Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh yeah! It's still Friday on the East Coast of the US of A. Thank you, Arcadia!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yeah, well, could we all go a bit easier on the absolutes, then (definitely including myself here)? Every time I read something like "it's not for you to damn Mary" or "oh, you don't like her? You must be a Johnlocker" (so what if I were? Would that invalidate my opininion?) I find myself a little more removed from this community, and that hurts. Let's try to accept that the book is very much open on s3, and will remain so for a year and half, at least. Until then, nobody has any definite answer on anything.

I know exactly what you mean, Martina -- I feel somewhat excluded from the forum when I read absolute statements like "Mary must go!" or "John has betrayed Sherlock." If a writer phrases things just a bit differently, like "I want Mary to go" or "I feel that John has betrayed Sherlock," then I can recognize their right to that opinion, even though I do not share it.

 

And even when we've all seen S4 and hopefully know a bit more about all this, we'll each still be entitled to our opinions.

 

 

One "real world" thing I would LUV to find out - but probably never will - is how much of what ends up on the screen is the actors' interpretation, how much is the directors' interpretation, and how much is the express intention of Moftiss. I don't know why, exactly, but that would make me happy.

Oh good heavens, me too! I would dearly love to be able to buy copies of the shooting scripts for all the episodes.

[T.o.b.y]

I'm another of those folk who can't switch off and suspend belief entirely. However much I'm enjoying an episode, my mind is going, "How could you not know you're bleeding to death, just because you were stabbed through your belt?", "How could anyone think you were reading data through your Google glasses when they know you store none of your information on computers?" or "Surgery? Really? You really think a bullet there wouldn't guarantee a life-threatening injury?"......I can't help it.

 

Maybe that's because your intelligence can't be "turned on and off like a tap"... (love that quote).

 

My brain is a bit more convenient (or lazy) there... when I watch or read something, I am usually so desperate to get away from real life for a while that I'm willing to believe anything as long as I like it. Doesn't always work, though. The less likely a scenario is to happen in reality, the more help I need from the actors and the music and the general atmosphere of the work. One of the reasons Sherlock hit me so hard was that it managed to enthrall me utterly and completely. I can believe 100% in what happens there in spite of sometimes really outrageous events and giant plot holes. The characters feel so real to me. Even crazy semi-fantastical creations like Moriarty and Magnussen or Mycroft or Irene or Sherlock himself. Or Mary, come to think of it. And of course it helps that Sherlock is on screen a lot and he is so mesmerizing, I can believe anything if he says it is so - even "Mary saved my life with surgical precision and a timely emergency call" (though this is one of those rare instances where even I said, if only after the episode was over, wait a minute - you just died, have you forgotten?)

 

 

 

 

If we're honest, I think that most of us would also judge a real-life person who had a history of killing people, and anyone who shot a witness who saw them threatening another man's life. I believe in tolerance and live-and-let-live but it doesn't make you a bad person to have a negative opinion of murderers, whether real or fictional.

 

Now, that's a way of putting it... No, I suppose I wouldn't really approve of Mary in real life. Probably. Maybe not of Sherlock either, although I am kind of skeptical when I read that we'd all hate Sherlock if we met him face to face. I don't think I would, honestly. I've known people who work on a similar principle - a great heart disguised by an armor of eccentricity and rude behavior, paired with a gigantic ego that at a closer look is mere overcompensation for deep-rooted insecurities - and once I got to know them, I usually liked them.

 

Finally, of course nobody is ever a bad person for disliking a character in a book or TV series or play or film or whatever. That's what I meant by I think they're fair game. I wouldn't even consider you a bad person if you disliked Sherlock himself. Heck, I don't even consider Sally Donovan a bad person and I can even sympathize with her aversion to our hero. I think Sally is really loyal towards and a bit protective of Lestrade, and she's concerned that Sherlock will ruin his career. At least that's how I've always interpreted her behavior. I like Sally. I was really glad to see her at the beginning of The Sign of Three. It was like meeting an old friend. What a great show that can make me feel that way about so minor a character!

[Arcadia]

.... One of the reasons Sherlock hit me so hard was that it managed to enthrall me utterly and completely. I can believe 100% in what happens there in spite of sometimes really outrageous events and giant plot holes. The characters feel so real to me. Even crazy semi-fantastical creations like Moriarty and Magnussen or Mycroft or Irene or Sherlock himself. Or Mary, come to think of it. And of course it helps that Sherlock is on screen a lot and he is so mesmerizing, I can believe anything if he says it is so - even "Mary saved my life with surgical precision and a timely emergency call" (though this is one of those rare instances where even I said, if only after the episode was over, wait a minute - you just died, have you forgotten?)

You just put your finger on it ... that's how I react to the show as well. When I want more logical pursuits I do a Sudoku. It's the emotional impact of this show ... the romantic imagery, the humor, the heroic tone ... that make it stand out for me. As impossible as they are, I love the characters. And the dialogue. And the way everything looks.

 

 

[Zain]

Yeah, well, could we all go a bit easier on the absolutes, then (definitely including myself here)? Every time I read something like "it's not for you to damn Mary" or "oh, you don't like her? You must be a Johnlocker" (so what if I were? Would that invalidate my opininion?) I find myself a little more removed from this community, and that hurts. Let's try to accept that the book is very much open on s3, and will remain so for a year and half, at least. Until then, nobody has any definite answer on anything.

 

I am fully with you. It is quite tedious how much pressure is put on fans that do not conform to the "s3 perspective" on Mary. I've talked about this before, and I still think it is a really big issue for the fandom. There's a tendency to declare opinions superior/inferior, and people even misuse the canon to proof their point (which is ridiculous, there's room for interpretation). 

You aren't the first who mentions that they feel unwelcome. It makes me sad whenever I read a post like this. I feel a bit on the outside, too. But mostly, it's a certain feeling of helplessness. There's nothing to be done to change this development until season 4. Even then, it is unlikely we'll see a decline in this. If s4 paints a good picture of Mary, then this development will be reinforced. If by chance there's a more nasty side of Mary to be revealed, there'll be a "We told you so" side, and that never goes over well. This fandom has gained a lot of tension since s3. And I can't see that going down. It's rather disheartening.

 

Preaching about accepting everybody's opinion, it's futile. The entire subject is emotionally charged: The fact that Abbington received threats, and that she herself asked not to be judged harshly led to a very pro-active side of the fandom. I don't say we should take it out on the actor or anything! But this pro-active side has, and that's my subjective impression, taken it as their purpose in life to make sure nobody will hurt Abbington's feelings, and in that they often talk down other fans. I have to admit that I am not as active on other sites as I am here. I mostly read, and I think about it, and I try to get into people's heads to understand why they argue in a particular way. At times, I've talked to people that I truly couldn't figure out (mostly pro-Mary). And this experience is the reason why I believe that a part of the fandom is especially looking for "fights" because they are guilt-tripping themselves into believing that everybody is either for or against Abbington (and they tend to equal Abbington with Mary). It is quite astonishing how high that number of fans is. I never took it serious until I had a deeper look. Then there are (still on the pro-Mary side) fans that do not accept any criticism on first level dialogue. Which is something I have more problems with than the first group I mentioned. I am someone who interprets a lot. That's not well-received in some quarters, and the "problem with Mary" has led to a lot of interpretations that are even less based on statements and more on subtle hints. They reject such interpretatinos outright. And then there's the third group, the rest: People who like Mary genuinely, those who trust John's opinion, those who do not want to judge without all facts (which we did not get thanks to John), and so on.

All I am saying is that there's actually a big diversity of Mary-advocators. They are not all attacking other people's opinions, but it makes for a rather uneven front line, and it doesn't allow for much neutral ground. Even when only a small part of the fandom is looking for a fight, as long as they represent the "right" opinion, not many other fans will take a middle ground. A prototypical fan (and I am not talking about this forum where we actually respect each other a lot, and where we exchange opinions regularly) will not interfere in a fight between a pro-Mary and an anti-Mary fan (and I am not making those terms up. They already exist. A shame, yes but a clear sign that there are two fronts. It's rather worrisome). The prototypical fan is most likely in the advocator group that either trusts the show makers, makes an exception for fiction, or just doesn't understand why people get so worked up about Mary. Their opinion is expressed (a bit more extreme than they maybe feel justified) by the pro-Mary fan. There's no need, from their perspective, to take part in that particular fight.

It's actually not a matter of pro-Mary fans outnumbering anti-Mary fans (I personally dislike those terms, and I don't see myself in the anti-Mary fraction because I do not want to fight over this but I will use those terms from a lack of better words). It's a matter of the "neutral ground" being somewhat merged into the pro-Mary fraction, and that's why the pro-Mary fraction feels justified and supported in their efforts to make sure anti-Mary fans understand that they are unwelcome in the fandom.

That's my take on it. The sad thing is I've already given up standing up for people that argue against Mary. The antagonistic responses are not worth the effort. It's not an objective debate.

 

I know that some of you have said that this is exaggerated. And that it is not really such a problem. Sadly, it is. When you look at other sites, there's a tendency to antagonize, to form two fronts. And while many do not take part in this, they stand behind the pro-Mary front, which is why it is disheartening for some fans. They feel outnumbered and unwelcome. I myself have seen a lot of posts (and I did not go looking for them!) where people said that they feel unwelcome themselves, and that they decided to stay quiet as of now. Many voices have died down due to this. You do not recognize the problem unless you look for it because a lot of fans simply have quit. Or they became readers instead of participating members of the fandom. Go look for people that have once posted a Mary-critical post. The likelihood that their profile has been abandoned, lacks active posting or simply doesn't exist anymore is about 20 to 30 %.

 

While I have painted the pro-Mary fraction rather black, and the anti-Mary fraction rather innocent and white, this is not the case. Of course they also look for fights. Their numbers are just smaller and their voices more quiet. It's an inequal front line, and that's why I neglected their part.

 

Yes, I am not proposing a solution, because there is none. But we all should be aware that there's a certain toxic tension in the fandom. I've been criticized for this statement once before, yet I dare repeat it (sorry, Carol. Nothing personal.): If it hadn't been for Mary, there wouldn't been this kind of hatred and superiority/inferiority complex going around in the fandom. Not to this degree.

 

 

 

 

 

Nope we definitely don't. But when someone says that anyone deserves to be damned....it really hits close to home, because I have been taught that no matter what mistakes one has made there is hope of redemption. Maybe Mary hasn't earned hers in the eyes of the fandom but that still is not for us to judge.   Human's make horrible mistakes, all the time. It's just what humans do, every day.

 

 

A tough post. I really had to first have a debate with myself before answering.

 

I agree that everybody has the chance to redeem themselves. I agree that Mary could still redeem herself. 

But I do not see that coming. To me, she already threw away a lot of chances to do just that. To redeem herself, in my opinion, she would have to let John go of her own volition. Because it's too dangerous for him, because she made him unhappy, because she hurt Sherlock and would not want to risk ever doing so again. To me, she would have to make personal concessions. In s3, she has done nothing in that regard. Everything happened for her sake, and she got her way. She never offered to step back, either. I probably would have forgiven her if she had shown a sign of remorse. Mary is a perpetual beneficiary. Not a giver. A taker.

If I had hurt someone that much: I believe it very important to offer that person that they will never have to look me in the face again. Of course Sherlock would not have sent her away. But I think the offer is very important, and it is essential to show that you feel bad about what you did, and not only about having been caught in the act. If I truly want to atone for something, I have to accept consequences that I will not like. Prison, in Mary's case. Or leaving. Or losing John because her pain of losing him will enable him to get over her deceit and maybe help him to lead a better life. If I atone for something, I will have to burden myself to do something good for someone else. I can't see anything like that in Mary's behavior. Sure, we get told that she helped John to get over Sherlock's death. But after that - she didn't do anything good. And especially not at the cost of her own health/happiness/convenience.

 

I am not saying that she is irredeemable. But she has shown no interest in redemption. Which is, actually, only partly her fault. That's a concession from me! It's not like anybody made her life hard so that she had to face her own mistakes. People fall over themselves to make her look good, or at least, not bad. Then John doesn't even want her to prove her good intentions. As long as they don't have to talk about it.

It's why I don't believe in that kind of development. She's rather a flat and static character in that regard.

 

 

 

 

I suppose it's a bit mean of me to want to deny John a happy married life, but I do have my reasons. One is that the central relationship between John and Sherlock - whether you see it as friendship, platonic love or the most passionate Johnlock - is the heart and soul of the story, and a third party weakens it. It would have been the same if Sherlock had suddenly set up home with Victor Trevor, for instance, and left John out in the cold. (Though I would like Victor to turn up now and redress the balance a bit, so Sherlock isn't stuck with being the rather sad third wheel in the Watsons's relationship.)

 

 

 

Yep. And I do so hope they'll bring Victor in to do just that. To show what it is like if Sherlock set up home with Victor. I want John to reflect on how lonely Sherlock must have felt after coming back. Just for one episode. And maybe to find that balance between John and Sherlock that mesmerized millions of people but which got lost during the last hiatus...

Aaand once again, I am advocating my pet project.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I'm just saying that her story hasn't all been told yet. There are months and months that we know nothing about. Months on end that John didn't speak to her. He is exceedingly angry at her and on reason is that she did shoot Sherlock. So if he did take her back after what went down at Appledore, there must have been a reason. John is neither blind nor stupid especially at this point.

[Zain]

To be honest, that's what I really fear to see in s4. I am not interested in how Mary moped around during those months. I am not interested in getting some sob story to redeem herself just because the writers noticed that no, while things are resolved for John and Sherlock, they are not for a considerable part of the audience.

I know that many think her a lovely person, or at least likable. I do not, and the mere thought of her disgusts me. Even if she "redeemed" herself, I'd consider her a vile person. I'd respect her if she truly redeemed herself. Yes. But she would still disgust me. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe the writers will surprise me but I cannot think of anything she could do to rise in my esteem. Well, rise above the respect I had for her before HLV. I didn't care about her back then either, but I had nothing against her either. I considered her a decent/semi-decent person back then.

But out of interest: What kind of story do you imagine that could show that she actually regrets her actions and not merely having been caught in the act?

I don't, as you put it, condemn her by default. I believe her capable of redemption (as much as any other person) but I do not consider her willing to seek it. And that's why I have a hard time picturing anything in that regard. I'd be genuinely interested in what kind of scenario you are thinking of. Maybe I don't find it half as bad as the mere thought of it.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I am more interested in seeing what she did....or does that turned John Watson around. He hated her so completely. What changed his mind?  That is what I want to know.  And I know and understand that there is a good piece of the fandom would be happy if she fell of the face of the earth not you alone.

 

Since we never see or very little of any of Watson's wives in canon, I'm not invested in her as a big part of the story, although it may be that Mofftiss sees her that way and I will be interested to see what it is that they want to do with her.

[Zain]

So you believe they had contact in those months?

I actually interpreted it as "Sherlock put a word in for Mary" for some months, and John tends to go with Sherlock's suggestions...

Sure, it is never explicitly stated that John moved back to Baker Street but I imagine that he did and that he didn't even go to the check-ups. Only necessary contact, such as texts.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Then why have invited her to the Holmes family Christmas if they're not living together?  Or at least having more contact then mere texts once in awhile. Yes, I can see John doing it for the sake of the baby.....but he says he is going to try to forgive her no matter how angry he is at her still.  If it was just for the child, couldn't have just waited until the child was born then have her declared as an unfit mother and gone to court for it?  If that is how English law works.....maybe not. But then there is always the question, who would raise it.  John has to make a living and I don't see him as a stay at home dad, as in he couldn't afford to do so anyway.  Heaven forbid the show becomes Two and ahalf men. I don't think Sherlock's constitution could handle a baby in the flat. And it's not the safest place for a child either.

 

 But he has decided to take her back....and it has to be more then just on Sherlock's word. John is no longer so in awe of the man. Even though, yeah, he does bring his gun at Sherlock's request.

[T.o.b.y]

Wow, I am glad somebody else writes long posts, makes me feel less of a nut... Especially if they have something interesting to say.

 

'Kay, I suck at multiquote, but this deserves a try, Zain, so I will:

 

 

 

I am fully with you. It is quite tedious how much pressure is put on fans that do not conform to the "s3 perspective" on Mary.

 

What the heck is the series 3 perspective of Mary? I don't quite get what the writers are trying to tell us about her. One moment, she's lovely and the next, she's a stone cold killer. Then she suddenly reverts to crying pregnant Victorian stereotype and then she faints and then the last we see of her, she's totally inappropriately cheerful at the prospect of Sherlock leaving for ever, yet very sympathetically holds John's hand as she did at Sherlock's grave. I don't get her, I really don't. Which I find very intriguing. As I said before somewhere, she makes me feel like Sherlock looking at naked Irene.

 

      The entire subject is emotionally charged: The fact that Abbington received threats, and that she herself asked not to be judged harshly led to a very pro-active side of the fandom. I don't say we should take it out on the actor or anything!

 

Well, one does (or at least I do) feel kind of ashamed by proxy that apparently some people get fiction and reality so mixed up. By the way, why doesn't anybody send Andrew Scott or Lars Mikkelsen nasty things if some people are so confused? I mean, their characters are a lot more vile than Mary... But if my impression is correct, the actor who "was" Moriarty is more likely to get marriage proposals than anything else from die-hard Sherlock fans. It's an unfair world...

 

But sympathy for the actress or disapproval of other people's behavior towards her is a really stupid reason for defending the character she plays, if you ask me. Or am I supposed to find reasons to justify the Joker's actions, simply because I adored Heath Ledger and am sad that he's dead?

 

Aaand once again, I am advocating my pet project.

 

 

Go ahead! Who knows, maybe your wish will actually be gratified in some way... I'd be interested myself in what Moffat, Gatiss and Co would make of the Gloria Scott story, although I have a hunch they already used part of if for Mary. Personally, I would prefer Victor as a flashback, the way he appears in the original, but in any case, I'm sure he'd beat Charles Musgrave, whom I have absolutely zero use for.

 

 

Zain, I can't say anything for or do anything about other people you've been unsatisfactorily communicating with, but please do continue to hang around here as long as you feel like it. It's nice to get a different perspective now and then. I really don't see why I shouldn't enjoy reading somebody's disapproval of Mary, just because I like her myself. And it's silly to be judgemental about anybody's tastes in stories and made-up characters. You don't assume I'll go and shoot the next best person who gets in my way, just because I applaud Sherlock for killing Magnussen, do you?

[Zain]

Then why have invited her to the Holmes family Christmas if they're not living together?  

[...]

 

 But he has decided to take her back....and it has to be more then just on Sherlock's word. John is no longer so in awe of the man. Even though, yeah, he does bring his gun at Sherlock's request.

 

 

I pictured it as Sherlock's "ultimate" intervention. It is, after all, the Holmes Christmas "party." So the invitation would have been to John "plus one." I don't think it was John who "invited" Mary along. Rather, it was expected he would bring her along, and so he did. The upcoming proximity then forced him to take a stance because he couldn't ignore the problem any longer. He knew he had to face her that evening, so he had to make a decision.

In a way, I think Sherlock manipulated John. He already seemed to have come to the decision that the couple needed to make up. It's one of the reasons why I am very unhappy with John (who had a hard time, so...). I feel like he was pushed into a direction or another. Maybe he wasn't, yes, but from what we get to see, and that is not much, Sherlock basically told him to get back with her. Then there's a skip in time, and John does just that at the Holmes Christmas party. Too much Sherlock and Holmes involved with that decision for my liking. Just... makes me inclined to interpret it as manipulation. Quid pro quo, I suppose, because Mary pushed John towards Sherlock, too, in TEH.

 

 

 

 

What the heck is the series 3 perspective of Mary? I don't quite get what the writers are trying to tell us about her. One moment, she's lovely and the next, she's a stone cold killer. Then she suddenly reverts to crying pregnant Victorian stereotype and then she faints and then the last we see of her, she's totally inappropriately cheerful at the prospect of Sherlock leaving for ever, yet very sympathetically holds John's hand as she did at Sherlock's grave. I don't get her, I really don't. Which I find very intriguing. As I said before somewhere, she makes me feel like Sherlock looking at naked Irene.

 

 

Glad at least someone likes my long posts. I really should learn how to express myself in fewer words...

 

To be honest, when I wrote s3 perspective, I meant the in-show agreement that "Mary is forgiven for lying to John. And her shot was perfectly executed, and Sherlock was in no danger, never, so it is nothing she needs to be sorry for. Her past has been dealt with, time to move on." Of course that's the literal "perspective." Free of interpretation which always is part of one's understanding. And free of possible turns coming our way.

 

And of course, I fully agree that it is not appropriate that Abbington was threatened. I was merely bringing it up because there is a part of the fandom, and it is not as small as one might think, who is taking Mary's side because of just this. That's not subjective. They themselves argue that Abbington asked not to be judged based on Mary's actions, so there must be more to Mary, after all, they were told not to judge her (and they equal Abbington with Mary). And anybody who judges Mary for her actions, judges Abbington, and thus is aggressive against her. It is very hard to find logical arguments with a reasoning like that. I can't dismiss it because everybody is allowed their own opinion. I am merely saying that this thinking exists, and it is one part of the pro-Mary "fraction." (God, I still feel bad about using those terms... Maybe we should come up with a better terminology. I mean, not everybody likes Mary who is not against her, just as not everybody who doesn't like her actions dislikes her).

 

Oh, don't worry. I'll stick around for season 4. Like Caya, I'll be waiting it out. Let's see where s4 will be headed, and maybe things will become easier to deal with then. Nobody knows what's in store for us. Until this arc (and I have no doubt it is not over) is finished, there's still hope. 

But thanks for the encouraging words (about my pet project, too!). 

 

Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf.

We all interpret the events of HLV differently. I'd really like to know if you see any clear signs where things are headed. Or at least, if you have a hunch. I bet we could get some insight if we share what we noticed. Maybe we actually are able to make some predictions. So, not what we would like to see but rather what we can "deduce."

[T.o.b.y]

 

Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf.

We all interpret the events of HLV differently. I'd really like to know if you see any clear signs where things are headed. Or at least, if you have a hunch. I bet we could get some insight if we share what we noticed. Maybe we actually are able to make some predictions. So, not what we would like to see but rather what we can "deduce."

 

 

One of my favorite games! And I thought it was fairly easy for series 3 based on the Reichenbach Fall. A lot of what I expected after that came true. But now? I nave absolutely no idea where the story is headed. Zero. Nil. Nothing. It's frustrating as hell. Because so far, there have always been clues as to what would happen next. I usually only understood them in hindsight, but they were always there. So I am sure they exist now, only I am too dumb to observe them.

 

I only have one definite "hunch": Moriarty will turn out to be alive in spite of really having shot himself. Because then Sherlock's "death scene" really makes sense as a device to plant the thought in the audience's brains that in the show's world, you can survive even lethal bullet wounds if you are an extraordinary being and you really want to. Hm, I wonder whether Sherlock said anything to Moriarty inside his head that made him turn back from death's door... Doubt we'll find that out, though.

 

As for Mary, I wish we'd get to know more about her past, but I am honestly doubtful about that. Maybe they feel that they've "explained" (ha, ha) enough about her and will simply move on, just like I think we'll never learn more about The Fall, even though we should, if Moriarty is indeed back.

 

Sherlock's interaction with Archie seems to point to Miss Watson as a future member of the regular cast. I think they were trying out whether he'd work with a kid at his side and he does, kind of. I can't imagine him with a baby, but a little girl? Why not, if it's only now and then and for short, funny scenes in between?

 

I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of Janine. Or Billy Wiggins, either. Personally, I could do without either of them. Billy I think is superfluous and Janine had such a perfect exit in His Last Vow, I don't want that spoiled.

 

I'd like Irene back, briefly, or at least a hint of her in the background. It doesn't seem totally unlikely, since she was mentioned in both The Sign of Three and His Last Vow.

 

My biggest question mark is, will Mary die or otherwise disappear, as she did in the original? If I had to bet on it, I'd say no. My impression is that the writers are very pleased with her and they can't even let go of Moriarty, so...

 

 

[Zain]

Some good points, I guess.

 

Moriarty alive because Sherlock's death scene foreshadows it.

Archie foreshadows baby Watson.

 

Sorry for summarizing your post up so badly.

 

It's true that s3 is very open and there's not much to go on. But like you, I think there's some foreshadowing we could turn into hints.

 

I think it's definitely possible but would you say it is possible that:

 

Archie is foreshadowing Sherlock's growth? He awfully reminds me of little Sherlock in HLV. I feel like he was used to show us that Sherlock is stuck between childhood and adulthood.

 

Considering Moriarty: Is he alive or is he not, that is the question.

The gif at the end of HLV is somewhat fishy. It's not like they didn't have "Jim" at the set. They could have had another "story teller episode." Instead, they went for a gif. There's of course the possibility that he was hurt rather badly when he faked his death, and thus he decided not to appear on screen. Even if he had shot a blank, he would have caused himself damage.

Or he's dead, and someone is using his image. A friend/family member, a successor, or an enemy.

 

To bring up something new:

Will Eastern Europe play a role in s4? It has certainly been mentioned often enough in s3.

Sherlock's mission, and the beginning of TEH.

The term "East Wind."

Mycroft was tracking something in Poland when Lestrade went to him.

 

And does this mission possibly have something to do with Magnussen?

We know Magnussen is Danish. And Mycroft's mission was called "Ugly Duckling", a story written by Andersen, a Danish writer best known for his fairy tales ( a story teller!). Magnussen tells us before his death that Mycroft had been working against him for some time.

Not exactly proof but certainly something to think about?

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, just some random thoughts after reading a whole bunch of the above:

 

I can't fault anyone for not liking Mary, any more than I can fault anyone for not liking Thorin Oakenshield or Bart Simpson or whoever.  Or any more than I can fault anyone for liking some character that I don't care for.  It's a matter of personal chemistry, I think, same as if we meet someone at a party -- we might hit it off with them, we might not.  So some of us like Mary, some don't, and some have mixed (or lukewarm) reactions.  We all have different personalities.

 

I'm sad to hear that people who don't like Mary are being treated harshly on other websites.  That's just plain stupid and wrong.  If you notice any of that going on here on this forum, please notify one of the moderators -- hit that post's "Report" button, or PM a mod.  There's so much posting on this thread in particular that we may not have noticed a specific questionable comment.  (Even if the poster didn't mean it that way and merely worded it badly, it'd be good to get the matter cleared up.)

 

What I (as a forum member) am trying to understand is why I so often feel on the defensive here, and feel a need to justify why I still like Mary.  I guess that's actually more than one question.  Do I feel that I personally am being challenged?  Or do I feel that Mary is being attacked, and since I like her, I feel an impulse to defend my "friend"?  I'm pretty sure it's a little of both.  Some of you have carefully explained why you don't like Mary.  I have no "reason" for liking her, I just like her, and I will freely admit that I've rationalized her behavior simply because I like her -- so maybe I have a bit of an inferiority complex about that.  But I can't think why I should, any more than I should feel a need to apologize because I can't explain why I like one of my real-life friends.

 

[T.o.b.y]

What I (as a forum member) am trying to understand is why I so often feel on the defensive here, and feel a need to justify why I still like Mary.  I guess that's actually more than one question.  Do I feel that I personally am being challenged?  Or do I feel that Mary is being attacked, and since I like her, I feel an impulse to defend my "friend"?  I'm pretty sure it's a little of both.  Some of you have carefully explained why you don't like Mary.  I have no "reason" for liking her, I just like her, and I will freely admit that I've rationalized her behavior simply because I like her -- so maybe I have a bit of an inferiority complex about that.  But I can't think why I should, any more than I should feel a need to apologize because I can't explain why I like one of my real-life friends.

 

Maybe it's because of that "moral" dimension? There is this point of view that John should not have forgiven Mary because what she did was morally wrong, so if you really like her, you have to let yourself be "accused" of sympathizing with a murderer and liar? 

 

Also, Carol, I know you really like John, so maybe you feel a bit defensive on his behalf as well?

 

I'd find that totally understandable, even if they are "only" products of somebody else's imagination.

 

I think it's all fine as long as we're in the glorious realm of fiction. I like discussing the moral dimension, I just think that is interesting, and I am a pretty opinionated person myself, so I quite enjoy other people's views who feel strongly.

 

Of course there is no need whatsoever to apologize for liking any of the characters. If you were in love with Magnussen, that would be fine with me, even though I have to admit I might pester you with why the heck, but that's my curiosity talking.

 

It's pretty fascinating that the whole "Mary" debate seems to be so loaded. I remember some pretty spirited discussions about Irene, where I realized that liking her a lot and actually getting a kick out of her running around naked and not minding that she "lost" to Sherlock in the end might be considered a bit of a guilty pleasure, especially since I think of  myself as a feminist, but apparently, Mary hits people even harder. Goodness, Moffat certainly has a way with women, at least when he writes them into his stories...

 

So the next prediction for series 4 is: We will get another controversial female character! Maybe they'll do something really wild with Mummy Holmes?

[Slithytove]

I think the reason behind the dislike and lack of forgiveness for Mary stems simply from the shooting of Sherlock. Irene didn't shoot him, not did Jim or CAM, and none of them are wed to John Watson!

 

The rift in the fandom is sad. I agree that some (not on this forum) seem so anxious to prove they are not crazy enough to threaten Amanda Abbingdon that they've gone too far in the opposite direction and become aggressive to anyone who doesn't love her character. A bit silly, really.

 

Frankly. I was surprised after HLV that most fans seemed to support Mary. I thought everyone would hate her for the shooting, and te revelation of her past as a killer would confirm it. That's not arrogance, i.e. everyone should agree with me. It's just what I expected, and maybe I was basing it on real life judgements. I don't think that, in reality, we would be having this argument. Very few people would sympathise with someone who shot their friend simply because he saw too much, and very few forgive professional killers.....But this is the glorious world of fiction and we are free to indulge ourselves. I enjoy Jim's absurd, over-the-top villainy but in real life he would terrify and appall me.

 

Now, for S4.....

 

Presumably "the other one" will appear, or why mention him/her?

 

I expect Mary to have a tragic past, to excuse her career choice, and maybe die heroically to redeem herself. I also fear there will be too many sightings of Baby Watson.

 

If they try to persuade us that Jim is ok after shooting himself in the head, I 'll give up on them completely regarding medical matters. However, I would be happy with Jim, or his brother, as the Big Bad.

 

There are so many stories left. Have we had any themes yet from the Solitary Cyclist or the Adventures of a Cardboard Box? Elementary tackled the latter and made it ridiculous, but I'm sure Moftiss could do better.

[Arcadia]

Wow. Just when I thought this thread might be winding down! So, okay, the newbie here is going to audaciously insert herself into this conversation...

 

I'm another of those folk who can't switch off and suspend belief entirely. However much I'm enjoying an episode, my mind is going, "How could you not know you're bleeding to death... You really think a bullet there wouldn't guarantee a life-threatening injury?".

 

Yeah, I'm normally the same way! But for some reason with this show the critical part of me shuts down. I suspect part of the reason has the initials BC, but I know part has to do with how quickly the show moves. E.g., before I had time to react to Mary shooting Sherlock, I had to start processing the mind palace sequence (I'm one who loves that scene, by the way.) So very clever, Moftiss is. And I fall for the trick every time. But finally the episode is over, and I realize I'm very, very confused. So here I am, seeking to fill the void that is my brain by pestering you lovely people. So thanks, everyone, for contributing to my sanity!

 

...it helps that Sherlock is on screen a lot and he is so mesmerizing...

 

Er, yeah. If you can call that "helping."

 

... I don't even consider Sally Donovan a bad person and I can even sympathize with her aversion to our hero. I think Sally is really loyal towards and a bit protective of Lestrade, and she's concerned that Sherlock will ruin his career...

 

Yes, I rather like her too. Except ... she's unneccessarily mean when she calls Sherlock "freak." I might say that's one of the things that separates the bad guys from the good guys in the Sherlock universe; the bad guys intentionally hurt people, the good guys, er, unintentionally hurt people? Except I'm not sure the latter is even true. More accurate to say their motivations for hurting people are not the same as the bad guys, perhaps.
 

...there's a certain toxic tension in the fandom. ... If it hadn't been for Mary, there wouldn't been this kind of hatred and superiority/inferiority complex going around in the fandom. Not to this degree.

 

I don't know anything about the nature of "the fandom" except what I read here. But if I had to guess, I'd guess that the reason there is -- discord? -- amongst the fans is because there are more of them. More people = more diversity. Diversity breeds conflict. If it hadn't been Mary, it would have been something else.

You're right, you can't change it. You can only change your response to it. Hmm. I was about to give some sage, elderly advice here, but that seems rather presumptuous. So instead I'll offer some empathy. I'm sorry you and Caya and Carol, and anyone else, have felt hurt or rejected by what's going on; been there, done that, and it's not fun. Also I apologize for any of my posts which may have caused you to feel that way; it was not my intent. Sometimes we get so intense about what we want to say that we don't always say it very tactfully. Sometimes I re-read one of my posts and cringe. Hope this doesn't turn out to be one of those..........

[Arcadia]

To continue...

 

But out of interest: What kind of story do you imagine that could show that she actually regrets her actions and not merely having been caught in the act?

 

I don't know if it would take a story, maybe just little gestures here and there. She could buy the milk. Or make some (drug-free) coffee. Or she could say that she regrets her actions and apologize for them.
 

I am more interested in seeing what she did....or does that turned John Watson around. He hated her so completely. What changed his mind?  That is what I want to know.

 

I don't think that was hate, I think it was rage. And rage wears off over time (if you have a healthy personality) and then you're able to think rationally again. I took John at face value; he thought about it, he decided what was important to him, and having Mary in his life was more important to him than making her pay for her past. How one feels about his decision is another matter, which I will tactfully avoid.

 

Maybe it's time to turn a new leaf.
We all interpret the events of HLV differently. I'd really like to know if you see any clear signs where things are headed. Or at least, if you have a hunch... not what we would like to see but rather what we can "deduce."

 

Ah, I'm no good at deduction. But I have a hunch that Sherlock will be a slightly harder, more lonely character from now on. I'm afraid we'll see him smile less, or at least with less warmth. I expect Billy "the chemist" to reappear, so maybe Sherlock's drug use will too.

My other hunch is that it's John's turn to make a sacrifice for his friend; but I can't imagine what it might be.

I expect the supporting cast to have about as much screen time as they've always had, so no big revelations there, just more little ones. But I'd love to see more of Lestrade. Maybe Sherlock will finally remember his first name?

"The other one..." my hunch is that "the other one" will be saved until S5. So if the fans all melt away before/during S4, we may never know what Moftiss have in mind.

That's about as far as my thinking takes me at the moment. Not very far, really.

[T.o.b.y]

"The other one"... I do not like that idea one bit. It's all my stomach can take to have Mycroft looming over Sherlock all the time. Please, not another brother. And Doyle definitely did not write one. "Sherrinford" is just the first idea he had for Sherlock Holmes' name. I don't know who turned it into a third Holmes boy later.

 

I'm wary of new regular characters, anyway. The cast is pretty large as it is, now. I'd rather they'd explore the established figures and gave them more depth.

 

Now, if Moriarty turns out to be the third brother, that's a different story. That would actually add sense to what we've seen before. I think the best possible scenario for me would be Moriarty is a half-sibling Sherlock didn't know about and yes, he is dead. In that case, the video message could have indeed been a tactful reminder from Mummy to Mycroft à la you took one of your brothers down, now at least save me the other one, here's your excuse, now sort it out and bring him back.

 

I don't think that is very likely, though. My best guess on what really will happen is Moriarty is alive and if they run out of other ideas, we'll get a new actor and a new character in the shape of the third Holmes sibling. Not necessarily a brother, either - could well be a sister on this show. That'd be another potential bad-ass woman for Moffat to play with.

[Arcadia]

I read somewhere that Moftiss' idea is that they need new people to be amazed by Sherlock, or John will end up looking kinda dumb. But yeah, when the cast gets too large, someone gets lost in the shuffle. I wouldn't like to see that happen.

[T.o.b.y]

I read somewhere that Moftiss' idea is that they need new people to be amazed by Sherlock, or John will end up looking kinda dumb.

 

So then why did it work perfectly fine to have Dr Watson amazed by Sherlock Holmes for 50-odd stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...? Okay, the good doctor never came across as quite the brightest bulb in the hallway, but still. I liked it fine...

 

[Arcadia]

I dunno, that's what THEY said! I'm perfectly happy if no one's amazed by Sherlock, just as long as he's amazing.

 

Actually, that could be quite funny; Sherlock makes a brilliant deduction. "Hey, everyone, lookit what I did!"

 

"Yawn." "Borrrring." "Yeah, whatever."

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Or like in the stories, it's the clients who are always amazed and sometimes even the criminals when they get caught. They wouldn't have to new people added to the regular cast, would they?

[T.o.b.y]

Good point, Fox.

 

Hm, Moriarty possibly / probably alive and back in the game kind of got me wondering what the hell he could try to do to Sherlock this time. I used to think there was nothing worse you could throw at him than damage his precious reputation for genius and force him to commit suicide in front of his friend, but now I'm not so sure. With John's wife and child in the picture, there are a number of very disturbing possibilities. Goodness, I do hope my intuition is wrong and Moriarty is dead, after all.