Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As for considering the "moral issues"   even in canon Sherlock Holmes wasn't much bothered by them. He wasn't above letting a murderer or two go free. House breaking if it suited his purposes. He often acted as judge and jury.....he saw himself as a law unto himself.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh yes, he sure did. And he thought murder was justified if it was to protect (or only take revenge for) those one loves. Mary thought she was protecting John and Sherlock is pretty sure to sympathize with anybody who aims for that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I am firmly of the "Mary is a psychopath" camp, of course, and could happily argue about it from here to eternity, but I will certainly try not to be obnoxious about it.

I'll try too, but I suspect that even with the best of intentions, I'll rub you the wrong way now and then -- so I apologize in advance!

 

I suppose one reason why we take such strongly held positions regarding Mary is that there are moral issues involved. On one side, there are those who believe that Mary's love for John excuses her actions, and that his love for her justifies him turning a blind eye to her past and forgiving her for hurting his friend. On the other side, there are those of us who believe that shooting an innocent, unarmed man is inexcusable, and that John's behaviour seems like moral cowardice.

I've been trying to come up with a good analogy, and maybe this will do: In "Sign of Three," if despite Sholto's warning, John had broken the door down and Sholto had indeed shot him -- would you be this up in arms against Sholto? Just curious.

 

I have never said that Mary and John's love for each other excuses anything whatsoever. What I have said is that Mary was caught by surprise, warned Sherlock to leave her be, was patronizingly ignored, and had to make a split-second decision.  And John shows no sign whatsoever of forgiving Mary until Sherlock practically begs him to, so one might say that his eventual re-acceptance of Mary was due to his love for Sherlock.

 

I'm a moderator on a Star Wars board and I don't have to tell you how fractured and at-war that fan base is (with each other, with Lucas, and even the story itself). ....  Star Trek is the same, divided.

I'd hate to see us turn against each other like that. It seems to me that if anyone has betrayed us, it's not other fans, and it's not even Mary -- it's Steven Moffat. I wonder if he had any idea of the polarizing effect his little hand grenade would have on the fandom?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

From what I have read in interviews, they knew, or had an idea this might happen,  and are totally unrepentant.

[Zain]

 

Ah-h-h-h - disagreement material! May the weary ignore the following...

 

 

 

 

To be honest, I didn't want to pick up that topic. I am not an avid "John is a bad friend" supporter. I summed up what I remembered from the topic so far.

 

 

 

 

 Besides, imagine he'd called up John and told him, "listen, I'm going to hang out in a drug den for a while and maybe get high while I'm at it, but it's all for a case, so put it on your blog and make sure it hits the papers, okay? Oh, and don't tell my brother". Hm. I doubt that would have worked.

 

Completely agree. Sherlock isn't one to call up people unless he thinks they will be of help. That's probably why it was so easy to lose contact for a month. John was busy with his life, the one he has become comfortable with during Sherlock's death. Unlike the previous seasons John was not around to make an attempt to involve himself in Sherlock's life. The lack of physical proximity is taking its toll. I still believe the argument to be valid, though. From an objective perspective it is not the behavior of a good friend to lose contact so easily. Doesn't excuse Sherlock's behavior, either. But I think the month is something we should consider when doing character analysis for Sherlock and relationship analysis for John.

 

 

 

 

But all things considered, I think they're still as close as friends can be. (And I love the good bye scene, I think it's heartbreaking). 

 

 

Really? To me, it was like a punch in the face. Well, mostly because Mary is in there...Well. Glad some people enjoy it. I like that about Sherlock. There's a broad variety of scenes, and even when you find something really distasteful, the writers have got another scene in store for you. One that shows things from a completely different perspective. I for example loved it when Mycroft saw Sherlock as a child. I don't think they have ever given us such an intimate and close view on Mycroft. There's a lot of subtext in that. But other people seem to despise Mycroft on sight since TEH, and they didn't even notice by half what my inner fan saw in that scene.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I love the way Mycroft is played by Mark Gatiss, But "HLV" really showcased just how devious this man can be. He's protecting "The Napoleon of Blackmail" and excuses him saying that he doesn't harm anyone of consequence when a peer of the realm, Lord Littlewood is driven to suicide by this man?  He harmless? Really? And he still sees Sherlock as a child and all to often treats him as one. It is Mycroft that is responsible for a lot of Sherlock's unsociable behavior.

 

 I love Mycroft to death, but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him, him and that brolly of his.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

 

 

But all things considered, I think they're still as close as friends can be. (And I love the good bye scene, I think it's heartbreaking). 

 

 

Really? To me, it was like a punch in the face. Well, mostly because Mary is in there...Well. Glad some people enjoy it. I like that about Sherlock. There's a broad variety of scenes, and even when you find something really distasteful, the writers have got another scene in store for you. One that shows things from a completely different perspective. I for example loved it when Mycroft saw Sherlock as a child. I don't think they have ever given us such an intimate and close view on Mycroft. There's a lot of subtext in that. But other people seem to despise Mycroft on sight since TEH, and they didn't even notice by half what my inner fan saw in that scene.

 

 

Mhm, count me in the Mycroft despising group. Did he see Sherlock as a little boy back there in Serbia, too? Ugh. (I do get that Mycroft is supposed to love his little brother - in his own way. I just cannot get over that horrid torture scene. To me, it was perfectly awful.)

 

Yeah, Mary is there for the good bye. Would you want her not to take leave of Sherlock at all? Sure, she wasn't exactly in tears about his going away, but then, I don't think she's one for great gestures, either, and not very sentimental. I'd be curious to know how much they told her about the reason for Sherlock's exile. Did she even know he shot Magnussen to keep her safe?

 

But then everybody steps aside and Sherlock and John have enough time to say all they can't express anyway. I just love that. There they are, last chance to talk, and neither knows what to say, so Sherlock makes a stupid joke about his name and they shake hands. It feels very real to me.

[Zain]

 

Mhm, count me in the Mycroft despising group. Did he see Sherlock as a little boy back there in Serbia, too? Ugh. (I do get that Mycroft is supposed to love his little brother - in his own way. I just cannot get over that horrid torture scene. To me, it was perfectly awful.)

 

 

 

Yeah, Mary is there for the good bye. Would you want her not to take leave of Sherlock at all? 

 

 

 

I'd want Mary not to be there, yes. I find it quite tasteless to say goodbye to someone you shot by intent. And I don't understand why John brought her.

 

Concerning Mycroft:

I didn't like the fact that he was watching Sherlock suffer either. But it makes for interesting characterization. It's not a lack of concern. Let's not forget he himself went to retrieve his brother. Infiltrating an organization when you don't even know their language is quite a feat. Mycroft put lots of effort into this. I like the Serbia scene for that part. It says a lot about him. For example: Did Mycroft start out as a field agent to some degree? I never considered this before, but an infiltration mission is no easy feat.

I wonder if it's punishment that makes him watch Sherlock suffer. As a quid pro quo, because he suffered, too. This does not make his love for Sherlock disappear, it complicates their relationship a lot, though. It also puts a lot of stress on Sherlock's survival. Mycroft cares mostly about keeping his brother alive. Not so much about sparing him pain. It's scary, isn't it? What's the price Mycroft would pay to keep Sherlock alive? Would he make a contract with the devil, so to speak?

Some have theorized that he had a hand in that Moriarty gif. I don't think so, but I believe that it would make for an interesting twist if Mycroft betrayed "England" for Sherlock's sake. I like his dark side just as much as it repels me. I would love to see him suffer from choosing Sherlock (caring) over himself. Somehow I always thought of him as a character that was fated to downfall.

After all, he's the last stance. Sherlock's the king on his chess board. And Mycroft. Mycroft is the queen whose reach is far.

[Slithytove]

Wow, there's a lot of issues being raised here! I can probably sum up my own thoughts by saying - surprise, surprise! - I agree with Zain regarding the areas where John seems to fall short as a friend or seems to be less than the man we judged him to be. Now, to address a few specific points.....

 

I like the maturity of the Sherlock fandom (I am so ancient, I just couldn't bear it if everyone was screaming at each other) and I hope we can respect each other even if we disagree. For myself, the day I start getting aggressive over a fictional character is the day I know I've been thinking about these stories too much.

 

Would I blame Sholto if he had shot John? Sure as hell I would! Warning someone that you will shoot them doesn't give you the right to do so, unless you are in a situation when you have to do it to save your own or someone else's life. It would be a licence to commit murder. You can't claim something is an "unfortunate reflex" if you have already said you will do it. That's not a reflex action, it is a premeditated act.

 

I disagree that Sherlock patronisingly disregarded Mary's warning. I think he trusted her not to shoot because he thought she was better than that. Maybe he even thought she wouldn't hurt him because she was his friend, which is rather sad, particularly when you think what a lonely man he seems to be and how hard ( and uncharacteristically) he tries to be her friend. He believed that Mary was basically a good person who would not murder her friend. She proved him wrong.

 

I have always maintained that Sherlock's ethics are skewed. ACD's Holmes had, as has been pointed out, his personal morality which did not always coincide with the law, and modern Sherlock is even more individualist. This is why I think he would have helped Mary if she had asked, despite her past, and would have cheerfully lied to keep John in ignorance. It also explains why he pleaded Mary's case with John even whilst he is bleeding internally, to the point of collapse, from the wound she inflicted. However, the fact that Sherlock's own moral judgements are questionable does not excuse John - the man who has previously been Sherlock's moral compass. It was always John who pointed out when Sherlock got it wrong, when he was being rude, callous, inappropriately cheerful, etc. Now he forgives the person who shoots an unarmed man in cold blood, shows no remorse and turns out to have a past as a hired killer?

 

A bit not good, John.

[T.o.b.y]

Mycroft cares mostly about keeping his brother alive. Not so much about sparing him pain. It's scary, isn't it?

 

It's terribly scary. I think Mycroft's attitude towards his little brother is quite seriously messed up, much more so than John's willfully blind love for his wife (while John might shout at Mary or humiliate her by shoving her in the client's chair and telling her he and Sherlock will decide whether they want her or not, I seriously doubt he would sit by and watch her being beaten up).

 

Sometimes, I'd really like to send Irene Adler to Mycroft's house. I mean, if he likes that sort of thing, he might as well pay a professional for it and leave his little brother alone...

 

[T.o.b.y]

I have always maintained that Sherlock's ethics are skewed. ACD's Holmes had, as has been pointed out, his personal morality which did not always coincide with the law, and modern Sherlock is even more individualist. This is why I think he would have helped Mary if she had asked, despite her past, and would have cheerfully lied to keep John in ignorance. It also explains why he pleaded Mary's case with John even whilst he is bleeding internally, to the point of collapse, from the wound she inflicted. However, the fact that Sherlock's own moral judgements are questionable does not excuse John - the man who has previously been Sherlock's moral compass. It was always John who pointed out when Sherlock got it wrong, when he was being rude, callous, inappropriately cheerful, etc. Now he forgives the person who shoots an unarmed man in cold blood, shows no remorse and turns out to have a past as a hired killer?

 

A bit not good, John.

 

Ah, I think I'm finally beginning to understand the issue. Well, I never saw John as so much of a "good man", not an exceptionally good man, anyway. Of course, he has a pretty strong moral / ethical code (he'd need it, as an army doctor, getting into all sorts of tricky situations). I like to argue that as a soldier, John was little more than a "hired killer" himself, but there we get into a totally different territory. But even as a civilian, he's kept his gun, and as we saw in A Study in Pink, is prepared to use it if he feels there are no alternatives.

 

So shooting people to protect others is not totally out of the question for either Sherlock or John. Mary attacked Sherlock in an attempt to protect her husband from a truth she believed would "break him". It wasn't a very good decision, and she misjudged her two men a bit, but okay. My impression was always that John was a lot more upset about her "lie" to him (pretending to be someone she isn't and letting him fall in love with that) than about the shot or the fact that she once killed people for a living (again, that's what John himself did not long ago).

 

In then end, I think love is blind, and John's love for Mary especially so. But that is understandable. He's been looking for her for so long and she appeared during a horrible time in his life and changed everything for the better. He couldn't let her go, I don't think. It'd be a bit much to expect that of him.

 

[Slithytove]

/>

 

 

I have always maintained that Sherlock's ethics are skewed. ACD's Holmes had, as has been pointed out, his personal morality which did not always coincide with the law, and modern Sherlock is even more individualist. This is why I think he would have helped Mary if she had asked, despite her past, and would have cheerfully lied to keep John in ignorance. It also explains why he pleaded Mary's case with John even whilst he is bleeding internally, to the point of collapse, from the wound she inflicted. However, the fact that Sherlock's own moral judgements are questionable does not excuse John - the man who has previously been Sherlock's moral compass. It was always John who pointed out when Sherlock got it wrong, when he was being rude, callous, inappropriately cheerful, etc. Now he forgives the person who shoots an unarmed man in cold blood, shows no remorse and turns out to have a past as a hired killer?

 

A bit not good, John.

Ah, I think I'm finally beginning to understand the issue. Well, I never saw John as so much of a "good man", not an exceptionally good man, anyway. Of course, he has a pretty strong moral / ethical code (he'd need it, as an army doctor, getting into all sorts of tricky situations). I like to argue that as a soldier, John was little more than a "hired killer" himself, but there we get into a totally different territory. But even as a civilian, he's kept his gun, and as we saw in A Study in Pink, is prepared to use it if he feels there are no alternatives.

 

So shooting people to protect others is not totally out of the question for either Sherlock or John. Mary attacked Sherlock in an attempt to protect her husband from a truth she believed would "break him". It wasn't a very good decision, and she misjudged her two men a bit, but okay. My impression was always that John was a lot more upset about her "lie" to him (pretending to be someone she isn't and letting him fall in love with that) than about the shot or the fact that she once killed people for a living (again, that's what John himself did not long ago).

 

In then end, I think love is blind, and John's love for Mary especially so. But that is understandable. He's been looking for her for so long and she appeared during a horrible time in his life and changed everything for the better. He couldn't let her go, I don't think. It'd be a bit much to expect that of him.

It is interesting that we see John in rather different ways. For me, ACD's Watson was always a prime example of basic human decency. Where Holmes was brilliant, difficult, mercurial and idiosyncratic, Watson was solid, kind, loyal and reliable. I have always seen John in the same way. Yes, he is not afraid to use his gun in defence of someone's life, because he believes it is morally right to protect the defenceless, but he would never harm anyone to further his own interests.

 

Mary is prepared to murder CAM to keep herself out of prison and to do the same to Sherlock to ensure that John remains in ignorance (and she remains free, if Sherlock dies - if he survives, there is the possibility he will uncover her past and perhaps have her arrested.) I do not believe that this can be justified in the name of love. If so, everyone who falls in love and chooses to get rid of an inconvenient spouse or lover who gets in the way has a defence.

 

Incidentally, I don't think Sherlock was right to kill CAM.

 

I do think his case and Mary's were very different. Mary shot him to protect herself, i.e. her freedom and her marriage to John. Sherlock killed because he wanted to protect Mary, and her unborn child, from the threats CAM had made. Killing meant Mary would escape the consequences of her actions. Sherlock killed in the full knowledge that it would have drastic, negative consequences for him. And, of course, Sherlock is "on the side of the angels" and saves lives by catching murderers. CAM is a cruel man who ruins lives.

 

However, I still think that Sherlock made the wrong decision. You can't execute people because they are cruel and dangerous, however despicable they may be. (I think that ACD's Holmes was wrong, for the same reason, to think that Milverton's murder was okay.) Mary's life had been threatened but was not under direct threat at that moment. There was some leeway to find a way of protecting her without committing murder. So I think Sherlock made a bad move for good reasons. He chose to throw away his life( as far as he knew) to fulfill his vow to keep the Watsons - all three of them - safe and happy. Unlike Mary, he was sacrificing himself, whereas she was saving herself - but, in both cases, the decision to shoot was wrong.

 

I agree that John is much more upset about Mary's lies than about Sherlock's shooting or the killings in her past, and that is exactly what I find so appalling. He is more concerned about his own domestic happiness than the fact that his best friend - the other person he claims to love most in the world - suffered an agonising injury which nearly led to their death, and which they survived only by a (somewhat unlikely) miracle. On top of that, he decides to keep his wife by remaining in wilful ignorance about the other people she killed.

 

The comparison between soldiers and assassins is debatable, unless you believe in pacifism under all circumstances ( a perfectly respectable belief, as held by Quakers, etc). I would not have thought many people would have thought that soldiers in a war zone were the same as assassins hired to take out individuals, usually not in combat. There is also the fact that John was an army doctor, who would not normally be involved in killing people. However, even if you think Mary and John are on the same moral footing, it does not alter the fact that he chooses to know nothing about the crimes she has committed, not because he thinks they can be justified but because he is afraid, as she tells him, that he will stop loving her if he knows the truth. His deliberate ignorance, like his ability to let go of the harm she did to Sherlock, is selfish and, in my opinion, quite callous. It is not what I expected from John's character. Yes, Sherlock forgives her and tells John to do the same, but since when did John Watson follow the moral guidance of Sherlock Holmes?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

Well, he hasn't seen Sherlock for a month when HLV sets in. Sure, not seeing somebody goes two-ways but it is a huge contrast when one remembers the statement before his wedding that things would not change. 

There is the fact that Sherlock had Janine over and maybe didn't want him to visit. On the other hand he all too eagerly includes John after they meet by chance. He doesn't prefer to work alone on the case, that's why I doubt he actively kept John at bay. Apparently they did grow apart due to John's marriage. 

 

- Not seen each other for a month: So what. Do we know how much they used to see each other before series 3?

 

Not to mention a certain someone who stayed away for two. whole. years. (!) And obviously thought it would be fun to come back, disguising as a waiter! (Brilliant writing, by the way - LOVE the restaurant scene). My point is, if Sherlock can be forgiven for that, surely John can be forgiven for not visiting Sherlock for a month...

 

[sherlockandjohn]

There is something painfully real and human, and yet romantic, about the way Sherlock tries to reason with John about Mary. His explanations make sense, yet it's a devastating truth for John to be faced with, that his wife is an ex-assasin and has been keeping her identity from him. Sherlock is doing, at once, the most painful and the most selfless deed towards John: He defends the woman who has shot him and who is also the reason for his loneliness as depicted in TSoT, because he knows Mary does love John, and John loves her. It hurts John at that moment, but in the long run it's for his own good (at least, that's how I think Sherlock sees it. I'm not entirely sure).

 

I find myself strangely glad that John forgives her (strangely, because I certainly did not feel that way a month ago). I would think this whole ordeal even more sad if he hadn't.

 

Of course, I don't know for sure if Sherlock didn't have another, more selfish, reason for defending Mary: It could be that he identifies with her and therefore needs John to be able to forgive Mary.

 

Either way, both Sherlock's and John's reactions, I think, are both very human and very heroic.

[Janie]

/> Yes, Sherlock forgives her and tells John to do the same, but since when did John Watson follow the moral guidance of Sherlock Holmes?

Strange, it always seemed to me that John always trusted Sherlock's opinion and always did what Sherlock asked him to do. So it makes sense to me that he eventually forgave Mary. Though I'm not saying that I completely agree with how it was done. Well I have no problem with John forgiving Mary but I don't like that she was almost offended when he had dared not talking to her for several months. She should have been grateful that he didn't leave her. Anyway I still like her and have no problem with her being an asassin.

[Slithytove]

/>

There is something painfully real and human, and yet romantic, about the way Sherlock tries to reason with John about Mary. His explanations make sense, yet it's a devastating truth for John to be faced with, that his wife is an ex-assasin and has been keeping her identity from him. Sherlock is doing, at once, the most painful and the most selfless deed towards John: He defends the woman who has shot him and who is also the reason for his loneliness as depicted in TSoT, because he knows Mary does love John, and John loves her. It hurts John at that moment, but in the long run it's for his own good (at least, that's how I think Sherlock sees it. I'm not entirely sure).

 

I find myself strangely glad that John forgives her (strangely, because I certainly did not feel that way a month ago). I would think this whole ordeal even more sad if he hadn't.

 

Of course, I don't know for sure if Sherlock didn't have another, more selfish, reason for defending Mary: It could be that he identifies with her and therefore needs John to be able to forgive Mary.

 

Either way, both Sherlock's and John's reactions, I think, are both very human and very heroic.

I live in hope that, in S4, we will discover that they had other, better reasons for their reactions to Mary - reasons which make Sherlock seem less gullible (the shot was surgery? it's okay for you to stay with a killer because you like danger?) and John less self-serving. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

/>

There is something painfully real and human, and yet romantic, about the way Sherlock tries to reason with John about Mary. His explanations make sense, yet it's a devastating truth for John to be faced with, that his wife is an ex-assasin and has been keeping her identity from him. Sherlock is doing, at once, the most painful and the most selfless deed towards John: He defends the woman who has shot him and who is also the reason for his loneliness as depicted in TSoT, because he knows Mary does love John, and John loves her. It hurts John at that moment, but in the long run it's for his own good (at least, that's how I think Sherlock sees it. I'm not entirely sure).

 

I find myself strangely glad that John forgives her (strangely, because I certainly did not feel that way a month ago). I would think this whole ordeal even more sad if he hadn't.

 

Of course, I don't know for sure if Sherlock didn't have another, more selfish, reason for defending Mary: It could be that he identifies with her and therefore needs John to be able to forgive Mary.

 

Either way, both Sherlock's and John's reactions, I think, are both very human and very heroic.

I live in hope that, in S4, we will discover that they had other, better reasons for their reactions to Mary - reasons which make Sherlock seem less gullible (the shot was surgery? it's okay for you to stay with a killer because you like danger?) and John less self-serving. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

 

No, my guess is they'll take off somewhere new, not giving us any further explanation to John's forgiveness or Sherlock's defense of Mary. I don't know what to wish for, though. I would be happy if the writers decided to address the controversy of Mary's character, if it serves to enlighten us. I would be equally happy to leave it all be, because I feel there was enough drama in His Last Vow (and in all of series 3), and I would really, really like a more fun, exciting episode. Besides, I'm slightly worried that Mary will be some kind of superwoman, now that she's been established as an ex-assasin with certain skills. That idea does not appeal to me at all! Then I'd rather leave this whole business behind me, accept the controversy, and move on.

I am glad that John forgave Mary, because it shows, after all, that she needed forgiveness. I'm also glad that he said: "The problems of your past are your business", and then threw the USB pen with her past identity on it in the fire - meaning that he wants to leave it in the past. He does not have any desire to see her take up her old career. That gives me hope that the writers might not have in mind to have her become an action hero, despite how she was made to look in that outfit when she was in Magnussen's office. Because, seriously, that had 'action hero' written all over it!

[sherlockandjohn]

Speaking of outfits, btw, I think Sherlock's attire while in the crack den, and upon having been rushed out of there by John, makes him look more human, more ordinary. That, and his behavior, of course. Not sure how to feel about that, though. It's refreshing and heartwarming, but also annoyingly real...

 

Which basically sums up my feelings about the entire series 3! The same elements that I love (it's heartwarming, serious, human, dramatic, gut-wrenching) are the ones that detract from the utter craziness that was Sherlock for me during s1 and s2. Oh, there's still quite a bit of that madness left, but there's also a more serious tone, which makes it impossible for me not to take it more seriously as well. I find myself more emotionally invested in it than ever. While that's all well and good, it has left me more heartbroken, and slightly less exhilarated, than the first two series.

[T.o.b.y]

 

It is interesting that we see John in rather different ways. For me, ACD's Watson was always a prime example of basic human decency. Where Holmes was brilliant, difficult, mercurial and idiosyncratic, Watson was solid, kind, loyal and reliable. I have always seen John in the same way. Yes, he is not afraid to use his gun in defence of someone's life, because he believes it is morally right to protect the defenceless, but he would never harm anyone to further his own interests.

 

Mary is prepared to murder CAM to keep herself out of prison and to do the same to Sherlock to ensure that John remains in ignorance (and she remains free, if Sherlock dies - if he survives, there is the possibility he will uncover her past and perhaps have her arrested.) I do not believe that this can be justified in the name of love. If so, everyone who falls in love and chooses to get rid of an inconvenient spouse or lover who gets in the way has a defence.

 

Incidentally, I don't think Sherlock was right to kill CAM.

 

I do think his case and Mary's were very different. Mary shot him to protect herself, i.e. her freedom and her marriage to John. Sherlock killed because he wanted to protect Mary, and her unborn child, from the threats CAM had made. Killing meant Mary would escape the consequences of her actions. Sherlock killed in the full knowledge that it would have drastic, negative consequences for him. And, of course, Sherlock is "on the side of the angels" and saves lives by catching murderers. CAM is a cruel man who ruins lives.

 

However, I still think that Sherlock made the wrong decision. You can't execute people because they are cruel and dangerous, however despicable they may be. (I think that ACD's Holmes was wrong, for the same reason, to think that Milverton's murder was okay.) Mary's life had been threatened but was not under direct threat at that moment. There was some leeway to find a way of protecting her without committing murder. So I think Sherlock made a bad move for good reasons. He chose to throw away his life( as far as he knew) to fulfill his vow to keep the Watsons - all three of them - safe and happy. Unlike Mary, he was sacrificing himself, whereas she was saving herself - but, in both cases, the decision to shoot was wrong.

 

I agree that John is much more upset about Mary's lies than about Sherlock's shooting or the killings in her past, and that is exactly what I find so appalling. He is more concerned about his own domestic happiness than the fact that his best friend - the other person he claims to love most in the world - suffered an agonising injury which nearly led to their death, and which they survived only by a (somewhat unlikely) miracle. On top of that, he decides to keep his wife by remaining in wilful ignorance about the other people she killed.

 

The comparison between soldiers and assassins is debatable, unless you believe in pacifism under all circumstances ( a perfectly respectable belief, as held by Quakers, etc). I would not have thought many people would have thought that soldiers in a war zone were the same as assassins hired to take out individuals, usually not in combat. There is also the fact that John was an army doctor, who would not normally be involved in killing people. However, even if you think Mary and John are on the same moral footing, it does not alter the fact that he chooses to know nothing about the crimes she has committed, not because he thinks they can be justified but because he is afraid, as she tells him, that he will stop loving her if he knows the truth. His deliberate ignorance, like his ability to let go of the harm she did to Sherlock, is selfish and, in my opinion, quite callous. It is not what I expected from John's character. Yes, Sherlock forgives her and tells John to do the same, but since when did John Watson follow the moral guidance of Sherlock Holmes?

 

 

I think in the books, Dr Watson did follow the moral guidance of Sherlock Holmes on a few occasions, like in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton", where he agreed not to intervene on Milverton's behalf because Holmes thought it was right that he should die. Another example: In "The Devil's Foot", Holmes let the murderer go free and Watson didn't object to that, either.

 

Whether or not the killing Magnussen (or Milverton) was justified is a very interesting question and it leads us straight into a discussion about ethics in general - any time! I have two different sets of ideas on this: one for real life and one for fiction. In real life, I don't think killing people is ever entirely justified. (Of course I do believe in self-defense and sometimes I guess one has to chose the lesser evil). In fiction, though, there is good and evil. Moriarty and Magnussen were evil all over. And the concept of "evil" I think was invented so people can kill those whom the description fits and be heroes instead of murderers. So I think Mary was entirely justified in trying to kill Magnussen; she could have done so without any personal interest, just to "free the world of a poisonous thing", to quote the original, and I would have applauded, whereas if I saw the story on the news, I would have been horrified. Same with Sherlock. I was whole-heartedly glad when he shot Magnussen (saying "Merry Christmas", too). Magnussen was truly vile.

 

Detour to real life: Soldiers versus assassins. Okay, an assassin's victims have no way of defending themselves and didn't expose themselves to danger voluntarily, while one assumes that soldiers had a choice and knew what they were getting themselves into when they went to war and besides can fight back. Still, for some reason, I find war a much more appalling concept than individual murder, especially if there was a specific reason for the latter (which doesn't mean I don't find murder appalling, too). But that attitude is very impractical.

 

Back to Sherlock: I like how the show did not deal with all this lightly, in the "well, he's a hero and the bad guy was evil so we're okay" fashion of the common action series. Sherlock was exiled and actually sentenced to death indirectly for what he did. I think the real "moral" difference between his dragon slaying and Mary's is that she tried to do it secretly and get away with it, he made sure he had witnesses and took full responsibility. Sherlock is a romantic idealist at heart, it seems, while Mary is much more pragmatic. I don't even know who is right. I mean, if Mary's plan had worked out, Magnussen would have been out of the way and Sherlock and John would have remained in blissful ignorance. Doing it Sherlock's way means the result is the same (Magnussen is dead and good riddance), but John has to suffer both the reality of Mary's past and the loss of his best friend - for the second time. So instead of just one person dead, you have one person dead and three unhappy (okay, four, if you count Mycroft).

 

[Slithytove]

John is far less deferential to Sherlock than Watson was to Holmes. He calls him out on his behaviour, in S1&2, when he thinks he is being rude or heartless. He is Sherlock's moral compass, somewhat more obviously than his 19th century counterpart, who was simply the benchmark of decency and reliability for his volatile friend. I can't imagine Watson being bold enough to refer to Holmes as " a complete dickhead."

 

I do take your point about real life. We extend sympathy to fictional characters whom we would shun in reality. I love Moriarty's ridiculously mad schemes but I would be horrified if I met him in real life. However, even in fiction, I don't think wrongdoing should be given a free ride - we are not supposed to find Jim forgivable but Mary is okay because she loves John and vice versa. I believe that the difference between Sherlock's killing of CAM and Mary's actions (planning to shoot CAM and actually shooting Sherlock) is not visibility but motive. Sherlock wants to save lives (Mary & baby) and protect those he loves. Mary wants to save her own skin and keep the life she has created for herself. There is a difference and you would think John could see it.

 

I just can't see how John could hope to build a happy marriage based on lies and violence, particularly horrifying violence against his best friend. I can see that many people feel that Mary loves John and wants to protect him, thus she attacks Sherlock; John loves Mary and thus he forgives the attack. I can't see how that is any justification. Suppose, for instance, that Sherlock had not been Mary's witness but her lover. Would it be okay for her to say, "it would break my husband if he found out I had an affair, and I thought my lover might tell so I shot him?". It is basically the same scenario, except that Mary is hiding something much darker than a love affair.

[T.o.b.y]

I believe that the difference between Sherlock's killing of CAM and Mary's actions (planning to shoot CAM and actually shooting Sherlock) is not visibility but motive. Sherlock wants to save lives (Mary & baby) and protect those he loves. Mary wants to save her own skin and keep the life she has created for herself.

 

Were their lives actually in danger through Magnussen, though? He said himself he wasn't a murderer. What good would it have done him to have her killed, anyway? She was valuable to him as leverage. Of course, if he had made his threat real and contacted relatives of her former victims, that might have been a problem, I guess.

 

I just watched The Empty Hearse and it occurred to me that it is curious Mary sought Sherlock's help when she found out that John had been kidnapped. I suppose she must have always been afraid something like that would happen ever since she knew John, which is why she reacted so quickly and didn't seem terribly surprised. And also why she didn't go to the police. But she went to Sherlock. And if it had been what I would assume it was if I were in Mary's shoes (somebody trying to take revenge on her), that would have meant taking the risk of Sherlock finding out about her. I wonder whether she might not have considered taking him into her confidence earlier.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

In then end, I think love is blind, and John's love for Mary especially so. But that is understandable. He's been looking for her for so long and she appeared during a horrible time in his life and changed everything for the better. He couldn't let her go, I don't think. It'd be a bit much to expect that of him.

 

And/or maybe not so much love is blind as that we don't fall in love with someone's résumé / CV -- we fall in love with the person.

 

We know precious little about Mary's past career (I would not trust either Magnussen's claims or Sherlock's conjectures all that far), nor do we know how she got into that situation, nor anything at all about her life before that.  So John may have fallen in love with the woman behind the killer.  Hopefully, we'll find out more about that in future series.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... an assassin's victims have no way of defending themselves and didn't expose themselves to danger voluntarily, while one assumes that soldiers had a choice ... and besides can fight back. Still, for some reason, I find war a much more appalling concept than individual murder,

Maybe that's because you're aware of all the teen-age boys forcibly sent into war by governments protecting their own agendas. 

 

... even in fiction, I don't think wrongdoing should be given a free ride - we are not supposed to find Jim forgivable but Mary is okay because she loves John and vice versa.

 

Is anyone actually saying that? I don't believe I've ever said, implied, or even thought that.

 

Were their lives actually in danger through Magnussen, though? He said himself he wasn't a murderer. What good would it have done him to have her killed, anyway? She was valuable to him as leverage. Of course, if he had made his threat real and contacted relatives of her former victims, that might have been a problem, I guess.

Yes, and that is precisely what Magnussen threatened to do -- right before Sherlock shot him.

 

[Slithytove]

Well, yes, people have said repeatedly that they believe in the redemptive power of love, they can forgive Mary because she acted out of love for John, and that his forgiveness of her because he loves her is a wonderful thing. Moftiss seem to expect us to buy this argument too ( unless they have a trick up their sleeve - here's hoping!)

 

As far as soldiers/ assassins are concerned, I have always been horrified by war and have done my share of anti war marches, etc, but assassins fill me with disgust. For instance, I was very young when JFK, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated but I remember the shock and revulsion we all felt when those hidden killers struck down unarmed, unsuspecting and defenceless men. That is the work of assassins and they are pretty much beneath contempt, whether their victims are prominent people or nobodies.

 

Regarding CAM, he only said he would put Mary's life in danger if John did not allow him to humiliate him. He was a businessman and would have known better than to waste an asset. He had wanted power over Mycroft and now he had Mary, therefore he had John, therefore he had Sherlock, therefore he had Mycroft - why would he throw that away by getting Mary killed?

[Carol the Dabbler]

... people have said repeatedly that they believe in the redemptive power of love, they can forgive Mary because she acted out of love for John, and that his forgiveness of her because he loves her is a wonderful thing.

Thank you for your reply. If people have been saying that, then I simply didn't notice, probably because it doesn't strike me as much of a reason. If you happen to remember some specific examples, I'd be interested in seeing exactly what those people said.

 

As far as soldiers/ assassins are concerned, I have always been horrified by war and have done my share of anti war marches, etc, but assassins fill me with disgust. ... those hidden killers struck down unarmed, unsuspecting and defenceless men. ... they are pretty much beneath contempt, whether their victims are prominent people or nobodies.

What if the hidden killer is targeting some wacko who is busily slaughtering a schoolyard full of children? Not disagreeing with your basic point, just wondering where your boundaries are.

 

Regarding CAM, he only said he would put Mary's life in danger if John did not allow him to humiliate him. He was a businessman and would have known better than to waste an asset. He had wanted power over Mycroft and now he had Mary, therefore he had John, therefore he had Sherlock, therefore he had Mycroft - why would he throw that away by getting Mary killed?

So if John had refused to play along, and Magnussen had indeed relayed Mary's whereabouts to her old enemies, would that have been John's fault? I don't think that's what you're saying, but am not sure. We do know that when Lady Smallwood developed a backbone, Magnussen turned up the heat on her husband until he killed himself. So yes, Magnussen is clearly a threat unless the Morstan-Watson-Holmes family is willing to play his game indefinitely.