Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

...is it a stage on his journey from great man to good one?

 

I interpret that that way (god, English is weird). Compared to series one's uncaring, unsentimental, rude Sherlock, the series three's slightly humbler (train scene in TEH), slightly nicer (TSoT), and much more sentimental (HLV) Sherlock is at least a better man, if not a good one.

[Arcadia]

I agree, which is why I hope they show him learning from this incident, and not just moving along as if it didn't happen. But I suspect the latter.

 

Moffitt said S4 will be unexpected, or something like that. I figure if expect the worst, then they're bound to be right and I (it's all about ME!) will be happy!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Is anything they do ever really expected? Except for the fact that we never expect them to just come out and tell us what the hey is going on.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

Actually, somewhere on the internet somebody predicted in 2011 that Sherlock would be John's best man at the wedding, and that Sherlock would actually be somewhat polite and normal and unsociopathic, and that Sherlock would be upset about the wedding... and it happened. So maybe one of us is psychic and has just foresaw the future. But we won't know until next year!

[Carol the Dabbler]

.... let's not get started on the calender date until the mid 18th century It's charming, in a way. And I thought it was hilarious in school when I first heard about it. Poor merchants.

I assume you're talking about the time they had to drop several days from the calendar, to get back in sync with the solar system. But other than that, you've lost me. 

 

 

And actually, Sherlock shoots Moriarty in canon, in his only act of deliberate killing. So the canon Sherlock does commit one crime against the final villain - and the producers did this for CAM.

You may be referring to a Holmes movie -- heaven knows there are plenty of Moriartys to choose from, and of course Moftiss have famously said that everything is canon. But in Conan Doyle's original story "The Final Problem," Holmes defended himself when Moriarty rushed at him. They grappled, and Moriarty ended up falling over a cliff into a waterfall. Presumably Holmes helped him along, but there was no gun involved.

 

[Zain]

 

I assume you're talking about the time they had to drop several days from the calendar, to get back in sync with the solar system. But other than that, you've lost me. 

 

 

 

 

Oh, it was not really a serious comment. Don't worry, just an off remark a teacher made, not really something one needs to know. Most things aren't, sadly.

Just, England was rather late to introduce the Gregorian calender, and they were "behind" a few days. They were a very important trade partner, and the Hanse were obviously running on a different date than their partners until then. A ship thus would either arrive "before" it even sailed, or it took "ages" for the ship to cross. Not literally, of course. Well, in a way literally. On the paper.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorta like time zones, then.  I knew that England had been among the last countries to adopt the new calendar (and thus had to drop even more days, which reportedly lead to rioting among people who demanded their days back).  But that particular ramification had not occurred to me.  Thanks for the explanation, Zain.

 

[jesskayding]

After reading all of your guys' posts I am unsure of what to really think of Sherlock killing CAM. As I have already said, it "seemed" like he had no alternative, but why did the directors set it up that way? In canon, it was another character (a lady actually) who shoots him, not Sherlock. And actually, Sherlock shoots Moriarty in canon, in his only act of deliberate killing. So the canon Sherlock does commit one crime against the final villain - and the producers did this for CAM. The question is, how will this moral dilemma affect the future episodes? And why did they chose Sherlocks (hopefully) one act of violence be for CAM and not Moriarty?

I think when they knew life or death files would be kept in CAM'S head verses in a file cabinet/safe per original canon? They knew how they developed the fallacies & weaknesses in Sherlock's character would lead him to back himself into a corner & destroy the files Tue only way he knew how. Other than that they could of probably slipped him some type of memory loss drugs, if Sherlock hadn't gone off of what he thought was the obvious hiding place for the files, or of he wouldn't have assumed they were actually touchable & visable.

 

Honestly the writers seem to put their own little spin on the stories, they use the canon & other resources like pulp fiction don't they? They're not told in order. Moriarty's not a professor in their version but a consultant criminal. Instead of Irene Adler being a newly married, american opera singer... She's a lesbian, wealthy dominatrix.

 

John is far more active right away in this version.. VS doing a little here & there. Also Sherlock talks @ the speed of light & often, seems to be the opposite in canon.

 

In order to modernize it & bring it up to speed from Victorian age to the technological era. Changes to characters & story line perhaps had to be made.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Other than that they could of probably slipped him some type of memory loss drugs....

 

I doubt there's any drug that would reliably cause selective memory loss, so they'd have to go for complete senility.  Would you rather be killed or totally lose your memory? I'm not so sure that the latter would be an improvement.

 

[jesskayding]

How would you save people from CAM?

[Arcadia]

I would've had Sherlock think his way out of the situation. Specifically, I don't know, I'm lousy at plots!

[jesskayding]

I don't think it was possible to think himself out of it. He would just be under CAM'S thumb. If CAM was a different personality sure. But it was apparent he had a plan to get to Mycroft through Sherlock... Per the end of TEH ( you literally see his eyes reverse dilate, while watching Sherlock pull John out of the bon fire) & his listing of everyone's pressure points to Sherlock @ Appledoor.

 

So how do we destroy the files? HoW!?

[Zain]

How would you save people from CAM?

 

 

Have them not be stupid and hide their dirt just because they fear the consequences of their immoral and criminal actions?

 

I certainly do not condone blackmail, in no circumstances, but it is not like he is directly preying on the blameless and innocent. To our current knowledge, at least. He isn't making up stories. He uses the ammunition given to "him." If you hide, say, your illegal hand gun in your cupboard, you risk that someone will one day find it, even if they only wanted to find something else, like... candles. It is a risk you take that someone finds out your secret.

 

However, Magnussen is no "hero" that publishes truths. He doesn't do it to fight against people that got away with their crimes. But it must be mentioned in the same breath that he is not despicable for finding out those secrets. He is a despicable person, because he blackmails those people, and because he uses those truths to get to other people.

 

Though I suppose this could be rather a cultural issue, too. I dare not step on anybody's toes, but I believe to have once read that it is very much ingrained in, for example, the American culture to not mind other people's businesses. Which was studied in social psychology a lot after there was a much higher ratio of cases in America compared to other nations in which victims of a crime died simply because neighbours and witnesses feared to misinterpret the situation, and they did not want to poke their nose into another person's business. While, for example, Germans are very much known for sticking their nose into things that are anything but their business. It's like a curse, we just always seem to have an opinion we desperately feel will make all the difference.... even when subconsciously knowing no, it's really not that important. It's why we got so much insight to offer about foreign economics *cough*

 

Back to the topic on hand:

I think we must not forget that if Magnussen had simply gone to the police with whatever evidence he once had seen, or with the sources of information he obtained, few would find any fault with him. And nobody would talk about "saving people" from CAM.

 

I just wonder if that is, at the core, not essentially a question of motivation/intention vs. action.

For example, we almost universally agree that Sherlock had good intentions, and that he was motivated by the drive to help John/Mary. Yet I dare say his action is not the best one he could have taken. Some say that the good intention/motivation does not make up for the chosen path. Others say that because he had good intentions, the murder was the only solution and justified.

 

On the other hand, Magnussen is the complete opposite. His actions, reducing them to the collection of truth and confronting the affected parties, while deliberately ignoring the blackmail part which belongs onto the motivation side, that itself is not immoral. The execution, however, is. And that execution is motivated by his bad intentions to get to others, to use those truths to his own gain. Some argue that everything about him is inexcusable, and that because his intentions were bad, all his actions were, too. Others argue that his intentions were wrong, but the fact that he looked through other people's dirty laundry is not.

 

The question seems to me... Is any action justified if one is driven by the right, or let's call it the "good" motivation? If one intents to help others? Does that justify any and every action?

And, logically following the previous question, does the wrong motivation then mean a person cannot do any good at all? Because every action is tainted by their selfish motivation?

 

Not that I am saying that Magnussen was doing any good. His motivation was incredibly selfish, and it led into a downward spiral of bad actions. Instead of revealing the truth with the intention to sell more newspapers (which is a selfish motivation but combined with an underlying good action), he kept the truth to himself and used it for his own gain.

 

It is a difficult topic, indeed. 

[jesskayding]

From my understanding zain he used peoples pressure points. Most weren't criminal. He used John & hinted @ Redbeard to get to Sherlock. That one mans pressure point in the opening credits of HLV was his handicapped daughter.

 

Zain are you perfect. Is there anything that you've done privately, or something embarrassing about you or someone you love that you wouldn't want broadcast for everyone to see/read?

 

I personally wouldn't want certain abuses done against me publicized... I'd be humiliated. CAM was like that. Mostly with people who " weren't important ". How cruel

 

People can control what they do, but what about things done against them? Why humiliate Lady Smallwood for her husbands indiscretions.

 

So again how do we stop something like CAM? HoW?????

[Carol the Dabbler]

I agree, Jess, I didn't get the impression that all of CAM's victims were hiding something illegal.  And even if what Lord Smallwood did was illegal, it does no good to say he shouldn't have done it, because at the time he thought the girl was an adult.  I suspect that CAM preyed on people's sense of privacy as much as on their fear of criminal prosecution.

 

I suppose this could be rather a cultural issue, too. I dare not step on anybody's toes, but I believe to have once read that it is very much ingrained in, for example, the American culture to not mind other people's businesses. Which was studied in social psychology a lot after there was a much higher ratio of cases in America compared to other nations in which victims of a crime died simply because neighbours and witnesses feared to misinterpret the situation, and they did not want to poke their nose into another person's business. While, for example, Germans are very much known for sticking their nose into things that are anything but their business. It's like a curse, we just always seem to have an opinion we desperately feel will make all the difference.... even when subconsciously knowing no, it's really not that important. It's why we got so much insight to offer about foreign economics *cough*

You're not stepping on any toes there, Zain.  You're absolutely correct that we Americans generally believe in minding our own business.  (Though I will say that the unfortunate incidents that you mention may have been the result of a more recent phenomenon called "not getting involved," which is considered deplorable here as well as elsewhere.)

 

Thank you for mentioning the German attitude -- that presumably explains the behavior of a German gal we know who never tires of criticizing how things are done here.  (I have the feeling that if I went to Germany and made analogous comments, I'd be branded an "ugly American"!)

 

[T.o.b.y]

So again how do we stop something like CAM? HoW?????

 

Take a gun and shoot him in the head. Seriously. No, of course I wouldn't murder anybody in real life, no matter who, and besides, I don't even know how to hold a gun, let alone fire it, and I have no intention to learn.

 

But I think the episode shows how people did try to stop Magnussen in a civilized way, and failed. I mean, it opens with an official investigation concerning his influence over the prime minister. Lady Smallwood and her colleagues were already trying to deal with him within the confines what is lawful and right, and they failed pretty miserably, didn't they.

 

Then there's Mycroft. Magnussen says he'd been waiting for an opportunity to get him for a long while, which exposes Mycroft's "can't be arsed" attitude towards the man as a lie Mycroft adopted so he wouldn't have to admit that he would, in fact, like to remove Magnussen from the scene very much, but doesn't know how. And come on, if super-genius-I-am-so-much-smarter-than-my-brother-and-have-unlimited-resources Mycroft couldn't think of anything, then the options must be pretty darn limited.

 

There was no way to outsmart Magnussen. He'd perfected being utterly shameless himself to an art form, so I guess threatening him with his own dirty secrets wouldn't have been much use. Magnussen just simply won. That is, from the original story, the whole point of the character.

 

And I know this is probably morally horrible and proves that I am a bad person at heart, but I bloody love Sherlock for killing him. I love this "oh what the hell, I've had enough of this nightmare, I'm just going to put a stop to it now" attitude. It's alluring. And deeply heroic. Not because he's doing a good deed - quite the contrary, he's taking it on himself to do a necessary awful deed. He's sacrificing himself so that everybody else can be safe and still remain on the "good" side.

 

 

I agree, Jess, I didn't get the impression that all of CAM's victims were hiding something illegal.  And even if what Lord Smallwood did was illegal, it does no good to say he shouldn't have done it, because at the time he thought the girl was an adult.  I suspect that CAM preyed on people's sense of privacy as much as on their fear of criminal prosecution.

 

I suppose this could be rather a cultural issue, too. I dare not step on anybody's toes, but I believe to have once read that it is very much ingrained in, for example, the American culture to not mind other people's businesses. Which was studied in social psychology a lot after there was a much higher ratio of cases in America compared to other nations in which victims of a crime died simply because neighbours and witnesses feared to misinterpret the situation, and they did not want to poke their nose into another person's business. While, for example, Germans are very much known for sticking their nose into things that are anything but their business. It's like a curse, we just always seem to have an opinion we desperately feel will make all the difference.... even when subconsciously knowing no, it's really not that important. It's why we got so much insight to offer about foreign economics *cough*

You're not stepping on any toes there, Zain.  You're absolutely correct that we Americans generally believe in minding our own business.  (Though I will say that the unfortunate incidents that you mention may have been the result of a more recent phenomenon called "not getting involved," which is considered deplorable here as well as elsewhere.)

 

Thank you for mentioning the German attitude -- that presumably explains the behavior of a German gal we know who never tires of criticizing how things are done here.  (I have the feeling that if I went to Germany and made analogous comments, I'd be branded an "ugly American"!)

 

Funny, I always perceive my countrymen as terribly uncaring and not the least bit interested in the fate of others. But they do seem to love to criticize everything American. Don't ask me why. I've given up arguing with people about "overseas", I just nod politely until the conversation is over.

 

Back to Magnussen: Zain, I get your point, but it seems as if having a clean slate would not, in fact, protect you from the man. As Carol says, the pressure points he used were not all hidden sins. Look at what he did with Sherlock. He didn't go for his drug history, or any crimes he's committed. Instead, he had John kidnapped and put in a fire. Magnussen took Sherlock's one big redeeming trait, his love for his friend, and used it against him. He did the same with Lady Smallwood concerning her husband, and John concerning Mary. To protect yourself from Magnussen, not only would you have to "not hide your dirt", you would also need to "not love anybody". He's a classic villain.

[sfmpco]

Of course, we never saw John actually DRIVE the car because of course Martin doesn't drive.  We only saw him get in and we saw him then get out at the location, after which Mary took over the wheel.

[Janie]

And I know this is probably morally horrible and proves that I am a bad person at heart, but I bloody love Sherlock for killing him. I love this "oh what the hell, I've had enough of this nightmare, I'm just going to put a stop to it now" attitude. It's alluring. And deeply heroic. Not because he's doing a good deed - quite the contrary, he's taking it on himself to do a necessary awful deed. He's sacrificing himself so that everybody else can be safe and still remain on the "good" side.

 

In that case I'm a bad person too. Everytime I see the scene when Magnussen is flicking John's face I wish Sherlock would kill him and I cheer when he finally does. And I don't care that Magnussen is not a killer. He's not an innocent man. He enjoys when he can mentally torture and blackmail people and sometimes that is even worse than murder. At least for me.

[sfmpco]

One has to wonder just how ticked off Sherlock's parents and Mary were after waking up from being drugged and realizing what Sherlock had done.  I also have to wonder if Mycroft was really drugged or pretending because he wasn't too far behind in arriving at Appledor...and he came in a helicopter.

 

But back to his parents and Mary - I would think they'd have all been quite ticked off.  I'm quite sure Wiggins was less than politely asked to leave the premises at that point.  Then to learn later what trouble Sherlock had actually gotten into... mummy and daddy will be more than cross.

 

I hope we see the parents again in S4, even just small cameos.

[jesskayding]

 

 

So again how do we stop something like CAM? HoW?????

Take a gun and shoot him in the head. Seriously. No, of course I wouldn't murder anybody in real life, no matter who, and besides, I don't even know how to hold a gun, let alone fire it, and I have no intention to learn.

 

But I think the episode shows how people did try to stop Magnussen in a civilized way, and failed. I mean, it opens with an official investigation concerning his influence over the prime minister. Lady Smallwood and her colleagues were already trying to deal with him within the confines what is lawful and right, and they failed pretty miserably, didn't they.

 

Then there's Mycroft. Magnussen says he'd been waiting for an opportunity to get him for a long while, which exposes Mycroft's "can't be arsed" attitude towards the man as a lie Mycroft adopted so he wouldn't have to admit that he would, in fact, like to remove Magnussen from the scene very much, but doesn't know how. And come on, if super-genius-I-am-so-much-smarter-than-my-brother-and-have-unlimited-resources Mycroft couldn't think of anything, then the options must be pretty darn limited.

 

There was no way to outsmart Magnussen. He'd perfected being utterly shameless himself to an art form, so I guess threatening him with his own dirty secrets wouldn't have been much use. Magnussen just simply won. That is, from the original story, the whole point of the character.

 

And I know this is probably morally horrible and proves that I am a bad person at heart, but I bloody love Sherlock for killing him. I love this "oh what the hell, I've had enough of this nightmare, I'm just going to put a stop to it now" attitude. It's alluring. And deeply heroic. Not because he's doing a good deed - quite the contrary, he's taking it on himself to do a necessary awful deed. He's sacrificing himself so that everybody else can be safe and still remain on the "good" side.

 

I agree, Jess, I didn't get the impression that all of CAM's victims were hiding something illegal. And even if what Lord Smallwood did was illegal, it does no good to say he shouldn't have done it, because at the time he thought the girl was an adult. I suspect that CAM preyed on people's sense of privacy as much as on their fear of criminal prosecution.

 

I suppose this could be rather a cultural issue, too. I dare not step on anybody's toes, but I believe to have once read that it is very much ingrained in, for example, the American culture to not mind other people's businesses. Which was studied in social psychology a lot after there was a much higher ratio of cases in America compared to other nations in which victims of a crime died simply because neighbours and witnesses feared to misinterpret the situation, and they did not want to poke their nose into another person's business. While, for example, Germans are very much known for sticking their nose into things that are anything but their business. It's like a curse, we just always seem to have an opinion we desperately feel will make all the difference.... even when subconsciously knowing no, it's really not that important. It's why we got so much insight to offer about foreign economics *cough*

You're not stepping on any toes there, Zain. You're absolutely correct that we Americans generally believe in minding our own business. (Though I will say that the unfortunate incidents that you mention may have been the result of a more recent phenomenon called "not getting involved," which is considered deplorable here as well as elsewhere.)

 

Thank you for mentioning the German attitude -- that presumably explains the behavior of a German gal we know who never tires of criticizing how things are done here. (I have the feeling that if I went to Germany and made analogous comments, I'd be branded an "ugly American"!)

Funny, I always perceive my countrymen as terribly uncaring and not the least bit interested in the fate of others. But they do seem to love to criticize everything American. Don't ask me why. I've given up arguing with people about "overseas", I just nod politely until the conversation is over.

 

Back to Magnussen: Zain, I get your point, but it seems as if having a clean slate would not, in fact, protect you from the man. As Carol says, the pressure points he used were not all hidden sins. Look at what he did with Sherlock. He didn't go for his drug history, or any crimes he's committed. Instead, he had John kidnapped and put in a fire. Magnussen took Sherlock's one big redeeming trait, his love for his friend, and used it against him. He did the same with Lady Smallwood concerning her husband, and John concerning Mary. To protect yourself from Magnussen, not only would you have to "not hide your dirt", you would also need to "not love anybody". He's a classic villain.

 

Dito. The only thing I thought of would have been more cruel than death, & that was giving the man amnesia. How ever he would be able to rebuild another mind palace, per don't know that that would have changed his personality.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I suppose an old fashioned frontal lobotomy might work?

[jesskayding]

One has to wonder just how ticked off Sherlock's parents and Mary were after waking up from being drugged and realizing what Sherlock had done. I also have to wonder if Mycroft was really drugged or pretending because he wasn't too far behind in arriving at Appledor...and he came in a helicopter.

 

But back to his parents and Mary - I would think they'd have all been quite ticked off. I'm quite sure Wiggins was less than politely asked to leave the premises at that point. Then to learn later what trouble Sherlock had actually gotten into... mummy and daddy will be more than cross.

 

I hope we see the parents again in S4, even just small cameos.

I don't know that his parents would be upset. I think they would be more annoyed than upset. They raised Sherlock after all. Would you be surprised if you were his parents or just shake your head then hunch your shoulders & sigh in despair?

[jesskayding]

I suppose an old fashioned frontal lobotomy might work?

Ruthless. I mean yeah. He'd still be alive. I guess to some that would certainly be more forgivable & merciful.

 

 

You've cracked it my good man!

[by the sea]

 

And I know this is probably morally horrible and proves that I am a bad person at heart, but I bloody love Sherlock for killing him. I love this "oh what the hell, I've had enough of this nightmare, I'm just going to put a stop to it now" attitude. It's alluring. And deeply heroic. Not because he's doing a good deed - quite the contrary, he's taking it on himself to do a necessary awful deed. He's sacrificing himself so that everybody else can be safe and still remain on the "good" side.

In that case I'm a bad person too. Everytime I see the scene when Magnussen is flicking John's face I wish Sherlock would kill him and I cheer when he finally does. And I don't care that Magnussen is not a killer. He's not an innocent man. He enjoys when he can mentally torture and blackmail people and sometimes that is even worse than murder. At least for me.

 

 

Amen to both of you on this!   

 

Magnussen is a morally reprehensible character.  He doesn't want to make money selling newspapers or enjoy the fall of important people by revealing their secrets to the public, most of whom probably couldn't care less about them.  He wants to "own" others.  He says so himself.  Nobody has the right to own others.  Flicking John's face made me want to jump through my TV's screen and choke the life out of him myself !   People like him throw the universe out of balance and the only way to get it and the story back on an even keel is to eliminate him.  Had to be done ... moral or not.  Now we can move on to Sherlock's next adventure !   

 

Debbie

[jesskayding]

Agreed.