Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Slithytove]

/>

 

... 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.

The only reason I remember the gist of these remarks is that I've reacted by thinking, "No.....love isn't an excuse...." To be honest, I can't remember who said what. I even forget where some of my own posts are on the forum, and can't navigate my way back to carry on the conversation.

 

As for the madman shooting the schoolchildren, assassins aren't hired to do that sort of job. That is what armed police are trained to do. Assassins may be employed by the security forces to get rid of people a government deems to be dangerous, in one way or another, to its interests. I can see that they might be used to save lives, e.g.killing terrorists if there is no way to arrest them, but it is equally likely that governments use them to eliminate political opponents. Then there are freelances who are hired by Very Bad People to commit murder. People who hire killers are unlikely to be doing so for humanitarian reasons. They are likely to be terrorist groups, criminal organisations or individuals who need a hit man to get rid of someone who is inconvenient. I seriously doubt that many assassins are employed in the service of mankind.

 

No, I'm not saying John would be to blame if he did not co-operate and CAM revealed Mary's whereabouts to those who want her dead (vengeful relatives of her victims, presumably.) I mean that that threat was another nasty little mind game but it would be foolish of CAM to carry it out. Knowledge of Mary's past is the leverage he needs to control Mycroft, so why would he throw it away? He would lose that leverage if she was dead or imprisoned. Therefore he doesn't identify her to the police after her attack upon himself and Sherlock, and he would be an idiot to identify her to her potential killers. She is an asset he has acquired and he has no reason to destroy it.

[Carol the Dabbler]

The only reason I remember the gist of these remarks is that I've reacted by thinking, "No.....love isn't an excuse...." To be honest, I can't remember who said what. I even forget where some of my own posts are on the forum, and can't navigate my way back to carry on the conversation.

Any time you want to find something (assuming you can recall some of the words), try the forum's advanced search function (accessed by clicking the little "cog" symbol next to the quick-search box at the top of any page.

 

The reason I'm curious to see those remarks is that I'm wondering whether you and I interpreted them differently (which would explain why I don't remember them from your description).

 

As for the madman shooting the schoolchildren, assassins aren't hired to do that sort of job. That is what armed police are trained to do. Assassins may be employed by the security forces to get rid of people a government deems to be dangerous, in one way or another, to its interests. I can see that they might be used to save lives, e.g.killing terrorists if there is no way to arrest them, but it is equally likely that governments use them to eliminate political opponents. Then there are freelances who are hired by Very Bad People to commit murder....

So the distinction you're drawing is between killers who target good people and killers who target bad people? Or am I missing something?

 

No, I'm not saying John would be to blame if he did not co-operate and CAM revealed Mary's whereabouts to those who want her dead (vengeful relatives of her victims, presumably.) I mean that that threat was another nasty little mind game but it would be foolish of CAM to carry it out. .... She is an asset he has acquired and he has no reason to destroy it.

An asset is an asset only as long as it's productive. As I mentioned, CAM did follow through with his threat to Lady Smallwood when she stopped playing ball. So eventually it'll come down to let him flick Mycroft's face or he'll see that Mary dies.

[T.o.b.y]

The original Charles Augustus Milverton did go through with his threats of making his victim's scandals public if they didn't pay up. Holmes argued with him just as we do - what for, you'll lose your asset - and Milverton replied that he needed to show his other victims he was serious. So what he did was sacrifice a small gain to secure larger ones. Now, considering that Mycroft must have been one of Mgnussen's most valuable targets, Mary was probably one of the most important assets he had. Still, Magnussen said he didn't work in England alone. By international comparison, hold on Mycroft might be worth weakening (and there was always Sherlock himself as leverage against him) to keep power over other influential personages.

 

It is interesting that while Milverton was mostly driven by greed and demanded ludicrously large sums of money from the families he put pressure on, Magnussen never mentions payment. His "business" doesn't seem to be wealth so much as power, although he clearly is a very rich man. Money is sort of absent in general from the world of "Sherlock". What does he live on, anyway? I've only ever once seen a client pay him, and that was through John's prompting.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Money is sort of absent in general from the world of "Sherlock". What does he live on, anyway? I've only ever once seen a client pay him, and that was through John's prompting.

 

  Actually that is a question that Magnussen asks through his mental file he goes through while he's in 221b. The answer is Mycroft with a question mark afterwards.

[Slithytove]

 

The only reason I remember the gist of these remarks is that I've reacted by thinking, "No.....love isn't an excuse...." To be honest, I can't remember who said what. I even forget where some of my own posts are on the forum, and can't navigate my way back to carry on the conversation.

Any time you want to find something (assuming you can recall some of the words), try the forum's advanced search function (accessed by clicking the little "cog" symbol next to the quick-search box at the top of any page.

 

The reason I'm curious to see those remarks is that I'm wondering whether you and I interpreted them differently (which would explain why I don't remember them from your description).

As for the madman shooting the schoolchildren, assassins aren't hired to do that sort of job. That is what armed police are trained to do. Assassins may be employed by the security forces to get rid of people a government deems to be dangerous, in one way or another, to its interests. I can see that they might be used to save lives, e.g.killing terrorists if there is no way to arrest them, but it is equally likely that governments use them to eliminate political opponents. Then there are freelances who are hired by Very Bad People to commit murder....

So the distinction you're drawing is between killers who target good people and killers who target bad people? Or am I missing something?

No, I'm not saying John would be to blame if he did not co-operate and CAM revealed Mary's whereabouts to those who want her dead (vengeful relatives of her victims, presumably.) I mean that that threat was another nasty little mind game but it would be foolish of CAM to carry it out. .... She is an asset he has acquired and he has no reason to destroy it.

An asset is an asset only as long as it's productive. As I mentioned, CAM did follow through with his threat to Lady Smallwood when she stopped playing ball. So eventually it'll come down to let him flick Mycroft's face or he'll see that Mary dies.

I wrote a very detailed reply, and lost it when the forum went offline. Damn.

 

So.... Yes, of course there is a difference between killing good and bad people. I doubt if those who celebrated the shooting of Osama bin Laden would have been so happy if Mother Theresa was the target. (I know she died years ago, but you get my point.)

 

However, I am not saying it is okay to kill the bad guys. I am not going to cheer anyone's death, including a terrorist's. I am trying to understand the viewpoint of people who feel that the past is the past, we have all done things we are ashamed of, love can redeem us and John is romantic - even heroic -when he chooses to remain in deliberate ignorance.

 

I assume that these people see Mary less as a person who has committed a string of murders and more like a soldier killing in the line of duty. If not, I think their position is untenable. After all, we would probably welcome a soldier home from a war and help them resume civilian life, but we would not say to Jack the Ripper, "Well, that's all in the past. Let's move on...."

 

I was trying to give Mary the benefit of the doubt, and the only justification I can see for killing is to save lives. I can see this might happen sometimes, like the assassination of a terrorist bomber if they could not be stopped any other ways. However, I doubt this happens often. I suspect most government- ordered killings are political. You may believe that your county's secret service is always on the side of the angels, but I doubt this is true of any nation.

 

I also pointed out that freelance killers are even less likely to be acting for the good of humanity. Bad people hire hit men for bad reasons.

 

In ASiP, Sherlock deduces that the shooter is a person of strong moral principles who doesn't fire until he has to, to save an innocent life. I would expect that moral man to want to know, at the very least, who his wife has murdered and why.

[Zain]

Zain and Slythytove, we will have to agree to disagree.  Maybe Mary has had the misfortune of reading "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" or "Les Misérables"  No matter how much a person may wish to change their past, trusting others to forgive that past has had unfortunate consequenses, at least for Tess and Jean ValJean.    Mary is not Tess, or Jean, but the issue of trust is comparable, at least to me.  And like I said, I believe in the redemptive power of love.  Perhaps John's love for Mary is the epiphany in her life.

 

And even without a gun, Sherlock is never harmless!

 

Carol, that probably is one of the comments that slithytove means. I knew where to look because it stuck with me. There are a couple of others but it mostly wasn't more than an afterthought.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I am trying to understand the viewpoint of people who feel that the past is the past, we have all done things we are ashamed of, love can redeem us and John is romantic - even heroic -when he chooses to remain in deliberate ignorance.

 

Yeah, there are a few problems with that, aren't there. From what I saw and heard on screen, I am pretty much convinced that it was the writers' intention to make John look heroic and "good" and the scene romantic. I think they expected us to go "awww" and cry a bit. It didn't really work for me, though. I don't have moral qualms (what good would it do anybody if John knew whom Mary killed in the past? If she was planning more murders and he could warn the victims and / or stop her, okay, but I assume we're talking about stuff that happened years ago). My problem is that it seems to me as if John only accepts and loves Mary the way she was "supposed to be", not the way she really is. He's not even interested in finding out who she is, he doesn't even want to know her name. He only wants her as Mrs Mary Watson. For me, that's not loving a person, that's loving an idea.

 

Of course, Mary makes it pretty clear that she isn't too happy with her past identity either, and she assumed the role of Mary Morstan (later Watson) of her own free choice. So she probably is grateful for John's decision. Still, I see nothing very romantic in a marriage based on the inability of both partners to accept the past of one of them.

 

Oh well, good thing they have Sherlock around. If Mary gets too bored being the lovely doctor's wife, she can always persuade him to take her out and run her for a change and if she gets in trouble with people who have found her out, he can give her a hand without being "broken" by ugly truths. Sherlock certainly doesn't seem to have much of a problem with A.G.R.A., and I bet he read everything that was on that flash drive...

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sherlock certainly doesn't seem to have much of a problem with A.G.R.A., and I bet he read everything that was on that flash drive...

Oh, yeah!  The first time John took a bath, I'll bet.

 

So apparently she didn't do anything he's offended by, like mess with old ladies.

 

[Caya]

Yeah, still, shouldn't redemption encompass remorse?
 

I can't remember her ever expressing any, whether for her previous victims (whoever they were) or for shooting Sherlock. "I'm sorry I'm losing you, John" is definitely not remorse, that's self-pity.

[T.o.b.y]

Maybe she doesn't feel much remorse? Maybe what she did was entirely justified from her point of view and she only thinks John would never see it that way? Or she was forced into her "job", in which case the remorse should be on the side of whoever had control over her? Again, here we face the problem of not knowing a thing about her point of view. Did the writers think we wouldn't be interested? Are they saving it up for series 4? Or were they simply not interested themselves? I wonder whether Moffat has any idea himself what "A.G.R.A." is supposed to stand for (yeah, I know it's the name of the original treasure, but here it's supposed to be Mary's initials - what is her name?)

[Caya]

Agreed, we don't know anything about her past victims (thanks, Moffat) so one might give her the benefit of doubt there. But her killing of Sherlock, we saw. And she never so much as showed a sliver of remorse for that. Only for her losing John.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, Sherlock certainly explained away any reasons for her to feel guilty... And as she shoots him, she does say "I'm sorry Sherlock" and she has tears in her eyes.

[Caya]

Yeah, Sherlock spun that "surgery" nonsense tale to calm down John. And telling someone you're sorry as you're shooting him doesn't really count as remorse imho (did she follow with "Have a nice day!" as he fell?). Especially as she came at him with a gun in that empty house afterwards. Doesn't look particularly sorry to me.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, at least she didn't say "Merry Christmas"...

 

I think for Mary's standards (from what we've seen of them, anyway), that was as remorseful as it gets. Hmmm... the longer I think about her, the more I like her. Here's this lovely nurse, who seems such a nice person. She has "loads of friends" and her neighbor comes to her for help (Dr Watson writes about the original in "The Man with the Twisted Lip": "Folk who were in grief came to my wife like birds to a light-house"). And behind that is a cold-blooded killer who does what she (thinks she) has to do and if that means shooting Sherlock Holmes in the chest, too bad, but she'll go through with it and not waste any useless tears later.

 

Like Sherlock himself, she raises a lot of questions about how much she really does feel, how genuine her emotions are, whether she has any ideas about right and wrong. Maybe they made her this way on purpose so we'd still have somebody to break our heads over after we've been given so much insight into the main character.

[Caya]

Dunno, Dexter has more of a conscience than that, and he's a sociopathic serial killer .

 

And John certainly should know better, at any rate. Regardless of Mary's moral compass or lack thereof, John was supposed to know when something's a bit not good.

[T.o.b.y]

Dexter... oh, you mean as in "the code of Harry" Dexter? I dunno, I'd rather meet Mary Watson in a dark alley any day...

 

It's interesting how they changed Sherlock's behavior towards Magnussen from the original. Mr Holmes stopped Watson when he got ready to attack Milverton with a chair but when he accidentally became a witness of somebody else murdering him, he decided to stay hidden and keep his mouth shut later. Sherlock does things the other way around: He intervenes when a woman who he thinks is Lady Smallwood attempts to murder Magnussen, but later decides to shoot him himself, after all. Like, if Mary does it, it is wrong, but if I do it, it's okay? Or maybe Sherlock has a lot more moral feeling than we've ever given him credit for, believes shooting Magnussen is basically a good idea but murder can't go unpunished, so he'll heroically take that on himself?

 

 

[Caya]

Yeah, that Dexter. And he wouldn't harm you unless you were a murderer yourself (hard to gauge over the Internet, admittedly ). Neither would John Cleaver - I really enjoyed the I Am Not a Serial Killer series, too, so I don't have a general problem with sociopath protagonists (I might have a problem because I enjoy them so much, but that's a different kettle of fish ).

 

And yet Mary bugs the [censored] out of me (and no, not a Johnlock shipper, never been, and loved the char up until Sign). I guess it's really her righteous manner that rubs me the wrong way. How can she tell John that she's the best that ever happened to him with a straight face? How can she sit by the fireside and chat with the father of the man she killed in cold blood? Dexter and John at least acknowledge that there's something wrong with them.

[T.o.b.y]

 

How can she tell John that she's the best that ever happened to him with a straight face?

 

Yes, watching that scene again after knowing what transpires in his last vow is pretty funny... All those scenes with her, actually. I get a huge kick out of them now, looking at her smiling face and John so proud and happy and thinking to myself "Ha! If you only knew..."

 

But Mary is the best that could have happened to John, she is right. In a very Sherlock-ish way, she is merely stating the truth there. She is perfect for him. He'll just have to accept that what he likes isn't necessarily what he'd want to like.

 

[Caya]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree there . I don't think that a genuine sociopath (as opposed to an "I wish I were" sociopath like Sherlock) is perfect for anyone, least of all John.

[T.o.b.y]

Oh, agree to disagree by all means! There's no way to agree on Mary at the moment, we don't really know what we're dealing with, anyway. As Sherlock would say: "I need more data".

[Zain]

 

IHe intervenes when a woman who he thinks is Lady Smallwood attempts to murder Magnussen, but later decides to shoot him himself, after all. Like, if Mary does it, it is wrong, but if I do it, it's okay? Or maybe Sherlock has a lot more moral feeling than we've ever given him credit for, believes shooting Magnussen is basically a good idea but murder can't go unpunished, so he'll heroically take that on himself?

 

 

I think you are actually hitting on something that I couldn't pinpoint before.

I've been an avid voice against Mary's actions, and whenever they were compared to Sherlock's murder, I couldn't put my finger on the reason why I did not feel as strongly about Magnussen's murder.

Sherlock is willing to take the consequences. He doesn't try to hide his crime. Unlike Mary he faces the consequences. I do not condone his decision to murder Magnussen simply because I don't think he did anything that deserved to be killed. But Sherlock is conscious of the gravity of his actions. He also does not excuse it. That's exactly what Mary is lacking, imo. This consciousness of doing something wrong, something that is not excusable.

Sherlock does it and knows it's wrong. That's why he accepts his punishment.

Mary does it and expects to be in the right. And that's why she feels mistreated by John at Christmas. 

 

Funny how I never could put my finger on that.  I actually feel somewhat relieved now. I wondered if my subconsciousness was trying to make excuses for Sherlock.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I think you are actually hitting on something that I couldn't pinpoint before.

I've been an avid voice against Mary's actions, and whenever they were compared to Sherlock's murder, I couldn't put my finger on the reason why I did not feel as strongly about Magnussen's murder.

Sherlock is willing to take the consequences. He doesn't try to hide his crime. Unlike Mary he faces the consequences. I do not condone his decision to murder Magnussen simply because I don't think he did anything that deserved to be killed. But Sherlock is conscious of the gravity of his actions. He also does not excuse it. That's exactly what Mary is lacking, imo. This consciousness of doing something wrong, something that is not excusable.

Sherlock does it and knows it's wrong. That's why he accepts his punishment.

Mary does it and expects to be in the right. And that's why she feels mistreated by John at Christmas. 

 

Funny how I never could put my finger on that.  I actually feel somewhat relieved now. I wondered if my subconsciousness was trying to make excuses for Sherlock.

 

 

Glad to be of some use...

 

That is one way of looking at it, yes. But while I am all for glorifying Sherlock and I did suggest the "moral" difference myself, of course it could be that "the drama queen" simply wouldn't be satisfied with committing the murder in Mary's efficient, secret way. What, work without an audience? Without the chance to show off his heroism, to yell "Give my love to Mary. Tell her she's safe now!" while the helicopter is whirring over him, his brother is shouting, the police are running around and John is standing aghast?

 

 

[Zain]

 

 

 

Glad to be of some use...

 

That is one way of looking at it, yes. But while I am all for glorifying Sherlock and I did suggest the "moral" difference myself, of course it could be that "the drama queen" simply wouldn't be satisfied with committing the murder in Mary's efficient, secret way. What, work without an audience? Without the chance to show off his heroism, to yell "Give my love to Mary. Tell her she's safe now!" while the helicopter is whirring over him, his brother is shouting, the police are running around and John is standing aghast?

 

 

 

 

I am not saying that there's no other way. Just that I finally am able to pinpoint exactly what makes me feel the way I do. Maybe you know that gut feeling, the one that sometimes is really clear to you, and sometimes it is inexplicable.

 

Yeah, Sherlock can be a drama queen. We've seen him act in secret, too, though.

In ASiP, he went with the cabbie instead of telling somebody.

In TBB, Sherlock goes to the museum at night. He knew where to look, and he could have had a bigger audience there and then. It probably would have been safer.

 

Overall, he only craves an audience when he "is being brilliant", when he feels like there's something he can get praised for. He dislikes it when his weaknesses are made public like when John writes about unsolved crimes or his lack of knowledge of the solar system. 

Sherlock avoids to be caught in trouble with the police. It's not something he flaunts. I doubt he'd seek an audience. He does not want to be caught even if he risks capture like in THoB.

It's interpretation but Sherlock doesn't crave the audience itself as much as being recognized for his intelligence, the one thing he values about himself.

[Arcadia]

 

Yeah, there are a few problems with that, aren't there. From what I saw and heard on screen, I am pretty much convinced that it was the writers' intention to make John look heroic and "good" and the scene romantic. I think they expected us to go "awww" and cry a bit. It didn't really work for me, though.    ...   My problem is that it seems to me as if John only accepts and loves Mary the way she was "supposed to be", not the way she really is. He's not even interested in finding out who she is, he doesn't even want to know her name. He only wants her as Mrs Mary Watson. For me, that's not loving a person, that's loving an idea.

I think I agree with T.o.b.y., except that I had a slightly different take on the writer's intentions ... not that John loves Mary the way she was "supposed to be," but that he loves her (or thinks he does) simply for who she is (warm, funny, tolerant.) He decides that he knows the "real" her, and therefore her past has no relevance. No, it's not a very practical decision in real life, but yes, it is very heroic and romantic. And so much of this show hinges on notions of heroism and romanticism. Isn't that one reason we love it? 

 

John throughout has been shown to be unusually forgiving, I think. (Would that I had someone like that in MY life!) But I look on him more as an archetypal character, not a wholly realistic one. Archetypal characters tend to be more "pure" than the rest of us. I guess that's why I'm so drawn to them. Which may say more about me than it should.

[Arcadia]

 

 

IHe intervenes when a woman who he thinks is Lady Smallwood attempts to murder Magnussen, but later decides to shoot him himself, after all. Like, if Mary does it, it is wrong, but if I do it, it's okay? Or maybe Sherlock has a lot more moral feeling than we've ever given him credit for, believes shooting Magnussen is basically a good idea but murder can't go unpunished, so he'll heroically take that on himself?

 

 

I think you are actually hitting on something that I couldn't pinpoint before.

I've been an avid voice against Mary's actions, and whenever they were compared to Sherlock's murder, I couldn't put my finger on the reason why I did not feel as strongly about Magnussen's murder.

Sherlock is willing to take the consequences. He doesn't try to hide his crime. Unlike Mary he faces the consequences. I do not condone his decision to murder Magnussen simply because I don't think he did anything that deserved to be killed. But Sherlock is conscious of the gravity of his actions. He also does not excuse it. That's exactly what Mary is lacking, imo. This consciousness of doing something wrong, something that is not excusable.

Sherlock does it and knows it's wrong. That's why he accepts his punishment.

Mary does it and expects to be in the right. And that's why she feels mistreated by John at Christmas. 

I'm so slow at composing my thoughts that y'all have always moved on to yet another interesting topic before I reply to an earlier one! Must. Think. Faster.

At any rate, to Zain: exactly. I was appalled at Magnussen's murder (still think a better solution could have been found) but at least Sherlock was willing to accept the consequences of his actions. So even tho I don't like his solution, I can maintain respect for him as a character.