Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Caya]

You got one thing wrong; the letters do exist and are in a secret place only Magnussen and trusted underlings to him know about.

 

Okay, I'll bite: why do you claim this as a fact? Either you are Steven Moffat (in which case, welcome to the forum, Mr. Moffat, hope you like it here! ) or you are a bit optimistic about your own predictions, methinks ;).

[Inge l-w]

Dear STCooper,

No one here thinks killing is sanctioned unless in self - defence, and even then under extreme provocation!

I have no problem with anyone claiming I have made a false assumption, despite dear Caya's noble intervention ( Both a and for that!)

What tends to drive me to distraction are bad grammar, incorrect spelling and careless abuse of the English language!

To paraphrase Monsieur Arouet (Voltaire to you), I disagree with the bulk of your argument, but I will defend your right to express your views, as long as both you and VanBurenSupernova do so in clear, well-written sentences! By the way, in Dr Watson's blog entry there is not one mention of someone murdering himself! Just checked to make certain.

Sorry for being so bossy, it's just the professor in me!

[Van Buren Supernova]

Dear STCooper,

No one here thinks killing is sanctioned unless in self - defence, and even then under extreme provocation!

I have no problem with anyone claiming I have made a false assumption, despite dear Caya's noble intervention ( Both a and for that!)

What tends to drive me to distraction are bad grammar, incorrect spelling and careless abuse of the English language!

To paraphrase Monsieur Arouet (Voltaire to you), I disagree with the bulk of your argument, but I will exdefend your right to express your views, as long as both you and VanBurenSupernova do so in clear, well-written sentences! By the way, in Dr Watson's blog entry there is not one mention of someone murdering himself! Just checked to make certain.

Sorry for being so bossy, it's just the professor in me!

  

If you are talking about literal mention, no there is not. 

 

Dear professor,  you can consider skipping my posts and do us both a favor if my English bothers you so much.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel the need to defend this. English is my second language and I try what I can. The last time I check, it's not a requirement to have perfect English, but in any case that it is, I'd gladly excuse myself from where I don't belong.

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

 

[Shadow Dweller]

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8b60be06673cb0229cc4c666f5902103?convert_to_webp=true

 

Both of you, keep a cool head each and remember that this is an international community. Remember that everything that came out from your mind into this forum also reflect the depth of your experience on dealing with people from varied backgrounds and cultures.

[T.o.b.y]

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel the need to defend this. English is my second language and I try what I can. The last time I check, it's not a requirement to have perfect English, but in any case that it is, I'd gladly excuse myself from where I don't belong.

 

It certainly is not necessary to speak and / or write perfect English to participate in the discussions on this forum! God forbid! I'd have to leave immediately if that were the case, and I'd miss you all so much. No, no, no, the imperfections are staying and as long as we understand each other, all is well in my opinion. Even if I don't understand, I can always ask.

 

It's all fine!

 

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Not 100% agree with you (close)

 

Nobody expects you to! What would we do around here if we all agreed on everything? That'd be so boring...

 

Here's to more friendly disagreements. I would like them to remain friendly, though. If at all possible. :lol:

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

Not 100% agree with you (close)

 

Nobody expects you to! What would we do around here if we all agreed on everything? That'd be so boring...

 

Here's to more friendly disagreements. I would like them to remain friendly, though. If at all possible. :lol:

 

 

 

Sure it is and should be possible.

 

It's a place to share thoughts about same show we are all passionate about, same or different takes or POV, which make this show even more interesting.

 

There won't be many discussions without that.

 

Just saying that there are many options to control each enjoyments of other member's posts to each of own preferences.

No hard feelings.

 

[Inge l-w]

Dear VanBurenSupernova,

As fellow members can attest, English is not my first language either! All opinions are equally valid!

Why should you excuse yourself? Concerning my request, self- editing helps, especially with subject-verb agreement and verb tense usage, it is an english language forum, last time I checked. Sometimes, I type too fast and have to edit my posts over and over again, haste makes waste (of precious time) in such cases.

Language specialists have been fighting over prescriptivism vs. descriptivism for more than two and a half centuries as far as English is concerned, and some of my favourite authors were descriptivists, like G.K. Chesterton and W.S Hornung, P.D. James and Douglas Adams.

[joanneta1]

Oh, Inge, that was priceless! I teach several English tests for a living: you should see the number of mistakes non-native and some native speakers can make ! I don't know your speciality, but correct English usage has gone by the board. Did you not notice in the Sherlocked convention how BC himself used "amount" for people, when it should have been "number", as it's countable? A Harrow education gone to waste where grammar was concerned! Have you not noticed how many times that mistake was repeated, by Lara Pulver and Martin Freeman in the commentaries and the extra material on the DVDs? It's almost become a waste of breath to set them right.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, language is fluid, isn't it. What was correct a century ago is outdated now, and how we speak today will seem equally weird and perhaps "wrong" a few generations after us.

 

Just for example, in one Jane Austen's novels, she has the male love interest complain about the use of "nice" to describe something pleasant, as in "nice day". It seems "nice" originally meant "discriminating" or "fastidious" and acquired its current meaning somewhere during the late 1700s.

 

It's really nice of you ( :P) to proof-read and correct your posts, Inge, and I appreciate the effort. But I really don't think we can or should expect that from everybody. After all, people come here to relax and have fun.

[sfmpco]

And I have to giggle every time I read one of the original stories and Watson's excited dialogue is described as "Watson ejaculated."  Yes, language and its usage changes.  

[Caya]

And I have to giggle every time I read one of the original stories and Watson's excited dialogue is described as "Watson ejaculated."  Yes, language and its usage changes.  

 

QI did a funny bit on that:

 

 

[Boton]

And I have to giggle every time I read one of the original stories and Watson's excited dialogue is described as "Watson ejaculated."  Yes, language and its usage changes.  

 

 

Me too.  And there will be entire passages like that where I'll be laughing like a 12 year old.  And my husband will want to know what's up and I'll say, "I'm trying to give Watson the benefit of the doubt about his feelings for Holmes, but the Victorian language isn't helping!"

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

And I have to giggle every time I read one of the original stories and Watson's excited dialogue is described as "Watson ejaculated."  Yes, language and its usage changes.  

 

 

Me too.  And there will be entire passages like that where I'll be laughing like a 12 year old.  And my husband will want to know what's up and I'll say, "I'm trying to give Watson the benefit of the doubt about his feelings for Holmes, but the Victorian language isn't helping!"

 

 

Sounds fun.

Should find time to pick up the books soon. 

[STCooper1]

Sorry do drag the topic on, but I don't quite understand why Mary should be expected to be so terribly repentant about her past. Do we think Sherlock should suffer for shooting Magnussen? Do we think John should have gone to prison for killing the cabbie in A Study in Pink? No. At least I don't.

 

Doesn't Mary at Baker St say something like "people like Magnussen should be killed - that's why there's people like me?" This is pretty much the definition of "good" and "evil" in my eyes: Villains exist to make the people who kill them heroes instead of murderers. While in real life, killing is never justified, in fiction, you can just give a person the "evil" label and after that, anything goes. So by the rules of fiction, Mary is really not to be blamed for slaying dragons in her own little way... (Of course we don't know if that is all she did. We know almost nothing about her past, really. And considering how dumb I think the whole "assassin" angle is, I don't really want to know. I'm with John here: throw it into the fire and just focus on Mary Watson, whom I have come to like a lot. The less said about this silly business in future, the better.)

 

Mary's saying that proves what a psychopath she is as she thinks a bully like Magnussen deserves to be murdered, but that as a murderer she shouldn't spend the rest of her life in prison for her crimes, which were way worse than any of Magnussen's. In this she also showed no remorse for any of her actions. Openly defending them all.

[STCooper1]

 

/>

 

/>

I feel like I've undergone a bit of a shift in my attitude towards Mary, so for those of you who have read my posts and may be wondering 'why the fairly quick change'; here's my explanation:

 

My initial reactions were that of shock and severe dislike, not for Mary's past, but for her attitude and the fact that she shot Sherlock. I could easily believe that she wanted to leave her past life behind her. That part always seemed sincere to me, and still does. But I was appalled by her coldness and extremely selfish behavior in risking Sherlock's life to protect her marriage. I always believed she didn't want Sherlock dead, but she was willilng to risk it anyway. She then claims that John likes that dangerous part of her, thereby making John seem like a darker person. And John forgives her for shooting Sherlock; in fact he barely brings that point up - it's all about forgiving her past. And the 'surgery' explanation to Mary's shot was and is still hard to swallow.

 

However, it is my belief that the writers mean to establish Mary as a 'good' character with a questionable past that's still haunting her. She wants to leave the past behind her and has found happiness; a happiness that she is very possesive of. She is a trained killer, so the instinct to kill could be what makes her so cold, even with Sherlock. She will do anything to protect her happiness. It is messed up, I know, because how can a person be happy if she had killed her husband's best friend? However, she did not want to kill him; she likes Sherlock, as we've seen in TEH and TSoT.

 

I don't personally like Mary, and if this was real life I'd not be able to just sweep everything under the rug, but there are things I can accept in fiction - like Sherlock and John forgiving Mary, because I actually find it admirable that they would do so. And when they do, perhaps in time I can too. Plus, the whole story just makes for some very emotional and compelling scenes. It has certainly put me through the emotional wringer, for several reasons, though mainly because of how difficult it is to come to terms with Mary's deceit.

 

In some ways, I find it an amazing episode because of the depth of emotional drama - but it is not something I wish to see more often on Sherlock. I want it to be a fun, charming detective show, not action, or large drama, or dark characters (except for Sherlock; he's allowed to be a bit dark ).

You are more charitable than I am!

 

If you want to leave behind your past as a killer, you don't do it by murdering someone. (And she does murder Sherlock. He comes back to life on the operating by some miraculous force of will.) Sherlock has not harmed her. He simply witnessed her about to commit another crime. He even offers to help her solve whatever her problem might be, but she ruthlessly guns him down.

 

I agree she is protecting her newfound happiness. However, if you defend your own happiness by brutally hurting other people you are, fundamentally, a psychopath.

 

I don't find John and Sherlock's forgiveness admirable. For Sherlock, I think it is a bit sad, as it shows the depth of his psychological damage. For John, I think it is appalling. Sherlock thinks it is ok to be a violent psychopath. John knows it is not.

 

I like dark characters and I am fine with Mary being evil, but not with her being happily married to John Watson.

Well... If this was real life, I'd react differently. I'd be pissed with Sherlock for shooting Magnussen, though I'd also be very moved by his sacrifice. I'd tell John that his wife should go into treatment. I'd ask John how he knows he can trust her when she almost killed Sherlock. But because this is fiction, and I really, really love Sherlock and John, I need to try to understand what the writers are doing - and, surprisingly, I now find that it might be possible, even though I did not think it was two days ago. They have tried to make a solid case on behalf of Mary, but because they are limited to 90 minutes of television, some things are left unresolved, left up to our imagination. With this in mind, I fill in the gaps with what I believe the writers are trying to convey - for example that John has been really angry with Mary for months, not just about her lies, but also about her shooting Sherlock, even though it's not spoken of during the forgiveness scene. But since Sherlock has forgiven her, John feels compelled to do the same. I also think of Mary; that she must be desparate to start a new life.

 

This doesn't mean I like all of the plot, but I do have to live with it. Some things will probably bother me for a very long time, though, but I choose not to focus on it and hope for better things for series 4.

Certainly I would be angry with Sherlock for shooting Magnussen. Unlike John's shooting of the cabbie, no-one's life was actually in danger, though Magnussen was obviously a loathsome creep and a danger to Mary because of her past. I would be particularly angry with him because he had ruined his own life with one extreme act.

 

We accept things, of course, in fiction that we would never tolerate in real life. For instance, I adore Sherlock but, in reality, I don't think I could bear him. However, I don't think that justifies the writers trying to foist something on us which just feels wrong - like the idea that anyone in their right mind would be able to come to terms with the fact that their wife was an assassin, without wanting to know the details.

 

"Darling, I was a hired killer."

"That's okay. Water under the bridge."

"And I shot your closest friend, nearly killing him, to shut him up."

"Well, he forgives you."

 

Even fiction seems to have some sort of internal credibility. Hopefully they will sort it out in the next series.

 

 

Wrong, Magnussen was not a danger to Mary because of her past. He, in fact, would have protected Mary if anything because he NEEDS her. Without her, he can't ultimately own Mycroft. 

[STCooper1]

 

You got one thing wrong; the letters do exist and are in a secret place only Magnussen and trusted underlings to him know about.

 

Okay, I'll bite: why do you claim this as a fact? Either you are Steven Moffat (in which case, welcome to the forum, Mr. Moffat, hope you like it here! ) or you are a bit optimistic about your own predictions, methinks ;).

 

 

I claim this is a fact because its confirmed in the episode. Right after Magnussen finished his Mind Palace display, Watson inquires about the absence of physical evidence, saying "So there are no documents. You don't actually have anything here", and Magnussen answers "Well, sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all." This proves not only that the hard copies or physical evidence is still in his possession, but also that there are others that know about them, as the "sometimes I send out for something" part confirms hes trusted certain underlings with their location and sends them to fetch them for him when they are needed, rather than go get them himself, and the "mostly I just remember it all" part confirms hes talking about the hard copies as he can't possibly "remember" something he hasn't already read and stored away. 

[STCooper1]

Dear STCooper,

No one here thinks killing is sanctioned unless in self - defence, and even then under extreme provocation!

I have no problem with anyone claiming I have made a false assumption, despite dear Caya's noble intervention ( Both a and for that!)

What tends to drive me to distraction are bad grammar, incorrect spelling and careless abuse of the English language!

To paraphrase Monsieur Arouet (Voltaire to you), I disagree with the bulk of your argument, but I will defend your right to express your views, as long as both you and VanBurenSupernova do so in clear, well-written sentences! By the way, in Dr Watson's blog entry there is not one mention of someone murdering himself! Just checked to make certain.

Sorry for being so bossy, it's just the professor in me!

 

I don't use bad grammar, so I hope you weren't replying to me with that.

[Inge l-w]

If I were an American citizen, I would plead the Fifth on this occasion. Ever heard of apostrophes and word order?

[Arcadia]

I don't believe there's a soul on this forum who hasn't had a typo, grammatical goof or brain fart of some kind or another at least once. We are all human. (Aren't we?  ) To err IS human, thank goodness.
 
As Toby pointed out, we're here to have fun, so probably it's best if we cut each other some slack, eh? For myself, I quite enjoy the stylistic differences in everyone's posts, it makes the discussion more lively! And frankly, I'm in awe of those of you for whom English is a second language; your command of English is astonishing to me. I know maybe five words in another language. My hat is off to you.

 

[Boton]

 

 

You got one thing wrong; the letters do exist and are in a secret place only Magnussen and trusted underlings to him know about.

 

Okay, I'll bite: why do you claim this as a fact? Either you are Steven Moffat (in which case, welcome to the forum, Mr. Moffat, hope you like it here! ) or you are a bit optimistic about your own predictions, methinks ;).

 

 

I claim this is a fact because its confirmed in the episode. Right after Magnussen finished his Mind Palace display, Watson inquires about the absence of physical evidence, saying "So there are no documents. You don't actually have anything here, and Magnussen answers "Well, sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all." This proves not only that the hard copies or physical evidence is still in his possession, but also that there are others that know about them, as the "sometimes I send out for something" part confirms hes trusted certain underlings with their location and sends them  to fetch them for him when they are needed, rather than go get them himself, and the "mostly I just remember it all" part confirms hes talking about the hard copies as he can't possibly "remember" something he hasn't already read and stored away. 

 

 

I'm going to chime in long enough to sit solidly on the fence.   :D

 

I do think that the letters that Magnussen had in his pocket when he visited 221B were the real thing, or at least that they indicated that he had the real thing close enough at hand that he could have exchanged them for the proper bribe.  If what he really wanted from the Smallwoods was money or something tangible (like the original Milverton), then he may have come prepared to exchange the letters for his payment, just as Sherlock conjectured.

 

However, I don't think that means that everything he remembers or has stored in his mental vaults has a physical counterpart stored off-site.  I think there's lots of stuff in his mind that he remembers based on seeing it, and that he only pursues physical evidence in cases in which he might need to produce documents to seal a deal.  I think his "mind vault" doesn't just include "copies" of things he owns but also representations of things he's heard and inferences he's made from information he's come into contact with.  So I do think that killing him effectively emptied the vaults, or at least a significant portion of them.

[Caya]

Moderator Comment:

This is your friendly moderator reminding you all that this forum has a nifty Ignore function for selected posters and/or all signatures in general.

You can reach it by either clicking on your name at the top right, then choosing the last option (aptly named Manage Ignore Prefs), or by following this handy link.

Once there, you can enter a fellow forum member's name and then choose, by checking boxes, which parts of their oeuvre to ignore. So if, say, you feel you no longer want to be reminded of my given name, just enter Caya in the Member's Name field and choose to ignore my signature (*sniff*). If you choose Posts, I'll be gone from your own personal version of the forum as if I'd never been here .

 

I hope that clears things up. If you need any kind of help with the process, I'll be happy to provide it .

[Inge l-w]

Dear Caya,

Since I believe that we were all created equal and that everybody's views are equally valid, I shall not avail myself of the easy way out unless personally insulted. Thanks for the warning, though, one never knows when it might come in handy! Like Arcadia said, we are all here to exchange views and have fun speculating, and the operative word is 'speculating' , not laying down the law according to our personal take on any of the episodes! See what such a long hiatus can do to normal ( if depressed) followers of one series? You and Carol are so fair- minded, I stand in awe of your clear-headed, poised, composed, intelligent comments! Besides, not buttering you up or anything, I really admire your wit!

And to all those who are not native speakers, always remember the GB Shaw quote that no one speaks better English than an educated foreigner, which is what makes Shadowdweller's input such fun to read, not forgetting Sherlockandjohn, SarinaGoldfish and Aurelie Vanimpe!

[STCooper1]

 

 

 

 Sherlock stood there with deliberate intent.  He was simply waiting for Mycroft to arrive so there were witnesses to the fact that Sherlock was acting completely alone and that John was not complicit in the killing of CAM.  He had made the decision far earlier.  In fact, the need to kill CAM occurred to Sherlock when he discovered CAM's mental powers - in the cafe months earlier.  Unlike Mary's dilemma, Sherlock's was not one which was unexpected - and so, unlike Mary, Sherlock's choice and action was not made on the spot in a split second (ie without time for planning and reflection, as Mary's choice had to be made).

 

Wrong, Sherlock did NOT know from the meeting in the cafe of Magnussen's mental powers, or else his whole plan at the end would have been different. Not only would he not have stolen Mycroft's laptop, ensureing he's get caught red-handed for the murder, as well as high treason, but he'd also had not brought John along and risked screwing up the Watsons' marriage(the one thing hes hoping to protect with the murder in the first place), and he'd have  arranged for the meeting to happen somewhere else where he'd probably not have the risk of getting shot by either Magnussen's bodyguards or armed policemen as a result of the murder. It was a heat-of-the-moment murder, as well as completely unjustified since Magnussen didn't deserve to die and the murder was unnecessary since he'd never had exposed the information on Mary.

 

[STCooper1]

 

I'm going to chime in long enough to sit solidly on the fence.   :D

 

I do think that the letters that Magnussen had in his pocket when he visited 221B were the real thing, or at least that they indicated that he had the real thing close enough at hand that he could have exchanged them for the proper bribe.  If what he really wanted from the Smallwoods was money or something tangible (like the original Milverton), then he may have come prepared to exchange the letters for his payment, just as Sherlock conjectured.

 

However, I don't think that means that everything he remembers or has stored in his mental vaults has a physical counterpart stored off-site.  I think there's lots of stuff in his mind that he remembers based on seeing it, and that he only pursues physical evidence in cases in which he might need to produce documents to seal a deal.  I think his "mind vault" doesn't just include "copies" of things he owns but also representations of things he's heard and inferences he's made from information he's come into contact with.  So I do think that killing him effectively emptied the vaults, or at least a significant portion of them.

 

 

Maybe so, but then theres every possibility he did have EVERYTHING in the Mind Palace in physical form somewhere and that none of the blackmail threat ended with his death.