Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[jesskayding]

Yeah. Slithytove. I'm with you, in the beginning it was very hard for me to let me a character that kept best friends apart for a month, shot Sherlock, threatens to kill him in the bolt hole, thank goodness John was there, I mean that was a lot to take in!

 

But I guess with time, her character has grown on me. She still makes my skin crawl a bit per, she obviously do whatever it takes to survive & protect what's precious to her. Hmm upon saying that, she & Sherlock seem to be similar in character, except she understands human nature.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

...

I suppose that, as the victim, it's Sherlock's prerogative to forgive his attacker.  Even with the stupid "surgery" explanation, I don't think it is clear why he forgives her so readily and even pushes for John to do the same.  Even if he really believes his own explanation, it was a brutal way of resolving a problem and you'd think he would have doubts about anyone who reacted with that level of violence.  Of course, it might be part of a cunning plan - after TEH's explanation of the strategy used to bring Jim down, nothing would surprise me - or it could be that Sherlock likes people who are bad for him.  I've explained this theory before, so I won't go over it again, although I think it is true.

 

John, on the other hand, isn't the victim but the victim's closest friend.  I think it is much harder to forgive an injury to someone you care about. 

 

I think Sherlock shows past signs of not holding grudges at all. Except towards Mycroft, and that's obviously an old conflict. But he holds no grudges against people like Lestrade and Anderson for their individual parts in his arrest in TRF. When his friends assume he's gone back to being a drug addict, he's not hurt when they don't listen to him. He keeps telling them that it's for a case, and they don't listen. Neither did John listen to Sherlock when he was scared out of his witts in HoB and determined that he'd seen a monster dog. Sherlock didn't blame him afterwards, at all. It seems to me that Sherlock simply has better things to do than holding a grudge, or even getting angry in the first place. He only gets angry when people don't think

 

Admittedly, someone shooting him in the chest is much worse than any of the above, but I suppose that's where I see things differently from you, in that I think Mary reacted out of fear - she didn't know that Sherlock would help her - and out of instinct. Most of us wouldn't have done the same, I imagine, but most of us wouldn't be standing in Magnussen's office in the first place with a gun to his head. Hard to say what she must be going through.

 

I don't pity Mary, though. I might have if Sherlock and John hadn't forgiven her, but I think I would have understood if they hadn't. (I too think Sherlock was a bit quick in his defense of her.) It would have made me feel cold, though, on behalf of the two men. That would have been even more sad to me.

[Slithytove]

I honestly don't think that it would be cold to refuse to forgive the person who had very nearly ended your life, and caused you a huge amount of damage and suffering into the bargain. I think it would be completely understandable. In fact, you'd have to be a bit of a saint to forgive someone who hurt you so badly.

 

Similarly, it would be normal and human to reject someone who, after lying to you about everything that matters, maimed and, in effect, killed someone you loved. I think it would probably kill your love for the perpetrator but, even if you still loved them, I don't think it would be hard to understand why you couldn't forgive them. Love and loyalty to the victim would get in the way.

[jesskayding]

I understand the difficulty of forgiving something so intense. To Sherlock if your action made sence & if it showed some level of cleverness, he would appreciate it per you contribute to making his life less boring. I mean The Woman conspired with his worst enemy, yet he goes to rescue her. The Woman... So confident & clever.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Sherlock is certainly quirky and does seem to have a very different world view then a lot of us but then he has been on both sides of the legal fence. He was once a drug addict and we can only speculate on what he did to fund his habit.

 

He solves crimes and yet can befriend people like Billy Wiggins, protect John Watson from a murder charge so there is nothing stopping him from looking at Mary from his own unique point of reference.

[sherlockandjohn]

I honestly don't think that it would be cold to refuse to forgive the person who had very nearly ended your life, and caused you a huge amount of damage and suffering into the bargain. I think it would be completely understandable. In fact, you'd have to be a bit of a saint to forgive someone who hurt you so badly.

 

Similarly, it would be normal and human to reject someone who, after lying to you about everything that matters, maimed and, in effect, killed someone you loved. I think it would probably kill your love for the perpetrator but, even if you still loved them, I don't think it would be hard to understand why you couldn't forgive them. Love and loyalty to the victim would get in the way.

 

I may be too idealistic, I don't know. I would have hated it if Sherlock and John just turned cold towards Mary, but I could understand if, despite their attempts to forgive her, they couldn't trust her anymore. I can't say that I trust her. I know she loves John and Sherlock, but she also has a ruthless side.

 

I understand the difficulty of forgiving something so intense. To Sherlock if your action made sence & if it showed some level of cleverness, he would appreciate it per you contribute to making his life less boring. I mean The Woman conspired with his worst enemy, yet he goes to rescue her. The Woman... So confident & clever.

 

Great example of the point I was trying to make in Sherlock not holding a grudge. Well, I think he did get angry with her, but not enough to stop him from saving her life. So it's not too hard to understand, based on that event, that he forgives Mary.

[Caya]

What Slithy said (much more elaborate than I'll ever be able to), basically. Sherlock forgiving Mary is weird, but well, Sherlock is weird. His moral compass is somewhat ajar, so him forgiving Mary so readily and completely is odd, but understandable.

 

But John was supposed to be a decent, moral (in the standard sense) man. And for him to happily forgive the woman who killed his unarmed best friend, then go snuggle with her when said best friend flew to his doom because of her, that's ugly.

[T.o.b.y]

I suppose that, as the victim, it's Sherlock's prerogative to forgive his attacker.  Even with the stupid "surgery" explanation, I don't think it is clear why he forgives her so readily and even pushes for John to do the same.  Even if he really believes his own explanation, it was a brutal way of resolving a problem and you'd think he would have doubts about anyone who reacted with that level of violence.  Of course, it might be part of a cunning plan - after TEH's explanation of the strategy used to bring Jim down, nothing would surprise me - or it could be that Sherlock likes people who are bad for him.  I've explained this theory before, so I won't go over it again, although I think it is true.

 

John, on the other hand, isn't the victim but the victim's closest friend.  I think it is much harder to forgive an injury to someone you care about.  Admittedly, we don't know how John dealt with the issue during the gap between the Baker Street confrontation and the Christmas reunion, apart from Mary's reference to months of silence, but he makes no comment about Sherlock's injury during the Christmas scene even though you might think it would be the major stumbling block for the Watsons's reunion.  Yes, he's very pissed off - about what?  That she shot his best friend?  That she has a criminal past that could put her in jail?  That she lied to him about everything?  That their marriage is null and void because she used a false identity?  All of these things?  And what pissed him off most of all?  We don't know but, whatever it was - even if it was Sherlock's near-death experience with a bullet in his torso - he's ready to move on.  I believe we're supposed to see this as admirable, as a sign of John's big heart, but it just seems disloyal to me.

 

There is something about your posts that always makes me want to reply... Thanks for that!

 

I kind of agree that Sherlock has a tendency to be attracted to people who are bad for him (Irene, Moriarty), and his liking for Mary may have something to do with that, but on the other hand, I don't see in what way she isn't good for him except for the one shot, which was nor primarily an attempt to harm him so much as protect herself. Besides, in what way is John bad for Sherlock? Or Mrs Hudson, or Lestrade, or Molly? Sherlock isn't quite so F***ed up (yet...) that he only chooses friends who will hurt him.

 

About John and what exactly he is angry about. My impression is that it's mostly Mary's "lie", as he calls it. The fact that she was playing a part the whole time, and didn't even let him in on her secret when they were about to get married. I don't think he's afraid her love for him might be an act as well - it's pretty obviously real, if you ask me, though one could debate whether it's a particularly healthy or selfless kind of affection. He really doesn't seem too upset about the fact that she shot Sherlock, maybe because Sherlock didn't really die, maybe because of Sherlock's explanation and his insistence that Mary saved his life and is to be trusted. Who knows.

 

If you ask me, John is still very pissed off with Sherlock as well. Like he did with Mary, he thinks he has forgiven him, but he certainly has not really gotten over his hurt and anger.

 

I have another theory, too. I think John is just as scared that he might stop loving Mary as she is, and that is why he just doesn't deal with anything that could challenge that love. He ignores her near-fatal attack on Sherlock as best he can. He tosses the memory stick into the fire. This may be considered magnanimous, but it could just as well be a sign of something else altogether.

 

Now, the next question would be, why would John be so set on keeping Mary? Well, it seems to me that he was looking for a woman for the longest time, and this is the first relationship that really worked out. Mary and John, in spite of everything, just have this "they were made to be" quality. So there's the "finally I found somebody" thing plus the "she's the one" thing, and both together must be pretty powerful.

 

An even more interesting question is, why is Sherlock so determined to stay on Mary's side. I think first of all, he likes her, just likes her as a person. Then, having her around, whom he is now used to and who accepts and "gets" him, is probably a lot more convenient than having to deal with a string of annoying and unsympathetic girl-friends of John's, and John will always have women in his life. And finally, I think Sherlock himself realizes that John is still angry with him underneath all their restored cameraderie, and he's bent on doing anything that will somehow count as atonement. Mary is the most important factor in John's life now, so helping him hold on to her is probably the biggest favor he can do him. And so Sherlock tries. I think he'd try even if he didn't like her.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

And finally, I think Sherlock himself realizes that John is still angry with him underneath all their restored cameraderie, and he's bent on doing anything that will somehow count as atonement. Mary is the most important factor in John's life now, so helping him hold on to her is probably the biggest favor he can do him. And so Sherlock tries. I think he'd try even if he didn't like her.

 

 

   As long as she wasn't a threat. Sherlock fought his way back from death because his inner Moriarty told him that John was in dire danger. I don't think he would continue to like Mary if she was that threat.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

If you ask me, John is still very pissed off with Sherlock as well. Like he did with Mary, he thinks he has forgiven him, but he certainly has not really gotten over his hurt and anger.

 

I have another theory, too. I think John is just as scared that he might stop loving Mary as she is, and that is why he just doesn't deal with anything that could challenge that love. He ignores her near-fatal attack on Sherlock as best he can. He tosses the memory stick into the fire. This may be considered magnanimous, but it could just as well be a sign of something else altogether.

 

Now, the next question would be, why would John be so set on keeping Mary? Well, it seems to me that he was looking for a woman for the longest time, and this is the first relationship that really worked out. Mary and John, in spite of everything, just have this "they were made to be" quality. So there's the "finally I found somebody" thing plus the "she's the one" thing, and both together must be pretty powerful.

 

Yes, it would be a logical assumption that John is afraid that whatever is on the memory stick will indeed make such a black mark on Mary that he cannot see her the same way. It may also be, as you say, why he doesn't really deal with her having shot Sherlock. This would make sense. Of course, there is also the possibility that he has decided that her past is her business, and that if Sherlock can forgive her shooting him, so can John.

 

"Is everyone I've ever met a psychopath?" Now, why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath? He has always defended his friend and stood by his side when others treated him as a psychopath, and now John is clearly calling Sherlock the same. I can only think of one reason, and that's his fake suicide act, including his behavior when he returned. That hurt John badly, and I, too, think he is still angry, deep down. Normally he doesn't dwell on it, of course, because what good would that do, but then something awful happens, and John's anger re-surfaces.

 

As to why John is so set on keeping Mary, yes, he has looked for a woman for a long time, and while Sherlock was around it was hard to keep a girlfriend. Then Sherlock "died", and John found Mary. And Mary even likes Sherlock, and vice versa. It's a great situation. How hard wouldn't it be to give all that up? I suppose the three of them had such a great connection that breaking up John and Mary might have hurt John and Sherlock's friendship, too. At least if Sherlock wanted to forgive, and John didn't.

 

[jesskayding]

 

 

 

I suppose that, as the victim, it's Sherlock's prerogative to forgive his attacker. Even with the stupid "surgery" explanation, I don't think it is clear why he forgives her so readily and even pushes for John to do the same. Even if he really believes his own explanation, it was a brutal way of resolving a problem and you'd think he would have doubts about anyone who reacted with that level of violence. Of course, it might be part of a cunning plan - after TEH's explanation of the strategy used to bring Jim down, nothing would surprise me - or it could be that Sherlock likes people who are bad for him. I've explained this theory before, so I won't go over it again, although I think it is true.

 

John, on the other hand, isn't the victim but the victim's closest friend. I think it is much harder to forgive an injury to someone you care about. Admittedly, we don't know how John dealt with the issue during the gap between the Baker Street confrontation and the Christmas reunion, apart from Mary's reference to months of silence, but he makes no comment about Sherlock's injury during the Christmas scene even though you might think it would be the major stumbling block for the Watsons's reunion. Yes, he's very pissed off - about what? That she shot his best friend? That she has a criminal past that could put her in jail? That she lied to him about everything? That their marriage is null and void because she used a false identity? All of these things? And what pissed him off most of all? We don't know but, whatever it was - even if it was Sherlock's near-death experience with a bullet in his torso - he's ready to move on. I believe we're supposed to see this as admirable, as a sign of John's big heart, but it just seems disloyal to me.

There is something about your posts that always makes me want to reply... Thanks for that!

 

I kind of agree that Sherlock has a tendency to be attracted to people who are bad for him (Irene, Moriarty), and his liking for Mary may have something to do with that, but on the other hand, I don't see in what way she isn't good for him except for the one shot, which was nor primarily an attempt to harm him so much as protect herself. Besides, in what way is John bad for Sherlock? Or Mrs Hudson, or Lestrade, or Molly? Sherlock isn't quite so F***ed up (yet...) that he only chooses friends who will hurt him.

 

About John and what exactly he is angry about. My impression is that it's mostly Mary's "lie", as he calls it. The fact that she was playing a part the whole time, and didn't even let him in on her secret when they were about to get married. I don't think he's afraid her love for him might be an act as well - it's pretty obviously real, if you ask me, though one could debate whether it's a particularly healthy or selfless kind of affection. He really doesn't seem too upset about the fact that she shot Sherlock, maybe because Sherlock didn't really die, maybe because of Sherlock's explanation and his insistence that Mary saved his life and is to be trusted. Who knows.

 

If you ask me, John is still very pissed off with Sherlock as well. Like he did with Mary, he thinks he has forgiven him, but he certainly has not really gotten over his hurt and anger.

 

I have another theory, too. I think John is just as scared that he might stop loving Mary as she is, and that is why he just doesn't deal with anything that could challenge that love. He ignores her near-fatal attack on Sherlock as best he can. He tosses the memory stick into the fire. This may be considered magnanimous, but it could just as well be a sign of something else altogether.

 

Now, the next question would be, why would John be so set on keeping Mary? Well, it seems to me that he was looking for a woman for the longest time, and this is the first relationship that really worked out. Mary and John, in spite of everything, just have this "they were made to be" quality. So there's the "finally I found somebody" thing plus the "she's the one" thing, and both together must be pretty powerful.

 

An even more interesting question is, why is Sherlock so determined to stay on Mary's side. I think first of all, he likes her, just likes her as a person. Then, having her around, whom he is now used to and who accepts and "gets" him, is probably a lot more convenient than having to deal with a string of annoying and unsympathetic girl-friends of John's, and John will always have women in his life. And finally, I think Sherlock himself realizes that John is still angry with him underneath all their restored cameraderie, and he's bent on doing anything that will somehow count as atonement. Mary is the most important factor in John's life now, so helping him hold on to her is probably the biggest favor he can do him. And so Sherlock tries. I think he'd try even if he didn't like her.

 

 

Deep. Snapping my fingers, like I'm in a beatnik bar, listening to truth in the spoken word.

[Slithytove]

The point about John being afraid he will stop loving Mary is a good one. It would make sense of his apparent ability to shrug off Sherlock's injuries, and also his refusal to learn about Mary's past.

 

If he does believe he found " the one" when he met her, it is rather sad, because that woman doesn't exist. Despite Sherlock & Mary both insisting that John chose her because he is drawn to dangerous people, as if he had unknowingly identified her dangerous side, the obvious truth is that he fell in love with the person she was pretending to be. Of course she had to pretend. For a start, she couldn't show John her calculating, ruthless side - the side which would earn her a life sentence and also allow her to decide that her best chance of freedom was to shoot her friend - because he wouldn't have fallen in love with her. (Yes, I know he is supposedly attracted to danger but that doesn't mean he wants to marry it.) Anyway, if people go into hiding, they have to change more than their names and jobs. They have to become entirely different people. If they don't, they get caught. You only have to look at real life cases to see that this is true.

 

If anyone is attracted to dangerous people, it is Sherlock. Of course he has nice friends - John, Molly, etc - but he is much ruder and more arrogant with them than with those who hurt him, e.g. Jim, Irene, Mary....He even seems to like Janine better after she has sold her story to the tabloids and made a profit out of him. (Not that I blame her!)

 

I don't really think you can say Mary was good for Sherlock "except for the one shot". That shot was a game changer. You wouldn't say "He was a really nice man, except for the time he strangled our Granny", would you? Nor do I think you can say that Mary was good for Sherlock except for the time she shot him and he nearly died. (In my opinion, he did die - why else did they show us the scene where he flatlined? But I know that some people feel it was not death but near-death. Either way, it would take a lot of forgiving.)

[jesskayding]

The point about John being afraid he will stop loving Mary is a good one. It would make sense of his apparent ability to shrug off Sherlock's injuries, and also his refusal to learn about Mary's past.

 

If he does believe he found " the one" when he met her, it is rather sad, because that woman doesn't exist. Despite Sherlock & Mary both insisting that John chose her because he is drawn to dangerous people, as if he had unknowingly identified her dangerous side, the obvious truth is that he fell in love with the person she was pretending to be. Of course she had to pretend. For a start, she couldn't show John her calculating, ruthless side - the side which would earn her a life sentence and also allow her to decide that her best chance of freedom was to shoot her friend - because he wouldn't have fallen in love with her. (Yes, I know he is supposedly attracted to danger but that doesn't mean he wants to marry it.) Anyway, if people go into hiding, they have to change more than their names and jobs. They have to become entirely different people. If they don't, they get caught. You only have to look at real life cases to see that this is true.

 

If anyone is attracted to dangerous people, it is Sherlock. Of course he has nice friends - John, Molly, etc - but he is much ruder and more arrogant with them than with those who hurt him, e.g. Jim, Irene, Mary....He even seems to like Janine better after she has sold her story to the tabloids and made a profit out of him. (Not that I blame her!)

 

I don't really think you can say Mary was good for Sherlock "except for the one shot". That shot was a game changer. You wouldn't say "He was a really nice man, except for the time he strangled our Granny", would you? Nor do I think you can say that Mary was good for Sherlock except for the time she shot him and he nearly died. (In my opinion, he did die - why else did they show us the scene where he flatlined? But I know that some people feel it was not death but near-death. Either way, it would take a lot of forgiving.)

 

 

 

Yeah, but this is who they are. We don't have to buy John is addicted to danger, but that is how Steven & Mark chose to tell the story. So it's true in fiction.

 

Yeah. I wouldn't say they're a good person except they shot my granny. However the unrealistic/ fictional characters of John and Sherlock would. Have you ever had a ridiculous fantasy that feels real, but the details are exaggerated. I feel that is BBC Sherlock, its fantasy with fantastic drama and ridiculous twist and turns that would never happen in real life.

 

 

Dear Sherlock, help me find Bluebell.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't really think you can say Mary was good for Sherlock "except for the one shot". That shot was a game changer. You wouldn't say "He was a really nice man, except for the time he strangled our Granny", would you?

 

Well, no, I wouldn't. But we now have two examples of Sherlock doing precisely that sort of thing -- Mary and the Camden Garroter.

 

[jesskayding]

[T.o.b.y]

"Is everyone I've ever met a psychopath?" Now, why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath?

 

 

Sorry, dear. Why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath, hmmm.... this is a man who claims to be his (best) friend, yet who has admittedly tried out chemicals on him, used him for a harrowing horror experiment involving a hitherto unknown and possibly lethal drug in an army research facility and finally jumped off a building in front of his very eyes, watched him cry at his grave, and then returned two years later expecting this last little feat to be treated as a hilarious prank. No, I really cannot fathom where John gets the idea...

 

Seriously. "He's nuts" (or rather "he's Sherlock") is probably the only excuse John can up with for Sherlock's behavior, because all other possible reasons would mean having to stop liking him entirely, I am afraid. (Note that "psychopath" in the Sherlock world doesn't mean the same thing as it does in ours, apparently. Sherlock calls himself one when speaking to Molly in The Empty Hearse about her love interests, remember?)

 

What is interesting about John's above quoted statement is that he's obviously comparing Mary to Sherlock, not his former girl-friends, who were all, from what we've seen of them at least, perfectly normal and decent people, as are John's other friends (Mike Stamford doesn't strike me as particularly psychopathic...). I think "met" was John-speak for "loved" there. Not that I think he loves Mary and Sherlock the same way, but he does love them. And I'm guessing you couldn't say that about too many other people in John's life.

 

 

[Arcadia]

Sticking with my penchant for trying to determine what the writer intends, rather than what I think I see, here's my take on some of this ...

 

I don't feel pity for Mary.

I don't pity her either, and I don't think we're meant to. I think we're meant to accept her, and I think we're supposed to admire Sherlock for being willing to sacrifice himself to save her. We don't have to agree with their actions, but I think we are supposed to understand their emotions -- initially hurt, anger, a sense of betrayal, eventually forgiveness and love wins out over all. I'm still amused that Moffat says we shouldn't romanticize Sherlock, then goes and writes the most romantic (in the classic sense) episode yet. By the end Sherlock is both a dragonslayer and a vengeful East Wind.

 

.... you'd have to be a bit of a saint to forgive someone who hurt you so badly.

Exactly. I think we are supposed to believe Sherlock is a bit of a saint; although maybe avenging angel would be a more apt description. Again, he is incredibly romanticized in this episode; fighting his way to life for John, forgiving Mary for John, sacrificing his future for John. But it's all with a dark twist, isn't it? It's all "psychopathic".

 

....But John was supposed to be a decent, moral (in the standard sense) man.

What do you want to bet he will be represented as more morally complex (aka "dangerous" in Moftiss speak) in S4 than we thought he was? Actually, his very profession contains a paradox; army doctor. Which Moftiss have chosen to represent as "fighting soldier doctor." I'm pretty sure in real life, army doctors are expected to stay behind lines and take care of patients, not go out to the front and create new ones. Nope, I think they're going to try to show more (darker) facets to his character. Freeman has indicated (imo) that he would prefer that. Many actors do.

 

 

If you ask me, John is still very pissed off with Sherlock as well. Like he did with Mary, he thinks he has forgiven him, but he certainly has not really gotten over his hurt and anger.

 

I have another theory, too. I think John is just as scared that he might stop loving Mary as she is, and that is why he just doesn't deal with anything that could challenge that love. He ignores her near-fatal attack on Sherlock as best he can. He tosses the memory stick into the fire. This may be considered magnanimous, but it could just as well be a sign of something else altogether.

 

Now, the next question would be, why would John be so set on keeping Mary? Well, it seems to me that he was looking for a woman for the longest time, and this is the first relationship that really worked out. Mary and John, in spite of everything, just have this "they were made to be" quality. So there's the "finally I found somebody" thing plus the "she's the one" thing, and both together must be pretty powerful.

Yes, it would be a logical assumption that John is afraid that whatever is on the memory stick will indeed make such a black mark on Mary that he cannot see her the same way. It may also be, as you say, why he doesn't really deal with her having shot Sherlock. This would make sense. Of course, there is also the possibility that he has decided that her past is her business, and that if Sherlock can forgive her shooting him, so can John.

 

I think it's simpler than that. I think we're meant to understand it's basically in John's nature to give people second chances. Look how much he's put up with from Sherlock. Up til now this may have seemed an admirable trait but, again, it's suddenly given a dark twist. Suddenly he's one of the "psychopaths."

 

If he does believe he found " the one" when he met her, it is rather sad, because that woman doesn't exist. Despite Sherlock & Mary both insisting that John chose her because he is drawn to dangerous people, as if he had unknowingly identified her dangerous side, the obvious truth is that he fell in love with the person she was pretending to be.

Mm, I think we're supposed to believe he fell in love with who she actually is, not with who she's pretending to be.

 

(In my opinion, he did die - why else did they show us the scene where he flatlined? But I know that some people feel it was not death but near-death. Either way, it would take a lot of forgiving.)

Yeah, I'm one who doesn't believe he really died, because it's my understanding that death is not declared when the heart stops, but when brain activity stops, and Sherlock's brain was still quite active. No, the more I've thought about it, the more I think that scene is about him being on the verge of giving up. The doctors stepping away from the body was just a dramatic effect to indicate it was up to Sherlock to find the will to live. Anyway, since Sherlock's still walking and breathing, I don't see how we can really say he died. Unless he's a ghost?

[Arcadia]

(Note that "psychopath" in the Sherlock world doesn't mean the same thing as it does in ours, apparently........

Truer words were never spoken!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or maybe in the end Mofftis really don't care what we accept as a whole. This is Sherlock the way they see him. They are over the moon that it has become an international phenomena but it is still very much their baby. This is head canon that one of them has been dreaming about since he was seven years old. They know that what they are doing is pure fiction and, in some cases, borders on fantasy. But this is the way they want to tell the story of Sherlock Holmes. If their audience is willing to throw all caution aside and stick with it then all well and good. If not I think they would continue on as long as the BBC was interested and there was any kind of viewership at all. Could be wrong of course but that's the way it feels to me.

I also believe that Sherlock wasn't supposed to have died. Someone posted a great meta right after HLV aired on people who had flatlined but had fought their way back. She did say it was rare but obviously it has happened and that it was amazing to see when it did.

[jesskayding]

Also why is everyone posting "psychopath". Do your research, " sociopath ". He's a high functioning sociopath.

[Slithytove]

 

I don't really think you can say Mary was good for Sherlock "except for the one shot". That shot was a game changer. You wouldn't say "He was a really nice man, except for the time he strangled our Granny", would you?

 

Well, no, I wouldn't. But we now have two examples of Sherlock doing precisely that sort of thing -- Mary and the Camden Garroter.

Sherlock, yes. His values are unbelievably skewed. ( His childhood must have been very peculiar. I suspect that nice Mummy & Daddy, and maybe Mycroft as he got older, have a lot to answer for.). But not John. He wouldn't vote for the Camden Garroter, any more than he would be morbidly fascinated by Irene or Jim. His "normal", common sense morality exists to throw Sherlock's eccentricity into even sharper relief.

 

And most of us wouldn't admire the Camden Garroter either, nor would we be able to shrug off a devastating bullet wound, to ourselves or a loved one. I agree that Moftiss seem to expect us to swallow the bullet-as-surgery/determination-will-bring-you-back-to-life/Mary-is-okay/it's-wonderful-that-John-forgave-her scenario but their writing is obviously open to many interpretations. If not, we wouldn't be arguing about it nine months later!

 

To be honest, I don't worry too much about Moftiss's intentions. Even if they want us to accept the bullet-as-surgery idea, for example, that doesn't mean we can't question it. When something is in the public domain, it belongs legally to its creators but they don't own, and can't dictate, the audience's responses. For example, you might create a character whom you see as noble and restrained, but if some of your readers consider him prim and priggish, you can't say they are wrong. All you can say is that your writing wasn't meant to convey that particular response. Even if your work is as clear and precise as possible, people will read and interpret it according to their own values and their own experience.

 

The same applies to fictional worlds. Maybe a different morality prevails in Sherlock's world, as some of you have suggested - though I think it is meant to reflect our own, otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining when he goes against our expectations - but we still judge it by our own ethics. That's how fiction works.

 

To give an extreme example, suppose you read a book set in a world where it is normal practice for parents to kill their own children if they show signs of being sickly or disabled. These killings are so much a part of their culture that they are commonplace. Let's say that resources are limited and are not allowed to be " wasted" on the weak. One parent, motivated by love, cannot kill their child but flees with him, pursued by the authorities. According to the morality of this fictional world, the parent is a criminal. We can understand this morality but, to us, the parent is a hero, because child murder is abhorrent to us and we see the fictional world through the filter of our own ethics. So, in Sherlock-world, it may be okay to shoot your friends and expect forgiveness, just as it may be okay to gloss over your best friend's near death and your wife's criminal past, but we are not obliged to find those things acceptable. We have our own value systems which the writers can't dictate.

 

Sorry. Not trying to be pedantic, but I do feel that there is a two-way connection between writer and viewer (or reader, listener, etc.). As the audience, we bring something to the table too.

 

 

 

The

[Arcadia]

Also why is everyone posting "psychopath". Do your research, " sociopath ". He's a high functioning sociopath.

Because that's what John says: "Is everyone I met a psychopath?" And Sherlock agrees, and later on Magnussen refers to "Mr. & Mrs. Psychopath."

[jesskayding]

Ohhhhhh, interesting - the cabby

[jesskayding]

 

 

I don't really think you can say Mary was good for Sherlock "except for the one shot". That shot was a game changer. You wouldn't say "He was a really nice man, except for the time he strangled our Granny", would you?

Well, no, I wouldn't. But we now have two examples of Sherlock doing precisely that sort of thing -- Mary and the Camden Garroter.

Sherlock, yes. His values are unbelievably skewed. ( His childhood must have been very peculiar. I suspect that nice Mummy & Daddy, and maybe Mycroft as he got older, have a lot to answer for.). But not John. He wouldn't vote for the Camden Garroter, any more than he would be morbidly fascinated by Irene or Jim. His "normal", common sense morality exists to throw Sherlock's eccentricity into even sharper relief.

 

And most of us wouldn't admire the Camden Garroter either, nor would we be able to shrug off a devastating bullet wound, to ourselves or a loved one. I agree that Moftiss seem to expect us to swallow the bullet-as-surgery/determination-will-bring-you-back-to-life/Mary-is-okay/it's-wonderful-that-John-forgave-her scenario but their writing is obviously open to many interpretations. If not, we wouldn't be arguing about it nine months later!

 

To be honest, I don't worry too much about Moftiss's intentions. Even if they want us to accept the bullet-as-surgery idea, for example, that doesn't mean we can't question it. When something is in the public domain, it belongs legally to its creators but they don't own, and can't dictate, the audience's responses. For example, you might create a character whom you see as noble and restrained, but if some of your readers consider him prim and priggish, you can't say they are wrong. All you can say is that your writing wasn't meant to convey that particular response. Even if your work is as clear and precise as possible, people will read and interpret it according to their own values and their own experience.

 

The same applies to fictional worlds. Maybe a different morality prevails in Sherlock's world, as some of you have suggested - though I think it is meant to reflect our own, otherwise it wouldn't be entertaining when he goes against our expectations - but we still judge it by our own ethics. That's how fiction works.

 

To give an extreme example, suppose you read a book set in a world where it is normal practice for parents to kill their own children if they show signs of being sickly or disabled. These killings are so much a part of their culture that they are commonplace. Let's say that resources are limited and are not allowed to be " wasted" on the weak. One parent, motivated by love, cannot kill their child but flees with him, pursued by the authorities. According to the morality of this fictional world, the parent is a criminal. We can understand this morality but, to us, the parent is a hero, because child murder is abhorrent to us and we see the fictional world through the filter of our own ethics. So, in Sherlock-world, it may be okay to shoot your friends and expect forgiveness, just as it may be okay to gloss over your best friend's near death and your wife's criminal past, but we are not obliged to find those things acceptable. We have our own value systems which the writers can't dictate.

 

Sorry. Not trying to be pedantic, but I do feel that there is a two-way connection between writer and viewer (or reader, listener, etc.). As the audience, we bring something to the table too.

 

 

 

The

 

 

You tell us Slithytove!

[sherlockandjohn]

 

"Is everyone I've ever met a psychopath?" Now, why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath?

 

 

Sorry, dear. Why would John consider Sherlock a psychopath, hmmm.... this is a man who claims to be his (best) friend, yet who has admittedly tried out chemicals on him, used him for a harrowing horror experiment involving a hitherto unknown and possibly lethal drug in an army research facility and finally jumped off a building in front of his very eyes, watched him cry at his grave, and then returned two years later expecting this last little feat to be treated as a hilarious prank. No, I really cannot fathom where John gets the idea...

 

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

Well, I did continue to talk about Sherlock's disappearance act, which was the point I was trying to make, clearly not very well. Yes, Sherlock is insane, but there's a huge difference between the absurd things Sherlock does in everyday life, and him pretending to be dead for two years. Equally, there's a long way to go from those everyday absurdities to Mary shooting Sherlock and hiding her past as an assasin. It's "psychopath" on a different level, or with a different meaning.

 

That's what I find interesting about John's statement - that he compares what he has now discovered about Mary to what he knows about Sherlock. I think he is more comparing Sherlock's behavior in connection with his fall and return to Mary's, rather than comparing them in general. But, of course, that's just my interpretation, and I perfectly understand that Sherlock is generally out of his mind, and John could be referring to anything. "Psychopath", though, is a strong word, and I suppose I connect it with someone very bad. Like Moriarty. He's a psychopath. A villain and out of his mind. Sherlock is just a man/hero and out of his mind.

 

 

Seriously. "He's nuts" (or rather "he's Sherlock") is probably the only excuse John can up with for Sherlock's behavior, because all other possible reasons would mean having to stop liking him entirely, I am afraid. (Note that "psychopath" in the Sherlock world doesn't mean the same thing as it does in ours, apparently. Sherlock calls himself one when speaking to Molly in The Empty Hearse about her love interests, remember?)

 

Sherlock calls himself a sociopath in that conversation with Molly, actually.

 

Of course John thinks Sherlock is crazy, but I'm differing again between "crazy" and "psychopath" - hence my above explanation.