Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[sfmpco]

Ewww... and Magnussen may not have those leanings based on the way he practically started making love to drugged Sherlock in the deleted scene.

[Shadow Dweller]

Horrifying prospect, isn't it? It seems that CAM like the dangerous type for toy

[Arcadia]

Some fans proposed that the baby is Magnussen's.

 

!!!!!! !!!!!!

 

EWWWWWW!

[T.o.b.y]

I don't believe the baby is anybody's but John and Mary's, for no better reason than that I refuse to accept any alternative. I remember back when we first learned that series 3 would feature both Mary and Magnussen and that Mary would have "a secret", I thought ew, no, please don't use the "sexual infidelity" storyline for her. Because originally, that was what Milverton specialized in - scandals about women's sex lives and ruining relationships. They already went down that road on Sherlock with Irene Adler, though, and they needed something more to make Magnussen frightening and repulsive to a modern audience, so they changed his character concept a little - for the better, in my humble opinion.

 

I don't want Mary to cheat on John because the story of His Last Vow, her entire story so far, in fact, only makes sense to me if she really loves him. Not that an extramarital affair necessarily excludes love, but in her case, it would be a bit much. I prefer even the assassin background to that idea. Besides, it's soap opera territory and Sherlock really doesn't need any more of that.

 

As for Magnussen himself being the father: EEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, no, no, no. That's so wrong on so many levels. Nope.

[STCooper1]

 

 

 

 

Well we differ in regards to grace. I don't think Sherlock deserves it and that to give it to him would mean that he got away with high treason and murder with no repercussions. He DESERVES to be punished for his crimes in my book.

 

 

Well, then you as a born again Christian do not understand the grace that you received by not being condemned for your sins.  

 

Something happened and Sherlock received grace from the punishment.  It doesn't erase the fact of what he did, and by sending him on the MI6 mission he was basically being given a death sentence from a country that otherwise cannot practice capitol punishment.  But Sherlock passed from death to life through grace.

 

Sherlock made the choice to end the suffering of and protect a lot of people, most especially those in his inner circle.  He did what Mycroft couldn't do - and trust me, Mycroft has blood on his hands somewhere, somehow.  

 

Although Sherlock isn't a superhero like a Marvel character, he is no less fictional. He may seem more realistic and live in a more realistic world, but he's completely fictional.  How many innocent people died in MAN OF STEEL due to all the destruction caused by Superman?  What's the difference between pulling a trigger on an unarmed man and being so destructive that thousands of innocents are killed?  Or have they actually been murdered by  Superman's actions?  After all, Superman willingly caused that destruction. And yet we say Superman does the right thing for Truth, Justice and the American way.  He remains a hero.  Sherlock shoots one baddie and he deserves no mercy or grace?

 

We can't really make a judgement on Sherlock as we don't know his heart, but we do know he understood what he did and was willingly facing his punishment - which also was a form of grace, I suspect.  I doubt Magnussen's death was linked to Sherlock in the press.  It was likely swept under the rug to avoid the embarrassment and shame over someone who I read in a fan fiction was referred to as a "national treasure."  It was fitting.  Was he repentant?  Does he feel any remorse?  These answers have yet to be revealed but undoubtedly will be in S4.

 

 

Wrong, I understand the free gift of salvation perfectly, and I also understand that the Bible says that the laws of man are to be OBEYED unless they obviously contradict what God says. Sherlock DELIBERATELY did the opposite and committed high treason and murder, thus disobeying the laws of man, all because of his hate of a man that wasn't actually dangerous. He did nothing deserving of a pardon. Our not being worthy of God's grace and salvation has nothing to do with Sherlock's getting away scot-free for murder and treason just because the man he murdered and was trying to trap by committing treason was detestable. Setting aside superheros and especially Man of Steel since that was just stupid, Sherlock doesn't deserve grace for doing the opposite of God's Will, even if he doesn't believe in Him. Also, he WASN'T actually protecting anyone by murdering Magnussen as he wasn't a threat to anyone's life, just their reputation. Do you think that God would just let him get away with those crimes? No, he wouldn't. Would he forgive them? Certainly, as there is only one sin that is unforgivable and thats blasphemy to the Holy Spirit. Trying to compare the two is invalid as they are two entirely different things as one is actual, undeserved mercy and grace given by a perfect being out of love of man, while the other is a mockery of actual justice and a violation of the laws of both God and man. People have done the things that Sherlock did for probably some of the same or similar reasons, and gone to prison for the rest of their lives. So should Sherlock. Even if he thought he was protecting his loved ones, he was doing so in a very evil and flawed way that was very much the opposite of what God did by giving us grace and what had to be done to make it possible. Everything he did was necessary, however horrible it may have seemed to send His own Son to die as a sacrifice for us once and for all time, as there was LITERALLY no other way at that point given what he'd given as prophecy in the Old Testament. What Sherlock did wasn't necessary as nobody was in any danger and the murder did nothing to end the threat of Magnussen's blackmail with his hard copies still out there and there still being others that knew their location.  

[STCooper1]

This is the final problem debate now really.

We don't live in an ideal world , evil exists ( Moriarty Magnussen Mary ) , and for evil to triumph all that is required is for good men ( Sherlock John ) to do nothing.

So while the bad guys are out there , good people will have to do bad things to stop them.

It's made very clear that Moriarty@ Magnussen etc are untouchable by the law so we need people like SH until the world becomes 'ideal' or god turns up. I don't see that happening anytime soon.....

 

I think the writers are actually making a rather ironic joke , that by shooting Magnussen , Sherlock does something... and becomes not just the great man but also a good one.

Altho it's rather sad that in managing to avoid a forced fall from grace/sin via Moriartys suicide plan , Magnussen managed to goad @ bully Sherlock into it.

But it does make Sherlock more human..as one of the writers said.

HLV is messed up one hopes it won't be the point people look back at and go...thats when Sherlock went down the pan.

 

Ty for clarifying position ST.

@YaY decent convo and beer! Cheers!

 

Actually, Sherlock became a bad man when he murdered Magnussen as it was unnecessary and undeserved. He was then worse than Magnussen as a traitor and murderer. 

[Shadow Dweller]

When in the subject of Mary Watson, any idea why she looks furious (?) after know about the Moriarty broadcast? Seems suspicious if she did not have at least some sort of tie with Jim at the past.

[sfmpco]

 

 

 

 

 

Well we differ in regards to grace. I don't think Sherlock deserves it and that to give it to him would mean that he got away with high treason and murder with no repercussions. He DESERVES to be punished for his crimes in my book.

 

 

Well, then you as a born again Christian do not understand the grace that you received by not being condemned for your sins.  

 

Something happened and Sherlock received grace from the punishment.  It doesn't erase the fact of what he did, and by sending him on the MI6 mission he was basically being given a death sentence from a country that otherwise cannot practice capitol punishment.  But Sherlock passed from death to life through grace.

 

Sherlock made the choice to end the suffering of and protect a lot of people, most especially those in his inner circle.  He did what Mycroft couldn't do - and trust me, Mycroft has blood on his hands somewhere, somehow.  

 

Although Sherlock isn't a superhero like a Marvel character, he is no less fictional. He may seem more realistic and live in a more realistic world, but he's completely fictional.  How many innocent people died in MAN OF STEEL due to all the destruction caused by Superman?  What's the difference between pulling a trigger on an unarmed man and being so destructive that thousands of innocents are killed?  Or have they actually been murdered by  Superman's actions?  After all, Superman willingly caused that destruction. And yet we say Superman does the right thing for Truth, Justice and the American way.  He remains a hero.  Sherlock shoots one baddie and he deserves no mercy or grace?

 

We can't really make a judgement on Sherlock as we don't know his heart, but we do know he understood what he did and was willingly facing his punishment - which also was a form of grace, I suspect.  I doubt Magnussen's death was linked to Sherlock in the press.  It was likely swept under the rug to avoid the embarrassment and shame over someone who I read in a fan fiction was referred to as a "national treasure."  It was fitting.  Was he repentant?  Does he feel any remorse?  These answers have yet to be revealed but undoubtedly will be in S4.

 

 

Wrong, I understand the free gift of salvation perfectly, and I also understand that the Bible says that the laws of man are to be OBEYED unless they obviously contradict what God says. Sherlock DELIBERATELY did the opposite and committed high treason and murder, thus disobeying the laws of man, all because of his hate of a man that wasn't actually dangerous. He did nothing deserving of a pardon. Our not being worthy of God's grace and salvation has nothing to do with Sherlock's getting away scot-free for murder and treason just because the man he murdered and was trying to trap by committing treason was detestable. Setting aside superheros and especially Man of Steel since that was just stupid, Sherlock doesn't deserve grace for doing the opposite of God's Will, even if he doesn't believe in Him. Also, he WASN'T actually protecting anyone by murdering Magnussen as he wasn't a threat to anyone's life, just their reputation. Do you think that God would just let him get away with those crimes? No, he wouldn't. Would he forgive them? Certainly, as there is only one sin that is unforgivable and thats blasphemy to the Holy Spirit. Trying to compare the two is invalid as they are two entirely different things as one is actual, undeserved mercy and grace given by a perfect being out of love of man, while the other is a mockery of actual justice and a violation of the laws of both God and man. People have done the things that Sherlock did for probably some of the same or similar reasons, and gone to prison for the rest of their lives. So should Sherlock. Even if he thought he was protecting his loved ones, he was doing so in a very evil and flawed way that was very much the opposite of what God did by giving us grace and what had to be done to make it possible. Everything he did was necessary, however horrible it may have seemed to send His own Son to die as a sacrifice for us once and for all time, as there was LITERALLY no other way at that point given what he'd given as prophecy in the Old Testament. What Sherlock did wasn't necessary as nobody was in any danger and the murder did nothing to end the threat of Magnussen's blackmail with his hard copies still out there and there still being others that knew their location.  

 

 

I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't watch Sherlock because you don't seem to actually like him very much.

[Inge l-w]

When in the subject of Mary Watson, any idea why she looks furious (?) after know about the Moriarty broadcast? Seems suspicious if she did not have at least some sort of tie with Jim at the past.

Because in her past guise of AGRA she may have been one of the three snipers in TRF, so she would not be overly pleased to see a clearly psychopathic employer come back to wreak his revenge on all of them!

In TEH she clearly says, "I'm late for Cath, see you later" to Dr Watson. You only have to listen, subtitles not needed!

[sfmpco]

IF she were one of the snipers, Mycroft would know as he had his men intervene.  

[Shadow Dweller]

I don't recall there's a clear conclusion for the pool scene. Is there an uncut edition out there? I am curious since you two brought my attention to that particular point.

[Inge l-w]

Dear sfmpco, he probably does! All his shots across the bow of this version of reckless Sherlock are aimed at warning his baby brother NOT to get too involved in the John-Mary fiasco, from TEH to their scene in the garden outside their parents' home. What would be the advantage to being the British government, MI6 etc. if he stopped trying to stop the reckless, thoughtless genius on his self-destructive path? Which is why, his "Oh Sherlock, what have you done?" Is so fraught with emotion, from someone termed the Iceman in SIB, and with endless iterations of the truth behind it. Instead of linear logic, try some lateral one, and see where it might lead. As for David's statement, that he stopped seeing Mary six months ago, it overlaps with the time- frame of Dr Watson getting interested in her, it is on David's say-so, and while Sherlock can deduce EVIDENCE using his senses, he is not a psychic, at least not yet, despite the fact that his creator delved into the paranormal after the death of his son in WWI!

[sfmpco]

David says "ages ago" not 6 months.  Do your research.

 

And Mycroft would have let John and Sherlock know if Mary were one of Moriarty's assassins.  I think you are swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

[jadpdr]

If "Mary" was one of dear Jim's freelance snipers both in the pool scene and in TRF, then she would be understandably upset if, using her superior CIA - honed skills she had made an unobtrusive exit that had elude Mycroft's vigilance, and thus slipped through the net which bagged the other snipers! Mycroft may be all-powerful, but things have eluded his scrutiny of his baby brother in the past!

[Van Buren Supernova]

I think the baby belongs to John.

 

Mary is many things but I don’t think unfaithful is one of them, and I would rule out non-consensual, because she is not weak.

 

Making the baby belongs to someone else would make it too much of the drama, predictable cliché that Sherlock isn’t. And it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to introduce another big lie after what had already happened.

 

If it’s the case, and she is as smart as she is, why didn’t she confess when John confronted her in Baker Street. Two flies at one go. There is only so much damage that she can do, he couldn’t get any madder than that (well maybe, 7% more). Without the baby, maybe the Christmas forgiveness did not happen, but Mary didn’t expect it to happen anyway. She already thought it’s a lost cause.

 

Another manipulation? Don’t think so. Not something you can pull off twice when your circle of friend and enemy involved a Sherlock and a Magnussen.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Hopefully I’m not the only one thinking that there are things worse than murder and hopefully I don’t regret spending time writing this because I can actually care less.

 

Yes, Sherlock is not a saint and his decisions are questionable and maybe, he deserves some sort of punishments, but to say that Magnussen is a better person than Sherlock tickles too many nerves.

 

There are shades of grey; there are not a lot of things in the world that can be labeled right or wrong, without looking at each case on its own situation and condition. Keep an open mind.

Putting people under emotional pressure to get what you want for a persistent period of time can be more evil than murder.

Not always, but it happens.

 

When it reaches a point that forces people to sell their soul, to put it dramatically, and it happens in real world.

 

 

Real story in one of places I stayed before, there were mysterious shooters who went around and killing people who couldn’t be touched by justice. The victims were criminals and lawbreakers who contributed to so many miseries and terrors in the population. Although it was regarded as unlawful action, they were never caught, and almost every ordinary man, woman and children were grateful with quality of life improvement, safety and security for themselves and their loved ones that couldn’t be achieved before.

In a way, these mysterious shooters are regarded as heroes who were willing to take action and dirty their hands.

 

 

I heard this long time ago, can’t remember the source. A research was conducted with a group of people and they were presented with a situation. Something along these lines:

 

An uncontrollable train is going to hit a bunch of railroad workers. There is a way to prevent this, by pressing a button that will stop the train, but will definitely kill one railroad worker as the result. (If I remember correctly, it’s unknown if the first option will kill the  bunch, but I guess there is not so much hope for happy ending when being hit by uncontrollable train heh)

 

All from the group answered yes, they would press the button to save the people by sacrificing one.

 

Then the question was changed. If there was no button, but you had to be there to push this one worker to his death in order to save the rest, would you do it?

 

And there was probably less than a quarter who answer yes.

They would rather not taking part in killing this man directly even if the action would save more people.

It’s not a right or wrong choice, but something to ponder.

 

And the real Coventry Conundrum. Would you kill thousands to save millions?

 

 

More than half of the world, suffer dark period of occupation in their history. During occupation, they endured slavery, rape, poverty, starvation, and prolonged emotional abuse and violation.

How many of these people would choose to wield a knife to end all this suffering and fight to kill, even if they could be the one who end up being killed?

Are they worse than the people who put them in that situation just because they choose to kill?

Why independence always have to be so bloody? Is there many other ways to achieve it?

 

Back to Magnussen. It’s not shown explicitly that he was a blackmailer, yes, but it’s written between almost every line.

What did he do to invite himself and get cozy with Britain Prime Minister, that allowed him to obtain more government secrets? What did he do to John Garvie to get him arrested for corruption? He knew JG was in 41% percent debt, it’s very easy to build a corruption story around that, especially he knew so much information that he was not supposed to know.

And I don’t want to imagine how did he get the result, by accessing JG’s pressure point, his disabled daughter?

 

And to say Lady Smallwood’s husband a wuss who couldn’t handle pressure by killing himself. What did he do? He made a small mistake that he didn’t know, and tormented all his life for that. From what we know, he had quite a respectable moral ground, and stopped what he was doing before it went further. His suicide is driven by guilt as much as by being wussy. And his punishment is not enough? Magnussen still wanted to ‘own’ his wife?

 

 

And the news, saying what Magnussen did was simply broadcasting the truth, therefore he was not evil.

News doesn’t mean it’s true. At least that is implied in the series.

Reichenbach Fall.

Remember what Moriarty said? I read it in the news, so it must be true.

Remember, the best lie is constructed by putting elements of truth. Hence Richard Brook with Sherlock past.

 

 

For all the blabbers above, what I’m trying to say is, there are millions shade of grey in the world.

Sometimes the world needs blunt instrument, equally, it needs a dagger, a scalpel wielded with precision.

Without considering its own unique situation, not many things are black and white, right or wrong anymore.

What a tender world it would be.

 

[Inge l-w]

David says "ages ago" not 6 months. Do your research.

 

And Mycroft would have let John and Sherlock know if Mary were one of Moriarty's assassins. I think you are swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.

Yes Ma'am , Aye, aye, Ma'am,

will pay more attention to the inanities of this series from now on! David does say "ages ago", which is pretty vague and can be interpreted any way one likes, sorry to have slipped up on that one!

As for The Moral Dilemma of killing thousands to save millions, you only have to look back at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which were considered strategically necessary to do just that, never mind the bonus of scaring the Russian "allies" shitless until the Russians could lay their hands on Dr Fuchs et al.

[Shadow Dweller]

Think I will watch the whole series again. There are so many interesting possible subplots to dissect :D

 

What about John's calmness in the tarmac, why isn't he looks upset even after Sherlock's story about the East Wind? Could it be that the good doctor is responsible for the Moriarty broadcast?

[Van Buren Supernova]

Think I will watch the whole series again. There are so many interesting possible subplots to dissect :D

 

What about John's calmness in the tarmac, why isn't he looks upset even after Sherlock's story about the East Wind? Could it be that the good doctor is responsible for the Moriarty broadcast?

Ou next target is 5000th posts and get Moffiss's ass in here. :lol:

 

I would love to see that John is behind that, but I think (sorry John) he is too thick for that..

 

I don't like both ideas, but maybe Irene Adler or the third brother?

[Arcadia]

Or Mary?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I don't believe there is any "Cath" (regardless of the BBC's subtitles, which have demonstrable errors).  What I heard when that scene in John's office was first released (with no subtitles) as a trailer was "All right, be careful -- see you later."

In TEH she clearly says, "I'm late for Cath, see you later" to Dr Watson. You only have to listen, subtitles not needed!

 

Yes, I did listen without subtitles at first, because the trailer had no subtitles. And the very first thing I heard was "Light the castle, see you later" -- which I found less than satisfactory.

 

After another listen or two, I decided it was "All right, be careful. See you later." That fits in better with the surrounding dialog and action -- Mary asks John "You sure?" to which he replies "I'm sure." And considering that the next time we see John, he's on his way to #221, Mary is presumably concerned that if John visits Sherlock, there's likely to be more bloodshed -- thus the "be careful."

 

But you (and many other fans, including Ariane DeVere) agree with the subtitles: "I'm late for Cath. I'll see you later," which introduces a mysterious character not (yet!) referred to again. This is why we NEED the scripts! Reading them wouldn't be cheating, because they presumably don't reveal anything that's not shown on the air. But it could save us from going round and round like this, when one or the other of us is chasing a phantom that was never even imagined by the writers.

 

What about John's calmness in the tarmac, why isn't he looks upset even after Sherlock's story about the East Wind? Could it be that the good doctor is responsible for the Moriarty broadcast?

 

I disagree with whoever called John "too thick" :P , but nevertheless don't think that would be quite his style. (He's a doctor, not a hacker!) I assume that his calmness is due to confidence that Sherlock will soon put things right.

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Having read both the TBB script (thanks Sherlockology) & Ariane's transcripts, it's possible the the script would not give us any clues as those guys ad lib to the max at times.

[Carol the Dabbler]

True, it's not a sure thing -- but a huge majority of the lines are right there in black and white.  And Moftiss mentioned on, I believe, the "Hounds" commentary that they were considering making the scripts available for purchase.  AND they've already made a few scripts available as part of some luxury package deals (plus the "Banker" script being available online, as you mention) -- so they clearly have no overall objection to publishing them.

 

[T.o.b.y]

When in the subject of Mary Watson, any idea why she looks furious (?) after know about the Moriarty broadcast? Seems suspicious if she did not have at least some sort of tie with Jim at the past.

 

I didn't think she seemed furious, exactly. More like bewildered. Alarmed, maybe.

 

A connection between Mary and Moriarty sounds plausible to me. I'm hoping that it will be part of her story, and I do believe one could write that in a way that does not make Mary a villain.

 

I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't watch Sherlock because you don't seem to actually like him very much.

 

:lol: That made me smile.

 

I must admit I am a bit bewildered as well by what seems to be a recent trend to come here with mostly complaints about the quality of the writing and / or outrage about the moral implications of the story. The need to vent one's frustration is one thing - I understand that - but it seems to me there must be more enjoyable ways to spend free time than repeat over and over again how horrible a particular plot point is.

 

I'm really sorry His Last Vow was so upsetting for some people. My best advice is, try to ignore it if you can't come to terms with the content. It's only fiction, it's not like you'll be turning a blind eye to some actual misdeed. Choose the last bit you liked about the series and stop there. Imagine your own alternate ending. Write a fix-it fic if you like. Whatever makes you happy. Fiction was invented to make us happier, not sad and angry. (That's why I avoid Game of Thrones, even though it's really well done. It makes me feel helpless and sick. You would not believe the amount of times I have mentally saved Ned from execution at the last second, rescued Sansa from being married to Joffrey and given Dany her dream house with the red door).

 

I think the baby belongs to John.

 

Mary is many things but I don’t think unfaithful is one of them, and I would rule out non-consensual, because she is not weak.

 

Making the baby belongs to someone else would make it too much of the drama, predictable cliché that Sherlock isn’t. And it doesn’t really make a lot of sense to introduce another big lie after what had already happened.

 

Thanks. That was what I meant to say when I last mentioned the subject, but I couldn't find the right words. Exactly. What you say.

 

Hopefully I’m not the only one thinking that there are things worse than murder and hopefully I don’t regret spending time writing this because I can actually care less.

 

You're not the only one. I, for example, do not think killing is ever, ever right, but I do believe that there are situations where it's probably the lesser evil. Take abortion. I think abortion is wrong, but I don't want it to be illegal, because I think forcing a woman to have a child against her will is even more wrong. Sometimes there's just different kinds of wrong and you have to chose between them.

 

I also agree that there is worse than murder. Torture can be worse, for example. Ruining someone's life so thoroughly that the victim would actually prefer to be dead is worse.

 

Of course you can't justify murder by saying that the murderer at least didn't do something worse than kill. (Duh, I know).

 

I don't think that Sherlock killing Magnussen was right. Far from it. It wasn't even right inside the realm of fiction, where different laws apply and where evil exists to justify many acts of violence and turn them into acts of heroism. It was wrong. But I still like that scene. I bloody love that scene. Call me immoral, but that's the Sherlock I fell in love with, the self-proclaimed sociopath who refuses to be called a hero and who will shoot a villain point blank, yelling Merry Christmas of all things and looking him straight in the eyes. I saw His Last Vow, and I thought, oh my god, the show has still got it. They haven't gone soft after all. Hurray.

 

Totally understand it isn't everybody's cup of tea, though. See what I said above about entertainment and choosing what to spend your time on.

 

 

I love discussing this episode and all the knotty ethical problems it presents if you go looking for them, but I don't think we'll ever agree on any of them. That's fine! Well, for me it is fine. And don't worry, I am pretty certain I don't live near you, and besides, I'm a pacifist in real life who won't even allow a spider to be killed, and I hate spiders. No need to run and hide if you meet me on the street... :lol:

[Boton]

 

 

 

I must admit I am a bit bewildered as well by what seems to be a recent trend to come here with mostly complaints about the quality of the writing and / or outrage about the moral implications of the story. The need to vent one's frustration is one thing - I understand that - but it seems to me there must be more enjoyable ways to spend free time than repeat over and over again how horrible a particular plot point is.

 

I'm really sorry His Last Vow was so upsetting for some people. My best advice is, try to ignore it if you can't come to terms with the content. It's only fiction, it's not like you'll be turning a blind eye to some actual misdeed. Choose the last bit you liked about the series and stop there. Imagine your own alternate ending. Write a fix-it fic if you like. Whatever makes you happy. Fiction was invented to make us happier, not sad and angry. 

 

I agree with Toby.  You know, I really like hearing different opinions, even the ones that are contrary to my own and even the ones that fly in the face of my own head canon.  Most of the time (I say most because I'm human too!), these views help me see how different people can experience different stories, and that's very valuable to me.

 

But at the point that this becomes an argument or a source of contention, I think we're taking it too seriously.  The truth is, however much I or anyone want to believe that Sherlock and John are real human beings, and that the stuff we see on screen really happened, it is really all a creative product.  No matter how passionate they are about the product, Moftiss have to fit a certain amount of plot inside a certain time slot using techniques and artistic approaches the show can afford and actors who are, in fact, human beings.  

 

That means a certain amount of interstitial material left on the cutting room floor instead of in the show, where it would have done some good.  It means a certain amount of false starts, a certain amount of actor expressions meant to portray one thing but which come across as something else, and even a certain number of pupils that are fully dilated when the character is not aroused or pinpricked when the character is not high!  

 

Sometimes, when I start pulling apart an episode to this degree, I take a little break from the show, and I come back to it and just watch the episode and let the good feeling of the comedy and drama wash over me, so that I can remember what it is I really fell in love with.  That's something I had to do with the original Star Trek too.