Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[by the sea]

Any time, Jesskayding !   Thought-provoking subjects can always use a little injection of humour  ... gotta break up all that seriousness !  

 

Debbie

[Arcadia]

Bringing this over from the "Get your wife under control" thread.

 

 

 

He kills for John. Period.

You mean he wouldn't have shot Magnussen for Mary's sake alone? Maybe... I have no idea. It would be interesting to know how Sherlock would have felt about Mary if she was "just" any other client, and not connected to John. I think he'd still like her. And I also think he didn't just shoot the man for John's sake, but for everybody's. In the original story, Holmes is perfectly okay with Magnussen being shot, even though there is no personal connection whatsoever.

 

Hmmm, I wonder too. Maybe that's why they tried to establish that Sherlock hated CAM even before he knew there WAS a connection to Mary? Sherlock despised the man enough to shoot him for any client? Dunno. It's a very confusing episode if you try to parse anything but the emotional arc.

 

My above remark led me to think "impressionism" which led me to Google "impressionist writing" which led me to this article; which led me to think, WOW, what an interesting choice for a TV show about a detective, which led me to think that maybe there is a method in the madness after all.......we just have to wait until the series is done!

 

Here's the pertinent part of the article (the rest of it is an analysis of the great "Heart of Darkness".....

 

 

Impressionistic Writing

 

In literature, impressionist writers exhibit some or all of these characteristics:

 

· They use a narrative style that is intentionally ambiguous, placing more responsibility on the reader to form his or her own conclusions about events within the novel, rather than relying on the narrator.

 

· They often describe the action through the eyes of the character while the events are occurring, rather than providing details after the character has already processed the action. The result is sometimes like being in an accident – where everything appears to be moving in slow motion. All of the details seem unclear.

 

· They’re concerned with the “emotional landscape” of the setting. They’re interested in the ways the setting evokes certain emotional responses from both the characters and the reader.

 

· They employ details in such a way that it’s sometimes difficult to see a clear picture of events if you focus on the details too closely. Much like an impressionistic painting, it’s only possible to get a full picture once you stand back from the novel and view it in its entirety. [Emphasis mine.]

 

· They often avoid a chronological telling of events. Instead, they give the reader information in a way that forces them to focus on how and why things happen, rather than on the order in which they occur.

 

 

Neat, innit?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Wow, Arcadia....that is really amazing. Thanks for digging that up. You're right. Seems Mofftiss is smarter then the average script writers. They really do know their stuff if this is deliberate and they are doing it intentionally.

[jesskayding]

Okay Arcadia, the natural forum sleuth.

[Arcadia]

 

That is important. Some people keep forgetting that it's just a story, not real life.

 

Oh, I doubt anybody around here really forgets that. I like to willfully ignore it sometimes, though... And I understand being passionate about a story, even about the ethics of a story. Though I have different standards myself for stories versus reality, that doesn't mean I take them less seriously. Stories are terribly important. I'd probably be dead, or a least insane, by now, if it weren't for all the stories that found their way into my life. Bless the storytellers...

 

I feel a bit sad for everybody who can't fully enjoy His Last Vow because some of the plot twists grate on their sense of what is right. I so hate it when a tale and / or characters I like get marred. (And this seems like the right moment to do a complete volte-face and and heartily defend fan fiction. Sometimes, I guess the good old fix-it fic is the only way to deal with a disappointment like that.)

 

I love His Last Vow, now, but it took a good bit of getting used to.

 

Yes, oh yes, to all of this. Stories matter. The good ones, at any rate; they reflect US, don't they?

 

I still love HLV. I loved it from the beginning, because it reached a place inside of me. Most stories I skim thru, unchanged; my favorite stories move me. HLV challenges me too, though, and I'm still trying to figure out how to come to terms with it. It's not real; but it still matters, because it's about something real. What's that great phrase from One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest? Something like "Just because this didn't happen doesn't mean it's not true."

 

And also I'm intrigued by WHY they chose this outcome. If they are good storytellers, it should mean something. If it doesn't -- if it's just for the shock value -- that, to me, will be disappointing.

[Arcadia]

Wow, Arcadia....that is really amazing. Thanks for digging that up. You're right. Seems Mofftiss is smarter then the average script writers. They really do know their stuff if this is deliberate and they are doing it intentionally.

Yeah, thanks! I actually got excited, it was so cool. Maybe Moffat really is the genius he thinks he is!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm beginning to have no doubt. It's like they are writing a mini series.

[Arcadia]

I hope so!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

This show and the people behind it just keep getting better and better!

[Arcadia]

I hope so!

[sfmpco]

Okay, changing the subject, let's talk about Moriarty in the mind palace sequence.  Part of me is starting to wonder if Moriarty there is actually representing a dark part of Sherlock's soul.

 

SH says in TRF:  "I am you, prepared to do anything, prepared to burn.  Prepared to do what ordinary people won't do.  You want me to shake hands with you in hell, I shall not disappoint you."

 

So part of me thinks that's just a dungeon in his head where he has relegated all things Moriarty, but Moriarty also makes statements while in that dungeon that are reflective of Sherlock... things about Sherlock's personality that have been locked down.

 

SH:  Control!  Control!  Control!  (looks at Moriarty)  You...you never felt pain, did you?  Why did you never feel pain?

 

JM:  You always feel it, Sherlock, but you don't have to fear it.  Pain, heartbreak, loss, death, It's all good.  It's all good."

 

To me, Moriarty's words reflect many of the things Sherlock has shielded his heart from, and Moriarty is telling him it's okay to experience those things - they are good things and not to be feared.  So he is saying also that Sherlock lives in fear of experiencing those things.  And we know that JM's words have a lot of truth to them - which is why I wonder if JM is really just a repressed part of SH.

 

Thoughts?  

[jesskayding]

Hmmm. Moriarty a representation of the dark side of Sherlock. And he is the voice that allows him to feel things when it comes to pain, death ect... Let me think on that

[T.o.b.y]

Okay, changing the subject, let's talk about Moriarty in the mind palace sequence.  Part of me is starting to wonder if Moriarty there is actually representing a dark part of Sherlock's soul.

 

SH says in TRF:  "I am you, prepared to do anything, prepared to burn.  Prepared to do what ordinary people won't do.  You want me to shake hands with you in hell, I shall not disappoint you."

 

So part of me thinks that's just a dungeon in his head where he has relegated all things Moriarty, but Moriarty also makes statements while in that dungeon that are reflective of Sherlock... things about Sherlock's personality that have been locked down.

 

SH:  Control!  Control!  Control!  (looks at Moriarty)  You...you never felt pain, did you?  Why did you never feel pain?

 

JM:  You always feel it, Sherlock, but you don't have to fear it.  Pain, heartbreak, loss, death, It's all good.  It's all good."

 

To me, Moriarty's words reflect many of the things Sherlock has shielded his heart from, and Moriarty is telling him it's okay to experience those things - they are good things and not to be feared.  So he is saying also that Sherlock lives in fear of experiencing those things.  And we know that JM's words have a lot of truth to them - which is why I wonder if JM is really just a repressed part of SH.

 

Thoughts?  

 

Of course he represents the dark side (and the dark potential) of Sherlock. That's what Moriarty is for, in my opinion.

 

I think I remember reading somewhere that some readers thought (think?), that the canon Moriarty never really existed but was merely a figment of Holmes' imagination (or whatever passes for imagination with him), to help him deal with some issues. I don't believe Doyle meant it that way, but it's not an interpretation entirely devoid of sense, especially since in the later stories that take place after Holmes has killed Moriarty and been "resurrected", he appears to be a somewhat "better" man; more sure of what is right and wrong, also more of a classic hero.

 

 

[jesskayding]

I do think Sherlock's interactions with Moriarty have matured him. I don't know that's what Moriarty intended???

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

From his reaction in Sherlock's mind dungeon, no...it wasn't. He seemed quite disappointed that Sherlock wasn't going to die after all.

[jesskayding]

I don't understand. Is that in reply to Sherlock maturing as a result of dealing with Moriarty?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yeah....in a round about way...it was.

[jesskayding]

Oh. Ok. I wasn't meaning just mind palace Moriarty. Moriarty teaches Sherlock valuable lessons. He can't just count on his ability to read people:

 

TGG: Moriarty himself - not gay, just knew how to scramble Sherlock's deduction skills.

SIB: The Woman - couldn't read anything about her... Now what??

 

Also in TRF: "that's your weakness, everything has to be clever"

 

That's what I meant: the mind palace is obviously Sherlock speaking to himself, Moriarty isn't actually saying those things, Sherlock is imagining Moriarty saying those things - comming from his own thought process, Vince HIS Mind Palace.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think the most valuable lesson that Moriarty taught Sherlock is what Sherlock could have become. Moriarty showed Sherlock his dark side and Sherlock didn't like it. I think that why he went to great length to change in Season 3. He wanted to be more genuine in his friendship to John and to Molly. He knows that he can only go so far in that...there are certain areas of his psyche that he just can't change...those parts of his personality that are so much of him so basic that he's probably not even aware of.

[jesskayding]

I can see that too.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Do you know by any chance if that nurse consciously recognizes the difference between before and after, Carol? And is it a feeling of loss, of less than before, or are you not able to recognize it anymore?

 

 

I never actually met the woman, so I can't really speak for her.  Sorry.

 

[jesskayding]

I think the most valuable lesson that Moriarty taught Sherlock is what Sherlock could have become. Moriarty showed Sherlock his dark side and Sherlock didn't like it. I think that why he went to great length to change in Season 3. He wanted to be more genuine in his friendship to John and to Molly. He knows that he can only go so far in that...there are certain areas of his psyche that he just can't change...those parts of his personality that are so much of him so basic that he's probably not even aware of.

 

I still see Sherlock learning from him to think more simply. Not everything has to be brilliantly composed.

[Carol the Dabbler]

From another thread:

 

I'm hoping it will turn out that Sherlock had a secret motive for getting close to Mary, which would also explain why he seems to have made no effort to deduce the truth about her, but I'm not holding my breath....

 
 
Yeah, I've kinda learned not to hold my breath where Moftiss are concerned!  A secret motive could turn out to be very interesting and hopefully satisfying.  As could a Series 4 revelation that Sherlock actually did deduce her (but held his tongue) and did read the AGRA drive (likewise) -- and hopefully WHY he did those things.  And while they're at it, I'd still like to know why John didn't say to Mary (as he did to Sherlock), "I don't really care WHAT you did, but I sure do want to know WHY."  Series 3 strikes me as kinda short on whys.

[jesskayding]

Hmmm. I think she already told the why... " because you won't love me anymore after you read it & I don't want to see that happen." So he didn't have to ask her why, she already told him.

 

It would be cool if Sherlock has already seen everything on her USB. That would be interesting & fulfilling to know how much of a bag girl she truly was.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, I didn't mean why she didn't want him to read it -- but rather why she had done whatever was on that flash drive.  (Just as he wanted to know why Sherlock hadn't let him know that he was alive.)  Seems like he's assuming that she had no good reason, i.e., that he doesn't trust her judgement, which seems like an odd attitude toward a wife.  (Yes, I know, but I'd expect better from John.)