Jump to content

Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"


Undead Medic

What Did You Think Of "His Last Vow"?  

157 members have voted

  1. 1. Add Your Vote Here:

    • 10/10 Excellent
    • 9/10 Not Quite The Best, But Not Far Off
    • 8/10 Certainly Worth Watching Again.
    • 7/10 Slightly Above The Norm.
    • 6/10 Average.
    • 5/10 Slightly Sub-Par.
    • 4/10 Decidedly Below Average.
    • 3/10 Pretty Poor.
    • 2/10 Bad.
    • 1/10 Terrible.
      0


Recommended Posts

Interesting. You think she really loves Sherlock? I thought so too, up to the moment she shot him. After that, every time we see her look at him, her face is utterly cold, except when she is saying goodbye to him at the airfield - seeing him off to his death.

 

Irene, I liked. Tough but genuinely cares about Sherlock - maybe even loves him. Bit of a blackmailer, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. You think she really loves Sherlock? I thought so too, up to the moment she shot him. After that, every time we see her look at him, her face is utterly cold, except when she is saying goodbye to him at the airfield - seeing him off to his death.

 

But her face when she shoots him isn't cold at all. She's nearly crying. And I believe her when she says she's truly sorry. I guess she felt she "had" to do it and if she had seen an alternative, she would not have.

 

True, when they're taking leave, Mary seems quite cheerful. But that might be a brave facade of someone who knows she can't change what is happening, anyway, so why waste tears on it. And of course Mary would have had to train herself to be pretty cold about people in general, or else she would never have been able to shoot straight. I'm sure she's a lot better than even Sherlock himself at putting aside her feelings.

 

And what reason would Mary have not to love Sherlock? He saved her life, patched up her marriage and killed her enemy. Okay, he gave her secret away to John, but at the same time he did his utmost to make John come to terms with it. So he actually did her a favor there, as well.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hm, well, what I think I meant was that the story is very unkind to her. None of her plans work out. She is forced to shoot the one man she presumably truly loves beside her husband, thus causing her husband considerable pain, while having to leave the man she truly hates alive. She is badly humiliated by both the men she loves, she is forced to submit to them passing judgement on her and has to wait months before John deigns to speak to her again, at which point he defines the terms of their future relationship and reduces her to the crying pregnant housewife (maybe also nurse working under him as a boss) he though he had bargained for. Nobody bothers to ask about her reasons, her motives, anything. And then Sherlock goes and kills Magnussen anyway, making a huge splash and drama out of something she could have achieved so much more neatly and quietly if he had only let her be.

 

 

 

Funny, I really don't mind what happened to Irene Adler, but I do get pretty indignant about Mary, who, one might argue, has a lot more to answer for...

 

 

 

 

Nobody forces her to take this action. She could have avoided shooting Sherlock by simply giving up and facing the consequences of her actions. To her, getting arrested for attempted homicide is worse than shooting a witness. It's a conscious decision. She had alternatives.

 

And I also don't see the humiliation. They don't force her into submission. She only agrees to their "client rpg" to avoid further consequences. Sherlock and John could have reported her, as would have been their right. Instead, they offer her the opportunity to explain. Which she doesn't in the end, but well. They gave her the opportunity.

 

Funnily, I consider this the one point that made me rethink season 4. Mary isn't asked to explain her motives, but she also does neither confirm nor deny Sherlock's deductions. It's a bit strange, to take this away from a character. This can't be an oversight. It's just too... obvious. It's Mary's one true emotional ammunition to "redeem" herself (in Sherlock's, John's, as well as the audience's eye). So why take that away from her? There must be more to that than what season three tells us.

 

Concerning Magnussen's actions and death:

No murder is ever justified. Death does not change the past nor does it magically change the present. It doesn't solve the mess created by the perpetrator.

I also consider it unfair towards the culprit. Killing them means taking away their life time. The time they could have used to rethink their actions. It takes away the chance to find the will to become a better person. There are truly nasty people out there but I find it very upsetting to say it's impossible that even one of them could recognize how wrong they have been, and that they could want to atone for it. When you kill somebody, you'll never know what good they could have caused in their remaining time span. We say it's alright to kill somebody because they could do more bad things. But why do we not say it's wrong to kill them because they could do good things?

I am not so much of an idealist to claim everybody is keen on being a nice neighbour who always helps out with lawnmoving. But on the off-chance that somebody wants to change their ways... how can we condemn them by default?

I feel like that's what's happening. People condemn Magnussen and say that he deserved to die. After all, he was nasty.

It somehow really upsets me. I find the thought very worrying. This is not meant as a rant or anything. But it's a troubling thought.

 

Magnussen is horrible, yes. He doesn't regret his actions at all. But what if he had regretted them a week later on? A year? Often people justify death sentences and the like with saying that somebody doesn't regret their action - but you'll never know if they do if you take away their time to regret it. You'll never find out how that person develops.

 

Sherlock's actions are, in my opinion, inexusable no matter what his motives may be. The only reason why I don't think as harshly of him as I do of Mary is that he knows that it was wrong. He doesn't try to escape the consequences. He allows himself to be caught in the act. He does willingly head to his own death. I don't consider this heroic or anything like that. But it shows that he is aware that his action cannot be without consequences. And he is facing them. He probably thinks it was the only decision to get what he wanted (John and Mary safe), but he doesn't think it was the right decision, nor that it was his right to kill Magnussen.

 

That's how I interpret it. It's a rather difficult topic, and once again, we've dived right into "morals."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zain, I think this comes closest to what I feel. I'm very disturbed by the tendency in popular fiction to simply "blow away the baddie." Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nobody forces her to take this action. She could have avoided shooting Sherlock by simply giving up and facing the consequences of her actions. To her, getting arrested for attempted homicide is worse than shooting a witness. It's a conscious decision. She had alternatives.

And I also don't see the humiliation. They don't force her into submission. She only agrees to their "client rpg" to avoid further consequences. Sherlock and John could have reported her, as would have been their right. Instead, they offer her the opportunity to explain. Which she doesn't in the end, but well. They gave her the opportunity.

 

Of course you are right. I should have said I feel she wasn't treated fairly by the writers. The characters, John and Sherlock, are meant to be as kind as possible towards her. Sherlock forgives her for shooting him, justifies her even. And John at least listens and finally agrees to take her back no questions asked. But the way her story is written is pretty humiliating, in my eyes.

 

I hope this makes as much sense in words as it does in my head... Somehow, tonight, my brain is having trouble getting the words out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Of course you are right. I should have said I feel she wasn't treated fairly by the writers. The characters, John and Sherlock, are meant to be as kind as possible towards her. Sherlock forgives her for shooting him, justifies her even. And John at least listens and finally agrees to take her back no questions asked. But the way her story is written is pretty humiliating, in my eyes.

 

 

 

I hope this makes as much sense in words as it does in my head... Somehow, tonight, my brain is having trouble getting the words out.

 

 

Ah, now I get it.

Sorry if I came across a bit harsh. 

Yes, her story seems somewhat messed up, doesn't it? Many have criticized it. I still hope there's more to it, and not just the wish to write something more Hollywood-ish. I am hoping (deluding myself?) that there's more to it. I cannot believe Gatiss and Moffat would leave her story so... unfinished and stereotypical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary has many reasons to love Sherlock and one reason to kill him - he is a witness, that's all. So she kills him ( his eventual survival being due to a rather unlikely miracle.) Then, when he doesn't die, she goes hunting for him with a gun. I know that people kill those they love in crimes of passion. I don't believe that, if you shoot someone in cold blood and then you hunt them down with the threat of doing it again, you ever loved them. If someone I loved might get me arrested, or might ruin my relationship with another loved one, I couldn't kill them. I don't believe anyone could. Most people can't kill someone they don't even have feelings for, because pity intervenes. Obviously this doesn't apply to Mary, who is an assassin. But could she love Sherlock and not feel enough pity to hold her back from murdering him? I don't buy it. Maybe S4 will contain revelations which illuminate her character. Hope so, anyway.

 

Zain has a good point that killing someone takes away all their potential, for good as well as evil. Admittedly CAM isn't very promising material for repentance, but who knows? Also, deciding you've got the right to execute someone means you think you have the right to take them away from those who love them. CAM is a slimy, horrid man but maybe he has someone (his mum?) who loves him. Have you got the right to break that person's heart? Even if people get life in prison, the people they love can visit them, write to them and know they still exist. Killing takes all that away forever.

 

No doubt Lady Smallwood grieved for her husband, driven to suicide by CAM's blackmail. Maybe he wasn't the only one who chose that way out. However, even if CAM killed people with his bare hands, it doesn't mean you have the right to kill him unless you do it to save another life. You can't judge your own actions by your enemy's standards, or you are no better than them.

 

I do consider Sherlock's action heroic because of his motives and his self-sacrifice. I would say something can be heroic but also stupid and/or wrong. That is why I don't think the shooting was premeditated. I think he threw away everything in one grand, self-destructive gesture.

 

No doubt S4 will show I am wrong and it was all Mycroft's idea.....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No doubt S4 will show I am wrong and it was all Mycroft's idea.....

 

Why, making an educated guess? :)

If we've learned something last season, it was... the answer to life, the universe, and everything isn't 42, it's Mycroft.

 

But let's be honest... would we have it any other way? Sherlock would be rather less adventurous (and ridiculously funny) if there wasn't big brother pulling all strings in the background to keep him from (major) harm.

I wonder if that's one of the reasons why Mycroft has become such a reoccuring character. Unlike Doyle's Mycroft Holmes, Mycroft is needed to explain how Sherlock gets away with his more daring stunts. It's kind of interesting, isn't it? In season three, Mycroft has become more than just a "plot device." He's finally been given some background. We've also been given some glimpses on his work. Maybe they are setting him up for something special in season 4. 

I wouldn't mind. But I think they really should bring in Lestrade a bit more. He's a great character. I'd be interested in his background, too. I'd love to see a Sherlock and Lestrade case. Maybe where Lestrade asks Sherlock personally for help. We know so few about their shared past, and how they met.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After John & Sherlock, of course, Lestrade is my favourite character, even though his appearances are pretty brief. I wish they featured him more often. The contrast between his good-natured, somewhat put-upon and extremely grounded personality and Sherlock's chaotic, impulsive brilliance is so good - he's as down-to-earth as John but a bit more detached and thus able to retain more perspective (plus a healthy dose of cynicism.) A lot of fanfic is based on the premise that they meet when Sherlock is young and addicted and that Lestrade, recognising his genius, offers him work if he cleans up his act. I'd like to see what Moftiss can come up with, regarding their past and Lestrade's initial reasons for inviting an outsider into official police business. I would also like him to be allowed to make a correct deduction of his own, just once in a while.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm awarding A+ to one and all, plus a gold star for promptness. Great discussion all around and I thank everyone for giving me a lot to chew on.

It's nice to see people who are not only willing, but able, to discuss something other than the color of Mr. Cumberbatch's eyes. Not that, er, ahem, that's a subject I MIND discussing...

Here's a present for one and all, as a thanks for indulging the new girl.

roflbot8_zpsbbaf0b9b.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see people who are not only willing, but able, to discuss something other than the color of Mr. Cumberbatch's eyes.

 

:lol: Um... isn't that question rather easily settled? One look at a photograph (in color) should be enough, I would have thought... I guess I'm a bit strange that way, but I'd feel uncomfortable discussing a real person's bodily details at length with strangers on the internet, even if he did set himself up for it by becoming famous. This statement of mine becomes downright absurd when I consider I am happy to ponder Sherlock's every curl, but hey, I tell myself that is just a clever disguise / costume and has little to do with the actor behind it. (Whom I do admire as an actor, make no mistake).

 

I am afraid you are right and Mycroft will turn out to have been behind the events at the end of His Last Vow, but I do wish he wasn't. I wonder whether I am the only person who would be happy to see Mycroft gone. I could better spare him than Mary by now, I must admit. Because here comes the next bit of absurdity straight from my twisted brain: I have zero trouble with Mary taking a friendly shot at Sherlock but I have not forgiven Mycroft one bit for calmly enjoying the spectacle of his little brother, whom he apparently sees as a child no less, being brutally tortured. That scene went so badly against my grain that I can only begin to imagine the indignation some of you must feel about Mary. But we do believe Mycroft loves Sherlock none the less, don't we? So why can't we believe Mary loves him too, in spite of everything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If we've learned something last season, it was... the answer to life, the universe, and everything isn't 42, it's Mycroft.

 

:rofl:

 

And there has been some discussion about Benedict Cumberbatch's eye colour round here, iirc ... personally, I'm with the glasz team :D.

 

Mycroft calmly watching Sherlock getting tortured was horrible, agreed. But imho a] it wasn't him (nor did it happen because of him) who tortured Sherlock, whereas Mary did kill Sherlock, and b] he did infiltrate that compound, at (presumably) great personal risk (can you imagine what they would've done to him to get at his secrets if they had realized who he was?) and saved him, whereas the only thing I can ever remember Mary doing for Sherlock was sending him off with John so she'd have some alone time for her plans (I'm not sold on the idea that it was her who called the ambulance).

 

tl;dr: Mycroft got Sherlock out of mortal peril while Mary brought Sherlock into mortal peril. That's why I still like Mycroft and would like to see Mary gone as soon as possible.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I have no qualms whatsoever in discussing, at some length, the loveliness that is Mr Cumberbatch. I wouldn't discuss the unattractiveness of anyone, famous or not, and cringe when others do so, but I have no problem saying that the man is remarkably beautiful. And talented, of course.

 

Hmm, Mycroft...... I think the difference is that it was not Mycroft's intent to harm his brother. We know he was a passive observer rather than an active participant but, even if he had been forced by circumstances to take part, he would be merely playing a role with the intention of saving Sherlock's life. I agree that it seems very cold, to sit and watch your brother being tortured, but we don't know why he didn't intervene earlier. Maybe he couldn't, without blowing his cover. Mycroft is an extremely cold character, difficult to like, but his schemes are intended to keep his brother alive ( presumably he was responsible for Sherlock escaping from Serbia.). Mary deliberately chose to harm - to kill, in my opinion - Sherlock whereas Mycroft was trying, in his rather callous way, to keep him alive.

 

Sending him undercover to his death certainly seems to violate Mycroft's determination to keep his brother alive, and I think there are two possible explanations. One is that he knows prison would destroy Sherlock. If he didn't provoke the other inmates into killing him, the boredom and restriction would drive him to suicide. As a free agent, he has at least a chance of survival. The other possibility is that Mycroft always planned for him to survive and come home, as his remark "England will always need a Sherlock Holmes" implies. I think this explanation is quite likely, though I hope that "Did you miss me?" isn't his doing.

 

So I think it is the intent - to harm or to save - that is the difference. He won't win any Big Brother of the Year awards, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's nice to see people who are not only willing, but able, to discuss something other than the color of Mr. Cumberbatch's eyes.

 

:lol: Um... isn't that question rather easily settled? ...

 

I am afraid you are right and Mycroft will turn out to have been behind the events at the end of His Last Vow, but I do wish he wasn't. I wonder whether I am the only person who would be happy to see Mycroft gone. I could better spare him than Mary by now, I must admit. Because here comes the next bit of absurdity straight from my twisted brain: I have zero trouble with Mary taking a friendly shot at Sherlock but I have not forgiven Mycroft one bit for calmly enjoying the spectacle of his little brother, whom he apparently sees as a child no less, being brutally tortured. That scene went so badly against my grain that I can only begin to imagine the indignation some of you must feel about Mary. But we do believe Mycroft loves Sherlock none the less, don't we? So why can't we believe Mary loves him too, in spite of everything?

 

Oooooooh, I don't know, I think I could argue for hours about whether his eyes are sapphire with a flecks of citrine, or aquamarine with a touch of emerald, or ..... lol

 

I'd hate to see Mycroft gone cuz I soooooo enjoy the fencing between them. And I want to see Sherlock mop the floor with his older brother someday. Intellectually, of course.

 

I'm not sure I actually ascribe to the theory that Mycroft was in on Sherlock's plan -- but if he was, what a real bastard he would have to be, to agree to his brother turning assassin. Mummy would be very upset. Actually, in that case I'd like to see Mummy Holmes go monstrous. On the both of them.

post-1299-0-22779700-1394720341.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mycroft, Sherlock and Mary all have very "interesting" ways of treating the people they love. Mycroft enjoys watching his little brother being tortured (it is the enjoyment that really set my teeth on edge) and sends him to a deadly exile. Mary shoots Sherlock in the chest and lies to John about who and what she is (okay, hiding the truth may not be an active lie, but still). Sherlock throws himself off a building before John's eyes and lets him visit his grave for two years before he comes cheerily back, expecting a good laugh together at this excellent little joke. They are all three complete loons. I don't know whether one is really worse than the others. But all evidence we have suggests they truly love the people they hurt. I love characters who are emotionally a bit (or more than just a bit) messed up, so it's all fine with me. I draw the line at Moriarty, though. Moriarty is not lovable or excusable. And neither is Magnussen. They are not redeemed by any kind of love for anybody.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Moriarty to Mary.

 

That is because, with Moriarty, you know he is a thoroughly evil, dyed-in-the-wool villain. He doesn't pretend to love you before he maims you, he doesn't expect forgiveness and big hugs all round, he doesn't turn up at your mum's house for Christmas dinner..... There is no betrayal there, no exploitation of trust and love, because there was never any expectation of goodness. As a character, he has charisma - though quite a lot of that may be due to Andrew Scott - but we are not expected to find him lovable, well-intentioned and worthy of forgiveness. More to the point, the other characters are not expected to see him in this way. No-one gives him a cuddle, turns a blind eye to his past misdeeds and manages to forgive him for trying to destroy Sherlock.

 

Jim and Mary are, in my opinion, both bad people but the writers aren't nudging us towards loving him. They aren't distorting the other characters' personalities in their reactions to him. To me, John deciding to resume his relationship with Mary as if nothing happened is about as in-character as if Sherlock suddenly decided to start dating Moriarty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Moriarty to Mary.

 

That is because, with Moriarty, you know he is a thoroughly evil, dyed-in-the-wool villain. He doesn't pretend to love you before he maims you, he doesn't expect forgiveness and big hugs all round, he doesn't turn up at your mum's house for Christmas dinner..... There is no betrayal there, no exploitation of trust and love, because there was never any expectation of goodness. As a character, he has charisma - though quite a lot of that may be due to Andrew Scott - but we are not expected to find him lovable, well-intentioned and worthy of forgiveness. More to the point, the other characters are not expected to see him in this way. No-one gives him a cuddle, turns a blind eye to his past misdeeds and manages to forgive him for trying to destroy Sherlock.

 

Jim and Mary are, in my opinion, both bad people but the writers aren't nudging us towards loving him. They aren't distorting the other characters' personalities in their reactions to him. To me, John deciding to resume his relationship with Mary as if nothing happened is about as in-character as if Sherlock suddenly decided to start dating Moriarty.

 

I second that. Whole-heartedly.

 

 

To throw some new material for speculation in (so that we don't have to discuss BC's body, as lovely as it might be...):

Anybody notice the screen Mycroft's looking at when he tells Lestrade about the two other boltholes? It shows a map of Poland, and the mission is called Ugly Duckling. Eastern Europe, where Sherlock was supposed to be sent off to.

Only character that I can remember which was associated with Poland (Warsaw) in canon was Irene Adler. 

Too much of a coincidence, or a possible hint for season 4? Maybe Irene is getting another appearance?

 

Then there's the mission name: Ugly Duckling. Also a hint? After all, the "ugly duckling" is a swan who accidentally rolled into a duck's nest as a egg. A metaphor for secret family relationships?

It's a bit interesting how things do connect but not really make sense. There's Magnussen who is Danish. Then we get a mission named after a Danish children tale about an "adopted child." We also get a hint in the episode that there's a possible third Holmes sibling. DId maybe Magnussen in the end actually have something on Mycroft? If there's something to know, then it's an open secret in some circles (he's mentioning it quite liberally at the end of the episode). But could have Magnussen threatened to, for example, tell Sherlock who seems oblivious to another sibling?

Magnussen states that Mycroft had been looking for a way to remove Magnussen. Which is quite a contradiction to Mycroft's intial response: "You go against Magnussen, and you find yourself going against me." I wonder if something happened between those two statements.

Just to throw in something new. I personally have another favorite theory :) It is interesting, though.

 

So many references to Eastern Europe.I wonder if the east wind's set to arrive in season 4. If that mission will be a feature in the next season. That could mean things pick up right after the end of HLV. I wouldn't mind if there was another story arc that spans over two seasons like with season 1 and season 2.

Or this is just me, hoping desperately that there's more behind what happened last season than we were meant to see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, John deciding to resume his relationship with Mary as if nothing happened is about as in-character as if Sherlock suddenly decided to start dating Moriarty.

 

:lol: Well, it seems as if some people would find that plausible as well...

 

Not criticizing, just curious: Why do you think what Mary did was inexcusable and makes her "bad", while Sherlock betraying John's trust and hurting him badly (not physically, but I could argue that two years of mourning are worse than a shot to the chest which healed within months - and would have healed faster if Sherlock had been more compliant as a patient) is worthy of John's forgiveness and does not make him a villain? And why are so may viewers who disapprove strongly of Mary apparently so touched at scenes where Mycroft and Sherlock show any kind of brotherly feeling for each other? To me, Mycroft is the worst of the lot, quite sadistic actually, and I find his professed affection for his brother rather creepy when I consider what he has done to him in the past (and using him as bait for Moriarty at the sacrifice of Sherlock's few meaningful relationships and his home is not the least of Mycroft's questionable proofs of brotherly affection - if, as Sherlock claims, it was in fact his idea).

 

I'd fully understand if it's simply a case of "I don't like Mary" (I don't like "Mike" obviously... although, I have to say this again for the sake of fairness, Gatiss does an amazing job playing him and his lines are often hilarious!), but I don't "get it" on a more objective level (not saying there isn't one, just that it's beyond my grasp at the moment) and would be interested in the whys and therefores. If you don't mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, happy to explain my POV.....

 

For a start, it is a billion times worse to shoot someone than to lie to them. Grief is a horrible thing and, when you are going through it, can feel worse than physical pain but most people do survive it and somehow get on with their lives. That was happening to John. He mourned, he started a new life without Sherlock, he met Mary and he was happy again. Take a bullet and the chances are that your life is over. (As Sherlock's was - his miraculous recovery in surgery requiring a considerable suspension of disbelief.). Then there is the pain she inflicted. When Pope John Paul was shot, I remember an expert saying that the impact would be like being hit by a car at over a hundred miles an hour. The pain is unbearable. It's not something you're going to bounce back from, any time soon. In fact, Sherlock climbing out the window and dashing round London is ridiculous but, of course, necessary for the plot.

 

And, apart from the damage done to Sherlock, what was she doing to John, the man she is supposed to love? If mourning Sherlock hurt him so much, what would happen if he had to do it all over again? Knowing her husband is downstairs, she shoots his best friend - the man he was mourning when she met him - and leaves him dying on the floor for John to find.

 

Then there is intent. Sherlock lied to John, let him think he had witnessed a suicide and let him grieve for two years. Certainly it was cruel. However, it was not done with the intention of hurting. It might even be that, by claiming he was a fake, Sherlock was using his rooftop farewell to try to disillusion John and lessen the pain. (If not, I don't know why he said it.). He was also protecting John as well as himself by not contacting him, though he was obviously tempted to do so.

 

Mary's intention was, at best, to cause a very serious injury to disable him. At worst, she wanted him to bleed out, thus preventing John from chasing her, and to die, thus ensuring his silence. When he didn't die, she went after him with a gun. It isn't a matter of just disliking Mary. I did like her up to the shooting. Much as I love Sherlock, if the positions were reversed and he had killed her just because she was an innocent witness, it would be just as bad.

 

I agree Mycroft is cold and creepy compared to Mary's apparent warmth and sweetness in the first two episodes and his methods are questionable, but I don't think he intends his brother to be hurt, much less killed. So, for me, Mary's actions are completely different from those of the Holmes brothers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I prefer Moriarty to Mary.

 

That is because, with Moriarty, you know he is a thoroughly evil, dyed-in-the-wool villain. He doesn't pretend to love you before he maims you, he doesn't expect forgiveness and big hugs all round, he doesn't turn up at your mum's house for Christmas dinner..... There is no betrayal there, no exploitation of trust and love, because there was never any expectation of goodness. As a character, he has charisma - though quite a lot of that may be due to Andrew Scott - but we are not expected to find him lovable, well-intentioned and worthy of forgiveness. More to the point, the other characters are not expected to see him in this way. No-one gives him a cuddle, turns a blind eye to his past misdeeds and manages to forgive him for trying to destroy Sherlock.

 

Jim and Mary are, in my opinion, both bad people but the writers aren't nudging us towards loving him. They aren't distorting the other characters' personalities in their reactions to him. To me, John deciding to resume his relationship with Mary as if nothing happened is about as in-character as if Sherlock suddenly decided to start dating Moriarty.

I second that. Whole-heartedly.

 

 

To throw some new material for speculation in (so that we don't have to discuss BC's body, as lovely as it might be...):

Anybody notice the screen Mycroft's looking at when he tells Lestrade about the two other boltholes? It shows a map of Poland, and the mission is called Ugly Duckling. Eastern Europe, where Sherlock was supposed to be sent off to.

Only character that I can remember which was associated with Poland (Warsaw) in canon was Irene Adler.

Too much of a coincidence, or a possible hint for season 4? Maybe Irene is getting another appearance?

 

Then there's the mission name: Ugly Duckling. Also a hint? After all, the "ugly duckling" is a swan who accidentally rolled into a duck's nest as a egg. A metaphor for secret family relationships?

It's a bit interesting how things do connect but not really make sense. There's Magnussen who is Danish. Then we get a mission named after a Danish children tale about an "adopted child." We also get a hint in the episode that there's a possible third Holmes sibling. DId maybe Magnussen in the end actually have something on Mycroft? If there's something to know, then it's an open secret in some circles (he's mentioning it quite liberally at the end of the episode). But could have Magnussen threatened to, for example, tell Sherlock who seems oblivious to another sibling?

Magnussen states that Mycroft had been looking for a way to remove Magnussen. Which is quite a contradiction to Mycroft's intial response: "You go against Magnussen, and you find yourself going against me." I wonder if something happened between those two statements.

Just to throw in something new. I personally have another favorite theory :) It is interesting, though.

 

So many references to Eastern Europe.I wonder if the east wind's set to arrive in season 4. If that mission will be a feature in the next season. That could mean things pick up right after the end of HLV. I wouldn't mind if there was another story arc that spans over two seasons like with season 1 and season 2.

Or this is just me, hoping desperately that there's more behind what happened last season than we were meant to see.

Now you point it out, there are a lot of references to Eastern Europe. Maybe Mary's backstory is located there? Or Moriarty's hiding place? (Or both?). Or maybe a new villain is on his way. Who was the Baron that Mycroft referred to, regarding Serbia? If it was a canon reference, I missed it.

 

I would love to see Sherlock and John running around Prague. Such a beautiful city, and quite spooky too. Not sure that the BBC's budget would stretch that far, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I find what Mary did inexcusable? That has (at least) one in-universe and one meta level.

 

In-universe, she killed a man that trusted her and thought of her as a friend. And yes, she killed him - he flatlined. Moreover, she never even once shows remorse or asks him for forgiveness, and in fact went after him again with a gun and would've happily repeated the deed. I'm all over redemption stories normally (just look at Choices). But repentance must come first.

 

Meta, it's the betrayal, on multiple levels. Betrayal of the viewer's trust, in that I was let to really love the character Mary up until Sign, feeling happy that they'd managed to make her so likeable and funny and such a good addition to the team, and being relieved that my worries were unfounded. And then they went, "Ha-ha, just kidding, she's someone else entirely" - Vow felt like having the rug pulled from under me. Then, betrayal of staying faithful to chars I'd grown to love ... that John who takes his wife the murderer back, no questions asked, and then has no more than a handshake for Sherlock as they say their final goodbyes, that is not the same John I got two know and love for two and a half series. And finally betrayal of the viewer's intelligence; we were always free to make up our own minds about the chars and get to our own conclusions ... is there a lonely side to Moriarty? Did Irene really have feelings for Sherlock? And now it's, "John forgave her, so she's redeemed, everything is well, and everyone loves her." I'll make my own mind up about that, thank you very much.

 

In a sense, Mary's but a symptom for what I feel has started to go wrong with the series ... namely, we can't trust anything we see or here (be it in-show or outside) anymore. John's sweet-natured wife is suddenly a psychopathic killer, Sherlock went from being a friend John would happily have died for to someone he barely bothers to say goodbye before returning to wifey, and after years of swearing up and down that Moriarty is deader than a doorknob he's suddenly back, or is he, or isn't he, and we've been planning this all the time, aren't we clever? No, you're not. You're just messing with us, and I for one am sick of it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read the previous discussions ... I'm sorry ... just wanted to post while this was fresh in my mind.  BBC Canada ran S3 E3 for the first time last night.  I admit I was on the edge of my chair for most of this episode.  

 

What a chilling villain Magnusson is !   :o Never needing proof of anything ... no facts required, ma'am ...  just publish it in his newspapers and lives, communities, governments are destroyed.  Imagine the power.  The only way to stop him was to kill him. Sherlock had no choice, of course.   What was that saying WAY back ... the medium is the message ... ?  Scary stuff !

 

I got such a kick out of John being so overwhelmed by Sherlock having a girlfriend that he really never heard anything being said to him.  Totally took him to another place.  I love Watson !  :wub:  I love the way he has to handle information ... he has to react, then cogitate, then process, then accept.  He always makes an informed and practical choice.  

 

Sherlock's reaction to being shot was great !  Molly's advice popping up from his mind palace telling him which way to fall was amazing.  And the delirious encounter with Moriarty.  I wasn't sure I enjoyed Moriarty at first, but he's growing on me.

 

Christmas at the Holmes house was fun.  Mr. Holmes does seem to be quite normal, doesn't he ?  

 

I'm happy for Mary ... her past must have been terrible but isn't it wonderful to be able to move on ?  Maybe she needs to atone for her sins but hopefully she'll be able to be a better person and making up for her past might just be the cure for the likes of Magnusson who destroyed people's potential to do good.  Watson's faith in her is good enough for me !

 

Mycroft is the man !  He seems to be able to make everything ... if not go away ... at least tone done a notch or two.  He and Sherlock always regress back to boys when they're together ... smoking on the walkway and lying about it to their mother ! :D 

As an aside, somebody at work asked me to name three people I'd like to have dinner with and the first person who popped into my head was Mark Gatiss ... wouldn't it be fun to have a Sherlock discussion with him ??  

 

The ending was interesting.  Obviously having the plane turn around was a much better alternative to Sherlock going to certain death after doing his bit for MI6 ... leave that to James Bond !  More fun and games to come with our looney-tune Moriarty !

 

As noted, I've only watched it once ... so more research is needed.  I feel a little sad, though.  Do we really have to wait 2 years for more Sherlock-y goodness ?? :( 

 

Debbie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I find what Mary did inexcusable? That has (at least) one in-universe and one meta level.

 

In-universe, she killed a man that trusted her and thought of her as a friend. And yes, she killed him - he flatlined. Moreover, she never even once shows remorse or asks him for forgiveness, and in fact went after him again with a gun and would've happily repeated the deed. I'm all over redemption stories normally (just look at Choices). But repentance must come first.

 

Meta, it's the betrayal, on multiple levels. Betrayal of the viewer's trust, in that I was let to really love the character Mary up until Sign, feeling happy that they'd managed to make her so likeable and funny and such a good addition to the team, and being relieved that my worries were unfounded. And then they went, "Ha-ha, just kidding, she's someone else entirely" - Vow felt like having the rug pulled from under me. Then, betrayal of staying faithful to chars I'd grown to love ... that John who takes his wife the murderer back, no questions asked, and then has no more than a handshake for Sherlock as they say their final goodbyes, that is not the same John I got two know and love for two and a half series. And finally betrayal of the viewer's intelligence; we were always free to make up our own minds about the chars and get to our own conclusions ... is there a lonely side to Moriarty? Did Irene really have feelings for Sherlock? And now it's, "John forgave her, so she's redeemed, everything is well, and everyone loves her." I'll make my own mind up about that, thank you very much.

 

In a sense, Mary's but a symptom for what I feel has started to go wrong with the series ... namely, we can't trust anything we see or here (be it in-show or outside) anymore. John's sweet-natured wife is suddenly a psychopathic killer, Sherlock went from being a friend John would happily have died for to someone he barely bothers to say goodbye before returning to wifey, and after years of swearing up and down that Moriarty is deader than a doorknob he's suddenly back, or is he, or isn't he, and we've been planning this all the time, aren't we clever? No, you're not. You're just messing with us, and I for one am sick of it.

I still love the show and I'm looking forward to S4, but I strongly agree with all you say about Mary and also about John. What they did to John's character annoys me much more than what happened with Mary. They can make her into a ruthless, two -faced villain and that's fine but, instead, the writing seems to be saying, "Look, Sherlock says it's okay, so John thinks it's okay, so you've got to think it's okay. Aren't they sweet together?". That's manipulative but what they did to John...

 

Throughout the series, we've come to know this good, decent, loyal man. Now he can forgive his wife for effectively murdering his dearest friend, he doesn't want to know who else she killed and he can't show any real feeling when he is saying goodbye to said friend forever. Every time I watch the airfield scene, it is really painful. Okay, so John is a very reserved Englishman - bit of a cliche, but never mind - but he isn't a robot. Sherlock tells him they'll never meet again and John can't come up with anything? Nothing? Just "We're not naming our daughter after you"?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I think I am beginning to understand. It all boils down to interpretation of the characters' intent / motivation for acting the way they do. Mary is hardest to "read" that way, because they gave us so little to work with, so no wonder we disagree about her the most.

 

For example, I did not get the impression that Sherlock's whacky "surgery" theory was meant to be wrong. I think he explains Mary's true intent right there - she did not plan to kill, only to gain time to negotiate, otherwise she would have aimed at Sherlock's brain or heart (see Shan's quote from The Blind Banker about an assassin not shooting straight and what that means. Oh, by the way, Shan - there's your female villain, Carol!). Of course the show did give us mixed messages, as Sherlock says, because they spent endless minutes showing in excruciating detail how Sherlock did, in fact die. So my interpretation is that the way Mary shot Sherlock and the fact that she immediately called an ambulance tells us she didn't mean to kill him, but she almost did. Certainly it was a risky game and even I can't deny that she must have at least considered the possibility of his death and fired anyway, taking her chance.

 

When it comes to comparing Mary's shot to Sherlock faking a gruesome suicide at John, it's the same story: The intent is totally unclear. I used to think he did it to protect John and the others from Moriarty's snipers, but since it turned out that Mycroft was in on the plan and fully able to take care of them anyway, I am not so sure anymore. Then, the fact that the whole thing seems staged more for John's "benefit" than even Moriarty's makes it look considerably more ugly than I had ever considered. Sherlock had well remind us that he is neither a hero nor an angel. Still, I want John to forgive him fully. So I won't quarrel with him forgiving Mary, too.

 

The rest of that comparison is personal opinion. If ever given such a terrible and insane choice, I would rather my best friend's wife shot me in the chest while looking me straight in the eye than that the friend staged an elaborate suicide, complete with tears, blood and drama, for me as the intended chief audience, then disappeared, let me waste months (years?) of my life on grief and then - tadaaa! - showed up again as if nothing had happened. 'Course I'd prefer that to the actual death of the person, though.

 

Thanks for explaining! I sometimes wish they gave us more information on what drives the characters to act the way they do, but on consideration, this guessing game is much more fun and more appropriate for a detective series, anyway. And I suspect that the writers themselves aren't even quite sure at times of what goes on inside those twisted minds they have created.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyway I feel like that Irene Adler will make an appearance in the next season. She was mentioned in 3rd season at least two times- once in Sherlock's mind palace, and in Moriarty's list on who will cry if Sherlock died. and she was the second in list next to John! i've an hunch that The Woman isn't completely gone from Sherlock's life. Remember what Moffat said about women in Sherlock.

 

Besides I like to see a new villain besides Moriarty. Culverton Smith possibly. He is the next brilliant baddie in the books who almost fooled our favorite sleuth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 18 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.