Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[sherlockandjohn]

What made Sherlock and Mycroft who they are? Apart from perhaps having experienced emotional trauma (which we don't know), I'm sure their 'massive intellect' has a lot to do with it. They argue intellectually that caring does not help others or themselves, ergo caring is not an advantage. You cannot help people by caring about them (Sherlock repeatedly states this in TGG), and caring will only mean getting hurt yourself, because "all lives end - all hearts are broken."

 

However, considering the fact that Mycroft knows that all hearts are broken, you would think he has experienced it himself, at least once. And while Sherlock can be 'pretty thick' when it comes to emotions, we have examples of him being very emotionally insightful as well. So, yes, it may be that they haven't always been as they are now, and that something happened to harden them.

 

Or it could be that Sherlock has become more insightful through his friendship with John, and also that he simply 'observes'.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

As much as I love some of the epic scenes in this episode, it is pretty darn sad. Sad, sad, sad. Except for the first 25 minutes, of course, and some occasional bright moments. Not a complaint, well, not entirely, but more just an observation. I feel sad through most of it.

 

For me, the whole series 3 felt sad. There was a lot of comedy on the surface of things, but underneath, there was this continual feeling that The Fall really was "the end of an era" and things will never, ever be the same again. I felt that Sherlock summed it all up when he said: "The game is never over, John. But there may be some new players now. It’s okay. The East Wind takes us all in the end."

 

... and that should go straight in my favorite quotes collection, too.

 

 

I agree more and more that series 3 has a sadness to it that series 1 and 2 didn't. Things seem to have irrevokably changed. It's the kind of sadness that's connected with 'the end of an era'. First, Sherlock comes back from the dead, and faces the consequences of his deception. John is engaged, then gets married, Sherlock lives alone, he and John don't see each other as often, then Mary turns out to have deceived John too. Sherlock gets shot, survives by an inch, kills a man to keep Mary and John safe, and says goodbye to his friends; apparently for good.

 

I used to feel very excited about watching 'Sherlock', but I rejoice over it with less abandonment now. Still love it; it's just more emotional for me, more serious, more sad.

[Arcadia]

And yet I think if the show were exactly what it were at the beginning, I'd feel that it had lost steam. Growing up is such a two-edged sword, even for a tv show!

[Zain]

 

 

However, considering the fact that Mycroft knows that all hearts are broken, you would think he has experienced it himself, at least once. And while Sherlock can be 'pretty thick' when it comes to emotions, we have examples of him being very emotionally insightful as well. So, yes, it may be that they haven't always been as they are now, and that something happened to harden them.

 

 

 

 

Interesting perspective. Let's see.

So we suspect Mycroft had his heart broken. This can happen due to an event, or due to a realization (gaining specific knowledge).

Mycroft himself states: "All lives end. All hearts are broken."

Let's assume he is "afraid" of getting close to people because they die. 

Did somebody close to him die, or did he realize how fragile life can be?

 

There have been enough speculations around the ring he wears. Maybe he had had a lover who died.

Which I wouldn't like much. I don't consider it especially clever to introduce a new character to justify a character's mindset. If it's part of character development, yes. But to our knowledge Mycroft already held those beliefs in ASiP. It just seems somewhat cheap from a writer's perspective. It makes for far more depth to weave a net, to connect characters you already have instead of introducing more flat characters.

 

Then there's the possibility that Mycroft realized that even those people he cares about are mortal. Sherlock, for example. We don't know about any grandparents, aunts, uncles, and so on. The only death we know about is Redbeard. Sherlock was deeply hurt by it, and I suppose even his brother must have experienced Redbeard's death to a degree. I wonder, though, if he cared about the dog, or about the notion behind its death:  That all lives end. 

 

I could imagine it going both ways (and infinitely more that I didn't think of).

 

Personally, I always imagine Mycroft as a person who is very interested in keeping Sherlock alive, almost obsessively. He doesn't seem to be much concerned with Sherlock's state of mind, e.g. is he happy, lonely, overwhelmed, in pain? Mycroft doesn't much interfere as long as Sherlock's life isn't in danger (be it from himself or others). He (personally!) gets Sherlock out of that prison in the beginning of TEH but he doesn't spare him any pain.

Maybe he's downright afraid of Sherlock dying. Afraid of what that will do to him. Who knows.

[Arcadia]

Maybe he's afraid the same thing will happen to Sherlock that happened to "the other one."

[Slithytove]

I'm sure I remember reading an interview where Benedict said that, when he first took on the role, he asked, "Why is he like this?" and Moffat said, "Because he's a genius!" and Benedict said "Yes, but seriously, why is he like this?". Apparently the writers didn't - at that point, anyway - invent a backstory for the character, so maybe we can make it up for ourselves.

 

If we hadn't already met Mummy & Daddy Holmes, I would be inclined to guess that the brothers lost their parents when they were at a very vulnerable age. It would explain Mycroft's "All hearts are broken" line, particularly as he is older and would have had a greater understanding of what was happening at the time. It would also be a good reason for both of them choosing to detach themselves from their emotions, so they would never have to endure again the pain of such a terrible loss.

 

It is interesting that, once we start to see Sherlock's story through his own eyes, it is funny but also deeply sad.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

It is interesting that, once we start to see Sherlock's story through his own eyes, it is funny but also deeply sad.

 

  Which I think would have been true of the older Sherlock Holmes if Doyle had given Watson a deeper insight into his flat mate. Doyle's personal life was no cake walk. Life seldom is. But since Holmes never opened up to Watson we can never know, only the glimpses that we get from each actor.

 

  I remember watching a Brett performance in the Granada series. I can't remember which episode, but Holmes is looking out his window, and a street woman seems to be going off the deep end, acting bizarre and is finally hauled away. The look on Holmes's face is deeply sad, even pensive. Like he is thinking: That could be me.

[T.o.b.y]

Maybe he's afraid the same thing will happen to Sherlock that happened to "the other one."

 

That is my pet theory at the moment for why the Holmes brothers, or at least Mycroft, have such a difficult attitude towards caring for friends and family. Since their parents seem like nice people who love them plenty (even though they probably don't quite understand them, which can be very, very frustrating for children, especially bright ones), there must have been some other family tragedy lurking in their past. So what if there was another brother who had to be "got rid of" for some reason and Mycroft did that, putting brotherly compassion / love / you name it aside for the sake of what was sensible / necessary? That would explain a lot... And even if Sherlock himself did not remember this brother or even know about him, Mycroft's beliefs of what makes you strong must have rubbed off on him anyway, especially since it seems that it was mostly Mycroft who brought Sherlock up (presumably because, being a genius himself, he understood him a lot better than the parents did)?

 

Then, life at the Holmes' can't have been as harmonious and "normal" as it seems, because Mycroft, for example, states that they usually don't celebrate Christmas, at least not together, and that the Christmas dinners when they were children were anything but pleasant. So there must have been some trouble somewhere.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

 

 

 

However, considering the fact that Mycroft knows that all hearts are broken, you would think he has experienced it himself, at least once. And while Sherlock can be 'pretty thick' when it comes to emotions, we have examples of him being very emotionally insightful as well. So, yes, it may be that they haven't always been as they are now, and that something happened to harden them.

 

 

 

 

Interesting perspective. Let's see.

So we suspect Mycroft had his heart broken. This can happen due to an event, or due to a realization (gaining specific knowledge).

Mycroft himself states: "All lives end. All hearts are broken."

Let's assume he is "afraid" of getting close to people because they die. 

Did somebody close to him die, or did he realize how fragile life can be?

 

...

 

Personally, I always imagine Mycroft as a person who is very interested in keeping Sherlock alive, almost obsessively. He doesn't seem to be much concerned with Sherlock's state of mind, e.g. is he happy, lonely, overwhelmed, in pain? Mycroft doesn't much interfere as long as Sherlock's life isn't in danger (be it from himself or others). He (personally!) gets Sherlock out of that prison in the beginning of TEH but he doesn't spare him any pain.

Maybe he's downright afraid of Sherlock dying. Afraid of what that will do to him. Who knows.

 

 

"Your loss would break my heart." Indeed. He is afraid of that. So his "all hearts are broken - caring is not an advantage" attitude could very well be a shell.

 

Sherlock is a bit the same as you describe Mycroft. He can't be bothered to be sensitive about people's feelings, but if they're in real trouble, he's the first one to take action.

[Slithytove]

Judging by the fanfic written before S3, most people assumed the brothers' childhood must have been cold and loveless, if not downright abusive, to produce adults who find it so difficult to express (or feel?) emotion. Now we have apparently nice, ordinary Mummy and Daddy - I would be inclined to think they adopted the boys when they were very little, after a very bad start which left its mark on them despite Mr & Mrs Holmes's best efforts, but that theory has been derailed by casting Benedict's real parents. Moffat said, quite rightly, that no other couple could have produced that extraordinary face.

 

Trauma involving "the other one" could explain a lot, and presumably Mycroft played a role in it or, at least, did nothing to prevent it. I wonder if Sherlock knows what happened. Whatever it was, Mycroft's colleagues appear to know about it, so it can't be that much of a skeleton in the closet.

 

Whatever happened to Sherlock and Mycroft to make them the men they are, it can't have been anywhere near as bad as Jim Moriarty's childhood.... Something grim surely produced someone so damaged.

[Carol the Dabbler]

There has been conjecture (somewhere on this forum, though not necessarily on this thread) that the Holmes home wasn't always so homey.  Cumberbatch and Moftiss started to say something in a commentary about -- apparently -- Daddy Holmes having had an affair.

 

This may explain why Mummy seems to be in charge (i.e., he came crawling back), and may also explain "the other one" -- a half-sibling -- possibly named Moriarty?

 

[sherlockandjohn]

I've discussed the following in another thread: If Sherlock had premeditated killing Magnussen, would that have been better or worse (morally) than making the decision and carrying it out within a few minutes?

 

I don't know... The result is the same, but I think Sherlock would have become a "worse" (colder, more hard) person for it. If he was to suppress his conscience on the matter, he would have to harden himself - and in that moment when he shoots Magnussen, he must have done so. However, I think it would have done him even more harm (hardened him more) if he'd premeditated the murder for a while, thereby suppressing his conscience repeatedly; not just once, and with little time to reconsider.

 

Of course, Sherlock could be absolutely cold about it already; we don't know. I don't like to think so, but hey, Moffat says he would have shot him, so... why should "his" fictional character be any different? And I don't know what ACD would think...

[Slithytove]

I don't believe that Sherlock planned CAM's murder. I think it was supposed to be the act of a desperate man prepared to sacrifice himself for the people he loves. I think he would be a monster if he decided in cold-blood that he had the right to destroy those he hated. Maybe he does think he is monstrous, but I think we are intended to see he is wrong.

 

I'm intrigued that Moffat who says some strong things about killing people like CAM being fine and justifiable is the same man who is responsible for Dr Who, a character who has become increasingly troubled by his conscience and appalled by the use of violence even when it can't be avoided. Of course, that happens in practically every episode -it's an adventure, after all - but the Doctor no longer has his old gung-ho attitude to obliterating his enemies. He will do it, to protect the innocent, but the responsibility for the deaths he has caused - of the innocent and the guilty - weighs heavily upon him. Guilt has been a recurring theme, particularly for the last two Doctors.

 

I can't imagine Sherlock will be tortured by remorse, as we are clearly supposed to feel that he has slain the dragon. Of course, most of us have a knee-jerk reaction of "Yes! Good!" when the hero kills the bad guy. (Frankly, if I was Sherlock, I would have wanted to murder CAM after he insulted my country and had a pee in my fireplace.....). But I don't think he should have done it, even though he was motivated by the need to protect his friends. CAM wasn't an immediate threat to anyone's life, so there was time to find another way to immobilise him. I want Sherlock the genius, rather than Sherlock the action hero (which is why I hate the Guy Ritchie version.) Use your magnificent brain, Sherlock. A gun is too easy.

 

I've got to admit, though, it was a very effective climax to the plot build-up, and quite beautifully played. Sherlock surrendering and turning, in Mycroft's mind ( and Sherlock's?) into a frightened little boy, is one of my favourite scenes in the whole series.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I believe a moral case can be made for carefully examining (and regretfully eliminating) all other options before resorting to violence.  True, that means the killing is premeditated.  But if the only alternative is to sit back and watch CAM continue to ruin innocent lives such as Lord Smallwood, how is that more moral?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

But if the only alternative is to sit back and watch CAM continue to ruin innocent lives such as Lord Smallwood, how is that more moral?

 

  This is what has kind of been nagging at me. Sherlock seems to have been under the microscope but little has said about CAM and his morals or lack there of.

[Slithytove]

It isn't moral to blackmail people, of course, or to commit any sort of crime. However, killing people because they commit crimes surely can't be justified. Even if you believe in the death penalty for murder, surely you wouldn't want it extended to crimes like blackmail. Nor would most people want it to be carried out by self-appointed vigilantes.

 

I don't feel the same moral revulsion over Sherlock shooting CAM that I feel over Mary shooting Sherlock, as CAM was clearly a villain and the motive was to save other people's lives whereas Sherlock was an innocent friend and the motive was to preserve her lifestyle, i.e. as a free woman whose husband did not know about her past. Doesn't mean it was right, though.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Even if you believe in the death penalty for murder, surely you wouldn't want it extended to crimes like blackmail.

 

  The thing is, CAM was directly responsible for people dying. I doubt Lord Smallwood was the first nor would he have been the last if somehow he wasn't stopped. We have Mycroft's comments in the front yard sharing a smoke with Sherlock. "A necessary evil"  and "He never harmed anyone of consequence".  So yeah, CAM was not only doing harm to people but was being protected, aided and abetted.

[Arcadia]

I believe a moral case can be made for carefully examining (and regretfully eliminating) all other options before resorting to violence.  True, that means the killing is premeditated.  But if the only alternative is to sit back and watch CAM continue to ruin innocent lives such as Lord Smallwood, how is that more moral?

Okay, gonna keep stirring the pot here.... 

 

Are some lives forfeit because we as a society deem that the evil done by some persons is greater than the evil of taking lives?

 

Obviously, yes, we as a society have and will continue to make that judgement. Over such things are wars fought.

 

But is it different if an individual makes that decision, rather than "we the society"? Can an individual have the "authority" to decide who deserves death? Should one? If yes, where does that authority stop? If no, what should the consequences be for that individual if they take a life anyway?

 

Analyze and discuss. Papers due Friday at 3 p.m. Points will be taken off for poor spelling.

[T.o.b.y]

I want Sherlock the genius, rather than Sherlock the action hero (which is why I hate the Guy Ritchie version.) Use your magnificent brain, Sherlock. A gun is too easy.

 

Oh, me too. Couldn't agree more. I only like how the Magnussen case turned out because I think it's an appropriate twist on the original plot and because I see it as an interesting exception to the general rule of how Holmes solves problems - his own and other people's. This should be a one-time occurrence, as it is in "canon".

 

A gun is too easy. Which is why for me, it does not even count. Just like in the case of Irene Adler, I feel that this was a "game" Sherlock in effect lost. Which is okay. I want him to be strong, of course, but if he always won, there would be no suspense left on the show. Especially since we know he can't die.

 

[Arcadia]

Me three.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Are some lives forfeit because we as a society deem that the evil done by some persons is greater than the evil of taking lives?

 

Obviously, yes, we as a society have and will continue to make that judgement....

 

But is it different if an individual makes that decision, rather than "we the society"? Can an individual have the "authority" to decide who deserves death?

To loosely quote Thomas Jefferson, a just government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, meaning that there is no "society" apart from the individual citizens. So what you're talking about is majority rule, which is a double-edged sword -- while I'll readily admit that I'd far rather live in a democracy than in a dictatorship, there are occasions when a well-informed dictator could make a far better choice than the ignorant masses.

 

Maybe this is one of those cases?  Sherlock has inside knowledge of what CAM has already done, and also of what he intends to do -- but no proof of either, so going through channels is not an option.

 

[Slithytove]

 

 

Even if you believe in the death penalty for murder, surely you wouldn't want it extended to crimes like blackmail.

The thing is, CAM was directly responsible for people dying. I doubt Lord Smallwood was the first nor would he have been the last if somehow he wasn't stopped. We have Mycroft's comments in the front yard sharing a smoke with Sherlock. "A necessary evil" and "He never harmed anyone of consequence". So yeah, CAM was not only doing harm to people but was being protected, aided and abetted.

CAM exploited his position as a newspaper magnate to gain power over people. Some people would say that real life press barons do the same. And, even if it is just for the sake of a good story which will sell newspapers rather than for personal power, they will print stories which hurt people. Some of those people might even feel driven to take their own lives. Is it okay to kill the people who print damaging stories? Is it only okay if it can be proved the story was the catalyst for someone's suicide?

 

Does it make a difference that CAM doesn't print the story if people do what he wants? If so, what's the reason?

 

Is it okay to kill him if he says he will use the information he possesses to put someone in danger? Even though we don't know if he really would? (We know he put John in a bonfire, for which he should certainly go to prison, but he claimed he would not have allowed him to die.). This is Sherlock's justification, as far as we know. A deeply emotional decision, and an impulsive one, I believe.

[T.o.b.y]

See? These discussions about "moral" points don't seem to bother people around here at all...

 

Okay, I'll try to explain how I feel about all this. Here goes:

 

- I don't believe anybody has the right to decide about life or death of anybody else except for the person to whom the life rightfully belongs. So suicide I think is okay, but no, repeat no other form of killing at all. If I believed in god, I guess I'd say that decision was up to him, but as I tend towards Sherlock's opinion on that point as voiced in The Sign of Three, I won't...

 

- Assuming that Magnussen was a real person, Sherlock had no right whatsoever to kill him. It wasn't even self-defense. It was just plain wrong. Of course by doing so, he prevented greater wrong, i.e. Magnussen driving people like Lord Smallwood to suicide (and that form of suicide is of course not okay, because it's basically indirect murder) or Magnussen ruining the lives of couples like John and Mary. There was no other way to stop Magnussen from playing his perfectly disgusting power games because the information he needed to do so was stored in his brain alone. So the only way to destroy the "vaults" was to eliminate the mind that held them. 

 

- Magnussen was not a person, he was a monster, the kind that only exists in fiction. Monsters were invented for heroes to kill. It's a concept I am not fond of at all and I am glad that at least Sherlock wasn't given a medal for what he did but that the law in the form of Mycroft and Lady Smallwood etc treated the whole occurrence as what it was - murder plain and simple.

 

- The story does not tell us that killing people is an okay thing to do or that it shouldn't have consequences. Mary suffers hugely just for her attempt to kill Magnussen and for wounding Sherlock. Sherlock is convicted and sent to exile and certain death for "executing" Magnussen, even though he did have a lot of grounds for justification.

 

- I don't expect Sherlock to do what is good and right, anyway. I like him much better as neither a hero nor a villain. I want him to be complex, complicated and morally murky. I'm perfectly happy with the fact that he is a much darker figure than the original Mr Holmes. The same goes for the rest of the characters. They should feel real and genuine. Which means they can and will make bad choices or do wrong things. Like real people. Only more so. I don't watch this show for moral guidance. I like to think I know where to get that when I need it and it's certainly not on television.

[Slithytove]

I like Sherlock too, because.....well, all right, I just love him as a character, and the fact that he is played by an exceptionally beautiful man doesn't hurt either ...... But I like the fact that, however wrong his actions may be, his motives are good. I would even go as far as saying that they're noble. I don't want to get too deep into the Mary debate again but that, I think, is where they part company. Both do things which are wrong but one does them to save the lives of others and accepts the consequences, the other to protect herself and escape retribution. Do you think Mary suffers hugely for her actions? I thought she got off extremely lightly whereas Sherlock presumably expects a life sentence and gets handed a death sentence instead.

 

I don't think it's a case of looking for moral guidance. I can't say I consciously think about morality on a day to day basis (I think I've used the word "moral" more times on this forum than at any other time in my life!). But, when you start unravelling the strands of a story, you realise that life is about making moral choices all the time. We are always deciding, usually without consciously thinking about it, what is right and wrong and what choice we are going to make. It is just that few of us face major choices such as whether we are going to kill someone or not.

[T.o.b.y]

Do you think Mary suffers hugely for her actions? I thought she got off extremely lightly whereas Sherlock presumably expects a life sentence and gets handed a death sentence instead.

 

Hm, well, what I think I meant was that the story is very unkind to her. None of her plans work out. She is forced to shoot the one man she presumably truly loves beside her husband, thus causing her husband considerable pain, while having to leave the man she truly hates alive. She is badly humiliated by both the men she loves, she is forced to submit to them passing judgement on her and has to wait months before John deigns to speak to her again, at which point he defines the terms of their future relationship and reduces her to the crying pregnant housewife (maybe also nurse working under him as a boss) he though he had bargained for. Nobody bothers to ask about her reasons, her motives, anything. And then Sherlock goes and kills Magnussen anyway, making a huge splash and drama out of something she could have achieved so much more neatly and quietly if he had only let her be.

 

Funny, I really don't mind what happened to Irene Adler, but I do get pretty indignant about Mary, who, one might argue, has a lot more to answer for...