Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

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 his Holmes.

 

 

 It is also known that Doyle's home life was not an easy one. His father was mentally ill and a drug addict. His mother had to take in boarders to make sure she could afford to keep the family intact, food on the table, and a roof over their heads. Doyle would write that he suspected that his mother was having an affair with one of the boarders. His mother would deny it, saying that he was a good boarder and was a skilled handyman. Making repairs.

 

 Doyle was often called out of University to help her deal with his father through some of his rougher episodes.  But she also saw to it that he was able to finish his schooling. His father would eventually have to be committed.

 

 In canon Holmes makes reference to how his mind would be like a engine rattling itself to pieces. His bouts of insomnia. Playing music at all hours of the night.

 

  We don't see the physical symptoms because we don't have a autistic person playing the part. And Holmes, if he was on the spectrum at all, would have been on the high end having some of the signs but not all of them.

 

 

[Zain]

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. :-)

 

 

I think you might like this:

concerning autism, mor more exactly: Asperger's.

http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/47219236641/sherlock-does-not-have-aspergers-or-autism-thanks

and: 

http://sherlockcharacteranalysis.tumblr.com/post/31850021434/walking-nightmares-3-sherlock-himself-and-his

which kind of answers wellingtongoose's analysis.

 

http://frytha.tumblr.com/post/32482052013/diagnosing-sherlock-characters-ia-sherlock-and

concerning narcissm.

 

It's interesting to read how people argue, don't you think?

There are dozens of meta essays on Sherlock's "disorder" or lack thereof.

The only thing people seem to agree on is that Sherlock is by no means a sociopath/psychopath.

 

I recall some fans have analysed BBC Sherlock for bipolar "hints." But I don't think it's a widely accepted theory. There are works that explore it, though. Like "Four Corners of the Western World" by pennypaperbrain. I believe that's the most well-known.

 

 

Shocking as it may sound, I don't think that there's "something not quite right with Sherlock." In a way, everybody is a bit screwed up. I once read that it difficult to distinguish between sane and mentally ill because there is no true definition of sane but "not mentally ill." It's like calling the absence of unhappy happiness by default. Doesn't cover the grey area. Makes it sound like there's a line, and you are either on one side or the other.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yup, these are questions that the fandom has been kicking around for almost a hundred years. A lot of their interest coming from how Doyle wrote Holmes and his idiosyncrasies and eccentricities. Holmes, for what ever reason, has been a magnet for this kind of scrutiny from the very beginning. I guess it was for them, as it is now. Gave the populace something to talk about until the next Sherlock Holmes story came out just we get to talk about all this stuff until the next Season gets released.

[Arcadia]

Thanks! I hadn't seen the "divinity dancing" one before, neat! Altho I couldn't find the post on why John puts up with it all, which I think I'd enjoy too. (My personal answer; John's a saint, pure and simple. :-)

 

 

Shocking as it may sound, I don't think that there's "something not quite right with Sherlock." ...

 

Not shocked at all, I don't think so either. He's ... just ... different. Except when he isn't. Sometimes he's quite, er, "normal."

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Not shocked at all, I don't think so either. He's ... just ... different. Except when he isn't. Sometimes he's quite, er, "normal."

 

  And wouldn't it be boring and dull if he was anything different?

[Carol the Dabbler]

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

 

Not exactly, but you CAN hide it.  Just click the Hide button to the left of the Quote buttons in that post.  Then it'll be invisible to everyone except staff members (who can restore it if you happen to hit the Hide button by mistake).

 

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.

I don't know if that explains the tears, but I'm pretty sure you're right about how he felt. He's so accustomed to using finesse, and now he finds himself compelled to use brute force. This was one game that Sherlock could not afford to lose, and Magnussen played dirty. so Sherlock had to cheat. That must have been a huge blow to his sense of who he is.

 

... 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.

I keep wondering whether that particular pressure point would have been as useful as CAM seemed to think. Suppose he wanted Mycroft to knuckle under, so he threatened to expose Mary. Why would Mycroft have cared? He seems to care little enough about Sherlock, let alone about Sherlock's friend's wife. So yes, I do believe the danger to Mary was very real. CAM showed very little hesitation about driving Lord Smallwood to suicide when Lady Smallwood wouldn't play his game.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

CAM showed very little hesitation about driving Lord Smallwood to suicide when Lady Smallwood wouldn't play his game.

 

  Certainly not for the first time, and not for the last time would he "punish" someone who wouldn't play his game.

[T.o.b.y]

I keep wondering whether that particular pressure point would have been as useful as CAM seemed to think. Suppose he wanted Mycroft to knuckle under, so he threatened to expose Mary. Why would Mycroft have cared? He seems to care little enough about Sherlock, let alone about Sherlock's friend's wife. So yes, I do believe the danger to Mary was very real. CAM showed very little hesitation about driving Lord Smallwood to suicide when Lady Smallwood wouldn't play his game.

 

 

... which is why Lord Smallwood had to die, so we could come to that conclusion.

No, Mycroft doesn't seem to care two straws for Mary. As far as we know, he never even did any research on her, or the Holmes would have known about her true identity much sooner. But he does care for Sherlock a lot, in his own special warped way. The way Mary as leverage worked, was how Magnussen explained it: If he threatened her, he threatened John. If John was in danger, Sherlock would step in, thus putting himself in danger and so provoking Mycroft's involvement. And "getting involved", as we know, means becoming vulnerable.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

No, Mycroft doesn't seem to care two straws for Mary. As far as we know, he never even did any research on her, or the Holmes would have known about her true identity much sooner.

Hmm, good point. Of course, for all we know, he did know about Mary all along, but didn't share it with Sherlock. Somebody around here has conjectured that Mary may even have been one of Mycroft's operatives, which may explain why she just "happened" to meet John.

 

But he does care for Sherlock a lot, in his own special warped way. The way Mary as leverage worked, was how Magnussen explained it: If he threatened her, he threatened John. If John was in danger, Sherlock would step in, thus putting himself in danger and so provoking Mycroft's involvement. And "getting involved", as we know, means becoming vulnerable.

CAM obviously saw it that way. But, as has been pointed out, Mycroft's concern for Sherlock seems to be largely limited to his physical safety. If his vulnerability were "merely" emotional, I wonder if Mycroft would bother stepping in..  Would he even understand the danger?

 

[Slithytove]

Mycroft appears to be more or less in charge of MI6. (And a member of the diplomatic service as well, somewhat improbably.). Presumably he understands vulnerability to blackmail extremely well, given that it has always been both a tool and a weakness for spies. (The laws against homosexuality, for example, weren't called "the blackmailer's charter" for nothing - entrapment, usually in the form of compromising photos, was a favourite way of getting people to betray their own country.). He seems to be a sophisticated man who would be aware of his own vulnerability - he does care about Sherlock's emotions, as the morgue scene and the cafe scene in ASiB showed. If nothing else, I think he would not want Sherlock "back on the sauce", which would probably happen if anything befell John.

 

To be fair, we don't know that Lord Smallwood killed himself because Lady Smallwood wouldn't oblige CAM. He might have done it to forestall her having to make her decision or simply because he knew that his secret was known and would inevitably come to light at some point. Personally, I think CAM was a rubbish blackmailer. What sort of extortionist tells his victims that he doesn't actually have any solid evidence against them? Idiot.

[Caya]

Of course, Plaidder may be right after all and he could have been lying about that, and in fact have a secret stash somewhere safe (and keeping that location both secret and safe by not having to visit it due to his own mind palace). Otherwise he'd really be a moron, making himself incredibly vulnerable to both libel lawsuits and assassination attempts.

[Arcadia]

Personally, I think CAM was a rubbish blackmailer. What sort of extortionist tells his victims that he doesn't actually have any solid evidence against them? Idiot.

Love this!

 

However, to be picky :-) -- his threat to John was to expose Mary's new identity to her enemies -- he wouldn't need "hard" evidence for that, just a word in the right ear. Also he claimed he could lay his hands on hard evidence if he needed too. (Oh, really?) But I agree, all in all I didn't really find CAM that credible a villian - just a slimy, disgusting person.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

just a slimy, disgusting person.

 

  Oh he was that, in spades. So arrogant and so self absorbed that nothing and no one held any importance outside of himself or his circle of influence. In a deleted scenario at Appledore, CAM was so bored and dismissive of Sherlock and John that he simply stripped down to go for a swim, like they weren't even in the room or even existed.

 

  In his own mind he was invincible, untouchable. No one would dare stand up to him, contradict him. He didn't fear retaliation because, in his mind, everyone else was to cowardly, to subservient. 

 

  He walks into Baker Street and says.  "This is my office. Well, it's mine now."

 

    At Appledore he says things like: "I own Mycroft. I'm getting him for Christmas."

 

                                                          "Proof? What would I need proof for? I'm in news. moron. I don't have to prove it - I just have to print it."

 

  Sue him? Probably people had tried and failed, miserably. He should have feared assassination though.

[Arcadia]

In a deleted scenario at Appledore, CAM was so bored and dismissive of Sherlock and John that he simply stripped down to go for a swim....

Good call, I am SO happy I didn't have to see that. The licking scene was enough to make me despise him, thanks. :-)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

The licking scene was enough to make me despise him, thanks. :-)

 

  Oh yeah. I got the feeling the man was a egotistical prat when peed into the fireplace in Baker Street and didn't like him at all. But what he did to Lady Smallwood.....that was just beyond the pale in grossness. Talking about doing everything to dehumanize those around him...that was the epitome of degradation.

[T.o.b.y]

I think Magnussen was all the more frightening because he didn't require proof for his accusations. Basically, he could have just made anything up about anybody. And mere rumors can be just as damaging (or more so) as truths, especially for politicians. and other people in the limelight and dependent on public opinion.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

And mere rumors can be just as damaging (or more so) as truths, especially for politicians. and other people in the limelight and dependent on public opinion.

 

   Isn't that the ever living truth! I don't know what it is about human nature that a piece of juicy gossip is far more important then the truth, I really don't. Especially when we have the whole world at our fingertips now. A little research can go a long way...as long as it is as thorough as possible.

[Slithytove]

 

Personally, I think CAM was a rubbish blackmailer. What sort of extortionist tells his victims that he doesn't actually have any solid evidence against them? Idiot.

Love this!

 

However, to be picky :-) -- his threat to John was to expose Mary's new identity to her enemies -- he wouldn't need "hard" evidence for that, just a word in the right ear. Also he claimed he could lay his hands on hard evidence if he needed too. (Oh, really?) But I agree, all in all I didn't really find CAM that credible a villian - just a slimy, disgusting person.

That was his threat to John, but Mary believed he had enough info on her to put her in prison for life, so presumably he told her he had hard evidence. Then he tells John and Sherlock that he doesn't, which is just plain stupid.

 

Anyway, is it believable that all his evidence existed only in his Mind Palace? Lord Smallwood's letters were real, for a start, and if CAM could send for evidence when he needs it, then he did have a vault of some sort, somewhere.

 

I agree with everyone that people love gossip, but it does appear that CAM was blackmailing people with the truth. Lord Smallwood did write letters to an under-age girl. Mary really was a killer. Tabloid newspapers do get away with a hell of a lot but it is much safer for them to base stories on real evidence (Lord Smallwood's letters, for instance), particularly when the allegations are serious. In real life, for instance, the Daily Mail seems to have a grudge against Benedict and prints stupid stories about him which are presumably made up or distorted, but they aren't running any real risks because they are not actually libellous. To give another example, I read a newspaper headline recently (can't remember which paper) which claimed that Prince William had resigned from the RAF ostensibly to do charity work but really to hunt down his mother's killers. Absurd but who is going to sue them, when it is so obviously ridiculous. But grave allegations such as CAM would have to make in his media outlets - allegations, for example, of paedophilia and murder - would surely have to have to have solid evidence. That is why he hangs on to the letters and why, if I was Sherlock, I would have thought he was lying when he claimed all the evidence against Mary was in his head.

 

Apart from giving Sherlock a motive to kill him, he undermined his own threat. "I'll tell everyone what you did" isn't as frightening as "I'll tell everyone what you did and I've got the evidence to prove it.". I repeat - he was an idiot.

[Zain]

An idiot that loved the power of knowledge.

To me, it seems like Magnussen simply enjoyed to bathe in the power people "gave away" when they covered up their dirty secrets. He himself says that he could print whatever he liked. But he didn't. He instead searched for a person's dirty secret to get power over them and those close to them. It's not the exposure that pleases him. It's the knowledge that he has got power over another person, and that this power has been given away voluntarily. He doesn't need to use any force. He merely picks up hidden information: his ammunition. And he says "I could put it in a gun and shoot at you. Or I could give it to somebody else. I could keep it stored away, too. So many possibilities. And it is now on me to decide what happens with your secret."

 

In a way, despicable. But I wouldn't call it criminal. I actually don't think he enjoyed "calling in a favor" so much as the knowledge that he could call in a favor.

It's not like he has any specific goals. He wants to have power over Mycroft. But what for? He never mentions what he wants to enforce. A certain policy? I doubt that. Magnussen wants to know that he even has power over Mycroft, too. He isn't driven by long-term goals. It's about feeling powerful. And it's people themselves that give him power over them. They betray themselves.

My take on Magnussen, at least.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Of course, Plaidder may be right after all and he could have been lying about that, and in fact have a secret stash somewhere safe (and keeping that location both secret and safe by not having to visit it due to his own mind palace). Otherwise he'd really be a moron, making himself incredibly vulnerable to both libel lawsuits and assassination attempts.

 

That was my thought when we first watched the episode -- if I were Mycroft, I told Alex, I'd search VERY thoroughly under that house, for starters.

 

The licking scene was enough to make me despise him....

I can't even watch that scene, I have to turn my head. Yeccchh!!

[T.o.b.y]

An idiot that loved the power of knowledge.

To me, it seems like Magnussen simply enjoyed to bathe in the power people "gave away" when they covered up their dirty secrets. He himself says that he could print whatever he liked. But he didn't. He instead searched for a person's dirty secret to get power over them and those close to them. It's not the exposure that pleases him. It's the knowledge that he has got power over another person, and that this power has been given away voluntarily. He doesn't need to use any force. He merely picks up hidden information: his ammunition. And he says "I could put it in a gun and shoot at you. Or I could give it to somebody else. I could keep it stored away, too. So many possibilities. And it is now on me to decide what happens with your secret."

 

In a way, despicable. But I wouldn't call it criminal. I actually don't think he enjoyed "calling in a favor" so much as the knowledge that he could call in a favor.

It's not like he has any specific goals. He wants to have power over Mycroft. But what for? He never mentions what he wants to enforce. A certain policy? I doubt that. Magnussen wants to know that he even has power over Mycroft, too. He isn't driven by long-term goals. It's about feeling powerful. And it's people themselves that give him power over them. They betray themselves.

My take on Magnussen, at least.

 

I think it's pretty much correct - at least I see him the same way. As he himself said, he has "no evil plan". The original figure was driven mostly by money, but we never heard Magnussen demand any kind of payment to keep silent. Of course, we were shown his considerable riches and can speculate that blackmail could be a big source of income for him. But I got the impression as well that his goal was simply to have power.

 

As for hard evidence, he said he sent out for that now and then when he needed it. I presume his phenomenal memory enabled him to know exactly what he needed and where to find it at any given time, while his insight into people's secrets ensured that he would be given what he wanted right away and no questions asked. He had no need for "vaults". They were all over the place and in many different hands - much more difficult to destroy! And of course it's not likely that he had ever told anybody other than Sherlock that he didn't keep documents on his estate. Magnussen must have originated the story of the "Appledore Vaults" himself. Why did he tell Sherlock, then? Well, I suppose like other villains, he liked to show off. And as usual, that was his one big mistake - plus underestimating the lengths to which Sherlock would go to defend his side. (Will they never learn?)

 

[Arcadia]

 

 

 

..... (Will they never learn?)

 

We'd better hope not or they'd always win! :-)

 

Can anybody think of a tv/movie villian who didn't trip themselves up by their own greed/vanity/name-your-character-flaw, and yet still was defeated? Right now I can't, but there must be at least one .... ?

[sherlockandjohn]

The licking scene - I simply do not watch it anymore. I start watching HLV from when we see John wake up from his dreams. Cannot stand to watch Magnussen. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'm fairly happy with Sherlock killing him just because he is the most slimy person ever, and I really don't want to see him in any future episode. He had to be killed. I mean, a villain as him could "not be allowed to continue" (to quote another villain!). When looking at it that way, I'm inclined to also go easier on Mary for saying "people like Magnussen should be killed; that's why there are people like me." I used to shudder when hearing those words, but... not so much anymore.

 

Bear in mind, I still don't support murder Just, you know... before anyone kills me (!) I just look at the whole situation from a fictional POV. But even if it was real life, I'm would not be sad at all that Magnussen died. I'm glad he died before he could cause more damage to people's lives. It's just hard watching a beloved character like Sherlock being the one to pull the trigger. However, someone had to do it, and I even respect him for being brave enough to shoulder the consequences.

 

On a different note: Mary and John seem to have each their take on her past. Where Mary defends it (at least the part of it that involved killing people like Magnussen), John seems to want to bury it. He won't hear of it, and when he forgives Mary, he says that her past is her problem. It sure doesn't sound like he's defending her past, but rather that he doesn't want to think of what his wife was. It makes me wonder what would happen if Mary should decide to kill someone again. Not that I think we'll ever know, and I'm not sure I'd want to, either. I don't think I could handle John and Sherlock defending murder here and there. Despite wanting to see the villains dead, I don't like seeing the characters I love turn too cold-hearted.

[Arcadia]

Same here ... I could care less about the villian, my concern is for what killing -- especially killing an unarmed man -- does to our humanity. Not just the killer's humanity, but our collective humanity. I prefer solutions that make us more humane, not less so. I think mine is considered to be a simplistic view these days, tho. (Which I also find troubling.)

 

I know it's fiction, but I do think fiction (well, good fiction -- good art, in general) both illuminates the paths we can take, and illuminates who we are. It's so easy to stray from showing us the dark side to glorifying the dark side. Not that I think that is happening with Sherlock ... yet. But it's right on the edge, depending on what happens next.

 

Ah well, it is what it is, I'm willing to see where it goes from here. I don't mind walking on the edge. I don't even mind a plunge into the darkness, as long as there's light on the other side. Don't wanna be left in the dark, tho.

 

My take on John's action was slightly different ... not so much that he didn't want to think about her past, as him saying "I accept you for what you are NOW. Our life together begins NOW." If you do that, the past becomes irrelevant ... unless the other party reverts to past behavior. I don't think John's forgiven Mary, I think he's giving her another chance -- just as he gave Sherlock another chance. It's up to them both now to be worthy of his trust. Quite frankly, I think Mary has a better shot at that than Sherlock, given the latter's fondness for immature pranks .... :-) No, seriously, after CAM, I don't see how John can ever doubt Sherlock's heart again. Mary? Who knows.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

My take on John's action was slightly different ... not so much that he didn't want to think about her past, as him saying "I accept you for what you are NOW. Our life together begins NOW." If you do that, the past becomes irrelevant ... unless the other party reverts to past behavior. I don't think John's forgiven Mary, I think he's giving her another chance -- just as he gave Sherlock another chance. It's up to them both now to be worthy of his trust. Quite frankly, I think Mary has a better shot at that than Sherlock, given the latter's fondness for immature pranks .... :-) No, seriously, after CAM, I don't see how John can ever doubt Sherlock's heart again. Mary? Who knows.

 

No, I should think John can't doubt it. None of us can. Sherlock himself hopefully can't. I think that's what makes the scene, and the episode, so powerful... despite whatever issues we may have with any of it.

 

About John: Yeah, I could definitely go with your take on it. Still, Mary defends her past, and John doesn't - which, as I see it, makes them at odds with each other. But it will only become a real issue if Mary is to take up arms again.

 

And about the darkness to 'Sherlock': I'm slightly worried myself after HLV - but I feel less likely to be shocked next series... now that I know what that Moffat guy is like!