Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[jesskayding]

Fox -- could you try to get into the chat room? Tim is there now, testing.

Did you mean to personal message this.

[Arcadia]

Ah, this is so interesting! Okay, so you don't believe Sherlock would have covered for Mary, if she had shot Magnussen? But she had lots of killings on her conscience, and Sherlock proved to be willing to cover up for those. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have done the same, if she'd shot Magnussen right then and there, but I kind of like the thought (of him not covering up for her - not the thought of her shooting Magnussen, although that's not a bad idea either). If Sherlock is willing to cover up her past but not her present, perhaps he is counting on her not taking up her old "job" again.

I'm guessing it's Mary who didn't think Sherlock would cover for her.

 

I wonder if assassins do have killings on their conscience? If she was a CIA assassin, I imagine she would have believed she was a force for good. She sort of says that, actually ("that's why there's people like me.")

[sherlockandjohn]

 

On Mary's side, however, it seems that had she not concealed her past from John and Sherlock - had she done as Sherlock suggested and "come to him in the first place" - she could have saved everyone a lot of pain. Yet we don't see her realise that, not really.

 

Maybe she doesn't realize that because she's still not sure that would have been a safe thing for her to do. At least, I can see why she mightn't.  From her pre-shooting perspective, why would she trust Sherlock to keep her secret?  Why should she think that he would side with her, against his best friend?  Even if he was willing to help her, his idea of "help" might not coincide with hers.  And as it turned out, her mistrust was justified.  We saw what Sherlock did when he did learn Mary's secret -- he made absolutely certain that John would find out from her own lips!

 

... so you don't believe Sherlock would have covered for Mary, if she had shot Magnussen? But she had lots of killings on her conscience, and Sherlock proved to be willing to cover up for those. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have done the same, if she'd shot Magnussen right then and there, but I kind of like the thought (of him not covering up for her - not the thought of her shooting Magnussen, although that's not a bad idea either). If Sherlock is willing to cover up her past but not her present, perhaps he is counting on her not taking up her old "job" again.

 

Yes, he proved willing to maintain that part of her secret, but that proof came after the fact.  Again, why would she assume at the time that he'd be willing to do so?  In her previous existence, Mary has had to live very much by her wits.  She must have learned -- possibly the hard way -- not to trust anyone very far.

 

 

Hm, yes, I think you're right.

 

No, of course she wouldn't have trusted Sherlock to keep her secret - she even asked him, later, "Why would you help me?"

 

I suppose from that aspect, her behavior at the air field makes more sense, too. She's not necessarily "fine" with Sherlock taking the rap for her, but she does love him all the more for forgiving her, and that's what the hug and kiss on the cheek was about.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

 

Ah, this is so interesting! Okay, so you don't believe Sherlock would have covered for Mary, if she had shot Magnussen? But she had lots of killings on her conscience, and Sherlock proved to be willing to cover up for those. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have done the same, if she'd shot Magnussen right then and there, but I kind of like the thought (of him not covering up for her - not the thought of her shooting Magnussen, although that's not a bad idea either). If Sherlock is willing to cover up her past but not her present, perhaps he is counting on her not taking up her old "job" again.

 

I'm guessing it's Mary who didn't think Sherlock would cover for her.

 

I wonder if assassins do have killings on their conscience? If she was a CIA assassin, I imagine she would have believed she was a force for good. She sort of says that, actually ("that's why there's people like me.")

 

"Killings on her conscience" was really just an expression (i.e. she had killed several people), but I get your point, and it's important. She doesn't seem to think she was in the wrong. That's my problem. I do I suppose that's also why I used the expression, "on her conscience".

 

[sfmpco]

Perhaps we can just say that the authority of the quotes is nebulous at best.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Usually recruits are taken in quite young. For the indoctrination process. They have to be "married" to the ideology that is to govern their actions.

[jesskayding]

 

Ah, this is so interesting! Okay, so you don't believe Sherlock would have covered for Mary, if she had shot Magnussen? But she had lots of killings on her conscience, and Sherlock proved to be willing to cover up for those. I'm not convinced that he wouldn't have done the same, if she'd shot Magnussen right then and there, but I kind of like the thought (of him not covering up for her - not the thought of her shooting Magnussen, although that's not a bad idea either). If Sherlock is willing to cover up her past but not her present, perhaps he is counting on her not taking up her old "job" again.

I'm guessing it's Mary who didn't think Sherlock would cover for her.

 

I wonder if assassins do have killings on their conscience? If she was a CIA assassin, I imagine she would have believed she was a force for good. She sort of says that, actually ("that's why there's people like me.")

 

 

Have you ever seen the movie "the Professional" a really good movie about an assassin, shows he has a conscious concerning one murder. But not the whole thing just one part of it. I really loved that movie. It's really violent, so you'd have to prepare yourself, but I think the writers did a good job interpreting the life, reasons & actions of a professional assassin.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Fox -- could you try to get into the chat room? Tim is there now, testing.

Did you mean to personal message this.

 

 

Nope -- Fox's profile said she was in this thread at the time, so I tried here first (though I think she left before seeing my post).  Then I PM'd.  But thanks for asking -- I have been known to space out like that!

[Arcadia]

"Killings on her conscience" was really just an expression (i.e. she had killed several people), but I get your point, and it's important. She doesn't seem to think she was in the wrong. That's my problem. I do I suppose that's also why I used the expression, "on her conscience".

 

That is my problem as well ... assassination goes against my conscience. But I know there's "real life" people who think otherwise, who think that sometimes it's justified. In fact, I would say most of the people I know think that. And these are quite decent people. It's a tough one for me.

Usually recruits are taken in quite young. For the indoctrination process. They have to be "married" to the ideology that is to govern their actions.

And boy are they ever. I've never (knowingly) met an assassin, but I sure know a lot of people who are married to an ideology that condones assassination. Again, most people of the people I know, I would say.

 

On one level I understand it. I mean, really -- who, in the States at least, is going to recoil at the mysterious death of an Al Qaeda terrorist? It's all so abstract, for one thing. It's only when the terrorist turns out to ALSO be the nice young man down the road who was loved by his parents, his wife and his friends that people begin to realize what a "justifiable homicide" actually is like, and how it affects far more than just the person who was killed.

 

*sigh* Life's complicated, ain't it?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I actually worked with a governmental assassin. He was actually one of the nicest people I had known. Courteous to us women. A hard worker. Very consciencious in the work place. It wasn't until he made a mistake in a local bar and was picked up that we really learned who and what he was. Shocked us right down to the ground.

[Arcadia]

 

Have you ever seen the movie "the Professional" a really good movie about an assassin, shows he has a conscious concerning one murder. But not the whole thing just one part of it. I really loved that movie. It's really violent, so you'd have to prepare yourself, but I think the writers did a good job interpreting the life, reasons & actions of a professional assassin.

Haven't seen it, can't watch movies with "realistic" violence any more. Could when I was younger, but not now. Not sure if it's because the movies have gotten more graphic or I've just gotten more sensitive with age. Combination of both, prehaps.

[Arcadia]

I actually worked with a governmental assassin. He was actually one of the nicest people I had known. Courteous to us women. A hard worker. Very consciencious in the work place. It wasn't until he made a mistake in a local bar and was picked up that we really learned who and what he was. Shocked us right down to the ground.

In other words ... a high functioning sociopath?

 

When you say "picked up", do you mean arrested for murder? What I'm asking is, was he punished for the lives he took? Or were they considered, in effect, justifiable homicide? Just curious.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No he didn't commit any assassinations here...at least none that I am aware of. He got picked up because someone accused him of threatening them though. That's when his cover was blown after living and working in the area for a number of years. Six, anyway. What happened to him after that....not a clue. He just disappeared.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe they gave him a new identity?

 

 

Haven't seen it, can't watch movies with "realistic" violence any more. Could when I was younger, but not now. Not sure if it's because the movies have gotten more graphic or I've just gotten more sensitive with age. Combination of both, prehaps.

Dunno about you, but I used to go see all the "big" movies, assuming that they were ipso facto the best movies. But I finally got to the point where I decided why should I watch any fiction that I don't enjoy watching, and that I'm not glad to have watched afterward. If I wanted to see violence (which I don't), I could just turn on the TV news.

[sfmpco]

Well, we will know more about Mary in a couple of years... yes, a couple of years.  Gah!  Hoping they can shoot the block of three sometime in 2015.  It won't happen between Aug 1 - Oct. 30, that's for sure.  That's HAMLET time.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Maybe they gave him a new identity?

 

 According to rumor he was working for a foreign government....although that was just talk. Don't know how true that was. So either a new identity or handed over to what ever agency in the US government handles such cases. Could be in Gitmo for all that matter.

 

 

 

If I wanted to see violence (which I don't), I could just turn on the TV news.

 

  Yup, feel pretty much the same way.

[Arcadia]

No he didn't commit any assassinations here...at least none that I am aware of. He got picked up because someone accused him of threatening them though. That's when his cover was blown after living and working in the area for a number of years. Six, anyway. What happened to him after that....not a clue. He just disappeared.

Maybe they gave him a new identity?

Or bumped him off?

 

Here's a theory for you ... what if the thing Mary feels guilty about/could go to jail for happened AFTER she stopped being an assassin? Maybe it's got nothing to do with killing someone? What's something, other than shooting Sherlock, that would cause John to stop loving her? Cuz even that didn't do it.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or maybe it eludes to that fact that even if you work for the government, you get caught you're on your own. I keep hearing the words at the beginning of "Mission Impossible". Something along the lines of "If any of your team is caught or killed we will disavow any knowledge of you or your activities".

[Arcadia]

Dunno about you, but I used to go see all the "big" movies, assuming that they were ipso facto the best movies. But I finally got to the point where I decided why should I watch any fiction that I don't enjoy watching, and that I'm not glad to have watched afterward. If I wanted to see violence (which I don't), I could just turn on the TV news.

True, and movies didn't used to cost so much either. When I was a student my friends and I could go for about $1.50 apiece, we saw EVERYTHING. Now I have to pick and choose based on what I can afford as well as what I can bear to watch. I hate when I toss down $12 for a movie, then don't really like it all that much. Grrrrr.

[Arcadia]

Or maybe it eludes to that fact that even if you work for the government, you get caught you're on your own. I keep hearing the words at the beginning of "Mission Impossible". Something along the lines of "If any of your team is caught or killed we will disavow any knowledge of you or your activities".

Yah, that's what I was wondering; is that how it really works?

[T.o.b.y]

Thank you all for your comments. I'm finding everything very difficult at the moment. Tears every day, I'm afraid, and I'm dreading the end of the week.

 

I am really, really sorry for you. I can't offer any advice - that would be ridiculous from a woman probably half your age and god knows with how much less experience. I can only say, I sympathize, and I hope it will get better over time.

 

Thank you all for your comments. I'm finding everything very difficult at the moment. Tears every day, I'm afraid, and I'm dreading the end of the week.

 

...

 

The first two options you suggest could be done if she was prepared to give up her new life with John. She could have accepted that her criminal past had caught up with her and it was time to run if she wanted to stay out of jail. John would not have been implicated in murder if there was no murder, and Mycroft would have got them off the breaking and entering charge. Instead, she decided to hold on to John, keeping her husband in ignorance by killing his dearest friend.

 

In reality, of course, she would have killed CAM and Sherlock - and John too, no doubt, if he was a threat. Professional killers share with terrorists a distinct lack of sentiment. They can't afford emotions and I doubt that many try.

 

I'm not the first person to point out that maybe Mary was different, maybe she had to give up her former job because of that. She doesn't seem to have exactly fond memories of her past. I kind of doubt she liked what she did. But we'll never know... maybe not even after series 4. We'll probably be left wondering about her for all eternity.

 

On Mary's side, however, it seems that had she not concealed her past from John and Sherlock - had she done as Sherlock suggested and "come to him in the first place" - she could have saved everyone a lot of pain. Yet we don't see her realise that, not really.

 

I still believe Mary badly underestimated Sherlock. He very accurately described himself as her and John's "baby" in The Sign of Three. She treated him as a joke from the start. She likes him, but I don't think she realizes that the hero-worship she teases John about is founded on actual heroism.

 

 

:'( Just have to wipe off a few tears now, excuse me. It really is moving what Sherlock does.

 

And yes, it's just one of the many interesting parts of this episode, one of the things that make me reconsider what I thought I knew, not about Mary, but about Sherlock (the show, not the man - although it's certainly an astonishing character for him, but then again, we all knew he had a big heart).

 

You know, I'm not sure Sherlock needed his big heart so very much to deal with Mary. I got the impression that he didn't really forgive her, because he never seemed to have felt the hurt that comes before forgiveness. In a way, the way he relates to Mary the assassin is similar to how he feels towards Moriarty and Irene Adler. Sherlock never hated Moriarty and I'd say he even fell in love with Irene and he continued to remember her fondly even after he knew the worst of her. He doesn't react "normally" to dangerous, amoral people, not even if they harm him. He has a very high value for competence, and I think he respects Mary for her intelligence, her determination and her cunning.

 

This is probably why John has a much harder time coming to terms with her secret, because John was hurt, really hurt, doubly and trebly hurt. John does feel things "that way".

 

Now, if Mary had taken a gun to John, I think Sherlock would have reacted very differently, or if she had threatened anybody truly helpless. But she beat him in the first round of what he probably considers a fair game.

 

Of course I'm not really classing Mary with Moriarty, or Irene Adler, even. I think she's "on the side of the angels". But for the purpose of my argument concerning Sherlock, I think it's excusable to mush them all together in one category.

 

 

 

Have you ever seen the movie "the Professional" a really good movie about an assassin, shows he has a conscious concerning one murder. But not the whole thing just one part of it. I really loved that movie. It's really violent, so you'd have to prepare yourself, but I think the writers did a good job interpreting the life, reasons & actions of a professional assassin.

Haven't seen it, can't watch movies with "realistic" violence any more. Could when I was younger, but not now. Not sure if it's because the movies have gotten more graphic or I've just gotten more sensitive with age. Combination of both, prehaps.

 

 

I don't do well with violence, either, but I liked The Professional a lot. It's not terribly realistic... And I think it's more about Jean Reno's character's relationship with the little girl than anything else. It's a really touching movie, actually.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Heaven only knows but I know I would never trust the government enough to want to find out.

[Arcadia]

I still believe Mary badly underestimated Sherlock. He very accurately described himself as her and John's "baby" in The Sign of Three. She treated him as a joke from the start. She likes him, but I don't think she realizes that the hero-worship she teases John about is founded on actual heroism.

Yes, there's that as well. I suppose from her perspective, Sherlock really IS the amateur that John assumes he is at the beginning.

 

One of my friend's says her husband, an ex-military officer, believes that no civilian is capable of doing anything right. I hope that's not a prevalent attitude, but maybe Mary has a little of that in her makeup? I.e., Sherlock's not a soldier or a government agent, ergo he can't be all that formidable?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

On Mary's side, however, it seems that had she not concealed her past from John and Sherlock - had she done as Sherlock suggested and "come to him in the first place" - she could have saved everyone a lot of pain. Yet we don't see her realise that, not really.

 

I still believe Mary badly underestimated Sherlock. He very accurately described himself as her and John's "baby" in The Sign of Three. She treated him as a joke from the start. She likes him, but I don't think she realizes that the hero-worship she teases John about is founded on actual heroism.

 

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

 

But I suppose in some ways she did underestimate his humanity, his understanding of complex emotions and situations. She does, understandably, treat him a bit like a child who needs caring and careful explaining.

 

 

 

:'( Just have to wipe off a few tears now, excuse me. It really is moving what Sherlock does.

 

And yes, it's just one of the many interesting parts of this episode, one of the things that make me reconsider what I thought I knew, not about Mary, but about Sherlock (the show, not the man - although it's certainly an astonishing character for him, but then again, we all knew he had a big heart).

 

You know, I'm not sure Sherlock needed his big heart so very much to deal with Mary. I got the impression that he didn't really forgive her, because he never seemed to have felt the hurt that comes before forgiveness. In a way, the way he relates to Mary the assassin is similar to how he feels towards Moriarty and Irene Adler. Sherlock never hated Moriarty and I'd say he even fell in love with Irene and he continued to remember her fondly even after he knew the worst of her. He doesn't react "normally" to dangerous, amoral people, not even if they harm him. He has a very high value for competence, and I think he respects Mary for her intelligence, her determination and her cunning.

 

 

True, forgiveness probably isn't what happened, but understanding is. He seemed to understand her better than John did.

 

[Zain]

 

One of my friend's says her husband, an ex-military officer, believes that no civilian is capable of doing anything right. I hope that's not a prevalent attitude, but maybe Mary has a little of that in her makeup? I.e., Sherlock's not a soldier or a government agent, ergo he can't be all that formidable?

 

 

I think she has a lot of things in her makeup, and not many of them are commendable

 

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