences, but he weighed the downside against the benefits and decided it was worth doing.

 

[Arcadia]

I don't know, that was a pretty black look on his face, I thought there was more rage than decision making at work. Of course, I was assuming that the arc of the 3rd season was about the consequences of caring, so I was pre-disposed to believe S's actions were driven by emotion, not reason. Not that most people can really separate the two that much, but it's certainly a theme of the show to pit them one against the other. I was expecting something along those lines in the 3rd episode, at any rate; we'd been shown how friendship enriched Sherlock's life, now we would be shown how friendship could also destroy him.... gotta watch out for those 3rd acts!

 

Not really making a point here, just have a free evening and keep rambling .... And also one of the local PBS stations has just started re-broadcasting the whole series so I'm in full-blown Sherlock mode. Guess I know where I'll be on Saturday nights for awhile!

[Arcadia]

Ooops, somehow I published the same post twice. Is there a way for me to delete a post?

[sherlockandjohn]

This is getting rather interesting. While I agree with Zain that the law would not - and should not - defend Sherlock murdering Magnussen, I believe Sherlock has stepped into a moral grey area. The law isn't morally perfect, but of course it's far better than no law at all. Magnussen would almost surely use the information on Mary against her, as well as Sherlock and John's treason against them. I couldn't have done what Sherlock did, and I can't defend his action - but I think he was brave, nevertheless, for doing so and shouldering the responsibility. Not to mention the consequence to his character (but I don't think Sherlock cares much about that part), that making a decision to take someone's life must inevitably harden his heart - or break him. I could not imagine Sherlock breaking under a burden of guilt here, so I'm definitely with the first. It hardens him. That's the only sad part of the incident for me. But, again - Sherlock calculated the cost and the benefits. I find it hard to say for sure that he was wrong in killing Magnussen, considering the likely consequences of not doing so.

 

Sherlock's tears are a topic for discussion, too, just like they were in TRF. But while the discussion concerning his tears in TRF was 'fake or real', the tears were most certainly real in HLV, so why did he cry? It's been suggested that at least part of the reason is that he knew he was wrong in what he did. I'm sure Sherlock did not want to resort to murder, not only because of the consequences for himself, but in general I cannot imagine he's in favor of it. Despite his eagerness to solve murders! My impression of Sherlock is that he does have a lot of integrity. However, I have previously argued that Sherlock thinks he is right in killing Magnussen, because the man does so much harm to others, and he was now threatening John and Mary. Now I'm wondering, though, if maybe there is a bit of remorse involved, since he cries. I don't think he cries because he's given up his future (it could be part of the reason, but not the main one). The purpose of showing Sherlock as a child here would be to draw a parallel to the child we saw earlier - the one who was a disappointment. So maybe they are tears of failure and defeat? He believes he is right in taking Magnussen's life, because there was no other way, but he also knows it's a horrible act and feels that he has somehow failed by having to resort to it.

 

That's my current take on it, anyway.

[T.o.b.y]

This is getting rather interesting. While I agree with Zain that the law would not - and should not - defend Sherlock murdering Magnussen, I believe Sherlock has stepped into a moral grey area. The law isn't morally perfect, but of course it's far better than no law at all. Magnussen would almost surely use the information on Mary against her, as well as Sherlock and John's treason against them. I couldn't have done what Sherlock did, and I can't defend his action - but I think he was brave, nevertheless, for doing so and shouldering the responsibility. Not to mention the consequence to his character (but I don't think Sherlock cares much about that part), that making a decision to take someone's life must inevitably harden his heart - or break him. I could not imagine Sherlock breaking under a burden of guilt here, so I'm definitely with the first. It hardens him. That's the only sad part of the incident for me. But, again - Sherlock calculated the cost and the benefits. I find it hard to say for sure that he was wrong in killing Magnussen, considering the likely consequences of not doing so.

 

Sherlock's tears are a topic for discussion, too, just like they were in TRF. But while the discussion concerning his tears in TRF was 'fake or real', the tears were most certainly real in HLV, so why did he cry? It's been suggested that at least part of the reason is that he knew he was wrong in what he did. I'm sure Sherlock did not want to resort to murder, not only because of the consequences for himself, but in general I cannot imagine he's in favor of it. Despite his eagerness to solve murders! My impression of Sherlock is that he does have a lot of integrity. However, I have previously argued that Sherlock thinks he is right in killing Magnussen, because the man does so much harm to others, and he was now threatening John and Mary. Now I'm wondering, though, if maybe there is a bit of remorse involved, since he cries. I don't think he cries because he's given up his future (it could be part of the reason, but not the main one). The purpose of showing Sherlock as a child here would be to draw a parallel to the child we saw earlier - the one who was a disappointment. So maybe they are tears of failure and defeat? He believes he is right in taking Magnussen's life, because there was no other way, but he also knows it's a horrible act and feels that he has somehow failed by having to resort to it.

 

That's my current take on it, anyway.

 

Your interpretation flatters Sherlock a lot more than mine. What I see happening is more or less this: Sherlock finds out that the vaults are only memories in Magnussen's head. He went to Appledore to destroy those vaults (or at least diminish them), so he realizes that in order to go through with his plan, he has to kill Magnussen (or at least cause him severe brain damage). I see it as mostly a rational decision. Sherlock could have shot him right then and there when he was sitting on that chair making silly gestures. But then John might have been implicated and they would have gotten in trouble with Magnussen's security staff. So he decides to wait until Mycroft and his team arrive. Magnussen decides to spend that time humiliating John and bragging about doing the same to other people, including Janine, and whole countries, thus considerably weakening any scruples Sherlock might have had initially and putting him in the mood, but I don't see the shot as something prompted by emotion; I see a cold blooded murder, justified in Sherlock's eyes by the sheer villainy of his opponent and the lack of alternatives to stop him and facilitated by the victim's enraging behavior. 

 

Why does Sherlock cry? The tears must be real this time; he has no reason to be acting. I think he's angry and frustrated that he in effect lost this "game", that Magnussen forced him to resort to something as crude as murder. Also, he knows what the consequences will be, that he will be imprisoned, that he will have to leave his home and friends again. In short, I think he cries for himself, selfishly.

 

I love Sherlock, but I don't see him as an overly "good" man. I don't think guilt is something he is bothered by much (look how long it took until he felt only remotely remorseful for what he had done to John), I do think he sees himself as over and above the law and common morals, and I think he is an egocentric, vain-glorious piece of arrogance. Actually, I want him to be that way. With a heart underneath it all, of course. I mean, if he didn't have that, he never would have bothered with Magnussen, he'd have taken Mycroft's "not my problem, he doesn't inconvenience me personally" stand.

 

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Your interpretation flatters Sherlock a lot more than mine. What I see happening is more or less this: Sherlock finds out that the vaults are only memories in Magnussen's head. He went to Appledore to destroy those vaults (or at least diminish them), so he realizes that in order to go through with his plan, he has to kill Magnussen (or at least cause him severe brain damage). I see it as mostly a rational decision. Sherlock could have shot him right then and there when he was sitting on that chair making silly gestures. But then John might have been implicated and they would have gotten in trouble with Magnussen's security staff. So he decides to wait until Mycroft and his team arrive. Magnussen decides to spend that time humiliating John and bragging about doing the same to other people, including Janine, and whole countries, thus considerably weakening any scruples Sherlock might have had initially and putting him in the mood, but I don't see the shot as something prompted by emotion; I see a cold blooded murder, justified in Sherlock's eyes by the sheer villainy of his opponent and the lack of alternatives to stop him and facilitated by the victim's enraging behavior. 

 

Why does Sherlock cry? The tears must be real this time; he has no reason to be acting. I think he's angry and frustrated that he in effect lost this "game", that Magnussen forced him to resort to something as crude as murder. Also, he knows what the consequences will be, that he will be imprisoned, that he will have to leave his home and friends again. In short, I think he cries for himself, selfishly.

 

I love Sherlock, but I don't see him as an overly "good" man. I don't think guilt is something he is bothered by much (look how long it took until he felt only remotely remorseful for what he had done to John), I do think he sees himself as over and above the law and common morals, and I think he is an egocentric, vain-glorious piece of arrogance. Actually, I want him to be that way. With a heart underneath it all, of course. I mean, if he didn't have that, he never would have bothered with Magnussen, he'd have taken Mycroft's "not my problem, he doesn't inconvenience me personally" stand.

 

 

I don't see Sherlock as an overly good man myself, I just see examples of him having an amount of integrity and concern for people - sometimes! There are plenty of examples of his arrogance and selfishness, too. In the case of Magnussen, Sherlock is hesitating with killing him. Somewhere, he comes to the conclusion that all he can do is shoot the man, but he's struggling with it. It's not an easy thing to do. Perhaps it is entirely out of "selfish" reasons that he's struggling, though. It's entirely possible. I just don't know how to interpret the tears on the Sherlock-child's face if there is no failure in it. I wouldn't go as far as to say guilt. But a sense of failure that he's been a disappointment - again. I'm assuming he has some issues with that, since Mycroft brings it up earlier in the episode. Or maybe it's as you say, he cries because of the consequences, the loss. Hmmm, it's really hard to say. Either way, it's a tear-jerking scene, isn't it.

Ugh, why do I put myself through this; I can barely stand the sadness connected with Sherlock and John being separated. For the second time, even.

[Slithytove]

The murder of CAM is difficult, I think, particularly if you see Sherlock as a flawed hero, as I do. Committing murder is a bloody big flaw.

 

Basically, I agree (unsurprisingly) with Zain that killing someone when there is no immediate danger cannot be justified as an act of defence. You can't shoot people just because they make threats. If you did, how many murders would there be? CAM is, of course, quite capable of making good on his threats but he is not going to do so immediately, so there is time and opportunity to find other ways of preventing him. In fact, it seems unlikely he would really contact Mary's enemies, as this would deprive him of a "pressure point.". Mary's value to him lies in being a target for blackmail. His threat just enables him to humiliate John, which is something CAM clearly enjoys. As for his power to print lies, that applies to all media magnates but you can't go around murdering them!

 

Of course, the story plays on the gut reaction we all have when evil is vanquished and the dragon is slain. When the hero conquers the villain, you want to go "Yes!" and not think "Well, that was morally wrong, really.....". It is a wonderfully dramatic scene, there is no denying that.

 

I do think there is a big difference between Sherlock's act and Mary's, though both are legally and ethically wrong. Mary's motives are selfish - to avoid prison and keep her husband in ignorance - and it is committed secretly. She never shows genuine remorse, is prepared to do it again and never accepts responsibility. Sherlock kills to protect other people, commits the murder in front of witnesses and accepts responsibility. I think he cries because he knows that it was a terrible, irrevocable act but maybe some of the tears are for himself. He must think he has destroyed his own future - I would not blame him for weeping.

 

Sherlock does seem, from the very beginning, to have his own sense of values, which are very skewed but strong - for instance, he seems indifferent to IreneAdler's fate and yet he goes all the way to Karachi to rescue her. I believe he killed CAM for the same readon that he saved John & Mary's marriage after the shooting - because he felt he had to fulfill the vow he made at the wedding - to protect the Watsons, even if it costs him everything. I wish, though, the writers had allowed him to use his intellect, instead of a gun.

[T.o.b.y]

Sherlock does seem, from the very beginning, to have his own sense of values, which are very skewed but strong - for instance, he seems indifferent to Irene Adler's fate and yet he goes all the way to Karachi to rescue her. I believe he killed CAM for the same reason that he saved John & Mary's marriage after the shooting - because he felt he had to fulfill the vow he made at the wedding - to protect the Watsons, even if it costs him everything. I wish, though, the writers had allowed him to use his intellect, instead of a gun.

 

I would wish they had as well, if I wasn't so fond of the original story, where Holmes' intellect, for once, does not save the day. I certainly don't want another case like this. It only makes sense as a one-time occurrence. But as such, I like it and I think it works very well as an adaptation.

 

You are right about Sherlock having values, his very own but strong ones non the less. Absolutely right. He's an idealist at heart. "The heart of a poet" as I think Moffat said about him. That is what makes him so compelling a character. He has this great brain and is mostly very rational, but he's not such a cold fish as his brother, there are "hidden fires" (to quote the original Dr Watson) behind it all which make me care and feel for him.

 

I wonder whether Sally Donovan ever got to know that she was right about Sherlock, after all: "Some day, we'll be standing around a body and it will be Sherlock Holmes who put it there".

 

[Slithytove]

Interesting, isn't it, that Sally was right about Sherlock killing someone but wholly mistaken about the reason why he would kill - not a bored psychopath but a man driven by love to make a vow and to go to such extreme lengths to keep it?

 

When you think about it, Sally's warning to John was rather ironic, considering that he would be committing a murder himself, very soon after that conversation.

[Arcadia]

I love this discussion! Is this what Sherlock feels like when he's got a serial murder on his hands?

 Since I feel like I started this, I somehow feel like I'm obliged to respond to it. Er, possibly not obliged so much as, uh, quivering with delight. Therefore, behold! The epic multi-quote....

 

... making a decision to take someone's life must inevitably harden his heart - or break him. I could not imagine Sherlock breaking under a burden of guilt here, so I'm definitely with the first. It hardens him. That's the only sad part of the incident for me.

I agree. Which is why it almost broke my heart (the end of innocence always does. :-(  Good storytelling, that.

 

... why did he cry? ... maybe they are tears of failure and defeat? He believes he is right in taking Magnussen's life, because there was no other way, but he also knows it's a horrible act and feels that he has somehow failed by having to resort to it.
 
That's my current take on it, anyway.

Mine too, I think. CAM beat him at the very end -- not with wits, but by causing him to resort to a coarse and brutish act. Any "moron" could have come up with that solution. Not much fun for a man who believes his intellect is what makes him special.

 

... What I see happening is... Sherlock finds out that the vaults are only memories in Magnussen's head. He went to Appledore to destroy those vaults ... so he realizes that in order to go through with his plan, he has to kill Magnussen ... I don't see the shot as something prompted by emotion; I see a cold blooded murder, justified in Sherlock's eyes by the sheer villainy of his opponent and the lack of alternatives....

Ah, yes. Was it coldly premeditated or an emotional act of desperation? Will we ever know? I think a valid argument has been made for both explanations. And what a difference it makes to how you feel about at it! For myself, the 1st explanation is too cold and inhuman, and I thought Sherlock was moving away from that. So I choose to believe the 2nd theory. But I can just as easily argue the other way.

 

Why does Sherlock cry? I think he's angry and frustrated that he in effect lost this "game", that Magnussen forced him to resort to something as crude as murder. Also, he knows what the consequences will be... In short, I think he cries for himself, selfishly.

Also true. Aren't all tears for ourselves? Because we're hurting?

 

... I don't see him as an overly "good" man... I do think he sees himself as over and above the law and common morals, and I think he is an egocentric, vain-glorious piece of arrogance... With a heart underneath it all, of course.

Here I can't quite agree, as I believe "having a heart" is a defining characteristic of being a "good man." I think he wants people to believe he is all those things you say ... because it helps keep him isolated ... but I'm not convinced he actually is. That may be Mr. Cumberbatch's fault ... he projects so much personal warmth into this character that I sometimes have trouble seeing the darkness for all the light.

 

I don't see Sherlock as an overly good man myself, I just see examples of him having an amount of integrity and concern for people - sometimes! There are plenty of examples of his arrogance and selfishness, too.

I always go back to Lestrade's assessment (and I paraphrase) .... "he's a great man. If we're lucky, some day he'll be a good one." Because I am the way I am, I WANT to see Sherlock progress from great to good. But sticking at "great" could generate more complex responses in the audience, which is, I suppose, a more modern approach to characterization.

 

In the case of Magnussen, Sherlock is hesitating with killing him. Somewhere, he comes to the conclusion that all he can do is shoot the man, but he's struggling with it. ... I just don't know how to interpret the tears on the Sherlock-child's face if there is no failure in it.

This is how I saw it as well. Sherlock wasn't cold while at Appledore, there were all kinds of emotions on his face. Even if the killing was premeditated, I could make a case that he was hoping he'd find another way out.

 

I also felt he was emotionally compromised (that is, feeling emotions :-) all the way thru Series 3. Several people have remarked that his deductive powers seemed "off" as a result. I personally think this was intentional on the part of creators; by the end of TSo3, I was pretty sure I was being set up for heartbreak in the 3rd story. Willingly, of course!

 

.....
Of course, the story plays on the gut reaction we all have when evil is vanquished and the dragon is slain. When the hero conquers the villain, you want to go "Yes!" and not think "Well, that was morally wrong, really....."

Yet the latter is exactly the reaction I had. I didn't want to cheer, I wanted to cry. CAM was scum, he wasn't worth Sherlock's life. The moment Sherlock shot him, CAM won.

 

I wish, though, the writers had allowed him to use his intellect, instead of a gun.

Amen to that. Although, then we wouldn't have had the great emotional punch of Sherlock being sent to his death/exile. Which I love, weirdly. But I think I'd trade that for a more "Sherlockian" solution to CAM's evil. "Blowing away" someone feels so ... trite.

 

...
When you think about it, Sally's warning to John was rather ironic, considering that he would be committing a murder himself, very soon after that conversation.

Yeah, but (and I doubt if I need to say this, cuz it's been pointed out before), John's action was quite literally to save a life that was in "imminent danger." (The life in this case being that of his idiotic new acquaintance, who didn't have the common sense to walk away from the real murderer when he had the chance.) That's not even manslaughter, let alone murder. But yeah, the irony is actually quite nice.

 

And speaking of irony, do we notice that it is SHERLOCK, of all people, is the one who recognizes that shooting a man takes an emotional toll on someone? Not exactly the observation of a sociopath. I love that bit. And maybe that would explain the tears when he shoots CAM; underneath the crystalline exterior, is it possible that Sherlock Holmes is really a big ole gooshy softie? Yeek!

[T.o.b.y]

And speaking of irony, do we notice that it is SHERLOCK, of all people, is the one who recognizes that shooting a man takes an emotional toll on someone? Not exactly the observation of a sociopath. I love that bit. And maybe that would explain the tears when he shoots CAM; underneath the crystalline exterior, is it possible that Sherlock Holmes is really a big ole gooshy softie? Yeek!

 

I don't think so... but I do suspect he is supposed to have by nature very strong emotions. Why else would he have gone to so much trouble to control, overcome, deny, ignore and belittle them? I really love that quote from the Doyle story "The Devil's Foot" (that is one of my favorites, anyway) where Holmes says he never loved because he didn't know what he might not have done if his wife had come to harm. The "great heart" behind the great brain and the "iron cold" exterior it seems was so large it frightened it's owner a bit. This is, by the way, another story where he lets the murderer go free, who killed only to take revenge on the death of a woman he loved (without averting future danger from anybody). And Doyle's Holmes, who usually comes across as having a lot more moral integrity than our Sherlock, is totally okay with that! He certainly didn't think murder was only justified by self-defense...

 

[Zain]

 

Sherlock does seem, from the very beginning, to have his own sense of values, which are very skewed but strong - for instance, he seems indifferent to IreneAdler's fate and yet he goes all the way to Karachi to rescue her. I believe he killed CAM for the same readon that he saved John & Mary's marriage after the shooting - because he felt he had to fulfill the vow he made at the wedding - to protect the Watsons, even if it costs him everything. I wish, though, the writers had allowed him to use his intellect, instead of a gun.

 

Would you (personally) say, to carry it deliberately to the extreme, that Sherlock values life while Mary doesn't? And that this is the main reason why their motives differ?

Just to get a clearer picture. You know I value your input (and everybody else's, too, of course. We are just often interested in the same topics.)

 

 

 

Concerning "Is Sherlock acting selflessly or selfishly":

I believe that you can see it both ways. All arguments you presented are valid, imo. There's no right or wrong answer because they never explicitly state Sherlock's motives. 

 

On the other hand, I believe his motives to be, at the core, selfless. His and Mary's actions throughout the season run parallel to a frightening degree - with the decisive factor that their motives are complete opposites. To me, this is a classic "mirror" set-up. We are supposed to see both characters as opposites (with some shared traits). Yes, I don't like Mary. I doubt anybody missed the "subtext" in my previous posts But I am arguing more or less objectively:

• Mary and Sherlock both lied to John to protect their "mission."
• Mary and Sherlock both killed.
• They both shoot someone to keep a secret. It wasn't Sherlock's secret to keep, but he made it his by caring for John.
• Sherlock literally gives John away (at John's wedding), while Mary "receives" John.
• John takes Mary back. Soon after, John has to let go of Sherlock for a second time.

And that's just HLV. Back to my train of thoughts.

 

We aren't given much explicit information on Mary's motives, either. There's one moment, though, that settles it quite well to determine her motive, imo:

 

 

Because John can’t ever know that I lied to him. It would break him and I would lose him forever – and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen.

 

Taken from Ariane DeVere's transcript.

Mary acts because she is afraid of losing John forever. I know many try to blend out the second part of her sentence, and they like to concentrate on "It would break him [...], and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen." Fact, though: It is a very important sentence. When you write a script, important scenes aren't written while thinking about what you're going to cook later in the day. Every sentence is looked at twice, thrice, to make sure it fits. The writers wanted that part in there. They wanted her to say: "It would break him and I would lose him forever, and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen." It is important for Mary's characterization, just as much as the first part.

While I'd love to villanize her simply based on that, I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt for this post. Maybe she's a nice person, and maybe we'll see her face around for many seasons to come. But it cannot be disputed that her love is essentially selfish. At this point in her characterization, she would not sacrifice herself for John. John is important because he is needed to uphold her own "self." I know that it is far kinder to illusion oneself into seeing some sort of romantic gesture behind that, but it's actually the opposite of that. Maybe it's a more realistic approach to "love", and maybe that's why they put it in there. To make people identify with Mary. I don't know. I don't identify with her. But I guess I am one of those persons who cannot shut their mind up when watching something. No matter how hard they may try to justify Mary's behavior, and no matter how hard they will try to show that Mary deserved this second chance - I've reached a certain stalemate with her character the moment she shot someone to protect herself from the consequences of her actions.

Anyway, the point: Mary is supposed to show us "selfish love."

And I believe that Sherlock's actions are supposed to be motivated by selfless love. Not because I would like to romanticize Sherlock's character but because there are so many parallels between Mary and Sherlock, it basically screams "connect the dots, see both as two side of the same coin."

 

But in the end, we don't know. Sherlock could have only been thinking about "not losing the game", and we wouldn't be one inch closer to knowing with certainty that he did so.

[T.o.b.y]

 

Concerning "Is Sherlock acting selflessly or selfishly":

I believe that you can see it both ways. All arguments you presented are valid, imo. There's no right or wrong answer because they never explicitly state Sherlock's motives.

 

Thank heavens for that! What would become of speculation and discussion to fill in the long wait until series 4?

 

I do wonder whether the writers put one tenth the amount of thought into a single line that we spend pondering over it, but I don't care either way. It's there and so I feel free to over-think it as much as I please.

 

No, they didn't really portray Mary as a paragon of selflessness. But then, who is? I don't think the average lover in our boring little real world would be any less concerned about losing their partner than she is. One could of course argue that if she really believes she is the "best thing that could have happened" to John and that he really needs her, going to any lengths to prevent her losing him (and therefor vice versa) might even be justified from an unselfish point of view. But I must say, I don't much care for that level of saintliness anyway.

 

I have become so used to Mary now from excessive series 3 consumption that I think I'd miss her if she were gone. I have really grown to like her. She's wonderfully non-sugary. There's a hint of harshness to her even prior to the reveal about her past that appeals to me. She seems completely unsentimental. And yet I think she too is supposed to have a heart, maybe even a soft one (just a gut feeling, because I don't like pure blooded villains and I do like her). I have absolutely no proof, but there are some moments where I think she's meant to be genuine. Like when she says "what about you" to Sherlock at the wedding, tears in her eyes, before she and John go off to dance. I think she really likes Sherlock. And still she shot and almost killed him. (Just like Irene hurt and humiliated him even though she, I am sure, really loved him in some strange way). And I am dead sure she loves John. Her kind of love may not be terribly noble, but then, love rarely is, really.

[Zain]

 

I do wonder whether the writers put one tenth the amount of thought into a single line that we spend pondering over it, but I don't care either way. It's there and so I feel free to over-think it as much as I please.

 

 

 

 

I do hope so. Otherwise I'd be severely disappointed by Gatiss. And I truly cannot imagine that Moffat and Gatiss aren't handling this series with the utmost care. After all, it is their pet project that turned into a monster.

But I agree... especially this season, it at times felt somewhat careless. I have faith, though, that there are reasons why they neglected some aspects. I mean.. it's their pet project. It's that one story you always wanted to write, the one you would almost die to show to the world. The one you do not mess up. You just don't.

[Arcadia]

 

 is it possible that Sherlock Holmes is really a big ole gooshy softie? Yeek!

 

I don't think so... but I do suspect he is supposed to have by nature very strong emotions.

I don't think so either, and I suspect you're right.

 

I'm reading "The Adventures" for the first time and I don't find him cold or remorseless at all -- just very logical and focused. He laughs a LOT. Where does the image of him as unemotional come from? Future stories? Or am I just not reading this one very closely? I know sometimes you have to read (or see) something more than once to get all the nuances, but superficially at least, the orginal Holmes seems like a very genial fellow.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It was the original Watson who kept saying that Holmes was a "machine" cold and heartless.  But as one reads them, paying close attention one sees the more human side.

 

 When Watson first meets Holmes at Bart's, Holmes is very excited and openly laughing and even friendly. It seems like when deep on the case is when Holmes is the coldest, focused and emotional suppressed. As we have seen in Season Three, when Sherlock Holmes becomes to emotionally invested, he losses his edge, his focus. It seems that as we saw in Season One and Two, he has to be emotionally closed off and shut down to be able to solve a case without the kind of crisis we saw.

[Arcadia]

Ah, that's true, I do remember Watson says that now.  Once again, it is the dichotomy of what we are told  vs. what we observe for ourselves.  Interesting.

[Slithytove]

I agree that the line "I would lose him forever - and, Sherlock, I will never let that happen" is important. For one thing, it kicks the legs out from underneath the argument that Mary was remorseful for shooting Sherlock, as it is a clear threat that she would silence him for good rather than let him tell John the truth. (I also think it makes the claim that she didn't intend to kill him seem less likely.). However, it also says something about the nature of her love for John. Of course, we all want to keep the person we love, but Mary's love does seem to be selfish - to keep John, she is prepared to break his heart all over again by killing the man whose supposed death had plunged him into grief. What would happen if John wanted to break up with her? Would it be something else she would never let happen?

 

We get several suggestions in the confrontation scene at 221b that Mary and Sherlock are very alike, and we are then shown how they are different. One loves selfishly, the other selflessly -Sherlock, having already "given away" John in TSoT, commits a murder which will (as far as he knows) separate them forever. One kills to protect herself,the other to protect those he loves. One is able to detach herself from her actions and resume her pleasant persona, the other commits murder and bursts into tears.....

 

I do think, Zain, that life means more to Sherlock than it does to Mary. Her job as an assassin would naturally have hardened her to killing people, even when the victim is someone she knows well and treats as a friend. Sherlock, on the other hand, is a detective, not a killer. Yes, it is possible that he killed people during the hiatus but we don't know that he did. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he used his intelligence to bring down the criminal network. Maybe CAM's death was the first one he had ever caused. Maybe that is why he cries, because he knows he has done a terrible thing and will never be quite the same again (even if he believes it was his only choice.). However, I still wouldn't blame him for feeling a bit of self-pity too. After all, he has just thrown his life away.

[Arcadia]

.... It seems like when deep on the case is when Holmes is the coldest, focused and emotional suppressed. As we have seen in Season Three, when Sherlock Holmes becomes to emotionally invested, he losses his edge, his focus....

That's just ... human chemistry, tho, isn't it? I mean, if you're focused on something, by definition everything else is suppressed. If you're not suppressing outside distractions, you're not focused. I guess what I really mean is, focused and cold aren't the same thing. I know men who are cold, they aren't necessarily focused ... unless it is on themselves. Which could describe Sherlock, I suppose, but that seems too facile. He seems more complex than that to me. Again, tho, that could be the actor's doing, not the writers'. It would be interesting to know how much of what we are shown is a collaboration between writer, actor and director, and how much is a separate interpretation by each of the same thing.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, Sherlock Holmes is nothing if not complex a lot of people can be both focused  and still be warm and friendly. They don't have to close off a whole part of themselves. Sherlock Holmes seems to have to do this to be able to do "The Work". I guess this is why some people have looked at the canon and how Holmes acted on a case and what he was like when he wasn't and have wondered if he may have been somewhere on the autism spectrum or even bipolar because his mannerisms were to the extreme.

[Zain]

Very good points, slithytove. I, too, wonder what would have happened if John had rejected Mary. It's an interesting idea to play with. I consider this one more occasion where the writers decided against giving Mary another dimension. Would she have let him go? In a way, that proves love much more than clinging to it by hurting others. I personally think she wouldn't have. I consider her love too obsessive. But it would have immensely strengthened her stance, I believe. It would have given her character more depth. It's not a very difficult concept. So I believe the writers consciously decided against this.

 

Interesting, and thank you for answering. I agree. Again.

Sometimes it's very frightening because you always find the words I am lacking. If I wasn't too sure I hadn't a secret twin...

I myself think, too, that it was the first life he has claimed with his own hands. Which is funny. Before HLV, I was sure he was travelling around the world and killing off the potential next-in-command. I was quite in favor of this particular fanon fact. His reaction in HLV made me reconsider. I wonder what he was doing, though. Tracking down somebody?

 

And I second that, Arcadia. It really would be interesting to know how much Moffat and Gatiss' interpretation of the characters and events differ. 

 

 

[Arcadia]

What's funny to me is that it never occurred to me that he was killing people while "on hiatus." I just assumed (I need to stop assuming things!) that the little mini episode showed us exactly what he'd been doing .... turning over crucial evidence to police, serving on juries, unmasking villians in monasteries. He's never been shown as having much prediliction to using deadly force to solve a problem, that I recall. I couldn't say whether CAM's his first killing, but I don't think he's as accustomed to killing as, say, John is.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

From what we saw in "Many Happy Returns" he was going through official channels when ever possible. Don't know what he was up to when he broke into that place in Serbia....but he still didn't seem like a "hardened" killer.

 

 And while it is human chemistry to be so focused that they can forget all else for awhile, most, when their focus is broken are still warm and friendly though maybe a little put out.  Sherlock Holmes's reactions are so to the extreme that some looking into the canon wonder if Holmes was on the autistic spectrum or bipolar.

 

  This is what most people think makes Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes such a brilliant portrayal.  Mr. Brett studied the canon, bringing the books to the set. He was bipolar and though he was on medication, he brought that aspect to him Holmes.

[Arcadia]

Well, "our" Sherlock doesn't have the eyes of any of the autistic persons I've known, and neither the film nor the book version behaves even remotely like the bipolar people I've known. But as I understand it, those kinds of disorders are hard to define, so I guess they can't be ruled out either.

 

He does act a lot like the narcissists I've known -- except that he seems capable of change, and also of putting someone else's interests ahead of his own. Narcissists -- not so much. But fortunately for me, I've only had to observe one up close and for a sustained period of time (much longer and I would've blown my own brains out) -- so again, I can't rule it out. But I don't find it likely. To me he's simply ... different. Like me. And emotionally immature. Like most men. :-)