Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[sittything]

 

OMG... I love Bill Wiggins... I do hope we see him again.

 

 

Please include Sherlock and John's impression...

 

 

I couldn't find a GIF... :(

 

I guess I could make one...

 

[sittything]

Here ya go...  sorry for the crap quality.  Some day I'll get some real skills.  ;)

 

[Arcadia]

They look fine to me!

[Arcadia]

 

As for Sherlock buying the ring - I imagine this was the quickest engaging ring shopping in history. He probably grabbed the first one he saw, maybe even not looking for the right size. Because why should he care about the ring when he didn't care about the girl.

Can we settle that he did a very quick shopping but manage to throw in a lot of insults and destructive deductions on his way in and out? 

 

That's pretty much how I picture it! Plus I assume he had deduced Janine's taste by then and knew exactly which ring would please her. 

 

(I love the subtlety in this series, and learnt that it pays to notice everything, even those in split second or in the background, because everything is there for a reason.

Brilliant   )

And I know I'm still missing a lot of it! I STILL get so wrapped up in watching our boys run around that I forget to look at anything else. Sigh.

 

And I deduce that Wiggins was a anesthetist at a hospital. Now - this is scary.

 

Yes, he was great and I hope to see him again. But we agreed with Sherlockandjohn that in the scene when he gives the cellphone to Mary at the Leinster Gardens, he should have been killed, or at least got his hand broken this time. Mary is a trained killer and it's hard to suppress reflexes. Grabbing her hand in the dark street is not the best idea. Actually. 

Now what did we just say? Nothing occurs in this show without a reason? Could this be ... a clue? That Mary is not quite the trained killer some would have us believe her to be.........?

 

I really don't think the answer to Mary is going to be a simple one. I adore her, frankly ... but I abhor the kind of thinking that justifies assassination. I have a feeling I am going to be required to balance both of those reactions at once for quite awhile to come. I rather like that, actually: it makes the show more complex; it makes me question my attitudes and why I have them. My only concern is, I'm not particularly convinced Mary is written that way so as to be thought provoking; more often I get the feeling that Mr. Moffat merely thinks an assassin is just a totally cool thing to be. If so, so be it; it is, after all, his pet project, not mine! I'm merely along for the very fun ride.

 

HLV is interesting in the way it's constructed, isn't it? It has a stunning emotional impact; I'm don't think I've ever seen anyone say that it doesn't hit hard on an emotional level (whether they find that good or bad is another matter). Yet when you apply logic to it, it starts unravelling, becomes wispy, hard to grasp.

 

I've suggested before that this may be intentional; that Moffat decided that plugging all the plot holes would bog down the narrative and steal something from his real purpose, which was to punch the audience in the gut. Whether that is GOOD writing or not I don't feel qualified to say; but I don't think it's lazy, or a mistake, or malicious. I think it's highly creative, and definitely riskier, because we don't all feel the same way about things. It's pretty audacious, in fact. I like that, even if I don't like some of the results.

 

At any rate, I've been thinking that to insist that HLV -- and season 3 in general -- reach a particular level of logic, is to miss much of the point of it. I don't think they were targeting our brains in S3, they were taking dead aim on our oh-so-illogical hearts.

 

IMHO, of course! (And illogical being that I am, I'm bound to contradict myself in my very next post.... )

[STCooper1]

 

 

Actually, I think Magnussen was defeated by Sherlock's methods just fine.  (And yes, I know you mean his analytical and intellectual methods!)

 

Sometimes, societies need someone who is able to step outside the law to maintain the structure of civilization.  Magnussen (and Milverton, for that matter) was not doing anything strictly illegal, but he was ruining lives all over the place.  Sherlock could have stood there on Christmas day and told Mycroft, "Yep, I'm out of the Magnussen thing.  Nothing I can legally do to stop the guy, so we just have to wait for him to slip up."  But he didn't.  He tried one more time, and then, when that didn't work, he was willing to step outside the law and forfeit his own life for his friends.  I consider that a triumph.

 

 

You're wrong. Holmes murdering him wasn't victory, that was defeat. Magnussen outfoxed him, and then when Holmes murdered him, he also attained the morale high ground, making him the better man. Holmes sunk himself even lower than Magnussen was to get rid of him, and that is not winning. Thats utter defeat.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

 

Actually, I think Magnussen was defeated by Sherlock's methods just fine.  (And yes, I know you mean his analytical and intellectual methods!)

 

Sometimes, societies need someone who is able to step outside the law to maintain the structure of civilization.  Magnussen (and Milverton, for that matter) was not doing anything strictly illegal, but he was ruining lives all over the place.  Sherlock could have stood there on Christmas day and told Mycroft, "Yep, I'm out of the Magnussen thing.  Nothing I can legally do to stop the guy, so we just have to wait for him to slip up."  But he didn't.  He tried one more time, and then, when that didn't work, he was willing to step outside the law and forfeit his own life for his friends.  I consider that a triumph.

 

 

You're wrong. Holmes murdering him wasn't victory, that was defeat. Magnussen outfoxed him, and then when Holmes murdered him, he also attained the morale high ground, making him the better man. Holmes sunk himself even lower than Magnussen was to get rid of him, and that is not winning. Thats utter defeat.

 

I think this and "is Mary evil?" are topics that can be discussed for eternity and we'll never reach any kind of general agreement...

 

Then of course, we're not looking to agree, are we. We're having fun exchanging our different views. So I'm happy to plunge in once more and add my bit:

 

Yes, I agree that when he had to resort to shooting him in the head, Sherlock in effect lost The Game against Magnussen. But I protest the idea that this incident makes Magnussen morally superior. Magnussen ruined scores of lives for no good reason and never assumed responsibility for anything. Sherlock took one life only after he saw no other alternative, he did it in front of witnesses, taking care not to implicate anybody else and he assumed full responsibility the moment it was done.

 

I cannot imagine a morally more reprehensible character than Magnussen, anyway. And it's not as if he only targeted people who had done wrong, as is often stated. Some of his "pressure points" included "disabled daughter", "husband" and, in the case of Sherlock Holmes, "best friend". How is it wrong to love people? And how is it in any way right to exploit that love to gain power? 

 

Also, there is not a blameless person on this planet, I guarantee you. If Magnussen was real and he needed to destroy me for some selfish reason, he could do so in a few days. And he wasn't doing it because he was trying to be some kind of avenger who unveils hidden crimes and brings the perpetrators to justice outside the law. He was just a power-hungry "businessman" working for his own advantage, and he didn't care a fig whether the corpses he walked over were guilty or innocent.

 

I must admit I love the scene where Sherlock shoots Magnussen. I think it is tragically heroic.

 

[Van Buren Supernova]

Here ya go... sorry for the crap quality. Some day I'll get some real skills. ;)

 

Awesome..!

Thanks for that

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

 

 

 

Actually, I think Magnussen was defeated by Sherlock's methods just fine. (And yes, I know you mean his analytical and intellectual methods!)

 

Sometimes, societies need someone who is able to step outside the law to maintain the structure of civilization. Magnussen (and Milverton, for that matter) was not doing anything strictly illegal, but he was ruining lives all over the place. Sherlock could have stood there on Christmas day and told Mycroft, "Yep, I'm out of the Magnussen thing. Nothing I can legally do to stop the guy, so we just have to wait for him to slip up." But he didn't. He tried one more time, and then, when that didn't work, he was willing to step outside the law and forfeit his own life for his friends. I consider that a triumph.

 

You're wrong. Holmes murdering him wasn't victory, that was defeat. Magnussen outfoxed him, and then when Holmes murdered him, he also attained the morale high ground, making him the better man. Holmes sunk himself even lower than Magnussen was to get rid of him, and that is not winning. Thats utter defeat.

Though you didn't quote me, I have same view with Boton.

 

I can't speak for others,

If 'wrong' merely means having different POV or opinion, then I don't mind jumping on the 'wrong' bandwagon because of cos I can't be 'right' all the time.

[Arcadia]

Y'know, all these differing opinions (emphasis on opinions) just make me love this episode even more. It's so cool when someone's creation can actually make people think!

[Van Buren Supernova]

 

HLV is interesting in the way it's constructed, isn't it? It has a stunning emotional impact; I'm don't think I've ever seen anyone say that it doesn't hit hard on an emotional level (whether they find that good or bad is another matter). Yet when you apply logic to it, it starts unravelling, becomes wispy, hard to grasp.

 

I've suggested before that this may be intentional; that Moffat decided that plugging all the plot holes would bog down the narrative and steal something from his real purpose, which was to punch the audience in the gut. Whether that is GOOD writing or not I don't feel qualified to say; but I don't think it's lazy, or a mistake, or malicious. I think it's highly creative, and definitely riskier, because we don't all feel the same way about things. It's pretty audacious, in fact. I like that, even if I don't like some of the results.

 

I guess it's a good explanation of how this show messes up with us.

It also make it the most rewatchable show for me.

Even have it in my phone, hoping the day would never come when I consider having it surgically attached to me.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Y'know, all these differing opinions (emphasis on opinions) just make me love this episode even more. It's so cool when someone's creation can actually make people think!

Precisely!

[Van Buren Supernova]

I must admit I love the scene where Sherlock shoots Magnussen. I think it is tragically heroic.

 

Despite all the things that he is proud of,

I really like the fact that he never consider himself as a hero.

 

Sherlock Holmes can actually be very down to earth.

 

Another prove that he can be very selfless too, HLV is the only time he never retaliated when someone called him psychopath.

I guess that really proves his seriousness of keeping his vow to John.

[BlackButterfly]

Mary @baby Watson must and will go as they said at the con.......

 

 

’Its not a ‘gang’ show, it’s the Sherlock and John show. It’s about developing their characters and their relationship, and the characters drawn into their orbit.“

—Steven Moffat answering a question about minor characters.

 

Think maybe you misread @ forgot the quote , prob @my bad punctuation.

[STCooper1]

 

 

 

 

Actually, I think Magnussen was defeated by Sherlock's methods just fine.  (And yes, I know you mean his analytical and intellectual methods!)

 

Sometimes, societies need someone who is able to step outside the law to maintain the structure of civilization.  Magnussen (and Milverton, for that matter) was not doing anything strictly illegal, but he was ruining lives all over the place.  Sherlock could have stood there on Christmas day and told Mycroft, "Yep, I'm out of the Magnussen thing.  Nothing I can legally do to stop the guy, so we just have to wait for him to slip up."  But he didn't.  He tried one more time, and then, when that didn't work, he was willing to step outside the law and forfeit his own life for his friends.  I consider that a triumph.

 

 

You're wrong. Holmes murdering him wasn't victory, that was defeat. Magnussen outfoxed him, and then when Holmes murdered him, he also attained the morale high ground, making him the better man. Holmes sunk himself even lower than Magnussen was to get rid of him, and that is not winning. Thats utter defeat.

 

I think this and "is Mary evil?" are topics that can be discussed for eternity and we'll never reach any kind of general agreement...

 

Then of course, we're not looking to agree, are we. We're having fun exchanging our different views. So I'm happy to plunge in once more and add my bit:

 

Yes, I agree that when he had to resort to shooting him in the head, Sherlock in effect lost The Game against Magnussen. But I protest the idea that this incident makes Magnussen morally superior. Magnussen ruined scores of lives for no good reason and never assumed responsibility for anything. Sherlock took one life only after he saw no other alternative, he did it in front of witnesses, taking care not to implicate anybody else and he assumed full responsibility the moment it was done.

 

I cannot imagine a morally more reprehensible character than Magnussen, anyway. And it's not as if he only targeted people who had done wrong, as is often stated. Some of his "pressure points" included "disabled daughter", "husband" and, in the case of Sherlock Holmes, "best friend". How is it wrong to love people? And how is it in any way right to exploit that love to gain power? 

 

Also, there is not a blameless person on this planet, I guarantee you. If Magnussen was real and he needed to destroy me for some selfish reason, he could do so in a few days. And he wasn't doing it because he was trying to be some kind of avenger who unveils hidden crimes and brings the perpetrators to justice outside the law. He was just a power-hungry "businessman" working for his own advantage, and he didn't care a fig whether the corpses he walked over were guilty or innocent.

 

I must admit I love the scene where Sherlock shoots Magnussen. I think it is tragically heroic.

 

 

 

I never said Magnussen did no wrong, nor did I say its wrong to love people. He was extremely arrogant and selfish, and felt no remorse for any of the lives he ruined. He was a joyous bully, but a not a murderer. Its not his fault that anybody is dead. Like Lord Smallwood for example. Magnussen never revealed that information about him, or we would have seen so in the episode. He killed himself for no reason at all, just because Magnussen found out about one of his past indignities, which proved him a pathetic, stupid weakling. Who does that? Sherlock committing high treason and murder because of his hate of Magnussen was worse than what Magnussen ever did.

[STCooper1]

 

 

 

 

Actually, I think Magnussen was defeated by Sherlock's methods just fine. (And yes, I know you mean his analytical and intellectual methods!)

 

Sometimes, societies need someone who is able to step outside the law to maintain the structure of civilization. Magnussen (and Milverton, for that matter) was not doing anything strictly illegal, but he was ruining lives all over the place. Sherlock could have stood there on Christmas day and told Mycroft, "Yep, I'm out of the Magnussen thing. Nothing I can legally do to stop the guy, so we just have to wait for him to slip up." But he didn't. He tried one more time, and then, when that didn't work, he was willing to step outside the law and forfeit his own life for his friends. I consider that a triumph.

You're wrong. Holmes murdering him wasn't victory, that was defeat. Magnussen outfoxed him, and then when Holmes murdered him, he also attained the morale high ground, making him the better man. Holmes sunk himself even lower than Magnussen was to get rid of him, and that is not winning. Thats utter defeat.

Though you didn't quote me, I have same view with Boton.

 

I can't speak for others,

If 'wrong' merely means having different POV or opinion, then I don't mind jumping on the 'wrong' bandwagon because of cos I can't be 'right' all the time.

 

 

Whatever. Sherlock lost to Magnussen ever step of the way, and murdering him only made him morally inferior to the bullying blackmailer.

[STCooper1]

 

 In "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" Sherlock burns the contents of Milverton's safe after the Master Blackmailer is shot dead by one of his victims. So I suppose, since Magnussen's contents of his vault was his mind, shooting him was Sherlock's equivalent of burning his vault to the ground.

 

Yes, I suppose it was. And I found it so satisfying. Merry Christmas indeed. While I can understand those who cheer on seeing Moriarty alive and well (even though I myself am appalled at what I consider a very bad artistic choice there), I whole-heartedly hope Magnussen is dead for good and I cannot imagine anyone being happy at his revival. He was seriously vile.

 

Sure hope you can re-image that, as I'd LOVE to see Magnussen still alive as he was my favorite antagonist in the show. Way better than the Joker rip-off Moriarty was as far as I'm concerned.

[Sarina_Goldfish]

You've got some sass going on xD(just kidding, obviously) I think that this version of Moriarty was amazing!! Also, I must say that Andrew did an pretty wonderful job. It might be a bit joker-like in your opinion. But nevertheless: cut him some slack!!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Sherlock committing high treason and murder because of his hate of Magnussen was worse than what Magnussen ever did.

 

You think he did it just out of hate? Hm... I'd love to say "but Sherlock doesn't go about killing anybody he hates", only the writers have claimed Magnussen was the only person he hated so that's not a valid argument, obviously.

 

I like to think it was a rational decision. Sherlock set out to destroy the vaults, the vaults were in Magnussen's brain, so the brain had to go and he saw no other feasible alternative. I don't believe it was a crime of passion. Sherlock does have feelings, strong feelings, but I think he's well enough in control to not let them run away with him.

 

Of course we'll never know. Like so much in this series, the scene is open to many different interpretations.

 

I respect anybody who says killing is the worst you can do to a person, but I'm not sure I agree. Killing is certainly never right, god forbid. If it was a real-life occurrence, I'm not sure I'd think Sherlock's course of action was justified. But in fiction, inside his own little Sherlock world... I just can't see Magnussen as a real person. For me, he's a villain, a monster. We don't usually blame St George for slaying the dragon, do we? (Well, I do. I've got a thing for dragons, but that's another story :lol:). 

 

Sure hope you can re-image that, as I'd LOVE to see Magnussen still alive as he was my favorite antagonist in the show. Way better than the Joker rip-off Moriarty was as far as I'm concerned.

 

Really? Why? Did you think he was more realistic?

 

I found him just as hard to believe in as Moriarty. Call me naive (and I probably am), but I don't believe in villains. There are no villains in real life and a character that is pure evil will never seem real to me, nor can I relate to them.

 

At least Moriarty was entertaining. Magnussen wasn't even that - to me. Tastes differ, obviously.

[Arcadia]

Mary @baby Watson must and will go as they said at the con.......

 

’Its not a ‘gang’ show, it’s the Sherlock and John show. It’s about developing their characters and their relationship, and the characters drawn into their orbit.“

—Steven Moffat answering a question about minor characters.

 

Think maybe you misread @ forgot the quote , prob @my bad punctuation.

 

Hey Butterfly, thanks for the clarification, I admit I was puzzled by that as well.

 

I have to say, though, that I don't see anything in Mr. Moffat's statement to indicate that Mary and the baby "must go". I'm not quite sure what he means by "gang" show (does he mean an "ensemble" show?) ... but this is the significant part to me: "It’s about developing their characters ... AND the characters drawn into their orbit.“ I interpret this to mean John and Sherlock will continue to be the main characters, and the other characters will also continue to have roles to play. I think a lot of us to expect Mary to die at some point because that's what happens in the books; but Mr. Moffat isn't promising that's what will happen, imo. (That doesn't mean it won't happen, either! )

 

 

I never said Magnussen did no wrong, nor did I say its wrong to love people. He was extremely arrogant and selfish, and felt no remorse for any of the lives he ruined. He was a joyous bully, but a not a murderer. Its not his fault that anybody is dead. Like Lord Smallwood for example. Magnussen never revealed that information about him, or we would have seen so in the episode. ...

Well, I guess I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I feel compelled to point out that MANY things happen in this show that we, the audience, are never shown. We didn't see Sherlock take drugs, for example, but there's evidence to strongly suggest that he did. We didn't see John and Mary say "I do", but it's not hard to infer that it happened. Based on my understanding of how a story is told, I think the audience is, in fact, expected to believe that CAM did reveal that information about Lord Smallwood; and therefore is indirectly linked to his death. It's like when someone leaves a banana peel on a well-traveled sidewalk; no, they may not be directly responsible if someone doesn't notice the peel, slips on it and falls; but the person who left the banana peel IS guilty of a callous indifference to the welfare of others. That's CAM.

[sfmpco]

I think there are Magnussens out there.  They may not have such a position of wealth and power, but they exist.  Corporate bullies.  Oh yes, they exist.  Thankfully I don't mix in that world and don't know them, but they start as bullies on the playground who never learn to stop bullying.  The closest think I could maybe link Moriarty to would be a mob boss.  We know he has a network of people, but we never see them report.  

[STCooper1]

 

 

Sherlock committing high treason and murder because of his hate of Magnussen was worse than what Magnussen ever did.

 

You think he did it just out of hate? Hm... I'd love to say "but Sherlock doesn't go about killing anybody he hates", only the writers have claimed Magnussen was the only person he hated so that's not a valid argument, obviously.

 

I like to think it was a rational decision. Sherlock set out to destroy the vaults, the vaults were in Magnussen's brain, so the brain had to go and he saw no other feasible alternative. I don't believe it was a crime of passion. Sherlock does have feelings, strong feelings, but I think he's well enough in control to not let them run away with him.

 

Of course we'll never know. Like so much in this series, the scene is open to many different interpretations.

 

I respect anybody who says killing is the worst you can do to a person, but I'm not sure I agree. Killing is certainly never right, god forbid. If it was a real-life occurrence, I'm not sure I'd think Sherlock's course of action was justified. But in fiction, inside his own little Sherlock world... I just can't see Magnussen as a real person. For me, he's a villain, a monster. We don't usually blame St George for slaying the dragon, do we? (Well, I do. I've got a thing for dragons, but that's another story :lol:). 

 

Sure hope you can re-image that, as I'd LOVE to see Magnussen still alive as he was my favorite antagonist in the show. Way better than the Joker rip-off Moriarty was as far as I'm concerned.

 

Really? Why? Did you think he was more realistic?

 

I found him just as hard to believe in as Moriarty. Call me naive (and I probably am), but I don't believe in villains. There are no villains in real life and a character that is pure evil will never seem real to me, nor can I relate to them.

 

At least Moriarty was entertaining. Magnussen wasn't even that - to me. Tastes differ, obviously.

 

 

The show made it a point that Magnussen is the only man Sherlock truly hates. He defiantly went after him, even lying to his bro who was trying to look after him at Christmas time, against Mycroft's wishes and betrayed his country just so he could bring him down. He didn't do it just for that, as he wanted to free everyone from Magnussen's power, but that was most of the reason. His hate of the man, which was undeniable on his face after Sherlock's utter defeat. The fact that overall the murder was completely unnecessary as Magnussen wasn't a threat to anyone's life, just their reputation, which isn't worth killing over, made Sherlock the real villain of the situation as he did something to Magnussen even worse than he had ever done to those under his thumb. Holmes also redeemed the character of Donovan of all the negativity she'd been portrayed with in the show as he fulfilled her prophecy about him in the first episode and proved her completely right about him. Also, Magnussen wasn't pure evil, as he wasn't a murderer or psychopath like Mary is and like Sherlock became when he murdered Magnussen. Magnussen had no desire to see anyone die, as he was horrified when Mary shot Sherlock and put men by the bond-fire to get Watson out in case Sherlock didn't make it in time, so was better morally than Mary and Sherlock were at the end of it all. And to answer your question of why I'd love to see Magnussen back again, yes I did find him more realistic than Moriarty, and an original character as he wasn't an rip-off of another classic villain like Moriarty was. Magnussen was himself realistic as there was nothing about that wasn't possible in real life, whereas an over-the-top international mastermind like Moriarty doesn't exist in real life. At least not in that way. Also, I loved Magnussen's Mind Palace. Very realistic indeed.

[STCooper1]

I never said Magnussen did no wrong, nor did I say its wrong to love people. He was extremely arrogant and selfish, and felt no remorse for any of the lives he ruined. He was a joyous bully, but a not a murderer. Its not his fault that anybody is dead. Like Lord Smallwood for example. Magnussen never revealed that information about him, or we would have seen so in the episode. ...

Well, I guess I can see how you might come to that conclusion, but I feel compelled to point out that MANY things happen in this show that we, the audience, are never shown. We didn't see Sherlock take drugs, for example, but there's evidence to strongly suggest that he did. We didn't see John and Mary say "I do", but it's not hard to infer that it happened. Based on my understanding of how a story is told, I think the audience is, in fact, expected to believe that CAM did reveal that information about Lord Smallwood; and therefore is indirectly linked to his death. It's like when someone leaves a banana peel on a well-traveled sidewalk; no, they may not be directly responsible if someone doesn't notice the peel, slips on it and falls; but the person who left the banana peel IS guilty of a callous indifference to the welfare of others. That's CAM.

 

Even if Magnussen had revealed that information, Smallwood's suicide wasn't his fault as he killed himself because he couldn't stand the truth being told about him. He was a wuss. Technically, all Magnussen did was his job. The same can't be said for Holmes when he murdered Magnussen on top of committing high treason. He wasn't doing his job and upholding the law, he was breaking it and further proving his hated enemy the better man.

Edited May 3, 2015 by Arcadia
fixed quote boxes

[sfmpco]

Yes Sherlock hated him, but he hated the power he used over people's lives.  I think Sherlock did everything he could to resolve the situation with the Lord Smallwood letters in a peaceful manner, and then put himself on the line  by stealing Mycroft's laptop to use it as an exchange for info on Mary (and there are some in this forum who believe perhaps rightly so that Mycroft was in on it).  It was only when he had been outplayed and he saw that the blackmail was going to increase now especially over John and Mary that Sherlock made the decision to shoot Magnussen in the head and destroy that mind palace.  

 

Even though Sherlock asked John to bring his gun, I think that was just in case they ran into trouble.  If the exchange could have been truly made, would Sherlock have shot him?  No, I don't think so.  Because there would have been no mind palace to destroy.  However, I think as soon as the issue was revealed to be the mind palace, Sherlock began to rethink what he had to do to resolve the situation...

[Arcadia]

I respect anybody who says killing is the worst you can do to a person, but I'm not sure I agree.....

Same here. Alas, I'm afraid I can think of a number of things that are worse than killing someone, and I don't care to enumerate them here. Treating people as commodities, as CAM does, certainly falls into that category for me. But we all have different moral standards, heaven knows. 

 

The show made it a point that Magnussen is the only man Sherlock truly hates....

The show also made it a point to show that Magnussen's actions were depraved and inhuman. This neither excuses nor justifies Sherlock's actions, imo, but I find it a bit of a stretch to say that Sherlock was more evil than CAM. But that's just me, of course.

[Inge l-w]

Somehow, my feeling of what STCooper is trying to say is that by killing Magnussen, Sherlock fulfilled Donovan's statement in Study in Pink "One day we will all be standing around a body and he will have put it there", but motive is another of those huge plotholes in one of my least favourite episodes in the series.

Mary revealed as a cold-blooded assassin, nearly a psychopath herself, John being uncomprehending in the face of his former best friend's actions and suffering, Sherlock admitting he has lost the Game by not thinking things through properly and resorting to violence to solve a problem, all this makes HLV less than an admirable piece of work, regardless of how many awards it has won.