Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[BlackButterfly]

Of course Mycroft knew, Sherlock discovered Marys past while hospitalised and drugged up.

Why would Mycroft act before the shooting? He doesn't care for Mary or John.

Only after the collateral damage message comes home and Sherlock gets shot does he act.

How does he act ? First he tells Sherlock -don't get involved and then post shooting he tells Sherlock - slay the dragon and lets him take his laptop as a bargaining tool.

Remember Redbeard..only solution put him down..same as Moriarty same as Magnusson. That phone call on reflection seems strangely omniscient..and who turned up to save Sherlock ..Mycroft.

 

As for speculation on agra/a.g.ra...Marys past and the cyrillic..

Sherlock read the memory stick, he was on the Mary/Magnusson case so he needed to know.

In canon the agra treasure was a deal made between thieves at agra fort and to do with pearls..and was lost at sea..in the water..

The elephant gate at agra fort kept elephants OUT..hehe like Mary keeps tjlc out...and as for pearls , see Johnwatsonsblog and the unresolved iron giant case and his pearl Emails.

Also they cyrillic agra in Magnussons mind palace on Marys file...hmmm the E iotified, the stick, the omega and the numerics, very archaic and only seen in ancient documents. Numerics are numbers interchangable as letters? In an archaic manuscript?...use ag.ra as numbers and see how X marks the spot in the treasure hunt..could be coincidence..but the treasure and Marys past is Waters.

Send in the clowns.

 

 

 

 

.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I wouldn't say Mycroft didn't care about John, he kept a detailed profile on John for two years. John had become Mycroft's goldfish which would indicate that John is definitely on Mycroft's radar, which means that on some level, yeah, John means something to Mycroft. 

[Zain]

He may have allowed Mary to stay close to Sherlock after the shooting because Sherlock seems to understand why she did it. It could be that Amanda and Carol are right. Mary was frightened and felt pushed by Sherlock and she really didn't mean to put Sherlock's life in such peril. John is trusting Sherlock that she is trustworthy and it seems Mycroft feels the same. 

 

If he did, and if that's their explanation, I'll be majorly disappointed. Mycroft is the one character from which I EXPECT to NOT care what Sherlock wants, but only about what Sherlock profits from. And that's Mary's removal. Though I expected John to care about Sherlock's health, but I was wrong there, too. And I seriously doubt Mycroft has got any compassion for Mary. Whether she was frightened or selfish. Or both. If he knew and didn't hunt her down after she shot Sherlock, he better has got a good reason. Like expecting her to kill Sherlock because she blackmailed him. Which I do not expect... but the entire thing irks me.

 

 

As for speculation on agra/a.g.ra...Marys past and the cyrillic..

Sherlock read the memory stick, he was on the Mary/Magnusson case so he needed to know.

In canon the agra treasure was a deal made between thieves at agra fort and to do with pearls..and was lost at sea..in the water..

The elephant gate at agra fort kept elephants OUT..hehe like Mary keeps tjlc out...and as for pearls , see Johnwatsonsblog and the unresolved iron giant case and his pearl Emails.

Also they cyrillic agra in Magnussons mind palace on Marys file...hmmm the E iotified, the stick, the omega and the numerics, very archaic and only seen in ancient documents. Numerics are numbers interchangable as letters? In an archaic manuscript?...use ag.ra as numbers and see how X marks the spot in the treasure hunt..could be coincidence..but the treasure and Marys past is Waters.

Send in the clowns.

 

 

Pardon me? I am sorry, you somehow lost me there. But English is not my native language. It sounds like you have got a specific theory for s4. Could you elaborate?

[T.o.b.y]

Frankly, the Mycroft-Mary situation makes no sense whatsoever.  Either he doesn't know about her past, and is thus incompetent or negligent (which seems unlikely), or he does know and yet allows her to get close to Sherlock and remain there even after she shoots him (which seems even less likely.)  I doubt we will ever get an explanation, because I don't think there is one...

 

Neither do I. I fully agree with you on this. I suspect that they didn't think the Mycroft side of the equation through when writing Mary's story... Which of course will surely not stop them from tying him in somehow in the next series.

 

Someone wrote "simply uncaring" somewhere in reference to Mycroft. Where Sherlock is not concerned, I am very willing to accept that as an explanation for anything. What does Mycroft bother about the ordinary "goldfish"? But the problem is, that we know when John first moved in with Sherlock, Mycroft had him abducted and questioned him. He had an entire file on John by the time Sherlock returned from the dead. Mary clearly becomes a very close friend of Sherlock's as well, and she's John's wife - it is next to impossible to imagine Mycroft not noticing that her name was assumed and her history blank before the last five years.

 

So within the logic of the show and its characters, it all makes no sense. But if Mycroft did know, then the plot of His Last Vow makes no sense. So I'll go with Mycroft doesn't know, because he's just too little interested in Mary the goldfish. I'd love it for Mycroft to finally slip up.

 

[Arcadia]

Hi folks, may I ask for more explanation on these three points? Maybe I'm just too tired but I can't seem to figure out what they mean! Oh, and by the way --- welcome BlackButterfly!

 

.... Look at the moral of the fairy tale and the ending is clearer.

I'm sorry, which fairy tale you are referring to? And what was the moral of it, pls?

 

If he knew and didn't hunt her down after she shot Sherlock, he better has got a good reason. Like expecting her to kill Sherlock because she blackmailed him....

First, I agree, he'd better have a good reason! But I don't think I understand your example; help please?

 

... if Mycroft did know, then the plot of His Last Vow makes no sense....

This is assuming the plot of HLV makes sense in any case! But how would Mycroft knowing about Mary affect the plot? If he has his reasons for not taking any action against her, wouldn't the plot go forward the same way? I'm confused (obviously... )

[sfmpco]

Well here's what I CAN tell you --- Gatiss tweeted today that he'd been writing Sherlock all day.  Woo hoo!!!!!  Although somehow I think the 2015 Christmas Special might not be connected exactly to HLV.  No matter what they do, there is going to be a time gap, and the "cliff hanger" will turn out to be somewhat easily resolved or explained away.  

[Boton]

 

 

Either he made one mistake after another when it comes to security checks (in his position!?), or he is simply uncaring. And I refuse to believe either of those  two solutions. There must be a third. Something we all overlooked...

 

Yeah, Zain, this is about as far as I can get with a unified theory of Mycroft and Mary right now too.  I refuse to think Mycroft is so stupid that he missed Mary's background, but I think the key for me will be Mary's motivations.  And I'm just not decided on those.

[Arcadia]

Sometimes it seems fairly obvious to me that Mary was planted by Mycroft to protect John while Sherlock was "dead" ...

Other times, I don't see how she could possibly be working for Mycroft, because if she were, wouldn't he have pulled her off the case after she shot Sherlock?

If she's working for him, I can think of a couple of reasons he wouldn't have pulled her off: either he genuinely doesn't know who shot Sherlock (it's possible!) or there's some reason both he and Sherlock think she's worth the trouble she caused. One thing that's increasingly clear to me is that there's a whole lot of things that happened during HLV that we are not privy to (and, alas, may never be....)

 

If we don't believe in coincidence then Mary sought out John for a reason....

Once Sherlock turned up alive and Magnusson played his hand, everything went wrong for her.

Mycroft let it all play out to his advantage, either Mary would rid him of Magnusson or Sherlock would, and he had plausable deniability.

In the smoking convo Mycroft did tell Sherlock to slay the dragon and Sherlock did tell John to bring his gun, both seemed aware of the possible outcome of taking Magnusson on...

Interesting; I can see Mycroft sitting back and seeing how things play out. And it makes sense to me that he and Sherlock were plotting together to take down Magnussen. The only thing is, if Mycroft expected Sherlock to kill Magnussen, then why was he shocked by it, why did he say "Oh sherlock, what have you done?" after the shooting?

 

If Mycroft had planted Mary there, I'd be surprised and majorly disappointed by him. To me, he's this older brother that cares very deeply, but that meddles and belittles his brother too often to endear himself to Sherlock. But if he was alright with Mary shooting Sherlock.... that's sick.

I agree, that's sick, but unfortunately I consider Mycroft quite capable of being that sick. Sherlock is a high priority for him, I'd say, but not the highest; the highest priority is whatever Mycroft thinks is good for Britain. It's already implied that he sacriced "the other one", and I have no doubt he'd sacrifice Sherlock if he thought he needed to. But he'd need a really good reason, and I don't know what that could be in this case; I just think it's possible.

 

Everyone's made good points on this issue, I don't know what to think. It all seems both possible and highly improbable to me, all at once. (And we all know when the improbable is the right answer, don't we? I'll bet Moftiss is banking hard on that phrase!)

 

One thought did occur to me; what if the sniper who was "invited to reconsider" (as mentioned in TEH) was Mary? And as Carol theorized, the "invitation" was to protect John. Really preposterous, imo, but that's what occurred to me.... This show really DOES ruin your life....

[Boton]

 

 

Interesting; I can see Mycroft sitting back and seeing how things play out. And it makes sense to me that he and Sherlock were plotting together to take down Magnussen. The only thing is, if Mycroft expected Sherlock to kill Magnussen, then why was he shocked by it, why did he say "Oh sherlock, what have you done?" after the shooting?

 

Provisionally and subject to change with more information in S4, but I solve this dilemma in my head by assuming that quite a bit of the end of HLV was "wink-wink" between Mycroft and Sherlock.  When Mycroft says (in the smoking scene) that he's glad Sherlock has given up on Magnussen, I assume that this is kind of like the old "Mission Impossible" voice-over:  "If you are caught or killed, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions."

 

I think the "Oh, Sherlock, what have you done," is genuine shock.  I think Mycroft thought the plan was rolling out as previously stated:  Mycroft "loaned" his laptop (a dummy, unless Mycroft is an idiot) with the GPS enabled and knew Sherlock was going in to be sure that Magnussen incriminated himself by accepting the trade of laptop.  Mycroft could not have been privy to the revelation that the vaults were all in Magnussen's mind, nor could he know about the threats made to John and Mary in the face flicking scene (along with the information that Magnussen had done likewise to Janine, which I don't think was a throw-away line -- I think that bothered Sherlock too).  Mycroft didn't fully realize how the game had changed nor how immediately personal it had just become.  So he swoops in by helicopter expecting to arrest Magnussen for stealing state secrets, and he sees Sherlock shoot Magnussen in the head.  I think that was a genuine surprise to Mycroft.

 

 

 

This show really DOES ruin your life

 

Amen to that!

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it too. But there's this little niggling implication that keeps running around that says CAM's death was the goal from the start (the presence of that frickin' gun!!!!) Pardon me while I go stomp on it. Again.

[Janie]

Well, I don't see it as the goal. Just one of the possibilities. 

[Boton]

 

 

the presence of that frickin' gun!!!!

 

I don't think that killing CAM had to be one of the anticipated outcomes just because John was carrying.  For one thing, we know CAM has goons -- they searched Sherlock and John at 221B.  We know he has personal protection staff.  I would assume that he also has such staff at his house, and that they are probably armed.  I know nothing about Danish gun laws, but if CAM was using 14 levels of security in his office (two of which weren't legal in the U.K.), I doubt that gun laws were precisely holding him back at home.  It's only smart if you are going into that kind of lion's den to make sure someone on the team is armed.

 

Also, if it makes you feel better about Sherlock's intentions, remember that he wasn't carrying.  John was.  He reminded John to bring his gun, but he himself was not carrying.  If he thought there was a chance that he was going to shoot CAM, he would have had a gun on his person, not in his friend's pocket.  And then, at minimum, the scene where he asked if John had his gun would have ended with "and give it to me," assuming Sherlock doesn't have a firearm of his own.

[Carol the Dabbler]

One thing that's increasingly clear to me is that there's a whole lot of things that happened during HLV that we are not privy to (and, alas, may never be....)

Yes, for me this episode raises a WHOLE lot more questions than it answers. Hopefully that's intended as grist for Series 4 and 5.

 

I can see Mycroft sitting back and seeing how things play out. And it makes sense to me that he and Sherlock were plotting together to take down Magnussen. The only thing is, if Mycroft expected Sherlock to kill Magnussen, then why was he shocked by it, why did he say "Oh sherlock, what have you done?" after the shooting?

I mostly agree with Boton, but I do think that Sherlock went to Appledore already knowing that he might have to kill CAM. As she pointed out, though, Sherlock simply made sure that John had his gun, so shooting him was apparently nothing like Plan A -- more like last resort, I imagine. He might even have mentioned that possibility to Mycroft, but if so, the old know-it-all probably said, "Oh don't be silly, Sherlock, all you need to do is destroy his documents."

 

Everyone's made good points on this issue, I don't know what to think. It all seems both possible and highly improbable to me, all at once.

That just about sums it up!

 

One thought did occur to me; what if the sniper who was "invited to reconsider" (as mentioned in TEH) was Mary? And as Carol theorized, the "invitation" was to protect John. Really preposterous, imo, but that's what occurred to me.... This show really DOES ruin your life....

If it's any comfort to you, that was presumably the sniper we saw taking his rifle apart at the end of "Reichenbach" -- and he definitely wasn't Mary.

 

[Zain]

 

First, I agree, he'd better have a good reason! But I don't think I understand your example; help please?

 

 

I didn't have a concrete example in mind. But for the sake of explaining my train of thought: Mary had the thumbdrive. There is information on her misdeeds on it, and probably links to her clients. Magnussen told us that she worked for the CIA before going freelance. Sherlock states in ASiP that Mycroft occasionally works for CIA, too. Most likely not as an agent, but as a consultant of some sorts. Mary could have bought her freedom to move within the UK by keeping the CIA in a stalemate. While it might not be enough information to buy herself protection from the retribution from her freelance crimes, it may be enough to blackmail Mycroft into not revealing her identity or having her persecuted.

Just an example. I do not have a fixed idea in mind. There are some elements that make different theories plausible.

I hope that clears it up.

 

 

 

One thought did occur to me; what if the sniper who was "invited to reconsider" (as mentioned in TEH) was Mary? And as Carol theorized, the "invitation" was to protect John. Really preposterous, imo, but that's what occurred to me.... This show really DOES ruin your life....I agree, that's sick, but unfortunately I consider Mycroft quite capable of being that sick. Sherlock is a high priority for him, I'd say, but not the highest; the highest priority is whatever Mycroft thinks is good for Britain. It's already implied that he sacriced "the other one", and I have no doubt he'd sacrifice Sherlock if he thought he needed to. But he'd need a really good reason, and I don't know what that could be in this case; I just think it's possible.

 

 

That idea has been proposed before, and quite early on, I believe. I still consider it a viable option to explain some of the inconsistencies in HLV. For example, maybe Mycroft did not make a move, because he wanted to track her associates (knowing that Moriarty's network wasn't done for). It also makes for much better drama, because John would have been at the other end of her gun as well. When it comes to Moriarty and Irene, he has always been more sensitive.

 

Funny, I think we do not yet know Mycroft's highest priority. But I am looking forward to Moftiss' attempt to pit his priorities against each other and making him choose. To me, it seems that s3 is building up to this, at least when one considers how they depicted Mycroft this season in comparison to the two before. But I've expressed that belief before.

And concerning the other one: Mycroft's words are very omnious, indeed. But at the same time, there's a lack of details. We do not even know what happened. For all we know Mycroft threw his other sibling to the wolves. Or they were working on a mission and he wasn't willing to sacrifice other men to extract that sibling from a dangerous situation. Or that sibling committed a crime and Mycroft didn't use his position to get him off the charges. For all we know Jim could be the third sibling, and he was simply referring to Jim's insanity and death... That's what I mean. They are certainly building up to some sort of "small character revelation" about Mycroft. Be it in his favour or against his favour. But I consider it too early to judge him. Personally, I'd rather have him as the devoted brother, because if he doesn't care about Sherlock that much, I have trouble placing him in this universe. Unless he's strongly invested in Sherlock's well-being and continues to be so, he becomes rather superfluous. What's the point to Mycroft then? Unless they want to present him as an antagonist. Which would make me doubt the story's coherence. 

[Arcadia]

....Also, if it makes you feel better about Sherlock's intentions, remember that he wasn't carrying....

Alas, it doesn't, because as you pointed out, it was Sherlock's idea for the gun to be present. John even protested against it. Oops, there goes that annoying implication scuttling around again, better go stomp on it some more.....

 

 

One thought did occur to me; what if the sniper who was "invited to reconsider" (as mentioned in TEH) was Mary? And as Carol theorized, the "invitation" was to protect John. Really preposterous, imo, but that's what occurred to me....

If it's any comfort to you, that was presumably the sniper we saw taking his rifle apart at the end of "Reichenbach" -- and he definitely wasn't Mary.

 

"Presumably" being the operative word here! (This show has turned me into such a suspicious old biddy...)

 

 

First, I agree, he'd better have a good reason! But I don't think I understand your example; help please?

I didn't have a concrete example in mind......I hope that clears it up.

 

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer what I was asking about. It was this line...

If he knew and didn't hunt her down after she shot Sherlock, he better has got a good reason. Like expecting her to kill Sherlock because she blackmailed him....

I see what you're saying about blackmailing Mycroft, but I'm not sure about the "expecting her to kill Sherlock" part ... do you mean she might have threatened to kill Sherlock if Mycroft didn't leave her alone? (In that case I would think Mycroft would've swooped in and had her executed on the spot!  Hmmm; unless she has back-up, like Moriarty did....)

 

Funny, I think we do not yet know Mycroft's highest priority.... But I consider it too early to judge him. Personally, I'd rather have him as the devoted brother, because if he doesn't care about Sherlock that much, I have trouble placing him in this universe. Unless he's strongly invested in Sherlock's well-being and continues to be so, he becomes rather superfluous. What's the point to Mycroft then? Unless they want to present him as an antagonist. Which would make me doubt the story's coherence.

Sherlock seems to regard him largely as an antagonist, so far. But I'm rather guessing he will finally come to understand Mycroft better, and they'll agree to a truce, or something like that. On the other hand, I find Mycroft to be tremendously overbearing and somewhat cruel, and would like nothing more than to see Sherlock finally put him in his place and make him stay there!

[Boton]

 

 

Alas, it doesn't, because as you pointed out, it was Sherlock's idea for the gun to be present. John even protested against it. 

 

I see where your concern comes from, and I kind of agree.  I think Sherlock is smart enough to know that you never carry a loaded gun unless the possibility of shooting someone or something is in your mind.  But like Carol the Dabbler said, I don't think Sherlock was storming into Appledore with shooting CAM as his number one priority.  That was a possibility, along with many other possibilities which could include shooting an armed member of CAM's security force in a fight or even shooting CAM not to kill but to disable.  Heck, there was even the possibility that he could have had to shoot something, like disabling the laptop from a distance.

 

I'm not trying to say that Sherlock was one of the angels; he's already said he's not.  We already know he's comfortable with shooting and probably with killing (I sort of assume he killed at least one person when he rescued Irene).  But if my choices on the presence of the gun are contingency planning or stupidity, I'm going to go with the former and say that one member of the team carrying a gun was planning for several possible eventualities.  Had he really, seriously expected that he would be shooting CAM, he would have carried his own gun or John's gun on his person.  That's an important difference for me.

[BlackButterfly]

Yes I agree, Sherlock asking John to bring the gun did seem to me that using it as a last resort was perhaps on the table all along.....considering earlier in the show Sherlock had made a point of telling John not to bring the gun.

[Arcadia]

Finally found it! Been searching for weeks for this little snippet. Here is Mr. Cumberbatch's take on the death of CAM. I had a feeling I'd picked up the word "brutal" to describe the scene from somewhere, I just couldn't remember where. But here it is..... Unfortunately it's an excerpt, so it could be somewhat out of context, but it seems fairly complete.

 

Question: Do you think Sherlock is at his most dangerous when he’s at his most vulnerable?

BC: Very good question. I think yeah like any of us I completely agree that he is. He’s beaten at the end of three, Magnussen has trumped him that’s why he has to resort to violence. That’s a weakness. That’s not a skill. It’s the bullied becoming a bully it’s the ultimate. Removing all threat with death is brutal. It’s nothing else it’s brutal. So yes I would agree absolutely that’s a good point. He’s at his most dangerous when he’s vulnerable and that can be to do with his addictions or predelictions or any kind of obsession that he has.

 

Here's the link to the full article: http://www.benedictcumberbatch.co.uk/interviews/benedict-cumberbatch-qa-starfury-events/

[Zain]

Yes, that's something that has always been a bit peculiar to me. When you consider Moffat's glee in having Sherlock react like that, you get the complete opposite with Cumberbatch's interpretation. To him, Sherlock's reaction means Sherlock lost. I feel more at ease with that reading. 

[Boton]

 

 

When you consider Moffat's glee in having Sherlock react like that, you get the complete opposite with Cumberbatch's interpretation. To him, Sherlock's reaction means Sherlock lost.

 

Somehow, I would be utterly gobsmacked to hear BC say something like, "Yeah, Sherlock shot the SOB's head off, and he deserved it, too."

 

In Moffat's defense, for those who are uncomfortable with the CAM resolution, remember that Moffat is a writer and creator of the show -- he literally brought this character into the world and can take him back out.  

[BlackButterfly]

I agree with BC Sherlock was willing to do anything to win , even shooting Magnussen , thats why he took the gun. That is rather brutal but I think it was necessary.

Sherlock shooting Magnussen with serious motives in a sort of controlled manner and as a last resort is also a brutal contrast to Marys I want to keep my lover and so I will shoot Magnussen and anyone who gets in my way.

I think it's supposed to be. Mary and Sherlocks similarities are superficial.

In reality they are opposites with one thing in common , they both love John - but even that is in contrasting and opposing ways.

[sherlockandjohn]

Finally found it! Been searching for weeks for this little snippet. Here is Mr. Cumberbatch's take on the death of CAM. I had a feeling I'd picked up the word "brutal" to describe the scene from somewhere, I just couldn't remember where. But here it is..... Unfortunately it's an excerpt, so it could be somewhat out of context, but it seems fairly complete.

 

Question: Do you think Sherlock is at his most dangerous when he’s at his most vulnerable?

 

BC: Very good question. I think yeah like any of us I completely agree that he is. He’s beaten at the end of three, Magnussen has trumped him that’s why he has to resort to violence. That’s a weakness. That’s not a skill. It’s the bullied becoming a bully it’s the ultimate. Removing all threat with death is brutal. It’s nothing else it’s brutal. So yes I would agree absolutely that’s a good point. He’s at his most dangerous when he’s vulnerable and that can be to do with his addictions or predelictions or any kind of obsession that he has.

 

Here's the link to the full article: http://www.benedictcumberbatch.co.uk/interviews/benedict-cumberbatch-qa-starfury-events/

 

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. It was a good question, too.

Of course, even the writers and actors may see things from very different points of view and still love what they are doing, so it's not a big surprise to read the above. It's just nice to know that someone on the Sherlock team feels like that.

[sherlockandjohn]

In ASiB, Mycroft says, "All lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage, Sherlock."

In HLV, he says to his brother: "Your loss would break my heart."

 

Neat

[Arcadia]

Interesting. Thanks for posting this. It was a good question, too.

Of course, even the writers and actors may see things from very different points of view and still love what they are doing, so it's not a big surprise to read the above. It's just nice to know that someone on the Sherlock team feels like that.

Hey, girl, where have you been! We don't hear from you enough lately.

[sittything]

In ASiB, Mycroft says, "All lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage, Sherlock."

In HLV, he says to his brother: "Your loss would break my heart."

 

Neat

 

I LOVE these quotes.  One, because they're just beautiful;  two, because it shows that even cold fish Mycroft has feelings somewhere in there.