Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Caya]

You know, you got a point there. During the proposal, when she says that she agrees, that she's the best thing that could've happened to John ... now you got me wondering. I've always taken that line to be either a flat joke or the sign of an overblown ego, but what if there's more to it?

 

Assuming "Mary" was indeed the perfect woman for John, was that by happenstance or design? Meaning, did she take on the role of unassuming nurse and just stumbled over John later, or did she mold her role so as to appear to be perfect for him? And if it's the latter, why? Personal fangirling aside , John isn't that much of a catch, one would presume.

[Zain]

That's what I've been contemplating for some time. Assuming this theory is right, and Mary was placed there, it allows for a lot of speculiation: Who, for what reason, for which purpose. And there's a lot of different shades in there, the good and the bad. Just imagine this as a tree diagram, and every question is a branch of its own with sub-branches.

 

1. There are two possibilities: Either she decided to approach John herself, or she was told to approach him by a third party/organisation.

 There are two persons of interest in his circle of acquaintances: Sherlock and Mycroft, though Sherlock is obviously an extension of Mycroft, because he is Mycroft's weakness (according to Magnussen, neither verbally acknowledged nor contested by Sherlock).

 

2. Now, there are, for easier categorizaion, either friends or foes, which limits the intention behind Mary's placement near John: Either she is a monitor to protect him from possible harm, or she was placed near him as a source of insider information.

 

There's the matter of the odd timing, which tells us that she did not come into direct contact with John until well after Sherlock's "death." Both sub-branches have to explain this delay in placement. Ergo:

 

Someone may have become suspicious and put the same clues together as Anderson in Many Happy Returns, and thus believed it necessary to start monitoring John closely for suspicious actions over a year after Sherlock's death. In this case, John was seen as a rat, and Mary became his monitor, either out of personal interest or because she took an assignment by a third party.

 

 

If she was placed near John with the intention to protect him, then her late placement would hint at a suddenly materialized threat. John would be in danger if someone found out about Sherlock's survival while Moriarty's net was not yet destabilized. Mycroft could have called for Mary, we know both have connections to the CIA. If Sherlock had not managed to disintegrate a link of the web, and he feared for John's safety, he could have asked Mycroft for some form of protection for John.  If she was placed for his protection by, say, Mycroft, he could not have been aware of her past. Otherwise she would not have had to rely only on herself when Magnussen blackmailed her.

 

Both theories are based on no information whatsoever, which makes them equally likely and unlikely. To sum it up: Mary vs. third party as the mastermind, and she was either placed as a mole or for protection.

 

Then there's the last question to be explored: The purpose.

Mary is close to John, who later is close again to Sherlock. We know Mary pushed for their reunion. No matter her reason for approaching John, the ultimate goal was to get information on Sherlock, and possibly use him as an extension to get to Mycroft depending on the nature of the third party or Mary's own interests.

 

If there's a third party, then it is clear that the collection of information for later use must be their main interest. But if Mary is acting on her own, that becomes much more of an interesting question. Sure, she could be interested in information, too. But there's the possibility that she is only after Sherlock and doesn't care for Mycroft at all, because she wants revenge, or to challenge Sherlock.

On the other hand, her attitude towards him - condescending - would make it more probable that she is after Mycroft and using John and Sherlock as stepping stones. There are two sub-branches I can see if she is working on her own and simultaneously going after Mycroft: Either she is interested in working with him, or interested in working against him.

The material she has got on the thumbdrive may be more about material on her former employers than about material on her past. Then she had gotten close to John to get protection/immunity. A silent agreement to keep the material hidden away as long as she was left alone. Then there's the less pleasant explanation that she intended to blackmail Mycroft into helping her with erasing her past. There's Magnussen hunting after her, as well as the person that provided Magnussen with the knowledge about her, as well as the families of her past victims. If she got close to John (and by extension Sherlock), she would endanger both of them, too. Deliberately. Mycroft would then step in to save his brother, and erase all her troubles, too.

 

These are the different branches of the theory tree diagram that I can see. Not the most elaborate, sure. Just different approaches to the theory that Mary did not meet John by coincidence. And I hope I managed to be fair to her, even though I dislike her character. This may be complete nonesense, but it's worth a thought, I think... and it's much more fun to think there's more to the story than what HLV considers a sufficient exploration of her motivation.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yes, I keep wondering why John and Mary "just happened to meet."  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but....

 

If there really was some ulterior motive behind their meeting, hopefully we'll find out at least a bit more in Series 4, if not the Special.

 

P.S.:  I do think that "I'm the best thing that ever happened to you" was just a joke, though.  Sounds like the sort of thing I might say in an awkward moment like that.

 

[Zain]

Funny To me, it sounds rather like boasting. A bit stuck-up. But that's when I am translating it mentally. It feels more natural to me to reverse it when used in a conversation, like: "I was not quite the worst thing that ever happened to you." Guess we just love our double negations and understatements. I actually have no clue what our "translation team" made with that line. Maybe they defused it somewhat, made it sound less offensive for our ears. Probably. Who knows, maybe Mary and I would have hit it off if I had not already had to frown at her first true line. Though I doubt it^^

[Slithytove]

Thanks, everyone, for understanding. Emigration has always been second on my list of Bad Things Which Must Not Happen. (Number one being, of course, "Someone Dying."). We are smiling through gritted teeth, trying to be happy for them because they're going on this great adventure with lots of opportunities, but we're howling inside. At least my husband and I are supposed to be visiting them next year, maybe in April, if everything goes according to plan. Our first visit to the USA - it's a bit daunting, really.

 

Anyway, back to HLV. I don't really get the reason why people ascribe sentiment to Mary. Instead of shooting him through the head, she shoots him in the body, near his heart and numerous other vital organs, causing agonising pain, blood loss and massive shock which kills/nearly kills him - that's sentimental? It's hardly the stuff of Hallmark Cards. Well, Sherlock may call it sentiment, but his understanding of emotions is limited at best. In fact, it's utterly skewed, so we can hardly take his word for it.

 

I do love HLV overall, because there is so much to love. So many good lines, such excellent acting, so many compulsive scenes ( the Mind Palace, above all!) However, it's the one which causes me the most problems - the-bullet-as-surgery nonsense, Mary's lack of remorse, Sherlock's insistence that she can be trusted (really, why, for God's sake?), John's willingness to forgive her and his refusal to face the truth, the execution of CAM, the airfield scene....I realise that many people are fine with these things but they seem, to me, to be very hard to swallow. One of the most unpalatable things is Mary's comment that people like her exist because people like CAM "deserve to be killed". By what right does she make that decision?

 

I won't be surprised if it turns out to be true that she was a CIA agent, as it seems that killing for your country makes you one of the good guys, as long as it's a country we approve of. Hmm....state sanctioned murders - are we okay with that? Again, the question is: who decides that someone should be killed?

 

To choose a real life case at random, take whistleblowers. To some people, they are heroes, the champions of truth. To others, they are traitors, revealing a country's secrets and even - it has been suggested - deserving of death. To the governments whose secrets they expose, they're an embarrassment at best, an enemy at worst. Who decides whether they are heroes or villains? And, having made that decision, who decides whether they live or die?

 

That throwaway line by Mary seems utterly wrong to me but it seems to go unchallenged, and then Sherlock seems to act out the same logic by deciding that CAM should die. Are the writers saying it is okay for people like Mary and Sherlock to decide who deserves to die? Surely they can't be saying that.

 

I have my fingers crossed that S4 will present these issues from a different perspective and show us that there is more going on than we realised. However, I have a feeling that the show runners think they've dealt with the issues (Mary didn't mean to kill Sherlock, and John's forgiven her! Sherlock killed a nasty man and now it's all over!) and they'll move on to the story of Mary's past and the arrival of Baby Watson. In which case, I shall be very annoyed.

[Arcadia]

I was going to say, "Right, of course, she didn't even know that side of him"... but then I remembered that Mary went to Sherlock as soon as she had received the text message with the skip code. Perhaps she did know that Sherlock was both capable and willing to do something. I'm fairly certain she must have trusted his abilities, at least, or she wouldn't have wasted precious time going to him for help. And she absolutely knew how much John meant to him. We see that clearly in TSoT in the way she tries to get John to include him.

True, I had forgotten that. Hm. And she believes that he can solve the Mayfly Man case. Okay, then, THAT theory needs some revision!

[Zain]

Thanks, everyone, for understanding. Emigration has always been second on my list of Bad Things Which Must Not Happen. (Number one being, of course, "Someone Dying."). We are smiling through gritted teeth, trying to be happy for them because they're going on this great adventure with lots of opportunities, but we're howling inside. At least my husband and I are supposed to be visiting them next year, maybe in April, if everything goes according to plan. Our first visit to the USA - it's a bit daunting, really.

 

 

Oh, I fear I did not see the post pertaining to that. But you mentioned that quite early in this thread already, didn't you? Finally, it's time, huh? It must be hard to let go, the distance is quite... overwhelming. Well, when you are from a country that lacks the sort of enormous size like the US, Russia, Brazil or France have got. But on the other hand it is a great challenge and opportunity indeed. It's good of you to be supportive of their decision.

 

 

 

 

To choose a real life case at random, take whistleblowers. To some people, they are heroes, the champions of truth. To others, they are traitors, revealing a country's secrets and even - it has been suggested - deserving of death. To the governments whose secrets they expose, they're an embarrassment at best, an enemy at worst. Who decides whether they are heroes or villains? And, having made that decision, who decides whether they live or die?

 

That's something I've thought about, too, in the course of this discussion. Because Magnussen is a blur between a blackmailer and a whistleblower. We know that he at times demands payments, and at other times he simply publishes the truth, because he can. Of course, usually whistleblowers have got another element to them, the firm belief to be doing what's right. Magnussen's morals are too skewed for that. Not that Mary should be judging him on that.... She certainly is not in any place to judge other people based on their criminal acts.

I find it quite daring to tackle his case this way when one thinks of the development of the last few years. I wonder if they were actively taking a stance, saying that things should stay buried, after all, that is what happens then. The characters hush everything up.And, so far, get away with that.

 

 

 

That throwaway line by Mary seems utterly wrong to me but it seems to go unchallenged, and then Sherlock seems to act out the same logic by deciding that CAM should die. Are the writers saying it is okay for people like Mary and Sherlock to decide who deserves to die? Surely they can't be saying that.

 

 

I hope not. And yes, Mary's provocative statements seem to go unchallenged more than once. While S3 seems to promote vigilante action and self-justice.... I stil believe they will backpedal in s4. Maybe Sherlock will learn in S4 that he was wrong. Maybe he'll be the ones to suffer from nightmares this time. While I am not a fan of overly sentimentalizing him, I'd feel much more comfortable with this than with him forgetting about his murder from one episode to the other. If they simply ignore these issues S3 raised.... that will cast a rather large stain on the series, imo. 

[Arcadia]

In a way, Mary is condescending to John as well. Like when they confront her with her lies. Or even in TEH when he is about to propose. It seems like she does not feel like they are on an equal level with her. She is managing them, playing them. Sometimes I wonder if Magnussen, Jim and Irene were the only ones to use Sherlock to get to Mycroft. His absence in S3 is rather peculiar, indeed.

Whose absence, Mycroft's? I'm puzzled, I thought he was in it quite a lot. Or did you mean something else?

 

I guess I can see how Mary's attitude might be interpreted as condescending, but I don't. I suspect that's what Moftiss thinks a confidant, independent woman is like. I'm inclined to agree with them, I see no reason for her to show deference to either John or Sherlock, any more than they do to one another.

 

Assuming "Mary" was indeed the perfect woman for John, was that by happenstance or design? Meaning, did she take on the role of unassuming nurse and just stumbled over John later, or did she mold her role so as to appear to be perfect for him? And if it's the latter, why? Personal fangirling aside , John isn't that much of a catch, one would presume.

Ooooooh, slam!!! C'mon, John's kind, level-headed, has a secure job, cute as a bug, brave, loyal, a bit sexy when he swaggers .... that's not much of a catch??? No wonder men think women's standards are too high these days!

[jesskayding]

Well I used to have the same perspective of others about Mary. She can't be trusted, what??? She shot Sherlock, why would anyone like her.

 

But she's grown on me. That Sally Donavon however. Booooo, booooo, booooo queen of refuge, booooo!!!

( the princess bride)

[T.o.b.y]

Are the writers saying it is okay for people like Mary and Sherlock to decide who deserves to die? Surely they can't be saying that.

 

Yes, I think they can and they are. Inside the little Sherlock universe, of course. It's an essential part of the character of Sherlock Holmes. He appointed himself judge and jury many, many times in the old stories (in one, and I have to admit I've forgotten which at the moment, he even stages a little court scene with Watson).

 

You see (well, maybe you don't, and you don't have to, but I see), the world is sometimes childishly simple where Sherlock lives. It might be more complex and allow for more grey areas than the world of, say, Superman, but at the core, there's still good and evil, and the heroes slay the dragons, which makes them heroes in the first place. Now, it's certainly great to want more, but for my part, I am thrilled enough that Sherlock kills Magnussen under the premise that he is not a hero, and he does face some kind of half-way realistic consequences for that. The show is already way ahead of the usual simplistic logic of adventure stories, and for me, personally, it's fine that way. Of course, I would prefer if there were no real villains at all, and every adversary was as complicated and murky and relatable as Irene Adler, but oh well.

 

 

 

I guess I can see how Mary's attitude might be interpreted as condescending, but I don't. I suspect that's what Moftiss thinks a confidant, independent woman is like.

 

I suspect so, too. I am kind of thrilled that they tore down the "Mary the perfect female" image they had built up, because I would have gotten annoyed with it really fast.

[jesskayding]

Yeah, besides shooting people willy nilly, Mary has a really approachable & likeable personality.

[Caya]

 

Assuming "Mary" was indeed the perfect woman for John, was that by happenstance or design? Meaning, did she take on the role of unassuming nurse and just stumbled over John later, or did she mold her role so as to appear to be perfect for him? And if it's the latter, why? Personal fangirling aside , John isn't that much of a catch, one would presume.

Ooooooh, slam!!! C'mon, John's kind, level-headed, has a secure job, cute as a bug, brave, loyal, a bit sexy when he swaggers .... that's not much of a catch??? No wonder men think women's standards are too high these days!

 

John's an aging war veteran with the scars and trauma to prove it, has a newly-aquired GP practice (which can't be much of a moneymaker in Britain, afaik), she wouldn't know about the brave and loyal bit under normal circumstances (with all newspapers branding Sherlock a fraud, that makes him a duped idiot at best and a con man's helper at worst), and when she met him, he was probably less kind and level-headed and more gruff and withdrawn. Doesn't sound like the world's greatest catch from here ... I mean, if she invents a persona to be her future partner's perfect woman, why not aim higher?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

One of the labels in Sherlock's deduction of Mary is" caregiver" maybe that draws her to him even if she is a plant by Mycroft or someone else.

[Slithytove]

Thanks, Zain. Yes, the time is here - they fly out on Friday - and, sadly, it doesn't help in this occasion to ask myself, "What would Sherlock do?". Delete everything, I expect, and concentrate on solving a mystery......Wish it was as simple as that! But I do feel like the bit at in TSoT, where he looks at his best man's suit and mutters, "Into battle....."

 

I agree with T.o.b.y.'s point that the fictional world is often simplified into good vs evil with very little subtlety. Many films, particularly the blockbusters, steamroller straight over any thought that maybe maiming and killing people isn't the best way for the heroes to take on the villains. But I expect Sherlock to be a bit more intelligent than that, and the writers to be a bit more conscious of their own subtext. Some people have the right to dispense their own version of justice and have everything hushed up by the state? Murdering people is okay if you work for the security services? Is that really what Moftiss is saying?

 

Maybe Sherlock Holmes has always been a law unto himself but I never felt, when reading the books, that his concept of justice was based on selfish motives, such as the desire to protect his friends from the consequences of their own crimes. Whether he kills CAM to protect Mary or to protect John by protecting his wife, the motive is the same - CAM dies to ensure his silence. Maybe Mary is saved from the revenge of her victims's families - if CAM really intended to contact them - but she is definitely saved from a life sentence for multiple murder. Would ACD's Holmes have killed someone to protect a professional killer? I can't believe that he would, even if that killer had been married to Watson.

 

Nor can I believe that ACD would have expected us to like and forgive a character who - as well as nearly killing Holmes - believed she had the right to kill those who " deserve to be killed.". He certainly wouldn't have left her happily married Dr Watson!

 

I don't mind if Mary is a complicated character with an attractive persona hiding a cold, calculating killer. In fact, I'd like her to be the next Big Bad. What I don't like is the clear indication that we, like John & Sherlock, should forget all the pain and death and still find her adorable.

[Arcadia]

......... I expect Sherlock to be a bit more intelligent than that, and the writers to be a bit more conscious of their own subtext. Some people have the right to dispense their own version of justice and have everything hushed up by the state? Murdering people is okay if you work for the security services? Is that really what Moftiss is saying?.....

I don't mind if Mary is a complicated character with an attractive persona hiding a cold, calculating killer. In fact, I'd like her to be the next Big Bad. What I don't like is the clear indication that we, like John & Sherlock, should forget all the pain and death and still find her adorable.

You've identified the source of my problem as well -- perhaps unfairly, I like my fiction to promote and uphold some sort of moral order. Depicting someone as a killer is one thing ... depicting their actions as reasonable is something else. I can live with it -- I do realize it's fiction -- but I can't help but be troubled by it, if only because there are people who DON'T know the difference between reality and fiction. Every month there's another killing inspired by today's entertainment; if I were in the industry, I'd like to think I'd feel some obligation to be sensitive to that. But I know many don't agree, so .... so it is. I can't tell where Moftiss stands on that issue based on what I've seen so far, tho.

 

.... Maybe Mary is saved from the revenge of her victims's families - if CAM really intended to contact them - but she is definitely saved from a life sentence for multiple murder....

Erm, I don't think there's any evidence she committed multiple murder. Not saying she hasn't, just saying that's an assumption, not a fact. Mary says the evidence CAM has would mean a life sentence; but she doesn't say what the crimes are. Treason could result in a life sentence, for example. I don't mind Mary being condemned for her crimes, but I'd like to know she's being condemned for the right ones. This strikes me as an area where Moftiss has been deliberately vague, I'm wary of jumping to conclusions. Actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of an area where they haven't been deliberately vague.......

[Arcadia]

John's an aging war veteran with the scars and trauma to prove it, has a newly-aquired GP practice (which can't be much of a moneymaker in Britain, afaik), she wouldn't know about the brave and loyal bit under normal circumstances (with all newspapers branding Sherlock a fraud, that makes him a duped idiot at best and a con man's helper at worst), and when she met him, he was probably less kind and level-headed and more gruff and withdrawn. Doesn't sound like the world's greatest catch from here ... I mean, if she invents a persona to be her future partner's perfect woman, why not aim higher?

Hey, Mary's no spring chicken, y'know! No, I definitely see the allure, guess I'm more like Mary than I thought!

[jesskayding]

Yeah. I agree Caya. She loves her some John.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Not saying she hasn't, just saying that's an assumption, not a fact. Mary says the evidence CAM has would mean a life sentence; but she doesn't say what the crimes are. Treason could result in a life sentence, for example. I don't mind Mary being condemned for her crimes, but I'd like to know she's being condemned for the right ones.

 

  And in these threads a whole lot of what we do is make assumptions. We don't know what her crimes are because her story is yet to be told. We may not like what she has done in "HLV" but we know so little about her really. Innocent until proven guilty and all of that.

 

And even in canon, as has been stated many times before now, Holmes and Watson did play judge and jury. Letting killers go some to their own doom. A ship sunk in a storm or such. I don't see Holmes as a cold blooded killer either. He may have done that only once but it was off screen. We never get the full story even on Holmes's return to London.

 

We are getting a banquet  full of Moffat and Gatiss fanfiction. Their interpretations of what Sherlock Holmes was and is all about. May not like it at times....but they're not asking for a whole lot of our input either.

[jesskayding]

That's right. From the looks of it they are doing just fine with ought our input. 7 Emmy's! What,what!!

 

The looks on the runner ups when photos of Benedict & Martin win over actual warm bodies.

[Caya]

Hey, Mary's no spring chicken, y'know! No, I definitely see the allure, guess I'm more like Mary than I thought!

 

I can personally see the allure perfectly well but I have difficulty seeing it from Mary's PoV. Of all the men in Britain, she chose him why exactly? If all she wanted was a new, safe life, why not try and snag herself some landed gentry, for instance?

 

[Arcadia]

All I can think is that she was more interested in what she saw in John than she was in a safe life. Love makes people do strange things, as S3 continually beats us over the head with.

 

Or she could just be so puffed up on herself that she thought she deserved the best man Britain had to offer -- John Watson!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Hey, Mary's no spring chicken, y'know! No, I definitely see the allure, guess I'm more like Mary than I thought!

 

I can personally see the allure perfectly well but I have difficulty seeing it from Mary's PoV. Of all the men in Britain, she chose him why exactly? If all she wanted was a new, safe life, why not try and snag herself some landed gentry, for instance?

 

Sorry to be so sentimental, but perhaps she simply fell in love...?

[Caya]

Entirely possible, of course. The above is speculation which bases on Zain's theory that she sought out John and molded her new persona to be perfect for him being correct. If she indeed just happened to meet him, it's moot.

[Carol the Dabbler]

It's an essential part of the character of Sherlock Holmes. He appointed himself judge and jury many, many times in the old stories (in one, and I have to admit I've forgotten which at the moment, he even stages a little court scene with Watson).

 

In case anyone's still wondering, that was "The Abbey Grange."

[Zain]

 

In a way, Mary is condescending to John as well. Like when they confront her with her lies. Or even in TEH when he is about to propose. It seems like she does not feel like they are on an equal level with her. She is managing them, playing them. Sometimes I wonder if Magnussen, Jim and Irene were the only ones to use Sherlock to get to Mycroft. His absence in S3 is rather peculiar, indeed.

Whose absence, Mycroft's? I'm puzzled, I thought he was in it quite a lot. Or did you mean something else?

 

 

You are completely right, I was being too vague. I meant that there has been a suspicious absence of Mycroft whenever he would have had to deal with Mary. We know he kept track of John during Sherlock's absence, yet he never mentions Mary other than alluding to her existence. There's no information on her in John's file, the one he presents Sherlock with.

Then there's the wedding scene, another allusion, yet Mycroft does not directly comment on Mary. It's like the writers were very careful not to let their paths intersect.

In HLV, Mycroft refrains from visiting Sherlock in hospital. Again, this separates him from Mary who is at the hospital and associated with it due to her charming visit and great bedside manner. Mycroft also does not seem to investigate the shooting. Sherlock keeps him, as far as we know, out of the loop later on, too, when it comes to Mary.

Throughout the third series, Mycroft is given a lot of screen time to highlight their brotherly interaction. He comments on John, meets up with Lestrade, meets Wiggings, talks to Mrs Hudson, is even associated with Molly whom he takes over from in Sherlock's mind palace.

The only major characters we do not get to see interact are Mycroft and Magnussen, as well as Mycroft and Mary. The first interaction is never shown, because otherwise Magnussen's reveal that Mycroft is actually working against him would come as less of a surprise. Mary's and Mycroft's interaction is noticeable missing. It is not a matter of their characters taking part in different story lines. Actually, their plots are very much interwoven. The writers pointedly separated Mary and Mycroft.  They are, apart from Magnussen and Mycroft, the only main characters that share no common screen time. Even at the Holmes Christmas scene, they are never shown to be in the same room.