Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But he is also weeping as an adult.....is Sherlock seeing himself as a child or is it only Mycroft's point of view.....but I do catch your point that he is a child when facing  Mycroft after he's been shot and Mycroft tells him he is might be murdered....Sherlock the child tells him he hasn't been murdered yet and Mycroft comes back with: That it's a possibility.

[by the sea]

When Mycroft presents Sherlock's case to Lady Smallwood and her fellow whatever-they-ares, do you think he ever expected Sherlock to survive in Eastern Europe ?    I just got the bleakest feeling that nobody thought he would get out alive and that was the trade off he'd made for killing CAM.  He'd either face the gallows (I'm assuming that capital punishment doesn't exist in the UK and embarrassed to say, as a Commonwealth citizen, I don't really know.) or life in prison or die in some heroic endeavour in some foreign land on behalf of MI6.  It was such a relief when JM showed up and Sherlock had to be rerouted.  Saved by the lunatic !    I really need to watch this ep again !  

 

Debbie ... just got peanut butter all over my keyboard.  Ewww.  

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It seems that Sherlock did think that it was a very real possibility that this might have been his "Waterloo" indeed. He told John that this assignment would last for 6 months and that Mycroft was never wrong. At Christmas Mycoft told Sherlock that he wanted Sherlock to turn down a piece of work that M16 wanted Sherlock to take because he....Sherlock.....would be dead in 6 months and that it would break Mycroft's heart. I'm as surprised as Sherlock to lean he had one.

 

  But I have a feeling that Mycoft would be doing what ever took to get Sherlock out alive.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree that Mycroft would do his best to get Sherlock off the hook eventually.  Maybe the European assignment was his way of stalling for time, figuring that Sherlock would probably be OK there for a short time while he worked out some way of bringing him home.
 
 

Anyway, back to John being romantic ... I hope I'm not too far away from the current posts ... one of the substitute words for romantic in my handy-dandy online thesaurus is "chivalrous" and I think that, in my conception of the word, it describes John right down to the ground.

Oh, thank you!  I've been thinking of John as a "Boy Scout" (you know, brave, loyal, trustworthy, kind to old ladies, etc.), but "chivalrous" is ever so much better.  From a dramatic point of view, the character really does need to be a fine specimen of manhood -- otherwise he'd be virtually invisible next to the much more flamboyant Sherlock.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

I always thought Sherlock as a boy was meant to be what Mycroft sees when he looks at him, not necessarily how Sherlock sees himself. And isn't only the child crying? I don't remember Sherlock himself doing so...

 

I suppose I see it as both. Sherlock, when he's dying, sees Mycroft in a room with his younger self, which points to him remembering how it was to be told by his older brother that he is 'always so stupid' and 'such a disappointment'. Also, he sees his younger self with Redbeard. So to take that one step further, I feel that the next and last scene with his younger self is also Sherlock seeing his younger self, the symbol of innocence, crying.

Nevertheless, it also makes sense that Mycroft sees him that way, since he appears with young Sherlock in the first mentioned scene.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

It occurred to me just why I believe they have brought in Sherlock the boy at the moment when Sherlock cries after having killed Magnussen. If Sherlock was only crying because of the loss of his future, why not just have Sherlock the adult cry? I personally can only explain it this way: Sherlock the boy represents innocence. So when he is shown at this critical moment, crying after having murdered a man, it emphasises the loss of innocence. Mycroft's words further emphasise this: "Oh, Sherlock. What have you done?" I'm not saying he's not crying about his future as well - he very well could be - but I firmly believe there is more to it than that, or they would not have brought in young Sherlock.

That makes sense. Sherlock could certainly be crying because of the horror of what he has done, even if he felt he had to do it. CAM could well be the only person he has killed. We know he has been on the receiving end of some brutal treatment during the hiatus, and probably had to do some illegal and possibly violent things himself, but we don't know that he has ever taken a life. Committing murder could be a terrible loss of innocence.

 

Do you think it is Mycroft who sees Sherlock as a frightened child or is it the way Sherlock sees himself? Or both? It does look as if Mycroft, in the helicopter, is seeing him as his little brother in trouble. On the other hand, Sherlock did see himself as a child when he was dying. It is interesting that, in that scene, his big brother who was threatening him with parental anger was still seen as an adult whereas Sherlock was a little boy. Maybe Sherlock, deep inside, sees Mycroft as a grown-up whilst he is still the vulnerable child whom they "both thought was an idiot.". It would explain why he sees himself as a weeping child as Mycroft comes swooping in to rescue/punish him. It might also account for some of that simmering resentment he obviously feels towards his brother.....

 

 

I may have answered your question above, before I actually saw your question. I'd say it could be both or either. In any case, innocence is lost, whether we see it through the eyes of Mycroft or Sherlock.

 

I do feel that some of Sherlock's resentment (or a lot of it) is due to Mycroft being 'the parent' or the smart one. It is a recurring theme.

"I am the smart one." "I used to think I was an idiot." (TEH)

"I'll be Mother." "And there is a whole childhood in a nutshell." (ASiB)

"How's Sarah, John? How was the lilo?" "Sofa, Sherlock, it was the sofa." (TGG)

[Zain]

Concerning Mycroft: Something you, Toby, will hate me for.

 

I just rewatched the Christmas scene. Ever noticed this:

 

 

When we get to see Mycroft at the table for the first time, there's no glass on the table. Later, Wiggins brings mother Holmes a glass of punch. She takes a sip, then puts it on the table.

When Sherlock enters the room and Mycroft has his head on the table, there's still only one glass on the table. It is actually not next to Mycroft. Rather, it's halfway on the other side of the table near his mother, and it's empty.

 

Unless Mycroft drank from his mother's glass, he didn't imbibe any punch. He also didn't have any punch before they headed outside - no glass on his place at the table. So his comment on the punch seems decidedly out of place.

 

Genuine mistake or hint?

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Unless Mycroft drank from his mother's glass, he didn't imbibe any punch. He also didn't have any punch before they headed outside - no glass on his place at the table. So his comment on the punch seems decidedly out of place.

 

Genuine mistake or hint?

 

  I always thought it highly suspicious that Mycroft would bring that laptop that should have been under heavy guard to the family home and just leave it laying around where anyone could have gotten their hands on it.

 

  Especially where were strangers and one who was the shooter of his own brother. For myself, I think it's a heavy hint.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've been wondering if Mycroft was faking it.  Thanks for pointing out the bit about the punch, Zain.  That makes it highly suspicious.

 

To fool John, of course.  It's always to fool John.

 

[T.o.b.y]

*Sigh* I suppose you guys are right again... So why would Mycroft change his mind about going after Magnussen? He seemed pretty adamant about that at the beginning of the episode. And why would they have to fool John this time, exactly?

[Arcadia]

I've always thought Mycroft was in on it, for the same reason Fox said.

 

Except ... there's that exchange in the garden about Mycroft being glad Sherlock has given up going after CAM....

 

Sigh.

 

Anyway, I didn't get the impression that Mycroft was that keen on "protecting" CAM as much as he just didn't want little brother interfering. Maybe Sherlock came to Mycroft with a plan to get CAM, so Mycroft decided it was worth a shot?

 

Why fool John? Uhhhh... because John "represents the audience", and it is paramount that the audience be fooled.... ???

 

Srsly, all I can think is that it's to give John deniability in case things go wrong, but honestly, I'm stumped. The closer you look at this season, the less it makes sense ... and yet I still find it thoroughly enjoyable.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But if it was just to fool John why would Mycroft fain being drugged.....why go through the motions of drugging any of them....I'm wondering if the net Mycroft was casting wasn't intended to fool Sherlock as well. Mycroft seems to make a very big deal of parking that laptop under Sherlock's nose in the kitchen and then complaining to Mummy how important it is and here she is, covering it with potatoes. While still, verbally, anyway, touting how Magnussen "never hurt anyone of consequence" while Sherlock is reading the news of Lord Smallwood's suicide?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Perhaps Mycroft felt that he could not personally endorse any "unusual" plot against Magnussen -- but he was all the same perfectly willing to turn the other way while Sherlock carried it out?  That could explain both the laptop and the punch.

 

As for fooling John:  A} it's canon-ish -- Watson never knows what Holmes is up to till he's done it (for the same reason Arcadia mentions, Watson represents the audience), and B} I also agree with Arcadia about protecting John from possible blame.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Perhaps Mycroft felt that he could not personally endorse any "unusual" plot against Magnussen -- but he was all the same perfectly willing to turn the other way while Sherlock carried it out?  That could explain both the laptop and the punch.

 

  Especially since he was supposed to be protecting Magnussen...as Sherlock said...."Under his thumb".....so it would make sense that Mycroft would find a way to give Sherlock the "go ahead" and providing the bait with which to help bring Magnussen down without incriminating Mycroft himself....to bad it went so badly south. Best laid plans of mice and men and all that.

 

  

 

As for fooling John:  A} it's canon-ish -- Watson never knows what Holmes is up to till he's done it (for the same reason Arcadia mentions, Watson represents the audience), and B} I also agree with Arcadia about protecting John from possible blame.

 

 

  Agreed.

[Arcadia]

.... Mycroft seems to make a very big deal of parking that laptop under Sherlock's nose in the kitchen and then complaining to Mummy how important it is and here she is, covering it with potatoes...

I'm guessing that was more to attract the viewer's attention than Sherlock's, so we'd understand where the laptop came from. And possibly to tip us off that Mycroft's in on it? If he is....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I'm guessing that was more to attract the viewer's attention than Sherlock's, so we'd understand where the laptop came from. And possibly to tip us off that Mycroft's in on it? If he is....

 

   A possibility for sure....but why bring it at all if he wasn't in on it? 

[Arcadia]

Yup, that's one of the reasons I think he WAS in on it. But they've put enough counter-evidence into the script to make it seem possible he wasn't in on it. Too much for my feeble powers of deduction, I'm afraid.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect he's the kinda guy who always takes his work home with him.  Who knows when there might be a political coup in Uganda?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I suspect he's the kinda guy who always takes his work home with him.  Who knows when there might be a political coup in Uganda?

 

 

 Another good point, but what gets me and makes me question Mycroft's motives is because this laptop held so much security sensitive information, his parent's home isn't secure. You see no body guards. The laptop is just lying not chained to Mycroft's wrist. Yes, it is password protected but that would hardly deter a hacker ...one like Sherlock for example. It's so much of a temptation to a dragon slayer like Sherlock and if Zain is correct that Mycroft did not drink any of the punch then he was faking it and he would know when that laptop was slipped away and by whom and where it would be going.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't know whether Zain mean to imply a connection or not, but in my mind, Mycroft knew exactly what he was doing.  He apparently didn't really drink the punch, he was faking it for John's sake (had to be for John, assuming that just about everyone else really was out cold), and he was well aware who was liberating his briefcase and where it was headed.  So he was basically aiding and abetting Sherlock's plan.

 

Or maybe nobody was really drugged.  Maybe they were ALL in on it, except for John.  How's that for a conspiracy theory?

 

[Zain]

I only wanted to point out that there's either a genuine mistake or a deliberate hint. There's definitely only one glass on the table, and it belongs to mother Holmes.

 

Personally, I do like the theory that Sherlock and Mycroft planned this. I've proposed this idea quite soon after HLV was first aired. I believe it's around page 20 of this thread. The problem with Mary threw me off track. I totally forgot about it until I got back to watching Mycroft's role in HLV. Then I stumbled over the "punch line."

 

Right now, I am uncertain if it truly can be taken as "evidence." But it makes for an interesting line of thought. Assuming it's deliberate, then this means Mycroft pretended to be unconscious. He also told Sherlock in advance that he was aware of the drug in the punch. If he simply wanted to see what Sherlock was up to and thus pretended to be asleep, then he would have intervened as soon as Sherlock took the laptop. So it must have been in his interest that Sherlock took the laptop to Magnussen. I believe Magnussen was right. When Sherlock enters Appledore, Magnussen accuses him of setting him up. He mentions the GPS locator in the laptop, and that Mycroft had been looking for a chance to imprison Magnussen for some time. Magnussen himself states that the laptop on his premises will give Mycroft Carte Blanche to search his house (and find his believed-to-be-in-existence vaults).

 

All I am saying is that I always found it strange that Magnussen claimed that Mycroft had been looking for a chance to get rid of him for some time. In the beginning of HLV, we didn't see anything of that sort. And at Christmas, nothing of Mycroft's lines seems to hint into that direction. It's clear that something happened off-screen. Whether Mycroft simply changed his mind, or whether he actively intervened... I don't know. But I consider it likely that Mycroft planned to set Magnussen up with Sherlock's help. I doubt however that Sherlock told him about his incentive: Mary. That's why Mycroft finds himself in a very tight spot. He hadn't anticipated Sherlock's movements, and while he could have exonerated Sherlock before, suddenly this grew over his head. I believe Sherlock tricked Mycroft. He didn't want to endanger Mary and John, so he kept this a secret from his brother.

 

I doubt Mycroft would have allowed Sherlock near Magnussen if he believed Sherlock to have a vested interest. Mycroft had no clue why Sherlock would be interested in Magnussen at all. That's why he asks Sherlock at Christmas why he hates Magnussen that much.

That's a theory of mine. Can't prove it, though. But I do believe there's something decidedly odd about the Christmas scene.

The dialogue does not match up to what's truly going on.

 

Mycroft states Sherlock lost interest in Magnussen altogether. That he's glad Sherlock let this business pass (probably referring to Sherlock not interfering in the Smallwood business, Mycroft doesn't know about Mary). One sentence later, he tells Sherlock that Magnussen is not a dragon to be slayed. So, if he believes Sherlock to have lost interest in Magnussen, why does he warn him off?

 

On the same note: Mycroft calls Magnussen a necessary evil. Which clearly contradicts Magnussen's statement given not even an hour later: That Mycroft is trying to get rid of him.

 

Then Mycroft refers to the punch. We get to see Mary drink the punch. We get to see Mrs Holmes drink the punch. We don't get to see Mycroft drink anything. Which is odd. Wouldn't it be more important to show how he drinks the punch? Then there's the missing glass.

[T.o.b.y]

If Mycroft and Sherlock planned the visit to Appledore with the laptop together, then their conversation outside the Holmes' house makes little sense, does it? It's not as if anybody is listening whom they would need to fool. And Sherlock made his deal with Magnussen much earlier while he was still in hospital.

 

On the other hand, it is odd that Mycroft should let his computer with state secrets on it lying around on the kitchen table, especially when there are strangers in the house. And the missing punch glass is suspicious. Perhaps Mycroft did want Sherlock to go after Magnussen but figured that if he just went and told him to do so, his brother wouldn't be half as motivated as when he believed he was going against Mycroft's wishes. So he sounds Sherlock out on his motives, to make sure there's no dangerous emotional investment, then demonstratively announces he's had some of the punch and pretends to be affected by it, while Sherlock takes off with the laptop that he had left lying around on purpose. Unfortunately, there was dangerous emotional investment, after all and the vaults turned out to be non-existent, something I am sure not even Mycroft had anticipated. I am very sure Mycroft did not want Sherlock to get himself in trouble by shooting Magnussen. He seemed genuinely upset when that happened.

[Slithytove]

Unlike TRF apparently, the action against CAM can't be a set-up unless there is some explanation for the talk in the garden. If both brothers knew what was planned, and each knew the other knew, then the conversation makes no sense, given that only the two of them are present.

 

However, I am willing to believe that Mycroft knew what Sherlock was planning - up to a point anyway, though he obviously didn't anticipate the shooting of CAM. ( Presumably because he hadn't worked Mary's role in the story - why hadn't he worked it out?). Given Mycroft's intelligence, his resources and his powers of deduction, it isn't hard to believe that he usually knows what his little brother is up to. If he knew what Sherlock intended but he played along, I.e. leaving the laptop lying around, implying he had drunk the punch, etc, then I can only see two possible reasons:-

 

1)He didn't want to be involved because of the political implications and/or potential damage to his career, particularly if things went wrong. Even if they went smoothly, presumably he would still have to explain to his superiors why he left a laptop full of sensitive material on his mum's kitchen table.

 

2) He knew it was vital that he wasn't involved, in case things went wrong and he had to get Sherlock out of trouble. (Which he did, to some degree. At least he saved him from prison and gave him an option which allowed him a chance, however slim.). He would not be able to speak on Sherlock's behalf if he was personally implicated in the plot.

 

I think either reasons are plausible, though option 1 is rather colder and more self-serving than option 2.

[Arcadia]

Except that the meeting with Magnussen appeared to be pre-arranged for Christmas Day, so somehow Sherlock had to be sure Mycroft would even show up for Christmas, let alone decide to bring a laptop full of secrets. But I agree, if Mycroft's in on it, their conversation in the garden makes little sense. Unless there IS someone listening, but I can't see who that could be. 'Tis all very confuzin'.

[Arcadia]

Hmmmm, just had a thought ... IF (big if!) someone was listening, then the conversation was to give Mycroft deniability. So, should we be looking for listening devices in the garden? Argh.