Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Moffat and Gatiss has always shown such an devotion to Doyle and the canon, I can't see them making Sherlock Holmes into an anti-hero which is why I will continue to hold hope that there is a good explanation for all this and all is not as it seems. But then, with this show, it seldom is.

[Pamela]

 

Right here.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/sherlock-series-3-secrets-revealed-2912561

 

 

Thank you!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

You're welcome.

[Zain]

Moffat and Gatiss has always shown such an devotion to Doyle and the canon, I can't see them making Sherlock Holmes into an anti-hero which is why I will continue to hold hope that there is a good explanation for all this and all is not as it seems. But then, with this show, it seldom is.

 

 

Well, isn't he already an anti-hero of sorts? After all he killed a man that was not actively threatening his life or the life of a person at the scene (of the crime). It's by no means self-defense. I can't really see how they can turn this around. The fictional redeeming aspect we are presented is that he faces the consequences. Which does not negate the past. 

I am not judging anti-heroes or anything. Just from a moral perspective, Sherlock qualifies as just that.

 

 

 

I would really like it if it did turn out that CAM made the call, partly because it would confirm my opinion that Mary meant Sherlock to die, and partly because it would be interestingly ironic if Sherlock killed the person who saved his life, to protect the person who tried to murder him.

 

 

Yeah, it would be a really great stilistic device, wouldn't it? I love it when novels/scripts turn an event so much that people have to rethink their stance on the scenes. It's hard to write. Well, for me at least.

It's like with Snape from Harry Potter; people condemned him because he killed Dumbledore. Then the author snapped with her fingers, and it was assisted suicide which changes the entire moral discussion around. Throws over the entire chess board. When you have got the wrong information, you begin to discuss the wrong aspects, and while it might sound insane, I love it when authors do something so wickedly mean to the fans.

The idea of Magnussen calling the ambulance, and then he gets killed by Sherlock... I mean, it's a brilliant plot line. And it does just that, it throws over everything ever said about Mary, John, Sherlock, and Magnussen in HLV. With a single stroke.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It does that without question. At least Gatiss and Moffat does give their point of view.

 

 

                        http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/sherlock-bbc-moffat-milverton/

[Pamela]

VERY interesting article.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yup, oh well. It doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for Sherlock, it had to happen. But Gatiss should lean to follow through with these strong women characters they create and then leave it up to Sherlock to rescue them. But at least they did point out that Sherlock did iterate that Sherlock had saved Magnussen's life by stopping Mary from shooting him.

[Slithytove]

This criticism of the female characters arose after ASiB and obviously Moftiss have fanned the flames with their interpretation of the murder of Milverton. Those who complain that women who get into difficulties - Irene and Mary - have to be rescued by men, do have a point. The original Irene outwitted Holmes, hence his respect for her, plus an unknown female (who could have been Mary in this version) killed Milverton. As I love Sherlock himself, I rather like him in his knight errant role, gallantly (and improbably) showing up in Karachi to save Irene and sacrificing his future to protect Mary. Very noble. Quite patronising plot lines, though.

 

I suppose you could argue that they have made Mary into a stronger character, turning her into an assassin who does not hesitate to shoot her friend. It is a long time since I read "The Sign of Four" but I don't remember her doing anything violent.

 

I really hope they do stand the whole plot on its head and show us that CAM made the emergency call. I wouldn't be surprised if Sherlock knew all along that Mary wanted to kill him. He's quite clever, you know.....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No, I'm quite sure that the Mary Morstan in "Sign of Four" wasn't nearly as "kickarse" as the BBC version. Even Sherlock Holmes thought she was clever and might even be an asset. But no, I don't think she would have turned out to be a trained sniper. Unless she was one of those women who had disguised themselves as a man and fought in a war somewhere. As happened in the American Revolutionary and Civil Wars. And probably more besides.

 

  As for who called the medical 999, it will be interesting...but I find a little dark humor in that:Sherlock saves Magnussen. Maybe Magnussen saves Sherlock. That question is still up in the air. Then Magnussen threatens to take, or at least, destroy Sherlock's life, Sherlock takes his.

 

  A grim game of trade off.

 

  Another thing I find interesting and darkly humorous is how in all this Magnussen is given the moral high ground when he didn't have a once of moral fiber in him. He could and would destroy more lives and cause more deaths then Sherlock Holmes ever would even think of. At least Sherlock really does care about people, something Magnussen was totally incapable of.

 

 Someone was going to kill him in the end and they were going to get away with it. It would have been really satisfying if it had been Irene, like a lot of fans suspected. Shooting Magnussen in payment for Sherlock getting shot, then going after Mary.

  

  

[T.o.b.y]

This criticism of the female characters arose after ASiB and obviously Moftiss have fanned the flames with their interpretation of the murder of Milverton. Those who complain that women who get into difficulties - Irene and Mary - have to be rescued by men, do have a point. The original Irene outwitted Holmes, hence his respect for her, plus an unknown female (who could have been Mary in this version) killed Milverton. As I love Sherlock himself, I rather like him in his knight errant role, gallantly (and improbably) showing up in Karachi to save Irene and sacrificing his future to protect Mary. Very noble. Quite patronising plot lines, though.

 

I suppose you could argue that they have made Mary into a stronger character, turning her into an assassin who does not hesitate to shoot her friend. It is a long time since I read "The Sign of Four" but I don't remember her doing anything violent.

 

Neither do I, and I read the novel fairly recently. The original Mary Morstan was certainly a "strong" woman who took her life into her own hands and stood firm in the face of danger instead of a shrieking, fainting "damsel in distress", she was also clever and, as Holmes said, had a "decided genius" for detective work, but it is nowhere so much as hinted that she would be willing or able to kill anybody in cold blood.

 

As for the old debate about the women in Sherlock, here we go again. Hurray. Seriously, I think it's an interesting topic and I'm quite glad to revive it.

 

While I had absolutely no problem with what the writers did to Irene Adler (I dislike the Karachi scene for "artistic" reasons, not necessarily feminist ones), Mary is more difficult for me. I always expected her to have some connection with Milverton / here Magnussen, ever since I knew they were introducing her in the same series as that villain. And I always expected her to be the woman who shoots him, too. I had kind of pictured Sherlock and John hiding at Magnussen's place, like in the original, and suddenly in walks Mary (instead of just some anonymous stranger) and kills the guy before their stunned eyes. Maybe that just seemed too obvious for the writers. Maybe they "knew" that was what people (at least those who are familiar with the original) would be prepared to see and they wanted to give it an unexpected twist. If so, congratulations, it sure worked.

 

What I don't understand is why Mary has to be a professional assassin and why she has to have an assumed identity. Okay, Magnussen is heavily guarded, but I am sure they could have come up with some other reason why she gets through to him - especially if Sherlock and John manage that too. Of course, by making her a trained killer, they have the reason for blackmail and the attempt to put an end to that blackmail all in one. Otherwise, they would have had to dream up another secret for her and I have to admit, that is a tough call. Believe me, I've tried (I love to play with the old stories in my head and speculate, now how could one adapt this for "Sherlock"), and I certainly didn't have any bright ideas. But then, I'm not a professional writer, am I.

 

Another thing I don't understand is why does Mary have to shoot Sherlock. Where did that idea come from? It's not that I don't like it, at least I like the scene inside Sherlock's mind a lot and I think that is a really cool idea, to show a murder from the victim's perspective, especially when the victim is a genius crime solver, I just wonder why they thought it would be a good idea to have Mary be the one who almost kills him. It doesn't make her appear "strong" or "cool" to me at all, and neither am I impressed by her ability to shoot a coin in mid air. That's quite a boring old little trick in fiction and it does not necessarily make the gunman / -woman an interesting person. Mary was plenty cool before, in my eyes.

 

Is the plot patronizing? Hm. Yes, it is. Why bother to jazz up your female lead as a CIA trained assassin in black when you're going to dump her crying into her husband's arms at the end, anyway - and then faint on top of that (okay, from drinking a sedative, but still)? And one does have to ask why pray Sherlock stops her from killing Magnussen (and gets her into all kinds of trouble by doing so), only to do the very same thing himself later? Does he think that if she kills him, it's a crime, but if he does, that's higher justice? Hmmm, that would be very arrogant and quite like Sherlock, actually.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Does he think that if she kills him, it's a crime, but if he does, that's higher justice? Hmmm, that would be very arrogant and quite like Sherlock, actually.

 

  Sherlock probably would try to keep her from killing. He would try to help her by going through his version of channels. Like he has done with all his other clients. I really think that his shooting of Magnussen was not premeditated. It was fueled by the tormenting and insult to John and Magnussen boasting how he tormented Janine in the same way.

 

 And no matter what, Magnussen was going to die. That wasn't going to change and nor the fact who ever did it was going to get away with it.

 

 I do wish Moffat and Gatiss would follow through with their "strong females" and let them stand toe to toe with their tormentors and win on their own. Not have to depend on Sherlock acting as the perennial "White Knight".

[Caya]

Like that's gonna happen. I just followed a link from that (great, btw) article you posted and whoa, I had to stop twice to keep my blood pressure down. How can a guy like that be one of the brains behind something as great as Sherlock?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I know, it's really strange that they can only go so far with a female character and then it's like they hit a stone wall.

[T.o.b.y]

 I do wish Moffat and Gatiss would follow through with their "strong females" and let them stand toe to toe with their tormentors and win on their own. Not have to depend on Sherlock acting as the perennial "White Knight".

 

I'm in two minds about that. On the one hand, strong women by all means. On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes should be somewhat of a "knight errant". Here, he ends up saving Mary twice: He saves her from persecution by destroying Magnussen's "archives" and from the danger of being convicted for murder by taking that on himself.

 

It would be fine with me if while Mary has the upper hand when it comes to "real life" (where, as we have seen, she sees right through Sherlock and "manages" him very dexterously), she relied on him in situations like the end of His Last Vow. Taking care of villains is kind of Sherlock's job and he's got to be good at something (besides wedding planning and serviettes and choosing men for Janine to date). I mean, I don't feel less of a woman for depending on my boyfriend to free my bathroom from the presence of arachnids. 

 

Actually, in this particular case, I was thrilled to see Sherlock shoot Magnussen himself. Magnussen was so vile that removing him from the face of the planet seemed almost like an honor and I love Sherlock and so was happy that he got to do it. I know it wasn't right and not a real victory by any means - more an extreme form of defeat - but hey, the whole purpose of the Milverton figure is to defeat Sherlock Holmes and so poor Sherlock might as well make the most of it. (And who has never secretly dreamed of killing or a least beating up their bully? Even if we all know that would be wrong and not really a solution to the problem?)

 

But it does leave poor Mary with having achieved virtually nothing. She neither managed to silence Magnussen, nor keep Sherlock from telling John her secret. If she really did intend to perform "surgery" instead of killing Sherlock, at least that part worked, but not really, because he did die and came back to life through some extraordinary miracle of his own. Mary did not even manage to get John to forgive her, let alone understand her. He decided when and how to make peace.

 

In the end, I guess we have to bear in mind that the series is called "Sherlock", not "Sherlock, John and Mary". Mary is lovely, but she is little more than a plot device. I don't think that's so much a problem of being female as being a minor character, but that point is open for debate, of course.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Actually, in this particular case, I was thrilled to see Sherlock shoot Magnussen himself. Magnussen was so vile that removing him from the face of the planet seemed almost like an honor and I love Sherlock and so was happy that he got to do it. I know it wasn't right and not a real victory by any means - more an extreme form of defeat - but hey, the whole purpose of the Milverton figure is to defeat Sherlock Holmes and so poor Sherlock might as well make the most of it. (And who has never secretly dreamed of killing or a least beating up their bully? Even if we all know that would be wrong and not really a solution to the problem?)

 

   Yup, I can agree with you here, T.o.b.y.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just followed a link from that (great, btw) article you posted and whoa, I had to stop twice to keep my blood pressure down. How can a guy like that be one of the brains behind something as great as Sherlock?

 

The same way that dear old misogynistic Gene Roddenberry got to be the brain behind Star Trek, apparently -- by coming up with the idea.

[Caya]

Yeah, but Roddenberry, for all his casting couch antics and the like (but I am well aware that this was before my time and you know so much more about this than me) was astonishingly progressive in other ways, and that spirit made Star Trek to what it is, I think ... his optimism for the future and willingness to look beyond the present state of things.

 

Steven Moffat, on the other hand, sounds like a veritable troglodyte if even half of what is quoted in that interview is true. How such a man can come up with (one half of) something as brilliant as Sherlock is hard to grasp, for me.

[Slithytove]

Sherlock is a strange mixture of knight errant and anti-hero. The original Holmes was, I think, more in the heroic mould - brave, self-sacrificing, dashing in to save the day. He did occasionally do things which would have got him into trouble if discovered, such as letting a murderer go if he sympathised with their motives, but he was a pretty noble figure. Sherlock has his forebear's virtues but he has a darker side. Obviously, there is the shooting of CAM but he also hurts the dying cabbie to force him to name Moriarty. I don't think the original Holmes would even have gone as far as drugging Watson for an experiment and then deliberately frightening him.

 

Essentially, I believe, Sherlock is a child in many ways, and this is where he differs most from ACD's Holmes. He even sees himself, in moments of extreme stress, as a scared little boy. Far from being a man of pure, cold reason, he has many childlike qualities - impulsive, outspoken, often downright rude, excitable, bored, courageous, impatient.... There is often a sort of innocence in his character and this, juxtaposed with his brilliance and ruthlessness, is one reason why he is so complex and interesting.

 

It is a pity that the writers can't extend that sophistication to their female characters. I don't mind so much that they take away some of Irene and Mary's active roles and have them rescued by Sherlock, because I can see they want to foreground their main character and make him the hero. I don't mind that Irene is changed from being an actress to a pro domme, as I've met a few of the latter and they were certainly strong, independent women. What I don't like is what Moftiss have done to the women's character. The original Irene was clever and determined but she was not bad. Modern Irene exploits Sherlock's protective instincts and weakness for showing off, and sells him out to Moriarty. Mary is no longer just a bright, resourceful woman, she is a killer who turns on Sherlock himself. Why did these intelligent and interesting women have to become treacherous and dangerous?

 

To make their stories more exciting, I'm sure the authors would say. I have some sympathy with that because, when you've thought of a good plot development, you do want to run with it. Making Mary a killer and having her attempt to murder Sherlock was bound to grab our attention. The fact that even fans like us can't agree on Mary's true nature, her motives and intentions, and John's relationship with her, shows how well the strategy worked. It's at the cost of a good, sympathetic female character, though.

 

What's next - Molly as a serial killer, hiding the bodies in the morgue at Bart's?

[Caya]

Oh dear, if they do that, I'm done with the series. Not even coming back if they cast Anthony Head and Patrick Stewart as penance.

 

Seriously, it's kinda telling that Molly happened to them quite by accident.

[Slithytove]

Oh, please let them cast Anthony Head! What a wonderful thought....

 

Having just read the article about Moffatt, I have to say that he does sound like a prat where women are concerned. No wonder he writes much better male characters than female ones, as he clearly has no idea what actually goes on inside our heads. Maybe Molly is an archetype, emerging from the writers' subconscious minds, to say, "Women can be three-dimensional people, you know. They don't have to be either girly girls or villains...."

[Zain]

Oh, please let them cast Anthony Head! What a wonderful thought....

 

Having just read the article about Moffatt, I have to say that he does sound like a prat where women are concerned. No wonder he writes much better male characters than female ones, as he clearly has no idea what actually goes on inside our heads. Maybe Molly is an archetype, emerging from the writers' subconscious minds, to say, "Women can be three-dimensional people, you know. They don't have to be either girly girls or villains...."

 

Or Molly is just that girl that doesn't count?

Because they didn't have a reoccuring role in mind. I mean, she is plain. Everyday girl with an unusual work place, as well as unusual friends, and that's what makes her plainness into one of her strongest features. Because she's reliable. She stands with one foot in this everyday life, but she's able to function in Sherlock's crazy world, too. Because she wasn't supposed to be something special, she didn't turn out to be an assassin or first class dominatrix, and so on...

 

On another note. Pretty interesting how fierce everybody is about this topic.

I have to admit I don't particularly care. Maybe that's because I can't quite track in what context Moffat said such things. It probably won't make much difference, but I am somewhat reluctant to jump in without knowing the facts. I fear I never read or saw his interviews. You all probably know more about him than I do. I also haven't much experience with his Dr Who episodes. So I only have Sherlock as a reference to his approaches to females. And there aren't a lot. So... well.

[wildwoodflower]

. The original Irene was clever and determined but she was not bad. Modern Irene exploits Sherlock's protective instincts and weakness for showing off, and sells him out to Moriarty. Mary is no longer just a bright, resourceful woman, she is a killer who turns on Sherlock himself. Why did these intelligent and interesting women have to become treacherous and dangerous?

 

 

I genuinely think (and this based on people I know who know both Gatiss and Moffat) is that they don't know how to make a women interesting without making them treacherous and dangerous. It's a flaw in their abilities, a weird blind spot and one of the only ways in which I think Moffatt lacks creative rigor. He doesn't challenge himself with the female characters. He did once. He wrote some beautiful, deep female characters for Doctor Who before he was a showrunner. 

[Arcadia]

I read the article ... I have to take it with a heaping grain of salt, it doesn't come across to me as very objective. Like Zain said; I don't know the context of any of those remarks. Some of them could be meant ironically, for all I know.

 

 And even if it's all true .... I don't really care. I've always heard Wagner was a jerk, that doesn't take anything away from the beauty of his music.

 

I think we've had this discussion here before ... how much responsibility does the artist have to the audience? As an artist myself, I would argue ... very little. Sorry, this probably sounds a little arrogant, but ... I create to please myself. I like to think I have pretty high standards, and I'm over the moon when someone else likes what I do ... but I'm not going to change why/what/how I create to fit into someone else's notion of what is appropriate. And believe me, I DO get a lot of critcism from people who think I could do "better." Artists have to learn how to shrug this stuff off, or they can't function very well for very long.

 

I think the role of women in fiction is a great subject to discuss, but I'm fairly uncomfortable attacking the artist for being who they are, or for doing what they do.

[T.o.b.y]

Sherlock is a strange mixture of knight errant and anti-hero. The original Holmes was, I think, more in the heroic mould - brave, self-sacrificing, dashing in to save the day. He did occasionally do things which would have got him into trouble if discovered, such as letting a murderer go if he sympathised with their motives, but he was a pretty noble figure. Sherlock has his forebear's virtues but he has a darker side. Obviously, there is the shooting of CAM but he also hurts the dying cabbie to force him to name Moriarty. I don't think the original Holmes would even have gone as far as drugging Watson for an experiment and then deliberately frightening him.

 

Essentially, I believe, Sherlock is a child in many ways, and this is where he differs most from ACD's Holmes. He even sees himself, in moments of extreme stress, as a scared little boy. Far from being a man of pure, cold reason, he has many childlike qualities - impulsive, outspoken, often downright rude, excitable, bored, courageous, impatient.... There is often a sort of innocence in his character and this, juxtaposed with his brilliance and ruthlessness, is one reason why he is so complex and interesting.

 

I agree with you completely there - thanks for putting it into words like this!

 

As for the women in Sherlock, at least I can believe in them. They seem like real people, even when they are pointing guns and cracking whips. I don't know whether that is due to the wonderful actresses they cast or to some director's fine touch or whatever. They're very clearly individual people, not just "pretty love interests". I can forgive a lot for that - but not everything. I'll have to do some thinking about what I've read here on that topic during the spare minute of my day before I have any kind of a considered opinion on it, I guess.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Obviously, there is the shooting of CAM but he also hurts the dying cabbie to force him to name Moriarty. I don't think the original Holmes would even have gone as far as drugging Watson for an experiment and then deliberately frightening him.

 

  Watson was warned by Stamford in "A Study in Scarlet" that Sherlock Holmes would have indeed used Watson as an experiment if it suited his purposes. "I could imagine his giving a friend a little pinch of the latest vegetable alkaloid, not out of maleviolence, you understand, but simply out of a spirit of inquiry in order to have an accurate idea of the effects."  End Quote.

 

  So the fact that Sherlock did it in the "Hounds of the Baskervilles" is right out of canon. And there is "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot"

 

  And in several stories, Holmes did indeed scare Watson. "The Adventure of the Dying Detective" comes to mind, and "The Final Problem"  and "The Adventure of the Empty House".

 

  As for hurting someone like the cabbie, he threatened it.  He did threaten to kill Killer Evens for shooting Watson and Watson didn't doubt that Sherlock Holmes was capable of doing so if he had the mind  in "The Adventure of the Three Garridebs" But I can't come up with any prime examples at the moment of him actually hurting someone.

 

 

Far from being a man of pure, cold reason, he has many childlike qualities - impulsive, outspoken, often downright rude, excitable, bored, courageous, impatient....

 

  Watson mentions many of these same qualities in the chronicles of their "adventures" together.  Of course Sherlock is quite young when they first meet, being all of 27. So he had some growing to do, as does our Sherlock.