Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Slithytove]

It is not the qualities of courage, excitability, etc in themselves, which are seen in adults too, but the way in which they manifest. I don't think you get the feeling, when you read Conan Doyle, that Holmes is basically a child. Eccentric, mercurial and often difficult, yes, but an adult. With Sherlock, you see glimpses of the child behind the mask. Sometimes it is from John's POV - the bored, hyperactive child fidgeting and asking inappropriate questions - and sometimes from Sherlock's - the vulnerable, sometimes frightened boy puzzled by the grown-up world.

 

I find this view of Sherlock very touching, but maybe that's just my grandmotherly side coming out.....

[Slithytove]

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.

I don't feel particularly agitated about the remarks quoted - they are offensive but hardly unique, and we've all heard such nonsense many times before. It is, of course, possible he was misquoted or spoke ironically but, if it keeps happening, maybe he should take a bit more care to be quoted accurately. Maybe lay off the irony too...

 

What do you mean, exactly, by the artist having very little responsibility to the audience? In the context that we have been discussing, do you mean Stephen Moffat has no responsibility to create female characters which are not shaped by his misogynistic views? (If he does hold the views attributed to him.) I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying.

 

You mentioned Wagner and, of course, music is somewhat different to writing in that its meaning is more subjective. You can listen to Wagner's music and never know about his virulently anti-Semitic opinions, whereas you would have no doubt if you read his articles, particularly "Jewishness In Music.". Would you feel he had any responsibility to his audience if he could have expressed his views more explicitly through his art?

 

My own feeling is that art, in any medium, is the one place where you can't hide - that your work is informed by everything you are, everything you think and do. Of course, a show such as Sherlock has a lot of input from a lot of people. However, I would say that everything begins with the writers and will invariably reflect the way they see the world.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't think you get the feeling, when you read Conan Doyle, that Holmes is basically a child. Eccentric, mercurial and often difficult, yes, but an adult.

 

 

 

   If you have seen Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes, his interpretation could be childish and rude.

[T.o.b.y]

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?

 

God, no. Please. Actually, after what happened to Mary, I am kind of scared that they will take Molly in some insane, "exciting" bad-ass direction, too. I devoutly hope they don't - I love her as she is!

 

I didn't mind what they did with Irene; I liked Irene and I liked her "bad". Not Mary, though. She's a different story. Actually, I don't think they even meant her to be revealed as "a bad guy" at all, they just wanted to shock the audience a bit and make her a more suitable companion for John and Sherlock by putting her on the same level of "maniac", as I think Moffat put it somewhere, as the two men. Also, the way the "Sherlock" writers see John Watson, they probably couldn't imagine him being seriously interested in and long term happy with a "nice, normal" woman. He has this aversion to "dinner with wine and... sitting", to the humdrum elements of a peaceful civilian life in general, that would make a marriage with him very difficult for anybody who wasn't pretty extraordinary herself.

 

It seems that John and Sherlock have a few problems with women, don't they. They're apparently not interested in nice, normal girls (see Molly, so far, or John's former girlfriends who all did not last long). They both fall for "exciting" bad-ass femme fatale types who come from the same world of darkness and adventure and crime they love to prowl around in for their detective work. But then, neither of them can rest until he's put the woman back in "her place" (or what would have been their places a couple of hundred years ago): The damsel in distress (Irene in Karachi) or the domesticated pregnant housewife, crying in her husband's arms (Mary at the end of His Last Vow). Guys, make up your minds what you want, please! This might very well reflect the author's own attitude towards women (I wouldn't know, I never watched anything else by Steve Moffat and I'm not terribly keen on roaming the web for a representative number of interviews), or it might just be part of "the boys' " characterization. Romantic attachments are not really their area, I guess. That's okay. I know enough love stories, I don't need another one. Sherlock Holmes was never about romance, anyway, and his attitude towards it was difficult to say the least. It's part of who that figure is.

 

I don't know whether an author or any kind of an artist has a responsibility towards his audience. That's a tough question. I guess once you have a large following and get mass attention, you will have some effect on people, like it or no, and there must be responsibility somewhere in there.

Personally, I don't look to fiction to be morally guided or educated, though. I want to be entertained and made to think about things I haven't considered before and I want to escape into a different world for a few hours. I want to enjoy myself. And I have found in the past that I do not enjoy characters or plot lines which feel as if they were written mainly to satisfy the demands of political correctness or social expectations. The best fiction is the genuine kind. I'd rather that Moffat continues to create his fictional women straight out of his maybe quite twisted mind and then let me argue with his ideas than that somebody forced or persuaded him to change things around so as not to offend anybody. In other words, I prefer an honest opinion, be it as unpleasant as it may, to a lie.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I don't know whether an author or any kind of an artist has a responsibility towards his audience. That's a tough question. I guess once you have a large following and get mass attention, you will have some effect on people, like it or no, and there must be responsibility somewhere in there.

 

  I can only speak for myself as a writer and what I have heard people like Peter Jackson and Moffat and Gatiss say, that I and they, produce something that we would want to read or watch for ourselves.

 

 I know that I work hard at trying to get my character's "voice" right because  that's is what I would want to find in any fanfiction that I read. Peter Jackson said that he wanted to make the Lord of The Rings so that it felt like he was just shooting the movie in his own back yard for his own entertainment.

 

 Moffat and Gatiss wanted to see a modern version of Sherlock Holmes which they both have loved since they were kids. One of them said that they have been dreaming of Holmes giving the "Best Man" speech since he was seven years old and was very disappointed that it did happen in canon. They have said that they started writing it with a mind that this is what they wanted to read or see for themselves.

 

  Am I mindful of the people that might be reading my stuff?  Not when I am writing it, not at all. I just put down the words that are flowing through my head. If and when I get any kind of feed back, that's just icing on the cake.

[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.

I don't feel particularly agitated about the remarks quoted - they are offensive but hardly unique, and we've all heard such nonsense many times before. It is, of course, possible he was misquoted or spoke ironically but, if it keeps happening, maybe he should take a bit more care to be quoted accurately. Maybe lay off the irony too...

 

What do you mean, exactly, by the artist having very little responsibility to the audience?

 

Agghh, you've sussed me out! I'm not very good at being "exact" (much more comfortable with shades of gray, sorry) but I'll give it a go. With qualifiers, tho, cuz I can't help myself. :-)

 

In the context that we have been discussing, do you mean Stephen Moffat has no responsibility to create female characters which are not shaped by his misogynistic views? (If he does hold the views attributed to him.) I am not sure I understand exactly what you are saying.

Yes, I guess I do mean that. An artist may have a responsibility as a human being to promote "only that which is good," but as an artist ... I'm not so sure. If you produce only that which your audience finds acceptable, is it even art anymore?

 

More specifically ... if Moffat is in fact, "misogynistic" (your word) ... well, too bad for him, but (according to him, see assorted interviews) he's created something he loves and has thrown it out there hoping enough of us will love it too, so that he can continue doing it. But when the audience then says "yeah, great, but you're doing it wrong, you should be doing such and such ......" No, I don't think he has a responsibility to listen to us. I would say that his responsiblity -- as a creator, mind -- is primarily to his own vision.

 

You mentioned Wagner and, of course, music is somewhat different to writing in that its meaning is more subjective. You can listen to Wagner's music and never know about his virulently anti-Semitic opinions, whereas you would have no doubt if you read his articles, particularly "Jewishness In Music.". Would you feel he had any responsibility to his audience if he could have expressed his views more explicitly through his art?

Well, I might argue that most good fiction writing is subjective too ... but not right now. :-)

 

I probably shouldn't have used Wagner as an example because I know next to nothing about him, I've just always heard him cited as an example of an artistic genius who was also a louse. But to answer your question ... do I think he should have altered his world view out of deference to an audience? As a person, probably yes. As a composer ... mmm, I have to say no.

 

Apparently I think the artist is separate from the person. On one level I don't see how that's possible, but on another level I think it's true.

 

My own feeling is that art, in any medium, is the one place where you can't hide - that your work is informed by everything you are, everything you think and do. Of course, a show such as Sherlock has a lot of input from a lot of people. However, I would say that everything begins with the writers and will invariably reflect the way they see the world.

 

Yes and no. (Did I mention I'm more comfortable with shades of gray? :-) Your work may reflect who you are ... but it's not a perfect mirror. I would say that quite a lot of hiding goes on. I think as an artist I project what I want people to see of me; which, quite frankly, in my case is not much. My work has often been described as "ambiguous", tho, so I appear to be projecting more than I intend. Oh dear.

[Arcadia]

I am going to add that all this talk of "art" is a pretty heavy load to put on Sherlock, which is, essentially, escapist fiction, and television to boot. Not that I don't think escapism and tv can't be artistic; just that they have contraints on them that limit what they can achieve (as all forms of expression do). The term "art" may imply a gravitas which I don't really intend.

Sherlock is fun, the acting, dialogue and look of it are AMAZING, and it seems to make most of us think (yeh) -- but I have very little idea what it intends to say about the status of women, if anything. It's an adventure story, with two male leads, and there's only so much room in a 90 minute production to begin with. I'm happy they do as much with it as they do, frankly.

[T.o.b.y]

I am going to add that all this talk of "art" is a pretty heavy load to put on Sherlock, which is, essentially, escapist fiction, and television to boot. Not that I don't think escapism and tv can't be artistic; just that they have contraints on them that limit what they can achieve (as all forms of expression do). The term "art" may imply a gravitas which I don't really intend.

 

That's putting it nicely... Yeah, "art" is maybe the wrong word and does sound a bit silly in this context, doesn't it. I tend to call anything art that is the product of someone's creativity - sorry.

 

Anyway, 'course you are right and this is nothing but an immensely fun adventure series with two male leads and I really don't think the writers are trying to tell us anything except "Sherlock is a cool guy and has ridiculous adventures". That doesn't mean someone's prejudices or beliefs or whatever won't shine through, though. It's fun to over-think a bit and reflect on what one loves and why and should I like this as much as I do etc etc.

 

It's definitely a show that invites the audience to speculate and guess and theorize, I think.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

It's definitely a show that invites the audience to speculate and guess and theorize, I think.

 

... as any good adaptation of the Holmes stories presumably should.

[Arcadia]

That's putting it nicely... Yeah, "art" is maybe the wrong word and does sound a bit silly in this context, doesn't it. I tend to call anything art that is the product of someone's creativity - sorry.

 

As do I, as do I! Art is a pretty broad term, it's not that it doesn't apply, it just occurred to me the way I was flinging the term around made it sound rather, erm, pompous, given the context.

 

Anyway, 'course you are right and this is nothing but an immensely fun adventure series with two male leads and I really don't think the writers are trying to tell us anything except "Sherlock is a cool guy and has ridiculous adventures". That doesn't mean someone's prejudices or beliefs or whatever won't shine through, though. It's fun to over-think a bit and reflect on what one loves and why and should I like this as much as I do etc etc.

Yup yup.

 

It's definitely a show that invites the audience to speculate and guess and theorize, I think.

Abso-friggin-lutely... and I think they definitely enjoy driving us crazy....

[Slithytove]

Art is a catch-all term for creative work whose value is primarily aesthetic. It doesn't have to be serious. It doesn't even have to be good.

 

Of course, Sherlock is an adventure. It is a romp, not a piece of high-minded literature. On the other hand, high-minded literature might get an audience of hundreds or, at best, thousands. Sherlock is watched by millions. Its creators are not aiming for deathless prose but they are telling their stories to a vast international audience. It isn't ridiculous, in that context, to take those stories seriously.

 

I'm still uncertain about the idea of an artist's responsibility to their audience. Surely their only responsibility to an audience is to produce the best work of which they are capable. What they do have to do is take responsibility for their own work. You have to be true to your own vision, but if you are homophobic, sexist, racist or whatever and it shows in your work, then you have to take responsibility for that. If Moffat genuinely holds the views attributed to him and shapes his female characters according to those views, he has to be prepared for people to object those characters. An artist is under no obligation to conform to please an audience, but an audience isn't obliged to like what it is given.

 

Sherlock, John, Mycroft, Lestrade...... Moftiss can create male characters who are strong and interesting without being bad. They seem less able when it comes to the women.

 

Thank God for Molly and Mrs Hudson........

[Arcadia]

An artist is under no obligation to conform to please an audience, but an audience isn't obliged to like what it is given.

Yes, I think that's the other side of what I was trying to say.

[T.o.b.y]

Of course, Sherlock is an adventure. It is a romp, not a piece of high-minded literature. On the other hand, high-minded literature might get an audience of hundreds or, at best, thousands. Sherlock is watched by millions. Its creators are not aiming for deathless prose but they are telling their stories to a vast international audience. It isn't ridiculous, in that context, to take those stories seriously.

 

Thanks, that makes me feel so much better Because "I do take it seriously", as the girl in Anderson's "little fan club" said. I also think that for an adventure, the series offers an astonishing amount of food for thought. Maybe that wasn't even intentional, but it's there and I love it. Take, for example, the theme "caring is not an advantage" that runs through all episodes. Sherlock is humanized, he learns to care for people, but that does not necessarily make life and work easier for him. On the contrary, he becomes more and more vulnerable and, just like the original Mr Holmes foresaw, his judgement is biased, to the point where he cannot see a woman for the dangerous ex-assassin that she is despite various blatant clues because he likes her too much as his best friend's love interest and cares about their happiness together. Also, a lot of the "cold" remarks Sherlock makes in series 1 can actually said to be true, for example that crying at people's bedsides doesn't do them any good. And now in series 3 we've actually reached questions like "can shooting somebody be justified and if so, why" or "is it right to forgive someone we love even if we would utterly condemn their actions if we didn't know them".

 

It's certainly not the purpose or the aim of the series to raise these topics, but it does anyway and the audience can decide whether it wants to ponder them or just sit back and enjoy the fun. I prefer doing both and I love this show because it even has the "thinking" option, as opposed to a lot of other action-based fiction, which, quite frankly, bores me to death.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As Sherlock said at the wedding. "Come on, come on, there is actually an element of Q and A to all of this."  

 

  Even though we always end up with a whole lot of questions....while definitive answers go begging but that is half the fun.

[Zain]

Mhh maybe I am being an idiot but can someone explain how Janine managed to land like this?

 

 

She can't have been sitting on the chair. Behind John, there's a table. Her legs would have been caught under the table.

If she had been standing and looking outside, then she'd fallen face up or against the window.

The only possible solution is that she was standing up and almost pressed against the window. So did she see Mary?

She wasn't hit on the forehead, though. John touches her hair, the wounds either on the back of her head or near the temples.

 

I just stumbled over this when I was reviewing the scene. Puzzles me. Just a mistake by the writers? On the other hand, they could have positioned her everywhere. So why there, why so close to the window front?

 

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Maybe when she went unconscious and started to fall, Mary could have caught her and lowered her to the floor like this? It would assure that she didn't go through the window.

[Zain]

Maybe. I really have no clue. Puzzles me. But it sounds convincing.

 

I wonder, though. If Mary had time to lay her down, she must have first gotten rid of the security man, then Janine. They were both in the same room, and the security man was hit from behind. If he had rushed in when hearing Mary and Janine, Mary wouldn't have had time to get behind him. So why did Janine look outside? I doubt Mary could have laid down that security man after hitting him from behind. It must have caused some noise.

[T.o.b.y]

Wow, this is exactly the kind of thing that I never notice. I'd be a rotten detective. Hmmm... Why would she have fallen against the window if she had been looking outside?

[Zain]

If she had been hit on the back of her head, she'd have either fallen forwards against the window, or backwards, then she'd be lying face up.

If she had been hit from the side (temples), depending on the force she could also have fallen against the chair or to the side. She'd be face up, too. 

 

Probably a mistake, then?

Well, I only noticed because someone had once brought up the possibility that Janine had been working with Mary. I was looking for clues / proof that it isn't possible. I then noticed that Janine was lying on a carpet when everywhere else there's a stone floor. That made me look closer how she fell. Then I noticed this. It's not really of use in my original quest. It puzzled me, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

This goes along with some stuff I've been pondering (but have not yet rewatched the episode for).  I've already answered some of my own questions, I think, but will include those here in case anyone would like to point out something that I've overlooked.

 

1.  Mary apparently had an exit route that did NOT take her through Magnussen's office (because John didn't see her), so why didn't she come in that way instead of through the office, where she needed to deal with Janine and the guard?  Answer:  Because Magnussen was in the office (his chair was still warm) and he was the one she wanted.

 

2.  Why didn't Janine recognize her?  Answer:  Because that cap Mary was wearing probably rolls down into a ski mask.

 

3.  Who did she knock out first, Janine or the guard?  Answer:  The guard, because she'd want to take him by surprise (to avoid hand-to-hand combat with a larger, stronger person).

 

Then we get into some of the stuff that you folks are already discussing.  Surely knocking out the guard would have drawn not only Janine's attention, but Magnussen's as well.  One of them could have called for help.  OK, so maybe she knocked out the guard and immediately pointed her gun at the other two.  She could neither take Janine along to Magnussen's suite nor leave her in the office (where she could phone for help), so she presumably told her to turn around, and then whacked her on the head.

 

As for why Janine was lying in a particular position -- well, from the director's real-world PoV, she needed to be out of sight when Sherlock and John entered the room.  Maybe he also wanted her face-down so John could readily find blood on the back of her head?

 

[T.o.b.y]

This goes along with some stuff I've been pondering (but have not yet rewatched the episode for).  I've already answered some of my own questions, I think, but will include those here in case anyone would like to point out something that I've overlooked.

 

1.  Mary apparently had an exit route that did NOT take her through Magnussen's office (because John didn't see her), so why didn't she come in that way instead of through the office, where she needed to deal with Janine and the guard?  Answer:  Because Magnussen was in the office (his chair was still warm) and he was the one she wanted.

 

2.  Why didn't Janine recognize her?  Answer:  Because that cap Mary was wearing probably rolls down into a ski mask.

 

This gets weirder every minute when you think it through. If Magnussen was in his office, then why didn't Mary kill him there? Why did they both go to a different room on a different floor first? Also, if Mary had something to hide her face with, why didn't she use it?

 

I strongly suspect that this is all due to the event being staged for maximum dramatic effect without a thought for logic, but if you want to make sense of it "in universe", the only explanation as far as I can see is that Mary did not plan to kill Magnussen at all, she wanted to negotiate and brought her gun simply to intimidate him - and maybe shoot if the negotiations went wrong. So the idea is she came into his office, with her mask on, took out Janine and the guard (maybe Janine was first and then Magnussen called the guard afterwards?), then took off her mask because she wanted to speak to Magnussen, they had a "discussion", she wanted him to give her something in his possession (the flash drive, possibly?), they went into the other room to get it, he wasn't as cooperative as she wanted, she started threatening to kill him and then Sherlock walked in?

 

No, that doesn't really work, because Janine was up and well when Sherlock rang and she was already alone in the office at that time. This all makes no sense whatsoever.

 

 

[Slithytove]

Mary actually gets a lot done in a very short amount of time. Whilst John and Sherlock are travelling in the lift, she has to get in by some other route (which presumably goes through the reception area), knock out Janine and the guard, get upstairs and threaten CAM. He must have been in the reception area very shortly before her arrival, if his chair was still warm, but obviously he wasn't there when Janine let Sherlock in.

 

In fact, why did she let him in, if CAM was still there? Why would she risk him coming back downstairs and finding Sherlock there without permission? A lot of employers might be indulgent if someone had just proposed, but CAM hardly falls into that category. I can't imagine she would dare to do it, practically as soon as he left the room.

[Carol the Dabbler]

No, that doesn't really work, because Janine was up and well when Sherlock rang and she was already alone in the office at that time. This all makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Do we actually know that Janine was alone in the office when she let Sherlock (and John) into the lift?  We do get some sort of sweeping view, as I recall, with no one in sight, but does that view include CAM's desk and his warm chair?

 

In fact, why did she let him in, if CAM was still there? Why would she risk him coming back downstairs and finding Sherlock there without permission? A lot of employers might be indulgent if someone had just proposed, but CAM hardly falls into that category. I can't imagine she would dare to do it, practically as soon as he left the room.

 

Damn good questions!  Though Janine does strike me a the "uppity" type, so she might well do things that a more typical PA wouldn't dare.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Damn good questions!  Though Janine does strike me a the "uppity" type, so she might well do things that a more typical PA wouldn't dare.

 

  Oh yeah, definitely a good feisty Irish girl with a lot of backbone. CAM humiliated her and tried to dehumanize her as he did to John on the terrace, but she wasn't afraid to stand up to him in any way she could. Like giving those stories to different papers. Sherlock did ask her about that. And even if she did forgive Sherlock even a little bit for his lies, she was going to take some of her own back, like turning his morphine drip off.

[Slithytove]

I assumed Janine had quit her job after the attack, as I doubted she would sell her story to CAM's rivals otherwise. I also doubt that, spirited though she is, she would risk his wrath by letting Sherlock into the penthouse, unless she was already intending to quit. From what we know of CAM, I would imagine he was an extremely horrible boss and not one you would wish to antagonise