Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

That seems to be Mofftiss's response to the fandom...."don't be over thinking this stuff".  But oh well....sometimes you just can't help playing "the devil's advocate" from time to time.

[Carol the Dabbler]

That seems to be Mofftiss's response to the fandom...."don't be over thinking this stuff".  But oh well....sometimes you just can't help playing "the devil's advocate" from time to time.

 

 

I sometimes get the feeling that they're telling us, "Don't be smart -- we're the smart ones!"

 

But what kind of audience do they expect?

[Janie]

Yeah, especially when we have so few episodes and so much time to think about them

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

If they don't understand that Sherlock Holmes inspires intellectual debate and scrutiny by now.....then they are missing a big point of Holmes's effect on science, literature and media. Which would be a bit surprising seeing their own brilliant rendering of the canon to the 21st Century....but we all have our "dumb" moments.

[T.o.b.y]

That seems to be Mofftiss's response to the fandom...."don't be over thinking this stuff".

 

Now, that is almost an insult. Of course it is a bit ridiculous to break one's head over a TV series made for entertainment and adapted from old detective stories of questionable quality which even the author did not think worth much beyond a source of ready cash. And I'm certainly not holding the authors responsible for my flights of fancy and wonderment. But if I were them, I'd be flattered if my audience made such extensive use of my work. Just like, if I were a dressmaker, I'd rather my customers wore my clothes every day and everywhere until they fell apart rather than just once for an occasion and then hung them in their closets and forgot about them! Really, if you don't want people to think, make "crap telly" like everybody else - you certainly won't catch me pondering what I see on daily television in my home country for hours on end. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Unless it's all reverse psychology. "We'll say one thing knowing full well that you're going to be going off on this and that's what it's all about. This Sherlock Holmes thing has been around for 160 years so we know that there really is something going on with it. It keeps drawing people in and that's what we were counting on." ?

[Slithytove]

Half the fun of being a fan of a show like Sherlock - and of ACD's novels, of course - is pondering all the questions raised and coming up with hypothetical answers. Inevitably, in the course of all this thinking, all sorts of apparent plot holes are revealed. (I suppose that, from Moftiss's viewpoint, it is a bit aggravating - not unlike Anderson's response to Sherlock's explanation of the Fall.)

 

I do think that it's reasonable to wonder why the general public would be concerned if Jim popped up on every screen (besides wondering what the hell was wrong with their tvs.). He might be recognisable from his trial or from the Richard Brook part of Sherlock's supposed suicide, but I don't see why anyone not directly involved with him would be unduly worried by the sight of his face. After all, being the hidden centre of an evil empire was supposed to be the point of being a consulting criminal, wasn't it?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Unless Moriarty set up some kind of "end game" to be set in motion in case of his demise by someone inside his "organization"?  But it still doesn't quiet explain everyone's reaction to the media take over by his image. As if they did know who he was.....so it's a plot hole....or is a calculated part of the reveal in Season Four....hopefully.

[Arcadia]

Unless it's all reverse psychology. "We'll say one thing knowing full well that you're going to be going off on this and that's what it's all about. This Sherlock Holmes thing has been around for 160 years so we know that there really is something going on with it. It keeps drawing people in and that's what we were counting on." ?

"Is it a bluff? Or a double bluff? Or a triple bluff?"

[T.o.b.y]

I do think that it's reasonable to wonder why the general public would be concerned if Jim popped up on every screen (besides wondering what the hell was wrong with their tvs.). He might be recognisable from his trial or from the Richard Brook part of Sherlock's supposed suicide, but I don't see why anyone not directly involved with him would be unduly worried by the sight of his face. After all, being the hidden centre of an evil empire was supposed to be the point of being a consulting criminal, wasn't it?

 

I find myself agreeing with you quite a lot lately! My point exactly, only I lack the talent to put it into words like that.

 

Hm, attempting an in-universe explanation: When Moriarty was on trial, Sherlock's witness statement apparently got a lot of media coverage. And he said quite clearly (if rather vaguely) that Moriarty was head of a vast and dangerous criminal organization. Sherlock already had a considerable following at the time. After his death, he must have become even more famous, and I presume more popular, especially with people who had never met him face to face and only knew of him as the brilliant detective who had contributed largely to the city's safety. Then, when it was revealed that "Richard Brook" was a fictional persona invented by Moriarty to discredit Sherlock and drive him to suicide, of course a large portion of the public must have gotten a pretty frightening impression of Jim, especially if the media at that time happened to dig up all the old stories about him that Sherlock mentioned at the trial, now more believable than ever after Sherlock's vindication.

 

[Slithytove]

Not at all! You express yourself very clearly.

 

I think your explanation is the only one that makes sense. The public have to have been exposed to more stories about Jim, presumably during the hiatus, otherwise why would they care? Maybe it was part of Mycroft's strategy to clear Sherlock's name prior to his return. If the brothers planned to let Jim destroy Sherlock's reputation, presumably they also planned how they would rebuild it.

 

So the public know enough about Jim to be scared of him.....because Mycroft planned it? because Jim planned it?....and Jim is now either exploiting the bad publicity or deliberately set it up for reasons of his own? Could be either, I suppose, though Jim originally preferred to stay distant and hidden. ("No- one ever gets to me and no-one ever will.") In fact, when you think about it, it is strange that he came up with a plan that put him in the spotlight of a headline-making trial.

[Arcadia]

 In fact, when you think about it, it is strange that he came up with a plan that put him in the spotlight of a headline-making trial.

Unless his own oblivion was his end game all along, which I somehow got the impression it was. But then, I'm still favoring the theory that the "returning" Jim is a different person from "our" Jim. No evidence either way, mind you, just a personal preference.

[sherlockandjohn]

Oh, I think many of us acknowledge that murder is never an acceptable solution... in real life I winced, too, when Sherlock pulled that trigger, but then I got caught up in my "oh-Sherlock-you-were-willing-to-sacrifice-your-own-future-for-your-friends"-hero-worship

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

While killing is does go against the grain, how many times has it been done in either self defense or in defense of those who cannot stand up for themselves.

 

 The little girl in Texas who is home alone when two men break in she flees up stairs and they start coming for her. She is able to grab her father's shot gun and kills one. She doesn't know if they are armed or not, but she knows they could over power her and hurt her....even kill her.

 

 The boy recently opens the door to a hysterical woman saying that a man is trying to kill her. He lets her in and herds her and his sisters into the bathroom locks them in then grabs a weapon to stand guard over them.

 

You do what you have to do in the moment and damn the consequences. Sherlock was able and capable of doing just that.

 

We can say that killing is wrong and it is.....unless someone you love is being threatened and you have the ways and means to do something about it and passions are running high enough to accomplish it. 

[sherlockandjohn]

Your examples, Fox, are slightly more complicated that Sherlock's situation... Or maybe they're actually less complicated... What I mean is that it's more understandable to pick up a gun in your examples, whereas with Sherlock I'm more biased. John and Mary are not necessarily in imminent danger... but of course it's highly likely that Magnussen will use his information against them... and highly unlikely that he won't!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh I think it was quite clear what Magnussen was going to do. He had already threatened John. Saying that if John did allow Magnussen to torment him, he could easily have Mary killed.  He mentioned having Sherlock and John imprisoned for treason....he could print lies and no one questioned it. He could do what he wanted to whole countries.  He boasted about it. He was not going to let any of this go. He now held the sword, not only over Sherlock and John and Mary's neck, but Mycroft's as well. And once he had Mycroft....he had England.

 

 The danger was clear and imminent.

[throwAway_12345678]

We should probably stop discussing HLV episode here. Either move the discussion to the HLV page or end it.

 

btw Bakerstreet Irregular your thought process is amazing. I think almost/exactly the same and agree with you almost every time.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Of course we are seeing at "His Last Vow" through Mofftiss's eyes and interpretation of canon story, "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton".  Not as Conan Doyle wrote it. So who ever did the world the favor was going to get away with it no matter what.

 

  And no one is saying that this was simple.....or uncomplicated....it certainly wasn't for Sherlock.

 

 This is why "Caring is not an advantage"  but it. through John, had made a such a difference in Sherlock's life...and Sherlock would protect that....again....no matter what. He counted the cost and took it.

[Zain]

 

Oh I think it was quite clear what Magnussen was going to do. He had already threatened John. Saying that if John did allow Magnussen to torment him, he could easily have Mary killed.  He mentioned having Sherlock and John imprisoned for treason....he could print lies and no one questioned it. He could do what he wanted to whole countries.  He boasted about it. He was not going to let any of this go. He now held the sword, not only over Sherlock and John and Mary's neck, but Mycroft's as well. And once he had Mycroft....he had England.

 

 The danger was clear and imminent.

 

I strongly disagree. Nothing personal but I consider hurting another being only justified when there is an imminent endangerment of a person's life (and I disagree with your definition of imminent). While law can be flawed, I consider it a good example in this case:

 

If somebody threatens a person with a knife, you are allowed to attack them with self-defense in mind. You are not allowed to stab them twenty times in the gut.

If you meet someone on a street, and you remember that they threatened another person with a knife four months ago, you are NOT allowed to attack them. It is not self-defense as long as there is no IMMINENT danger. Imminent means present and very near future (minutes, not days).

 

Just like that, it is not justified to kill somebody because they threaten to kill somebody else. A threat alone is not sufficient to justify self-defense. They haven't done anything wrong yet. Magnussen has done bad things before. Yes. But that particular "danger" which would justify killing him in self-defense did not happen yet. Sherlock's action cannot be excused, no matter what his motives may be. Magnussen hasn't taken any action whatsoever. He has simply stated his intentions.

 

The only reason why I consider Sherlock's kill not quite as despicable as Mary's action in HLV is because Sherlock knows it is wrong, and that it is not justified. Not once does he complain about the punishment he is to receive. Not on-screen, at least. He clearly has a selfless motive, and he has a better understanding of morals. I repeat: I don't consider it sufficient reason to hurt Magnussen, but he at least is willing to bear the consequences of his actions.

 

I know law works differently in many countries, but I believe the examples I used above are universally accepted in most European countries. A threat never justifies self-defense. Only action does. Self-defense is reaction. That's, for example, why there are few ways to intervene in domestic abuse cases when you cannot prove anything but verbal abuse.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, he knows it's wrong....and I'm not disputing that. Never have I said it was premeditated because it wasn't. To Mofftiss, yes, it was. They have said as much in interviews and that is what I felt so strongly about.

 

  Like I said, Sherlock struggled with it...had to talk himself into it. Saw no other way out of it....but as I also said...he counted the cost and owned it and yes, he was going to take his punishment like a man. I never disputed that either. But it doesn't make him a bad person either. It's a mistake he won't make again. He's not a villain and he's not a cold blooded killer.

 

 But we are talking about a fictional character in a fictional universe where he was a force unto himself. In canon he was given a lot of lee way. "I am not the law, but I represent justice". He had some kind of power under someone in authority. Some people  may not agree with it...but in "Sherlock" he didn't get fully away with it as he would have and did in canon. 

 

 In "Sherlock" he gets "rescued" from prison by Lady Smallwood and Mycroft, supposedly a one way ticket to death. But I bet, as others have stated in these threads, that Mycroft wasn't going to just let Sherlock die without a good fight. Sherlock had clout and everyone would be scurrying to get him to a safe haven somewhere. Maybe another detective agency under an assumed name and identity. Or, more likely, Mycroft would finally have Sherlock "on his side" exactly were he wanted him and then Sherlock could moonlight for the CIA and such.

 

 But then, Sherlock get rescued from that drudgery by who ever is behind the Moriarty "Did you miss me?" gif. Lucky Sherlock, to bad for Mycroft. Foiled again in his attempt to gather his younger brother into his fold.

[T.o.b.y]

 

I strongly disagree. Nothing personal but I consider hurting another being only justified when there is an imminent endangerment of a person's life (and I disagree with your definition of imminent). While law can be flawed, I consider it a good example in this case:

 

If somebody threatens a person with a knife, you are allowed to attack them with self-defense in mind. You are not allowed to stab them twenty times in the gut.

If you meet someone on a street, and you remember that they threatened another person with a knife four months ago, you are NOT allowed to attack them. It is not self-defense as long as there is no IMMINENT danger. Imminent means present and very near future (minutes, not days).

 

Just like that, it is not justified to kill somebody because they threaten to kill somebody else. A threat alone is not sufficient to justify self-defense. They haven't done anything wrong yet. Magnussen has done bad things before. Yes. But that particular "danger" which would justify killing him in self-defense did not happen yet. Sherlock's action cannot be excused, no matter what his motives may be. Magnussen hasn't taken any action whatsoever. He has simply stated his intentions.

 

Funny, in general, I fully agree with you, but for some reason, the killing of Charles Augustus Magnussen has become one of my favorite "Sherlock" scenes. Why? Hard to say. Perhaps:

 

- Because I admire the cleverness of the authors in how they made it necessary: In the original stories, after the villain has been shot by somebody else, Holmes destroys the contents of Milvertons's safe, all the compromising information he had on the people he blackmailed. In His Last Vow, by making those "vaults" solely the contents of Magnussen's brain, the only way to destroy them is to make sure that brain will no longer function. So his death there actually makes more sense, dramatically, than it did in the original, where it is little more than an act of revenge.

 

- Because I love it when they show Sherlock's potential for darkness. I love his heroic moments, but I don't want him to be a real "good guy". On the side of the angels, but really not one of them.

 

- Because I do not believe that people like Magnussen exist in real life. Only in fiction could there be a creature so thoroughly vile. So I have no problem with him being killed, because I don't believe there ever could be a parallel case in reality; I don't see that scene in His Last Vow as legitimizing or glorifying any real life violence, because the situation is in itself impossible.

 

 

[Arcadia]

 

 

I strongly disagree. Nothing personal but I consider hurting another being only justified when there is an imminent endangerment of a person's life (and I disagree with your definition of imminent). While law can be flawed, I consider it a good example in this case:

 

If somebody threatens a person with a knife, you are allowed to attack them with self-defense in mind. You are not allowed to stab them twenty times in the gut.

If you meet someone on a street, and you remember that they threatened another person with a knife four months ago, you are NOT allowed to attack them. It is not self-defense as long as there is no IMMINENT danger. Imminent means present and very near future (minutes, not days).

 

Just like that, it is not justified to kill somebody because they threaten to kill somebody else. A threat alone is not sufficient to justify self-defense. They haven't done anything wrong yet. Magnussen has done bad things before. Yes. But that particular "danger" which would justify killing him in self-defense did not happen yet. Sherlock's action cannot be excused, no matter what his motives may be. Magnussen hasn't taken any action whatsoever. He has simply stated his intentions.

 

The only reason why I consider Sherlock's kill not quite as despicable as Mary's action in HLV is because Sherlock knows it is wrong, and that it is not justified. Not once does he complain about the punishment he is to receive. Not on-screen, at least. He clearly has a selfless motive, and he has a better understanding of morals. I repeat: I don't consider it sufficient reason to hurt Magnussen, but he at least is willing to bear the consequences of his actions.

 

I know law works differently in many countries, but I believe the examples I used above are universally accepted in most European countries. A threat never justifies self-defense. Only action does. Self-defense is reaction. That's, for example, why there are few ways to intervene in domestic abuse cases when you cannot prove anything but verbal abuse.

 

YES.

 

The first time I saw this episode, I was physically in pain at that moment, because I didn't want to see a beloved character reduced to such a brutish level, and because I "knew" he did it for love. But I thought it was a wonderfully emotional moment, and it worked.

 

What really bothered me was the later implications that somehow Sherlock was justified in his actions. That somehow he has the authority to end a life and not suffer any consequences. That he could walk away from it without regrets. (This was more or less what Moffat said in an interview.) I don't want it to overshadow everything that happens in the future, but my personal preference would be to see a scene where it's acknowledged that he crossed a line that should never have been crossed .... and he somehow has to find a way back from that, or fail as a man.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

would be to see a scene where it's acknowledged that he crossed a line that should never have been crossed .... and he somehow has to find a way back from that, or fail as a man.

 

  For me that came with the tears on his face. He knew he did wrong and it was something that he hadn't wanted to do. His resigned nature at the airport. He said that this mission would last 6 months and that in this Mycroft was never wrong. He expected to be dead but he accepted it fully without any sniveling nor making excuses.

 

 He didn't involve John or Mary. He shouldered the responsibility of his actions and faced the consequences.

 

 And even in a real court of law remorse will go a long way with the judge and jury. The courts even will take the testimony of character witnesses into account and I can imagine people lined up for city blocks just to give their testimony on Sherlock's behave.

 

 But he didn't back down, he took his sentence like the man he is, with dignity and panache.

[Arcadia]

Yes, that is an excellent point too. And now that you bring it up, I seem to remember that's the way I saw it at the time. I guess that's one of the perils of reading interviews and joining a forum -- in the presence of so many other theories, you begin to doubt your own instincts. But I like your take, it feels right to me -- thanks, I feel better! (I would still like to see him do something to redeem himself tho ....  mostly because I love redemption stories, I suspect. :-)

 

By the way, I assume this discussion was transplanted from the one in the "Scandal" thread ... I warned you all earlier I was known as "The Instigator!"

[Arcadia]

Huh. Joss Whedon must watch Sherlock too, he just used the same plot device. (Am watching SHIELD at the moment.) But they've already, in 2 minutes, explored the consequences more. Joss, you da bomb .....