Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Slithytove]

 

......... I expect Sherlock to be a bit more intelligent than that, and the writers to be a bit more conscious of their own subtext. Some people have the right to dispense their own version of justice and have everything hushed up by the state? Murdering people is okay if you work for the security services? Is that really what Moftiss is saying?.....

I don't mind if Mary is a complicated character with an attractive persona hiding a cold, calculating killer. In fact, I'd like her to be the next Big Bad. What I don't like is the clear indication that we, like John & Sherlock, should forget all the pain and death and still find her adorable.

You've identified the source of my problem as well -- perhaps unfairly, I like my fiction to promote and uphold some sort of moral order. Depicting someone as a killer is one thing ... depicting their actions as reasonable is something else. I can live with it -- I do realize it's fiction -- but I can't help but be troubled by it, if only because there are people who DON'T know the difference between reality and fiction. Every month there's another killing inspired by today's entertainment; if I were in the industry, I'd like to think I'd feel some obligation to be sensitive to that. But I know many don't agree, so .... so it is. I can't tell where Moftiss stands on that issue based on what I've seen so far, tho.

 

.... Maybe Mary is saved from the revenge of her victims's families - if CAM really intended to contact them - but she is definitely saved from a life sentence for multiple murder....

Erm, I don't think there's any evidence she committed multiple murder. Not saying she hasn't, just saying that's an assumption, not a fact. Mary says the evidence CAM has would mean a life sentence; but she doesn't say what the crimes are. Treason could result in a life sentence, for example. I don't mind Mary being condemned for her crimes, but I'd like to know she's being condemned for the right ones. This strikes me as an area where Moftiss has been deliberately vague, I'm wary of jumping to conclusions. Actually, I'm having a hard time thinking of an area where they haven't been deliberately vague.......

I assumed that "wet jobs for the CIA" meant killings. I could be wrong. They sound vaguely disgusting, actually. Also, Mary's remark that people like her exist because people like CAM ought to be killed does imply that she is a killer.

 

Regarding the morality of the writing, the odd thing is that Moffat has taken the exact opposite line in Dr Who. One of my sons- in- law, a Who fan since childhood, constantly moans about the various modern Doctors constantly agonising over matters of conscience. He misses the old days when the Doctor would cheerfully blast his enemies to bits without a thought for their side of the story. The Doctor in his more recent incarnations has developed a distinct dislike of guns and warfare and constantly tries to negotiate with alien life forms, even if he is forced to fight them in the end. (With the exception of the Daleks - he thinks they have no redeeming features. There are still moments, though, when he tries to reason with them.)

 

Dr Who has become a more moral man according to Moffat's interpretation, which makes me wonder whether the writers can really want to say that vigilante justice is okay or that assassins who believe people deserve to be killed should suffer neither remorse nor retribution for their crimes. Seems to me that HLV makes both Sherlock and John into men with far less conscience than the original Holmes and Watson. It's up to the writers to create their own stories, of course, but it feels uncomfortable to me.

[Zain]

I assumed that "wet jobs for the CIA" meant killings. I could be wrong. They sound vaguely disgusting, actually. Also, Mary's remark that people like her exist because people like CAM ought to be killed does imply that she is a killer.

 

Regarding the morality of the writing, the odd thing is that Moffat has taken the exact opposite line in Dr Who. One of my sons- in- law, a Who fan since childhood, constantly moans about the various modern Doctors constantly agonising over matters of conscience. He misses the old days when the Doctor would cheerfully blast his enemies to bits without a thought for their side of the story. The Doctor in his more recent incarnations has developed a distinct dislike of guns and warfare and constantly tries to negotiate with alien life forms, even if he is forced to fight them in the end. (With the exception of the Daleks - he thinks they have no redeeming features. There are still moments, though, when he tries to reason with them.)

 

Dr Who has become a more moral man according to Moffat's interpretation, which makes me wonder whether the writers can really want to say that vigilante justice is okay or that assassins who believe people deserve to be killed should suffer neither remorse nor retribution for their crimes. Seems to me that HLV makes both Sherlock and John into men with far less conscience than the original Holmes and Watson. It's up to the writers to create their own stories, of course, but it feels uncomfortable to me.

 

 

 

Or maybe that's how the writers read the canon? Everybody interprets things differently. I haven't read all stories yet, and so far I have got a different picture of Sherlock Holmes, but maybe that's how they read the canon?

 

On another note: Didn't Moffat take over from some first name T. Davies (I hope that's how he's spelled....), who was directing the first few seasons of the modernized Dr Who version? Maybe it's just him attempting to be consistent with what his predecessor started? Moral-wise.

I haven't seen many Who episodes, so I am a bit out of my depth there. I only looked into it once, because, well, it is a rather big cultural heritage, in a way. And people often refer to it due to Moffat's involvement. I hope I did not just  embarrass myself by uttering complete nonsense...

[Carol the Dabbler]

I meant that there has been a suspicious absence of Mycroft whenever he would have had to deal with Mary. ... There's no information on her in John's file, the one he presents Sherlock with....

In HLV, Mycroft refrains from visiting Sherlock in hospital. Again, this separates him from Mary .... Mycroft also does not seem to investigate the shooting. Sherlock keeps him, as far as we know, out of the loop later on, too, when it comes to Mary.

Is Sherlock keeping him out of the loop -- or is Mycroft's convenient distance from Mary all part of another Grand Holmes Brothers Scheme? 

 

I assumed that "wet jobs for the CIA" meant killings.

Presumably that's what CAM meant, yes, and I suppose it's even likely that he was telling the truth. But I think it's important here to distinguish between "killing" and "murder." I think it may have been you who defined "murder" as basically "illegal killing" (and if not, please forgive my error). Under that definition, is a CIA "wet job" (blecchhh!) technically a "murder"? Technically, did it even happen? And if it did, well, it was a government assignment, so it must be legal.

 

I guess I'd prefer to define "murder" as "immoral killing," regardless of opening up a whole 'nother can of personal-opinion worms there. We know so little about Mary so far, and especially her past, that I have no idea what my opinion on that question might be.

 

[Slithytove]

Maybe Moffat & Gatiss do interpret the books differently - we all bring something of ourselves to everything we read - but I think it is pretty clear that Watson is supposed to be a fundamentally good and decent man and Holmes has a strong if idiosyncratic sense of justice. He might let a man go free for taking revenge on the murderer of his girlfriend but he wouldn't shoot an unarmed man through the head to shut him up or let an assassin go free because she was married to his best mate. I know that Moftiss say that it was Holmes who killed Charles Augustus Milverton, and Watson was covering for him by blaming a mysterious woman, but I think that that is a reading too far.

 

It did occur to me that Russell T. Davies might be responsible for the Doctor's conscience! Though Moffat did write several of the scripts before he took over as show runner. Also, the Doctor's personality changes with each incarnation, so it would not be impossible to alter his conscience a little if that was required. After all, that is presumably the reason why he tends to be more of a pacifist after his more recent regenerations, unless he is just (much) older and wiser.

[Arcadia]

You are completely right, I was being too vague. I meant that there has been a suspicious absence of Mycroft whenever he would have had to deal with Mary. We know he kept track of John during Sherlock's absence, yet he never mentions Mary other than alluding to her existence. There's no information on her in John's file, the one he presents Sherlock with.

Then there's the wedding scene, another allusion, yet Mycroft does not directly comment on Mary. It's like the writers were very careful not to let their paths intersect.

In HLV, Mycroft refrains from visiting Sherlock in hospital. Again, this separates him from Mary who is at the hospital and associated with it due to her charming visit and great bedside manner. Mycroft also does not seem to investigate the shooting. Sherlock keeps him, as far as we know, out of the loop later on, too, when it comes to Mary.

Throughout the third series, Mycroft is given a lot of screen time to highlight their brotherly interaction. He comments on John, meets up with Lestrade, meets Wiggings, talks to Mrs Hudson, is even associated with Molly whom he takes over from in Sherlock's mind palace.

The only major characters we do not get to see interact are Mycroft and Magnussen, as well as Mycroft and Mary. The first interaction is never shown, because otherwise Magnussen's reveal that Mycroft is actually working against him would come as less of a surprise. Mary's and Mycroft's interaction is noticeable missing. It is not a matter of their characters taking part in different story lines. Actually, their plots are very much interwoven. The writers pointedly separated Mary and Mycroft.  They are, apart from Magnussen and Mycroft, the only main characters that share no common screen time. Even at the Holmes Christmas scene, they are never shown to be in the same room.

Thank you, I understand perfectly now! I wondered the same thing, actually, why Mycroft seems almost unaware of Mary. Hmmm, suspicious.......

[Slithytove]

 

I meant that there has been a suspicious absence of Mycroft whenever he would have had to deal with Mary. ... There's no information on her in John's file, the one he presents Sherlock with....

In HLV, Mycroft refrains from visiting Sherlock in hospital. Again, this separates him from Mary .... Mycroft also does not seem to investigate the shooting. Sherlock keeps him, as far as we know, out of the loop later on, too, when it comes to Mary.

Is Sherlock keeping him out of the loop -- or is Mycroft's convenient distance from Mary all part of another Grand Holmes Brothers Scheme?

I assumed that "wet jobs for the CIA" meant killings.

Presumably that's what CAM meant, yes, and I suppose it's even likely that he was telling the truth. But I think it's important here to distinguish between "killing" and "murder." I think it may have been you who defined "murder" as basically "illegal killing" (and if not, please forgive my error). Under that definition, is a CIA "wet job" (blecchhh!) technically a "murder"? Technically, did it even happen? And if it did, well, it was a government assignment, so it must be legal.

 

I guess I'd prefer to define "murder" as "immoral killing," regardless of opening up a whole 'nother can of personal-opinion worms there. We know so little about Mary so far, and especially her past, that I have no idea what my opinion on that question might be.

I think it probably was me who defined murder as illegal killing. I don't really see how else it can be defined. Legal killing - e.g. capital punishment or in war - may be just as morally repugnant but it is legal in that it is sanctioned by law and the participants will not find themselves in court unless they break the law in some other way, e.g. soldiers killing people who have surrendered. (Of course, it happens all the time and most perpetrators are never brought to justice, but it isn't legal.). I don't think murder is an arbitrary label. How can you choose between a moral or immoral killing - who decides, if not the law? In fact, how can we have a civilised society which protects the lives of its citizens if we all have our own individual definitions of murder?

 

I'm an old hippy but I suppose I believe fundamentally in the rule of law. I don't see how society can function unless we have generally agreed definitions of right and wrong.

 

As for assassinations by the CIA and the like - it is possible that the government can sanction the use of lethal force, though I believe it is constrained by common law and other restrictions. It certainly doesn't make it moral, in my view, or legal in the opinion of other countries. I remember, for instance, two notorious murders of Russians living in London. One was almost certainly down to the KGB and the other, more recent one was strongly believed to have been done on the orders of Putin or, at least, prominent members of the current government in Moscow. The British government certainly did not consider them to be legal. (Of course, the Soviet Union was not our ally and we're still not exactly best buddies with Russia, at least to the extent of turning a blind eye to their state sanctioned killings.) The killers would have been brought to trial here if they had been caught. Presumably the Russian intelligence services protected the killers. And presumably that applies to CIA killings too - considered illegal by countries where they are committed and sometimes legal/sometimes illegal within the US, according to whether they violate other legal restrictions. (It's a technicality, of course, as the killers would never be tried even if they did act illegally.) MAybe Mary's CIA assassinations are, indeed, not murders but killings. We are back to legal-but-morally-repugnant.

 

Mary is resident in the UK and intends to kill CAM because he has information which could send her to jail for life. Presumably that means jail here, unless her killings were committed in a country with which we have an extradition treaty - unlikely, as we are allies of the US and tend to have the same friends and foes. Evidently she doesn't expect to be protected by the US government, or by MI6 which cooperates with the CIA, so it is something which would be considered a crime here and would result in life imprisonment - so probably not something legally sanctioned by our allies, the US government - so we're back to illegal killing again, i.e. murder. The freelance work, maybe?

[Arcadia]

I assumed that "wet jobs for the CIA" meant killings. I could be wrong. They sound vaguely disgusting, actually. Also, Mary's remark that people like her exist because people like CAM ought to be killed does imply that she is a killer.

But I think it's important here to distinguish between "killing" and "murder." I think it may have been you who defined "murder" as basically "illegal killing" (and if not, please forgive my error). Under that definition, is a CIA "wet job" (blecchhh!) technically a "murder"? Technically, did it even happen? And if it did, well, it was a government assignment, so it must be legal.

I think my response is pretty similar to Carol's. I'm not sure whether I distinguish between different types of killing, but I'm fairly certain governments do. If Mary was a "CIA assassin", I find it unlikely she would go to jail for her deeds. At least, not in the States, although I suppose the British government might have other ideas, depending on who her victims were.

 

Besides, the U.S. has supposedly banned assassinations, so casting Mary as a "CIA assassin" is an anachronism anyway. It's far more likely that she would be a military sniper, and her killings "justified" as acts of war. Military personnel generally aren't prosecuted for killing in the line of duty.

 

Of course, CAM claimed that Mary had "gone rogue," implying that she was performing unsanctioned killings. If so, then Moftiss seem to have put their hero in the position of protecting a mass murderer. However, that just seems so unlikely to me that I can't help but think something else is going on. What, I can't imagine. Not enough data.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Of course, CAM claimed that Mary had "gone rogue," implying that she was performing unsanctioned killings. If so, then Moftiss seem to have put their hero in the position of protecting a mass murderer. However, that just seems so unlikely to me that I can't help but think something else is going on. What, I can't imagine. Not enough data.

 

That's my quandary exactly.  What the heck is really going on?  At this point, we not only don't know the details, we don't even know many of the broad brushstrokes.  Hopefully we will be enlightened sometime in the next few years!

 

[Arcadia]

As usual, it takes me so long to compose my thoughts that someone else slips in ahead of me and renders my posts rather moot! Slithytove and I are pretty much on the same page here, I think, especially as regards "the rule of law".

 

My only difference is that I'm not so quick to accept that Mary's crime is murder. Mostly because of what I said above --- it really doesn't make sense to me that Moftiss would make their beloved Sherlock Holmes into someone who would protect "just a murderer". To me that is a clue there's something else to be learned. That's the "leap of faith" I was talking about many, many posts ago; I think we're being asked to trust that Moftiss will make it all right in the end. Hmmm. Trust is earned, I'm not sure they have....

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not sure that I trust them -- but I am definitely curious to find out what they're up to!

 

[sfmpco]

holy moly.... I keep thinking of the HLV screening at the Hertford Theater on Oct 5 with Abbington and Freeman on panel afterwards for a Q&A... if they could hear some of these incredibly complex thought processes and character evaluations... they'd probably be blown away.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I guess I'd prefer to define "murder" as "immoral killing," regardless of opening up a whole 'nother can of personal-opinion worms there. We know so little about Mary so far, and especially her past, that I have no idea what my opinion on that question might be.

I think it probably was me who defined murder as illegal killing. I don't really see how else it can be defined. Legal killing - e.g. capital punishment or in war - may be just as morally repugnant but it is legal in that it is sanctioned by law and the participants will not find themselves in court .... I don't think murder is an arbitrary label. How can you choose between a moral or immoral killing - who decides, if not the law? In fact, how can we have a civilised society which protects the lives of its citizens if we all have our own individual definitions of murder?

 

 

OK, I've gotta think this through again.  You're right about society, of course -- I have no quarrel with you there.  I guess I'm back to talking about real-world morality vs. fictional morality.  In the real world, we have to be practical -- as you say, we can't have individualized laws.  But in fiction, there are times when "poetic justice" seems best served by actions that would be illegal as hell in any country I'm aware of.  To repeat an example, Sherlock Holmes not only failing to report a murder that he witnessed, but actually stopping Watson from preventing it, and then burning the evidence afterward ("Charles Augustus Milverton").

 

I think one reason why fictional morality works in fiction is that the author can cherry-pick the examples.  The real world is rarely so tidy.

 

Another reason is that if fiction were limited to real-world morality, it couldn't be so inventive, and might therefore be less interesting.  I guess a great deal of fiction is like fantasy or science fiction in the sense that, while it must have its own self-consistent internal logic, it needn't conform entirely to real-world logic.

 

The problem with all of this is obviously that the reader may disagree with the author's idea of poetic justice.  In fact, various readers may disagree with each other's ideas.  And that's why we're all here!

 

[T.o.b.y]

I think it probably was me who defined murder as illegal killing. I don't really see how else it can be defined.

 

I know Wikipedia is not the best source under the sun, but five minutes before having to leave for work, I thought it was a good place to start... It seems the English law distinguishes between "murder" and "homicide / manslaughter" in similar ways as my home country does. Have a look:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law

 

[jesskayding]

Maybe Moffat & Gatiss do interpret the books differently - we all bring something of ourselves to everything we read - but I think it is pretty clear that Watson is supposed to be a fundamentally good and decent man and Holmes has a strong if idiosyncratic sense of justice. He might let a man go free for taking revenge on the murderer of his girlfriend but he wouldn't shoot an unarmed man through the head to shut him up or let an assassin go free because she was married to his best mate. I know that Moftiss say that it was Holmes who killed Charles Augustus Milverton, and Watson was covering for him by blaming a mysterious woman, but I think that that is a reading too far.

 

It did occur to me that Russell T. Davies might be responsible for the Doctor's conscience! Though Moffat did write several of the scripts before he took over as show runner. Also, the Doctor's personality changes with each incarnation, so it would not be impossible to alter his conscience a little if that was required. After all, that is presumably the reason why he tends to be more of a pacifist after his more recent regenerations, unless he is just (much) older and wiser.

 

In the books, it also says that Sherlock spoke slowly & that he was abit lazy. Apparently BC's portrayal is the opposite of that. This day & age everything is more convenient. In this version, Sherlock doesn't disguise himself as dramatically as the books' Sherlock character. This is a modernized show, that idealizes modern technology.

 

Per CAM's files were in his head, it was destroyed. Now if we want them to stick strictly with the stories... I guess bring on the chariots, bring on groups of men physically fighting over a beautiful woman. Bring on the homeless children aiding Sherlock.

 

As we know these writers have much darker take on the series... Look @ it this way, @ least they're paying more attention to detail than the books.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Carol the Dabbler
repaired quote codes

[jesskayding]

Something happened with the quote I took from Slithytove above.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

I think one reason why fictional morality works in fiction is that the author can cherry-pick the examples.  The real world is rarely so tidy.

 

You've got a point. And it reminds me of the following scene from TEH, in which John is asking Sherlock why someone put him in the bonfire:

 

Sherlock: "I don't know. I don't like not knowing. Unlike the nicely embellished fictions on your blog, John, real life is rarely so neat."

 

I love it when our "real world" discussions come to a point where we can compare it with something said on the show. That makes it fun to keep discussing, because I find more appreciation of the show when I can relate, of course.

 

Now we know who that "someone" was that put John in the bonfire, and why he did it. It all leads to the events of HLV, which is where our discussion of fictional morality versus real world morality springs from. That's pretty awesome

[jesskayding]

I'll say it.

 

***warning**if I post it three times, he may come back to life to hunt this forum, and make us regret the life decisions we've made, that his ghost could bring to life and destroy all those we hold dear.

 

I'm doing this while looking into a mirror:

 

Magnussen, Magnussen... MAGNUSSEN

[Slithytove]

Interesting....Whilst I agree about the flexibility of fictional law vs real life law, insofar as the latter is frequently bent to serve the demands of the plot or poetic justice, there is one inescapable fact. Regardless of CAM's accusations or Sherlock's deductions, Mary herself knows that there is enough evidence against her to send her to prison for life. Prison in Britain, presumably, unless it's a case of extradition. So it is either something illegal here or in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. I don't know much about extradition but I can't imagine we'd be packing her off to Iran, for instance, for violating sharia law.

 

So it is fundamentally something which would get you a life sentence here or in a country which has, more or less, the same concept of law as we do.(I.e. you've committed murder or treason, rather than something we wouldn't consider a crime, such as having an affair or being gay.). Several of you have drawn a distinction between murder and government sanctioned lethal force. Okay, so let's say that working for the CIA grants you a "licence to kill.". That wouldn't help if you were caught in a hostile country but the US and the UK are allies, so you'd undoubtedly get away with it. So, what's left?

 

If it is something that would get you a life sentence here, and it isn't the CIA "wet jobs" because they are government sanctioned, it has to be treason or murder. Sherlock implied that Mary isn't a native English speaker, if I remember rightly, so we are back to the extradition question if it's treason. Mary's remark about "people like me" implies that she is a killer. So, when you rule out the CIA work and treason seems unlikely, what are you left with? Only murder, I think. (Well, you could get a life sentence if you were a serial rapist, but I think we can discount that.....)

 

If S4 just ignores these issues and expects us to swallow something which makes no logical sense, I want a full explanation, in writing, from Stephen Moffat.

[jesskayding]

See, the stuff he had on her also could of cost her life. Her baby's life. John's life. Not just about her breaking the law, but now she's married w/ child... It wasn't only herself that was in danger.

 

( paraphrased )

 

CAM: I know people who want to hurt her [ face flick ]

 

I know their #'s [face flick] I can call them up anytime/right now? [ face flick ] All in my head/mind palace?

 

So it went beyond a life sentence in prison. & yes she should have stayed single the whole rest of her life before even considering dating anyone. Nevertheless falling in love & marrying them. So what has been done has been done now. Where do they go from here.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Sherlock made the" Vow" to three people, one yet unborn before everything in episode three happened. We learn that Sherlock is nothing if not a man of his word. A man of honor. He will take what ever steps it takes to keep John Watson safe. If Mary is in danger then it would be a fairly safe bet to assume that John and especially the unborn baby would also be in the firing line. The baby by default.

[Arcadia]

....Regardless of CAM's accusations or Sherlock's deductions, Mary herself knows that there is enough evidence against her to send her to prison for life. Prison in Britain, presumably, unless it's a case of extradition. So it is either something illegal here or in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. I don't know much about extradition but I can't imagine we'd be packing her off to Iran, for instance, for violating sharia law.

Not in the real world, no, but I can see Moftiss using some semantic hijinks to "explain" that this is what Mary was thinking. That is, I think they're capable of making the words they use mean something other than what we think they mean. If that makes any sense.

 

If S4 just ignores these issues and expects us to swallow something which makes no logical sense, I want a full explanation, in writing, from Stephen Moffat.

Me too, but I'm not holding my breath!

 

I don't even care if it makes logical sense, as long as it makes sense for the character of Sherlock. The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense he would shelter a murderer of "innocents" -- that makes him a criminal too, which is not a label I would've thought anyone would attach to Sherlock Holmes. So I go back to thinking there must be something we don't know yet. Which means placing my faith in Moftiss.... *sigh*

 

Although that still leaves Sherlock a criminal, as he most certainly did shoot CAM.... *sigh again*

 

Those of you who know the "canon" -- is there a story that could be adapted to cover a situation like this? That is, where a character appears to be a "baddie" but Holmes protects him/her, because he knows something the reader doesn't?

 

Here's my latest theory, btw -- that's not Sherlock!!! Sherlock's still in prison somewhere in Serbia! That guy we think is Sherlock is an imposter, that's why he's acting different!!! Hey, what are those men in the white coats doing here.... ?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Here's my latest theory, btw -- that's not Sherlock!!! Sherlock's still in prison somewhere in Serbia! That guy we think is Sherlock is an imposter, that's why he's acting different!!! Hey, what are those men in the white coats doing here.... ?

 

 

 Actually, that is not so new a theory as one might think. When Doyle started writing the "Return of Sherlock Holmes" stories more then one reader commented to him that Sherlock seemed to be a changed man. Some early "scholars" fanfaction writers, whatever, also wondered if the Holmes that came back from Reichenbach was in fact a ringer.

[sfmpco]

Yes, Sherlock made a vow to always be there for the three Watsons, but that doesn't mean he is capable of doing it.  I don't mean that he's not a man of his word.  He is.  I mean that other forces are at play in the world over which he has no control, and there's going to be some enormous upset coming.  John won't die.  We're pretty sure Mary will die, but under what circumstances?  The writers may endear her even more to us (okay, some readers will never be endeared to her again, I get that), but for John to lose his wife when he already suffers from PTSD, I mean, it will be devastating - even if we know it's coming.  We just don't know how.  And how will Sherlock respond to his best friend's deep grief.  That is not generally Sherlock territory.  He never really responded properly to John's grief over his faked death except with a couple of "sorry" quips.  I think Moriarty's words in Sherlock's mind palace dungeon may come back to be a huge focus in S4.  

 

And what's this latest thing that BC has said in ELLEUK about how Sherlock would be in bed???  Is that a clue for S4?

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I guess I'd prefer to define "murder" as "immoral killing," regardless of opening up a whole 'nother can of personal-opinion worms there.

 

Actually, "immoral killing" is what I think the legal definitions of murder that I know of boil down to. By the way, one of the things I learned doing research on this is that if Sherlock had died from that "surgical" shot, it would have been murder by English law, because the "intent to cause serious harm or injury" is enough to qualify a resulting death as murder. Sherlock killing Magnussen would also be murder, and I seriously wonder whether John would really have gotten off quite so easily as Sherlock seems to assume in A Study in Pink for killing the cabbie.

 

Speaking of the cabbie. Why are we having this big discussion about heroes killing villains now and not years earlier? I am sorry, I really do not see any difference, morally, between what John did in the first episode and what Sherlock did in His Last Vow. Because John would not have had to kill Jeff Hope to save Sherlock. But he did. Sherlock points out that John didn't fire until he was in immediate danger. But the cabbie wouldn't have had to be killed to stop Sherlock from risking his life with that damn pill.

 

holy moly.... I keep thinking of the HLV screening at the Hertford Theater on Oct 5 with Abbington and Freeman on panel afterwards for a Q&A... if they could hear some of these incredibly complex thought processes and character evaluations... they'd probably be blown away.

 

I suspect they'd be more amused that we take the show so seriously... I bet it looks rather silly to outsiders. But I don't mind. It's more fun and healthier than getting drunk for example, which is a socially perfectly accepted way of enjoying oneself while looking silly.

 

Interesting....Whilst I agree about the flexibility of fictional law vs real life law, insofar as the latter is frequently bent to serve the demands of the plot or poetic justice, there is one inescapable fact. Regardless of CAM's accusations or Sherlock's deductions, Mary herself knows that there is enough evidence against her to send her to prison for life. Prison in Britain, presumably, unless it's a case of extradition. So it is either something illegal here or in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. I don't know much about extradition but I can't imagine we'd be packing her off to Iran, for instance, for violating sharia law.

 

So it is fundamentally something which would get you a life sentence here or in a country which has, more or less, the same concept of law as we do.(I.e. you've committed murder or treason, rather than something we wouldn't consider a crime, such as having an affair or being gay.). Several of you have drawn a distinction between murder and government sanctioned lethal force. Okay, so let's say that working for the CIA grants you a "licence to kill.". That wouldn't help if you were caught in a hostile country but the US and the UK are allies, so you'd undoubtedly get away with it. So, what's left?

 

 

Non-government-sanctioned killing, I think. I believe Magnussen when he spoke about Mary having gone "freelance". It's completely plausible when one considers that she didn't hesitate to try and finish Magnussen himself off on her own - or are we assuming that was somebody else's plan and she was getting paid to do it?

 

This does not mean that her "freelance" work was morally any worse than what she did legally. It might even have been less reprehensible. Maybe she went after dangerous people whom the law couldn't reach for some reason, or who nobody would bother to deal with? Unfortunately, "legal" and "good" are not synonymous...

 

I'm sorry to bring up such a hackneyed example, but I guess my nationality comes into play here. Imagine you live in the 1930s or '40s and, by some chance, you get the chance to kill Hitler and get away with it. Would you hesitate, on moral grounds? Sorry, but sometimes, imagining extremes helps me to understand a problem (this is, by the way, the only thing math classes ever taught me).

 

 

Those of you who know the "canon" -- is there a story that could be adapted to cover a situation like this? That is, where a character appears to be a "baddie" but Holmes protects him/her, because he knows something the reader doesn't?

 

Well, Holmes of course protected clients whom he deduced were innocent while Lestrade or other officers of the law thought they had proof of their guilt. But he also let a murderer go free in "The Devil's Foot", on the morally very questionable grounds that he had "only" taken revenge on the death of his beloved, with the added statement that Holmes himself would probably have acted the same way in his shoes. He also refused to prevent the killing of Milverton, and even though he later found out the identity of the shooter, he never shared that information with the authorities either. He definitely had his own ideas about right and wrong, and he never seemed to question his right to act on those rather than the demands of the law. I think BBC's Irene sums it up very well when she says Sherlock believes in a higher power - himself.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

 

I'm sorry to bring up such a hackneyed example, but I guess my nationality comes into play here. Imagine you live in the 1930s or '40s and, by some chance, you get the chance to kill Hitler and get away with it.

  

  And that was attempted more then once. All failing, even by some of his own people. Mary could have succeeded the first time, but then that would have shortened that episode quite a bit, like the Eagles recruited to fly the Fellowship into Mordor. It may have worked but then it would have been oh so anti-climatic.