Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Zain]

 

 

So, I have no idea how noble or not Mary is supposed to be. Thanks to Dr Watson's willful ignorance on the matter, we have learned nil about her past, her motivation, anything. She might be a brave dragon slayer trying her best to keep her family safe and happy and not drag them into her mess. Or she might be a selfish, cold-blooded, psychopath killer. Or something else altogether. I don't have a preferred version at this point, I just really want to find out.

 

About all those parallels between Mary and Sherlock. Well, it was to be expected that any woman John Watson would fall seriously in love and have a long-term relationship with would bear some resemblance to the great detective. There can't be too many kinds of people who'd be able to cope with John on a daily basis. But Mary comes across as much more pragmatic than Sherlock. I very much doubt she has "the heart of a poet" and nobody can accuse her of being a drama queen... I think she's a lot like John, too.

 

 

Oh, and that shot. Was it really such a selfish action? What would have happened if Mary hadn't shot Sherlock? If he stepped in to help her and confront Magnussen, he'd have automatically become her accomplice. Magnussen would have called the police and gotten them both arrested for armed burglary at the very least, if not attempted murder. And John would most likely have become involved in that, too. If Sherlock had called the police himself and taken Magnussen's side as the victim, he would have been responsible for getting Mary in big trouble and ruining John's marriage. You could argue Mary did Sherlock a favor by shooting him.

 

 

You have very good points, as always. Yes. John kind of takes any redemptive power from Mary when he throws her "explanation" away. Some people have called it a romantic gesture. Some a selfish action. Both, in a way, is true. I've come to terms with that. I think they really wanted to keep her in the series, and they had to somehow hide her past but make it seem like it doesn't matter anymore. So let's have John state that the audience now is supposed to think of her as poor, redeemed housewife Watson. Otherwise it would be too suspicious and foreshadow season three.

But I wonder: If she really was a dragon slayer instead of a black sheep - why not tell us? Why not tell John?

Interestingly, many have proposed that the thumbdrive was empty and some sort of test of Mary's. After all, it says A.G.R.A. I agree that this is possible. But some have proposed another version (and since then, I like this better). Mary is A.G.R.A. And A.G.R.A. is, as we know from canon, empty. It could be a nice hint that Mary is faking her pregnancy. I would be really happy if it came to that. I neither want a child in the show, nor do I want to see parentlock. I might read stuff like this in fanfictions. But I expect better from canon. 

 

Seriously, I never expected them to make Mary into some version of Sherlock. I don't think it a wise decision, either. It's a bit like... mockery. Of the fandom. Because it's like saying "John would love Sherlock if Sherlock was female. But Sherlock is male, so John doesn't love him." I don't have problems with Johnlock. And I don't have problems with Kinsley-Scale-1 John. I actually liked Sarah. But I really don't like this hidden message behind "Mary has to be like Sherlock but with the right bits so that John can love her." And yes, I read too much into everything I wish I got paid for it.

 

I understand your point about Mary's shot, too, but I cannot but think of it as selfishness. If she had not done anything, yes, she would have ended up in prison. But Sherlock would not have been hurt. She hurt an innocent person. Sherlock had no part in her gory past. He isn't at fault. She chooses to hurt someone to protect herself at the risk of hurting/killing that person. That's, in my opinion, inherently wrong.

If I was being blackmailed, and let's be very optimistic, for something I didn't do. And I decided to confront that person, and I only carried a gun by chance with no intention to harm that person whatsoever, and I found an entrance by chance instead of breaking in. I haven't done anything wrong. Yet. If someone then sees me, and I suspect that person wants to report me to the authorities for, from his perspective, attempted murder. It does not justify me shooting him. Nothing justifies shooting someone who is not actively threatening your life. To me, this is mind-boggling. Maybe because I am European. Maybe it's different in America, for example, where one's right to do what one wants to do is called freedom, and where it is justified to shoot multiple times at stupid teenagers that break into a garage (nothing against Americans in general! I know not everybody thinks like that! I am using this example because Mary is supposed to be American). But this is simply inconceivable to me. Just as inconceivable as why someone would willingly keep a gun at one's home.

To me, pulling the trigger while aiming at a living, feeling being is never justified unless there is truly no other way to protect oneself from severe harm or death. And it still does not warrant a kill. Only a shot intended to incapacitate. If someone shoots at a person's thorax or abdominal area - that is not meant to incapacitate. In court, unless there was a lot of movement or other circumstances that prevented the shooter from taking better aim, only extremities are seen as spots to incapacitate. Even police men face severe consequences if they appear to be using more force than needed. Mary definitely used more force than needed, even if it did qualify as self-defense (which, imo, it doesn't). 

But I completely disagree on the notion that it would have been Sherlock's fault if John and Mary had divorced in case he had taken Magnussen's side. Mary lied to John without consulting Sherlock. She committed the mistakes in her past without consulting Sherlock. If they divorced, it would have been Mary's fault. Mary's fault for hiding her past and lying to John. And Mary's fault for assaulting Magnussen. Which in itself is a crime. She commits a crime to hide her crimes. Well done, Mary, I totally see how much you feel bad about your past, and how much you want to change yourself...

 

 

I thought John mentioned that somewhere in the scene when they get back from the "Empty House" and John keeps telling Sherlock to shut up. He didn't say "She shot you!"?

 

Just rewatched it. And yes, you're right. He only tells Sherlock to shut up.

There's never any mention of the fact that she shot Sherlock outside of Sherlock explaining the surgery theory. John never mentions it, nor does he confront Mary about this particularly deed.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, well, obviously you have to buy the "surgery" theory to give Mary any kind of a chance. And I do because... well, because Sherlock said so and I usually believe he's right. Only it is confusing that they spent minutes and minutes showing how Sherlock did, in fact, die, after all. I can only make sense of this by suspecting that it's meant to foreshadow Moriarty's survival from a near-but-not-quite fatal shot.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. It really depends on that. And I understand why people do believe Sherlock's theory, just as much as I do understand why people doubt his words. Personally, I am not convinced because of two facts ( outside of the minimal likeliness...):

No evidence. Sherlock's entire idea that Mary did not want him dead rests on the arrival time of the ambulance. It has been proposed before that Magnussen could have phoned the emergency service. It could simply be that there was already an ambulance nearby, maybe only a few blocks away. Sherlock never mentions that he checked any records. It's strange that everything is based on only one fact. And, well, it is quite fishy that Mary never mentions it in her defense. Or that she never confirms his theory. Everything Sherlock deduces about Mary's motives is based on the arrival time of the ambulance. Either it is a rather poor attempt at deduction by the writer, or it is one fueled by sentiment. I've gone into this once before, and it is boring to most, so I rest my case.

Second. Sherlock never explains why Mary came after him with a gun. He says she had no intention to kill him whatsoever. He claims she "saved him." I really wonder why he thought it necessary to have her picture projected on the house front if he truly believed that she had no intention to kill him whatsoever. To me, it seems like he wasn't quite sure. And he would not risk John's life like that. The writer explicitly tells us in Sherlock's words that the projection is a safeguard to keep Mary from shooting him (or rather: John). And only minutes later, Sherlock claims Mary had only the best of intentions. Doesn't add up. Until the writer admits it is a plot hole, I will doubt Sherlock's deductions. There's something decidedly off here.

 

Glad to have offered you the opportunity to get back onto this topic I can't say I enjoy discussing Mary and all of this. It just irks me sooo much... whenever I see this, my fingers itch with the need to write. And afterwards I always feel bad because it doesn't lead anywhere (and curse you, Moftiss, two years of this?... kidding.). 

[Slithytove]

I agree wholeheartedly that there is no justification for shooting someone unless you do so in defence and, even then, the intent should be to incapacitate rather than kill. As an assassin, Mary would be more than capable of aiming for the knee, for instance, and had no reason for aiming for the abdomen unless she meant to cause massive harm - unless, in fact, she meant to kill. And, of course, he does die in surgery, and possibly again on the floor of 221b.

 

The "surgery" explanation irritates me so much that I will feel seriously short-changed if they don't tackle the subject in S4. It seems too far-fetched for Sherlock to really believe. I just hope he doesn't. As Zain points out, Mary's behaviour in the empty house doesn't square with the idea that she didn't mean to kill him, and Sherlock's projection of her image doesn't suggest he trusts her not to take another shot.

 

Regarding Mary as a dragon-slayer.....I suspect that that will be used to justify her previous killings. However, it can never justify her shooting an innocent, unarmed bystander - not to mention a friend. I don't care if she has an heroic past and dedicates her future to a life of saintly self-sacrifice. She shot Sherlock without pity or remorse, for her own selfish reasons, and that makes her unforgivable. (And that is what I wanted John to tell her, too!)

[Arcadia]

If I may ... these are all very well reasoned arguments, I love this stuff!  But I still have to go with T.o.b.y., and for pretty much the same reason; I still trust Sherlock, and he says Mary saved his life. So for myself, I have to theorize from that point outwards. If it turns out he's lying again I will become quite monstrous.

 

I also agree that I just don't know much about Mary yet. I'm amazed to learn that she is supposed to be like Sherlock! I didn't see that at all. She's down to earth; he's not. She's inclusive of John's friends; he's not. She sees thru Sherlock, but he obviously doesn't see thru her. She's a caregiver (nurse); I can't imagine Sherlock taking care of anyone. She (apparently) used to shoot people for a living; as far as I know Sherlock's always solved problems with his brain, not a gun. (Until CAM, of course.) The fact that they're both called "psychopaths" doesn't weigh much with me because that word is used so inaccurately in this show they may as well be saying "macaroni" when they say it.

 

What they have in common is John, who is attracted to ... whatever it's supposed to be. (Excitement? Danger? The Dark Side?) So I get that, but it didn't occur to me they were supposed to be mirrors of each other. Zain makes some good points in that regard, tho, I'll have to think about that some more.

 

Anyway, good debate, keep on keeping on!

 

Oh, and because it's a bit of a peeve of mine I can't help but say it again.... Mary didn't kill Sherlock, because he didn't die. His mind was functioning the whole time; ergo, not dead. Someone pointed out that brain death follows soon after the heart stops, but in this case it didn't. Not that I think that justifies Mary's actions, tho. Using a gun to solve a problem is dumb, period.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sherlock shoots an enemy to protect his friends - Mary shoots a friend to protect herself.

 

I can't argue with that -- well put.  But to me, Mary is still a big question mark, and I'm waiting to see what they make of her in Series 4.  (Maybe I'm just not a moralist at heart.)

 

... I don't know if they will present us with an answer in season 4 but to me, this is deliberate. They wanted us to fight over this. Well, at least to engage ourselves. I doubt they anticipated that it would harden the front lines.

I agree, surely Moftiss realized that the fans would take sides over Mary, and perhaps they consider that a very clever move, "making things more interesting." Frankly, it seems to me that they've taken a very intelligent, distinctive, entertaining program and reduced it a peg or two toward the current common denominator. I've heard a Doctor Who fan say that Moffat's reign started out with very high-quality plots, then degenerated to shock-value episodes, and that fan suspects that the BBC pressured Moffat to make the change. If he's right, that may be what's happening with Sherlock as well.

 

As Magnussen put it. Mycroft cares about Sherlock. Sherlock cares about John. John cares about Mary. And Mary cares about Mary. I agree that she likes John, but he is not her first priority. She's the end of the chain.

Interesting point.  And Mycroft is the other end of the chain.  Maybe Mary is more like Mycroft than she's like Sherlock?  I'm still uncertain how much Mycroft really cares for Sherlock -- that is, how much he cares for Sherlock as a person rather than for his national-security uses.

 

Why are we not allowed to get at least one good reason, or strike that, not even one bad reason for Mary's actions?

 

That makes me very suspicious that there's another big reveal coming, which may make it clear that Mary's actually OK after all, or contrariwise that she's really, really horrible.  (Or else they just never bothered to think it through.)

 

But some have proposed another version (and since then, I like this better). Mary is A.G.R.A. And A.G.R.A. is, as we know from canon, empty. It could be a nice hint that Mary is faking her pregnancy.

Kinda hard to fake an ultrasound scan. Of course, it's possible that Mary went in by herself and merely told John it was a girl. But no, I don't think so. For one thing, John told Sherlock "we've had a scan," and besides I cannot imagine John not wanting to see his kid.

 

I can't say I enjoy discussing Mary and all of this. It just irks me sooo much... whenever I see this, my fingers itch with the need to write. And afterwards I always feel bad because it doesn't lead anywhere (and curse you, Moftiss, two years of this?... kidding.).

I know we're usually representing opposite sides in this matter, but my sentiments exactly! (Well, maybe except for the "kidding" part!) When I see anything against John in particular, I feel like, "Hey, how dare you insult my friend?!" *sigh*

[T.o.b.y]

I know we're usually representing opposite sides in this matter, but my sentiments exactly! (Well, maybe except for the "kidding" part!) When I see anything against John in particular, I feel like, "Hey, how dare you insult my friend?!" *sigh*

 

 

Oh, sorry Carol! Really... I do love John. And I'm actually thrilled that he's not portrayed as an all-perfect saint, I love his prickly side. Also, I am sure the writers meant to show him in a really noble and romantic light when he tossed that flash drive into the fire, it just didn't work for me at all.

 

Hmmm... Arcadia, thanks for elaborating on the different personalities of Sherlock and Mary. That's what I meant by "she's more down to earth", only you put it into words so much better.

 

I don't think the intention was to imply that Mary is a female version of Sherlock because John would have just married him if he'd been a woman. Actually, what John implies at Baker St is that he married Mary because he thought she was completely unlike Sherlock... But John has just been through too much to settle for a quiet life and he wouldn't have been able to really connect with truly "nice, normal" woman. So no wonder he ends up with somebody "extraordinary". Mary just turns out to be of the same order of beings as Sherlock - and Moriarty, and Mycroft and John himself. She has to be, so she can become a member of the team.

 

 

[Arcadia]

... Nothing justifies shooting someone who is not actively threatening your life. To me, this is mind-boggling. Maybe because I am European. Maybe it's different in America, for example, where one's right to do what one wants to do is called freedom, and where it is justified to shoot multiple times at stupid teenagers that break into a garage (nothing against Americans in general! I know not everybody thinks like that! I am using this example because Mary is supposed to be American). But this is simply inconceivable to me. Just as inconceivable as why someone would willingly keep a gun at one's home.

Speaking as an American ... unfortunately, there are many people here who DO think like that. It is inconceivable to me as well. How can one's things be more important than someone else's life? I don't get it. It's a big, ugly stain on our culture, in my opinion ... and I know a lot of people who agree. But for some reason the gun users have the loudest voice. I do think that racism is a huge factor in all this, but don't get me started or we'll be here all week.

 

At any rate (ahem) I don't think in the show that anyone is saying that Mary was justified in shooting Sherlock. I think they are attempting to maneuver around the moral plane here, by focusing on how she shot him (in a way that would silence him temporarily but not kill him) rather than why she shot him. (Choose your theory.) Whether this is bad writing or a deliberate open door for further revelations remains to be seen. But even Sherlock knows it's not justified; "why didn't you come to me for help?" he asks her. I.e., why didn't you take the sensible course? We still don't know.

 

On the other hand, I've seen arguments that Sherlock was justified in killing CAM. I don't buy it, but the arguments are out there.

 

My initial reaction when I first saw HLV was that Moftiss were trying to make a different kind of point. In season 3 we saw Sherlock attempting to be more "normal" -- he's nice to Molly, he "chats" with John, he rejects Mycroft's way of thinking -- and he's more swayed by his emotions. The upside to this is he gets to enjoy having friends. The downside is -- it leads to murder. The death of CAM was not a cold-blooded calculation, it was an act of passion. Loathing, revulsion, hate ... those were the emotions on Sherlock's face as he pulled the trigger.

 

So I sort of thought this was a "be careful what you wish for" moment -- be careful in wishing that Sherlock would show love, because this is what it can lead to. And it was foreshadowed by Mary's actions.

 

After reading other people's thoughts on the episode that first reaction kind of died away, and I can see many other interpretations could be valid. But when I watched this episode again recently I had the same reaction -- this is about Sherlock's emotions, and about the audience's emotions, and plot logic be damned. So I find myself going along with the "in story" explanations, because they fit in with the emotional story, if not a logical one. In more critical moments I think they could have found a solution that ALSO makes sense, but I can't deny HLV packs a huge emotional wallop.

 

 

 

I thought John mentioned that somewhere in the scene when they get back from the "Empty House" and John keeps telling Sherlock to shut up. He didn't say "She shot you!"?

 

Just rewatched it. And yes, you're right. He only tells Sherlock to shut up.

There's never any mention of the fact that she shot Sherlock outside of Sherlock explaining the surgery theory. John never mentions it, nor does he confront Mary about this particularly deed.

 

After the paramedics arrive, when Sherlock tells John "we can trust Mary", that's when John says "She shot you!" Which Sherlock, in classic style, tries to turn into a joke before he collapses.

[Arcadia]

As Magnussen put it. Mycroft cares about Sherlock. Sherlock cares about John. John cares about Mary. And Mary cares about Mary. I agree that she likes John, but he is not her first priority. She's the end of the chain.

Or is she? I don't think we ever get to see CAM deduce Mary's "pressure points" (?) but at the wedding she reacts to the phrase "wish your family could see this" when Sherlock reads the message from CAM. I know some have said that means she has no family, but I can also read it as a veiled threat to her family.

[Slithytove]

Regarding the matter of Sherlock's death.......It rather depends on how you define death. According to the very informative medical meta on archiveofourown.org by cookieswillcrumble, the fact that the surgical team have stepped away from Sherlock after he flatlines means that they have called it, i.e. ceased attempts to resuscitate him and noted his time of death. What follows is, of course, little short of a miracle.

 

Obviously he wasn't brain dead, otherwise he could not have come back . However, when it is said of people "he was dead for three minutes", or whatever, before they have been revived (by emergency procedures, not by worrying about John Watson!), those people were clearly not brain dead either.

 

I would say that, in the eyes of his surgical team, Sherlock was dead and could not be resuscitated, which is why they had started to move away from him. Without the John-induced miracle, he would have been brain dead within minutes. So, yes, it is a very fine line but I think it is undeniable that Mary's bullet did a lot more than incapacitate him. To all intents and purposes, it killed him and he would have stayed dead if not for a rather unlikely act of will.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that made no sense to me, them stepping away as soon as he flatlined. They gave up much too easily. So I guess I just edit out that part as being a rather too obvious attempt to manipulate the audience. I prefer to be subtly manipulated!

 

Srsly, this is the writers trying to have their cake and eat it too, IMHO. They show the audience that Sherlock's died, then go and say Mary committed surgery, not murder. Make up your minds, Moftiss.

 

Hm, maybe Mary divined that Sherlock had a cancerous growth in that very spot, so she surgically removed it.

[Slithytove]

I assume that they were supposed to have worked on him for longer than we saw. After all, if you flatline, I don't think they just go, "Oh, you're dead.". So presumably they did try to resuscitate him and we just saw them at the point where they gave up and stepped away.

 

Now, if Mary really had performed surgery on him with a bullet, to destroy a tumour, that would be impressive.....

[Arcadia]

Either way, we have to guess, since we weren't shown the whole story.

By the way, I read somewhere that this was a real headline after all ..... Zain, you may be on to something!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Somewhere there is a post with a link to a meta that does go through this scene from a medical stand point. That the doctors would have been working on him for a lengthy period of time and sometimes after a prolonged amount of CPR it is actually when medics stop that the heart can relax and this is when it can start beating on it's own again. If there is no brain death.

 

  And thank you, Arcadia for finding that point at which John does actually say...."She shot you".  I knew I heard that somewhere in there but wasn't sure after I posted that it was the right scene....but I thought it was.....and it's nice to know I wasn't wrong.

[Carol the Dabbler]

No, Fox, you weren't hallucinating!
 
One point where I heartily concur with wellingtongoose is the "CPR" they did on Sherlock -- it's so obviously what I (having taken a course in the real thing) call "TVR" -- just sort of playing patty-cake on his chest.  As WG said, they should have shown a closeup of them doing real CPR on a dummy.
 
 

Oh, sorry Carol! Really... I do love John. And I'm actually thrilled that he's not portrayed as an all-perfect saint, I love his prickly side. Also, I am sure the writers meant to show him in a really noble and romantic light when he tossed that flash drive into the fire, it just didn't work for me at all.

Oh, no problem -- I actually agree with every bit of that. It's just that every now and then (not so much lately) someone makes a point like John has lost his moral bearings, has betrayed Sherlock, etc.  They're certainly entitled to their opinion -- but it does make my typing fingers itch!  Which is silly, actually, since it's just a tv show, but as Zain said before, I just can't restrain myself.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

It's just that every now and then (not so much lately) someone makes the point that John has lost his moral bearings, has betrayed Sherlock, etc. That's what makes my typing fingers itch!

 

  I agree because that is not what I see at all. John is still mad....excuse my language....as hell....at Mary months after the reveal and the shooting.  He may be trying to forgive but clearly he isn't there yet....not fully...and he may not for a long time longer...he also says that....very clearly.

[Caya]

*cough* airfield scene *cough*

 

No, I'm not starting on that again . I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this.

[T.o.b.y]

... and thank goodness we don't have to. I doubt that we'll ever get a definite statement out of the show what exactly was supposed to be going on there, so we can all happily continue to see our preferred version of events.

 

I can't decide whether I think Sherlock broke his "first and last vow" by maneuvering himself into that situation. Obviously, if he left the country on a suicide mission, he'd be unable to "always be there" for the three Watsons. On the other hand, I can't think of any other way he could have protected them than shooting Magnussen in the head and destroying his "vaults". At that point, Magnussen was all set to have Sherlock imprisoned, anyway, and possibly John as well. At least by killing him, Sherlock managed to keep John out of it all.

[Zain]

So many great comments. Um, so, I take my pick...

(Kind of amazing that we still have something to discuss almost half a year since the episode aired.)

 

 

 

 

Oh, and because it's a bit of a peeve of mine I can't help but say it again.... Mary didn't kill Sherlock, because he didn't die. His mind was functioning the whole time; ergo, not dead. Someone pointed out that brain death follows soon after the heart stops, but in this case it didn't. Not that I think that justifies Mary's actions, tho. Using a gun to solve a problem is dumb, period

 

I know slithytove already answered this but just a short word paragraph: The legal definition of "death" after cardiac arrest is different from country to country. That's why some really get cross to read that Mary killed Sherlock, while others fervently argue that she did. Neither is wrong. It depends on one's own understanding, and on what one's culture "preaches." I apologize if I offended you before. 

 

 

 

 

As Magnussen put it. Mycroft cares about Sherlock. Sherlock cares about John. John cares about Mary. And Mary cares about Mary. I agree that she likes John, but he is not her first priority. She's the end of the chain.

Interesting point.  And Mycroft is the other end of the chain.  Maybe Mary is more like Mycroft than she's like Sherlock?  I'm still uncertain how much Mycroft really cares for Sherlock -- that is, how much he cares for Sherlock as a person rather than for his national-security uses.
 

 

But some have proposed another version (and since then, I like this better). Mary is A.G.R.A. And A.G.R.A. is, as we know from canon, empty. It could be a nice hint that Mary is faking her pregnancy.

Kinda hard to fake an ultrasound scan. Of course, it's possible that Mary went in by herself and merely told John it was a girl. But no, I don't think so. For one thing, John told Sherlock "we've had a scan," and besides I cannot imagine John not wanting to see his kid.
 

I can't say I enjoy discussing Mary and all of this. It just irks me sooo much... whenever I see this, my fingers itch with the need to write. And afterwards I always feel bad because it doesn't lead anywhere (and curse you, Moftiss, two years of this?... kidding.).

I know we're usually representing opposite sides in this matter, but my sentiments exactly! (Well, maybe except for the "kidding" part!) When I see anything against John in particular, I feel like, "Hey, how dare you insult my friend?!" *sigh*

 

 

 

An interesting idea. Mycroft and Mary as similiar characters. Well, certainly one can find similiarities. Personally, I've rarely thought of Mycroft as a "real character." He is mostly used as a plot device. It's why I've become interested in him. He represents two roles: brother and "government." We never get to see a different side, the character Mycroft outside of those two roles (season three offers some glimpses but nothing concrete). If we do not interpret his actions, he barely qualifies as a flat character. On the other hand, if we interpret his actions, he becomes one of the major players. I suppose that's why I am anxious to see where they'll take him. He has the makings of a great character even if probably not a good one. To me, it seems like Moftiss (or maybe only Gatiss) have painstakingly set up his character in a way that keeps him from intruding on the show. Yet there are webs everywhere. As if we are not supposed to see the greater picture. Yet?

I would really like to see his roles collide head-on. I can't say for sure that's what's in store for us but... I'd call this as a very likely showdown of either season 4 or season 5. I feel like there's a climax coming towards us. HLV already played with the idea that Mycroft has to choose between his roles. And then he didn't have to because of the circumstances. It reminds me of well-placed foreshadowing.

 

Concerning the theory: We know almost nothing about Mary's pregnancy and the circumstances of the past months. Sure, it's a daring theory, and a tad bit conspirational: But I was convinced by a meta essay. I do not think it impossible. And I personally think it is a better solution than to have Mary die in labour (since I wouldn't mourn her, it would be tedious melancholic drama to me...) or have her be killed before giving birth (which would make the entire 'oh she is pregnant' even more tedious. I know it's probably meant to explain why John forgives her but it's a shallow reason. If he wouldn't have forgiven her without the baby, what's the point anyway...). I know there's also the "John is not the daddy" theory. Not my favorite but hell, I'd even take this.

If you are interested in the specifics of this Mary-isn't-pregnant theory, there's a great meta. I am notoriously tolerant towards theories but I rarely adapt them. (I got my opinion, you got yours, but I just like my opinion better...) This essay convinced me. I hold it in high regards. It, for example, mentions the Henry VIII hotel that is seen (somewhat out of place) before Mary heads towards the Empty Houses. He was the father of Mary I of England, and she suffered a false pregnancy. Not quite proof but an interesting coincidence. The meta essay highlights different aspects such as this. No proof, certainly, but a chain of interesting coincidences. It's a well-written essay, in any case.

 

And it's quite funny that we feel the same Something we agree on, yay.

 

 

 

Speaking as an American ... unfortunately, there are many people here who DO think like that. It is inconceivable to me as well. How can one's things be more important than someone else's life? I don't get it. It's a big, ugly stain on our culture, in my opinion ... and I know a lot of people who agree. But for some reason the gun users have the loudest voice. I do think that racism is a huge factor in all this, but don't get me started or we'll be here all week.
 

 

 

Glad you didn't feel offended. Rereading it, I realized my sarcastic mood bled into that paragraph. I didn't mean it half as harsh as it sounded. I respect the American culture as much as I respect any other. The topic just got to me. Which doesn't mean I take it back. The words weren't well-chosen, however.

 

 

 

 

Or is she? I don't think we ever get to see CAM deduce Mary's "pressure points" (?) but at the wedding she reacts to the phrase "wish your family could see this" when Sherlock reads the message from CAM. I know some have said that means she has no family, but I can also read it as a veiled threat to her family.

 

 

 

I just realized this (so thank you for pointing it out): What if Mary does have family? And maybe that family is after her? If we take "wish your family could have see this" as a threat, that reading is possible, too.

I really don't want to have the sob story that she left her assassin family because she didn't want to kill some poor child, and now they are after her. On the other hand, that statement is decidedly fishy. Or is it a reminder that Magnussen knows why her family can't be at the wedding? Because she killed them, too?

 

 

 

... and thank goodness we don't have to. I doubt that we'll ever get a definite statement out of the show what exactly was supposed to be going on there, so we can all happily continue to see our preferred version of events.

 

 

I hope we will. I really do. I am all in favor of keeping things vague. At least, until now I have been all in favor of it.

But I don't know if I could stomach it if season four didn't pick up on Mary's vile actions. I am aware that I am not in the majority, and that other people hope for the opposite. I at this point can't say, though, if I would be able to bear it if it went unmentioned. Because while the writers may think that the matter is over, the subject is closed, and it totally doesn't matter anymore to anyone, and it never did, and why would it, and anyway, we all misunderstood: I can't accept John's decision. And I can't accept that Mary did not face any consequences for shooting Sherlock.

I need some sort of real closure in season four. I believe my first post in this thread, the one I made after I watched HLV, started with "I am in mourning." I still am. Because I am not sure if I will like what this series is becoming.

[Arcadia]

No offense given, none taken! I hope I don't give offense either; sometimes I think I word things more strongly than I intend. I can get pretty worked up about the lax gun laws here in the States, for example.

I don't recall ever reading anything that offended me on this forum. If I had, I probably wouldn't still be here!
 

... What if Mary does have family? And maybe that family is after her? If we take "wish your family could have see this" as a threat, that reading is possible, too.
I really don't want to have the sob story that she left her assassin family because she didn't want to kill some poor child, and now they are after her. On the other hand, that statement is decidedly fishy. Or is it a reminder that Magnussen knows why her family can't be at the wedding? Because she killed them, too?

My reaction to this thought:    

[Carol the Dabbler]

Dear me, I must have no imagination!  I've always assumed that Mary couldn't invite her family to her wedding simply because doing so would blow her cover.  They presumably don't even know where / who she is now.

 

[T.o.b.y]

... while I always thought she either genuinely was an orphan, or that the line about her family was meant as a reference to her false identity. Maybe I never gave it much thought, because the original Mary Morstan was an orphan. I keep forgetting that in this version, Mary Morstan doesn't exist! She has been dead since the seventies and some woman with strange initials took on her name. It's very confusing.

 

I seriously doubt we'll find out she killed her relatives, but the idea that they were maybe murdered by somebody else seems plausible enough. Yuck, I don't want a sob story either. I do hope we will not find out that Mary is on a life long mission to find her family's killer and take revenge, or something like that. This is Sherlock, not Kill Bill...

[Arcadia]

Hm, isn't the Mafia known as The Family?

 

You folks must be rubbing off on me, that's the most fiendish theory I've ever come up with.

[Slithytove]

I've always assumed that Mary's family will turn out to be the motive for her career choice (Kill Bill territory indeed), to make her seem less heartless. If it turns out that she slaughtered them herself, I'll be surprised - though not as surprised as John, who seems to think he can turn a blind eye to the problems of her past.

 

I'm sorry, Carol, it is probably me who makes your fingers itch to type, as I keep harping on about John losing his moral bearings. It just disappoints me that he chose to know nothing about Mary's past, instead of having the courage to face the truth, and that he could forgive her for coming so close to destroying Sherlock. (I suppose we can never know for certain whether he was dead or just very, very nearly dead. The meta by cookieswillcrumble seems to refute the one by Wellingtongoose, so I guess you pay your money and take your pick.) To me, it seems that a man of John's character wouldn't care about excuses, even if made by Sherlock himself. He would be appalled that Mary had shot a defenceless witness, even if it was a complete stranger. The fact that it was his best friend would just make it worse. Would he forgive Sherlock if the situation was reversed and Mary was an innocent bystander shot by Sherlock just because she got in the way? I hope not, and he shouldn't forgive Mary either.

 

I'm hoping the pregnancy will be fake but I doubt it because I'm not sure that anyone in a relationship could keep up the pretence, particularly if married to a doctor. Even if they were apart before Xmas, they are clearly reconciled now. I can't see how they will deal with the baby in S4. If it is John, Mary and Baby, how can John risk his life running around London with Sherlock? If Mary dies, parentlock will be funny for one episode and then irritating (particularly for pedantic people like me, who will think "But who is minding the baby?" whenever they go off on an adventure.). I seriously doubt that the baby will die, because Moffatt is a writer who likes to tug on the heartstrings without breaking them. Dr Who shows this even more clearly than Sherlock. The best solution (unless it is a fake pregnancy) might be for Mary to take the baby and disappear. (Not the best solution for John, of course, but for the show.). However, it seems possible that Mary will have to die heroically to redeem herself, so she wouldn't be able to run off with the baby.

 

I don't think I've ever guessed a Sherlock plot development correctly, so no doubt they will come up with something totally unexpected.

[T.o.b.y]

Would he forgive Sherlock if the situation was reversed and Mary was an innocent bystander shot by Sherlock just because she got in the way? I hope not, and he shouldn't forgive Mary either.

...

 I can't see how they will deal with the baby in S4. If it is John, Mary and Baby, how can John risk his life running around London with Sherlock?

 

Hmmm, I never thought about that before, but my gut feeling is that if Sherlock had shot Mary for whatever reason, John would have probably killed him. At the very least, their friendship would have been over. I can't imagine Sherlock doing so, though. Maybe in self defense, if he had absolutely no other choice... but nope. No, I can't picture that at all.

 

About the baby: If John had stayed in the army, he might still have married and had kids some day. And he'd still gone off to war every now and then and risked his life there. So why can't he do so home in London, even if he does have a child? He certainly wouldn't be the first father with a dangerous job...

 

I can easily picture a series about John and Sherlock going off on cases together, with occasional help from Mary, Molly, Lestrade or whoever else is available and little glimpses of John's private life and his daughter in between. The original Dr Watson had no children that we know of, but in his day, a wife was a similar responsibility, and he still was ready to run off with Holmes at a moment's notice. He even accompanied him to the Reichenbach Falls and would have confronted Moriarty, too, if he hadn't been lured away by the fake message about the woman at the inn.

 

No, a baby wouldn't have to make any difference to speak of. And whatever John does or does not, poor little Miss Watson will be in constant danger anyway from both Sherlock's and Mary's enemies. If that kid manages a whole series without being kidnapped at least once, I will seriously wonder what is wrong with the criminal classes.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Wasn't it said in canon that 221b Baker Street was the most dangerous address to live because of the tenet but also the safest for the same reason?  Yes I can see criminals targeting John and family because of their affiliations with the same but also they learn just how dangerous it would be to do so should any such foolhardy miscreant was successful in messing with any of Sherlock's "family".

[Slithytove]

I agree, John would probably have killed Sherlock if he shot Mary because she was an inconvenience. So, isn't it reasonable to expect him to feel the same rage and revulsion towards Mary for shooting Sherlock? Of course, he loved Mary but some things can destroy love. Finding out that your spouse shot your dearest friend in cold blood and killed/nearly, nearly killed him seems a very probable deal-breaker to me.

 

As for the baby....Leaving aside the fact that risking your life in the service of your country and doing it for the thrill of the chase are very different things, there is also the matter of the mother. Mary is at risk of arrest and life imprisonment or death in revenge for her crimes. If John is killed or very severely disabled during his adventures, who will bring up Baby Watson if her mother is imprisoned or killed? As a responsible man, John surely would be worried by that question. Anyway, he had already begun to draw away from Sherlock after his marriage, so they would surely become more distanced when the baby arrives.

 

Personally, I think that glimpses of the Watsons playing Happy Families would be even more irritating than parentlock, and would further weaken the central dynamic between the two main characters. We saw very little indeed of Watson's marriage in the original ACD stories, which was a good thing, but I think that the strongest stories were those where Holmes and Watson were flatmates and we saw them at ease in each other's company, in the midst of domestic life, as well as during their adventures together.

 

What I'm saying, I suppose, is bring John Watson home to Baker Street.....