Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[T.o.b.y]

What I mean by complex here is that she is hard to figure out yet. Perhaps that's actually the opposite of complex, come to think of it We don't know that much about her, which gives her an heir of mystery. The way I see her is that she is capable of complete human decency and compassion - I don't think she's simply putting up a facade when she shows concern for people (like Sherlock in TSoT and Kate in HLV) - I think she honestly cares about them, but when it comes to people like Magnussen, she is cold and unforgiving. Most of us might think that we would not kill Magnussen in her shoes, or in Sherlock's. Her reasoning seems to be that if the world is better off without someone, they should be killed, and she's a woman of action, taking matters into her own hands.

 

That is pretty much what I see as well, and I like it. She's like Sherlock in that respect: Definitely not one of the angels, but, I think, on their side. I love Sherlock for being like that, why should I condemn her? And within the world of Sherlock, killing Magnussen was definitely a good idea.

 

I love that contrast between warm and caring (Mary with Kate, Mary with John, Mary with Sherlock before the wedding) and cold and ruthless (Mary with Magnussen, Mary with Sherlock during their meeting at the empty house) within the same character. Sherlock who vows to "always be there" for all three Watsons and who youtubes serviettes and invents an iphone app for the perfect wedding and stag night is the same man as he who growls "you're dieing - but there's still time to hurt you", who "restores balance to the universe" by brutally beating up a CIA agent who was, after all, only doing his job and who shoots Magnussen at close range with the words "Merry Christmas". I adore that. Yes, it is a bit sick. But hey, it's only a story. Such a good story...

 

 

[Caya]

 

by brutally beating up a CIA agent who was, after all, only doing his job

 

That CIA agent told one of his underlings to kill unarmed John Watson if Sherlock didn't open the safe now and beat an old, apparently harmless lady. That's a rather loose definition of "only doing his job" imho .

 

So comparing Sherlock harming that man (brutally, admittedly) to Mary killing an unarmed friend does sound a bit like "one of these things is not like the other" to me.

[sherlockandjohn]

Hmm, I think I like Sherlock despite that (his coldness) Well, actually, sometimes I like his coldness, and sometimes not. I'm complex myself that way, I guess. Aren't we all?

[sherlockandjohn]

Scratch that; I love Sherlock even when I don't. Does that make sense?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

I wonder where on earth Moffat got the idea to make Mary an assassin living under an assumed name from. I know he claims he always thought the Doyle story implies that Holmes shot Milverton himself and Watson just made up the lady with the gun to protect him - did he see any hints in the original text that Miss Morstan might have a shady past or a fake identity? If so, they must be pretty nebulous...

 

As for your musings on the idea of making Mary an ex-assasin... Yes, I'd love to hear how they thought of that. Maybe they just wanted something really dramatic involving her. Maybe they didn't simply want a sweet, loving housewife-type for John. Maybe they wanted to put Sherlock in the most dramatic situation possible, being shot by John's wife, and then later shooting the man who is threatening her... One cannot help but wonder.

 

 

Another thought occurred to me just now: If Moffat believes Doyle to have implied that Sherlock killed Milverton, and he wanted to explore that on the show, he would probably need a better reason for having Sherlock kill Magnussen than simply that the man should die, because he's evil. Having him kill Magnussen to protect Mary, and, through Mary, John works much better... well, for some of us. I know that there are still many who don't like that "solution".

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I think it's easy to get caught up in HLV - it was the last episode, and a very dramatic one, after all - in which Mary has a big part. And, indirectly, she does in TSoT as well. It's always insinuated that Sherlock and John's friendship isn't the same, because John is getting married.

 

Yes, and that kind of makes me wonder. Because initially, I thought everybody who said that was silly and Sherlock was absolutely right when he remarked:

 

"Two people who currently live together are about to attend church, have a party, go on a short holiday and then carry on living together. What’s big about that?"

 

That is my take on marriage in our time and culture exactly. Hmmm, another favorite quote - could use that myself soon, come to think of it...

 

Back on topic: But then, the series made pretty clear that Sherlock was wrong and even Sherlock himself thought so. Why, for god's sake? John is still his best friend, John still works on cases with him, Mary has absolutely no problem with that, Mary likes Sherlock and has practically adopted him - where the heck is the problem? It wasn't even a problem back in Doyle's time, where having a wife was a completely different responsibility from nowadays, because women were so dependent on the men in their lives. Of course, John and Mary having a child, that would tie up a lot of their time and might make John a bit more careful about taking risks on cases (it might even make Sherlock more careful about provoking those risks), but kids grow older and they grow up. And other dads have dangerous jobs and hobbies, too. (Other moms might not have quite Mary's class of enemies, though).

 

So if there's a "vacancy" and Janine tactfully suggests she might fill it up, um, then, well, I think Moffat and his colleagues can stop claiming they find it "absurd" when people see a maybe-not-so-platonic-after-all love story unfolding before their eyes. I still don't, so far, but if they go on like this, even I may be forced to change my mind.

 

 

[Caya]

Pressure points and inequality is the problem. John is Sherlock's pressure point, Sherlock is not John's pressure point. The nature of their friendship is no longer equal. John has a different person as the center of his life, namely, Mary - again, perfectly natural in a marriage, but not the show I came to watch Sherlock for.

 

That's why many of us (myself included) would love to see Victor Trevor in the mix. Let John "airfield scene" Watson feel that he, too, isn't irreplaceable after all. Then of course prove that utterly wrong in a dramatic season finale where balance and their original friendship is restored (what - a girl can dream, can't she? ).

[sherlockandjohn]

As long as the writers don't continue to toy with our feelings, I'll be happy. It feels like they are setting us up for big emotional drama, when it's really not that necessary. Like T.o.b.y points out above, things don't need to be much different between Sherlock and John because Mary is there, but they are - or they are being made out to be... and it seems that it's for the sole purpose of making us emotional. It works, too, and they (the writers) know it. The larger group of fans are women, and we do like emotions, don't we?

 

Well, to a certain degree. While I'm taken in by the more emotional s3, I'm more unrestrained enthusiastic about the first two series.

[Redbeard]

:applause:

That's why many of us (myself included) would love to see Victor Trevor in the mix. Let John "airfield scene" Watson feel that he, too, isn't irreplaceable after all. Then of course prove that utterly wrong in a dramatic season finale where balance and their original friendship is restored (what - a girl can dream, can't she? ).

 

Standing ovation!
 

[Dragonslayer]

A dear friend, long presumed to be dead, coming out of nowhere just the day they are getting engaged. This is bound to change the dynamics of the friendship. Even best friends do not remain best friends for all times. There are always ups and downs.

With John newly wed, it is no surprise Mary shares his love along with Sherlock. Priorities will change. Its what happened in ACD too. I like realism in my programmes. I find this realistic enough.

[T.o.b.y]

That's why many of us (myself included) would love to see Victor Trevor in the mix. Let John "airfield scene" Watson feel that he, too, isn't irreplaceable after all.

 

Mmmm, but that approach didn't work with Molly, even, why would it work with somebody else? The problem is, John isn't replaceable. Well, that's not a problem dramatically (the opposite would be), but I don't quite understand why a new character should be able to convincingly replace John when Molly Hooper couldn't - and she and Sherlock go further back and are really close in their own way.

 

Not that I want John to be replaced by anybody, even temporarily. I love Molly and I really like that little interlude where Sherlock takes her as an assistant, I even think "hey, this could actually work really well, too", every time I see it, but I'm always relieved somehow when Sherlock calls her "John" by mistake. It feels - right.

 

[Caya]

That's where the "feel" in Let John feel that ... comes into play . John shouldn't be replaceable in Sherlock's life, but neither should Sherlock be in John's life, and yet Mary is John's pressure point now, not Sherlock.

 

The last thing I want is for Sherlock and John to drift further apart. But I so want John to taste some of his own sweet medicine, make him believe (even if it isn't true) that Sherlock now has someone else he cares more about. Then, in the climax of S4, make both of them realize that, in the end, there's only Sherlock and John, and will always be. *sigh* Like I said, it's but a pipe dream.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Then, in the climax of S4, make both of them realize that, in the end, there's only Sherlock and John, and will always be. *sigh* Like I said, it's but a pipe dream.

 

  I doubt it's a pipe dream. Since their creation, it has always been Sherlock Holmes and John H. Watson. You don't have the magic one without the other. It has been estimated that in canon Sherlock Holmes solved over 1700 cases. The ones we know about are the ones that Watson witnessed. The one that he didn't and is written in Holmes's voice is lacking and Holmes himself comments on how he missed Watson's involvement and how he, Holmes, didn't write it up have as well as Watson would have.

 

  It will always be Holmes and Watson.....never just Holmes.....or just Watson....it's just not possible.

[Zain]

 

 

I wonder where on earth Moffat got the idea to make Mary an assassin living under an assumed name from. I know he claims he always thought the Doyle story implies that Holmes shot Milverton himself and Watson just made up the lady with the gun to protect him - did he see any hints in the original text that Miss Morstan might have a shady past or a fake identity? If so, they must be pretty nebulous...

 

 

Maybe they read some fanworks in which Mary Morstan was equaled with Moran and thought, "Hey, that'd be fun. And the names are similiar. Let's go with sniper!Mary. So assassin it is." Sure, canon!Mary wasn't Moran but it is tempting to use the fact that both characters are connected to India. Moran killed a tiger in India (and he was in Afghanistan, too, I think), while Mary's father had died in India. Moran was Moriarty's specialized assassin, and especially good with a rifle (a good aim!).

Moran also killed a person with a silenced gun when that person, Aldair, threatened to expose Moran's secret. I believe in that person's office if I am not mistaken.

Moran also appeared first in TEH (and unlike the Moran from TEH, he escaped and lived to cause more havoc).

Moran also attempted to shoot Holmes but did not kill him.

 

There sure are a lot of similiarities. I think they picked up the theme, but they developped it away from Moran's character. I wish there was a method behind it, but I dare not hope.

 

 

 

I think it's easy to get caught up in HLV - it was the last episode, and a very dramatic one, after all - in which Mary has a big part. And, indirectly, she does in TSoT as well. It's always insinuated that Sherlock and John's friendship isn't the same, because John is getting married.

 

 

 

It definitely is easy to get caught up in this episode. It just pushes so many buttons. I can't believe we're still discussing it so many months after it was first aired.

 

Pressure points and inequality is the problem. John is Sherlock's pressure point, Sherlock is not John's pressure point. The nature of their friendship is no longer equal. John has a different person as the center of his life, namely, Mary - again, perfectly natural in a marriage, but not the show I came to watch Sherlock for.

 

That's why many of us (myself included) would love to see Victor Trevor in the mix. Let John "airfield scene" Watson feel that he, too, isn't irreplaceable after all. Then of course prove that utterly wrong in a dramatic season finale where balance and their original friendship is restored (what - a girl can dream, can't she? ).

 

Thank you for putting this so beautifully. I never managed to put it quite like this, I usually take much more paragraphs to express the same.

And thanks for promoting Victor Trevor Let's spread the word. I've already seen it crop up at other sites, and there has been quite an increase in stories and fanarts featuring him. It's like a substantial part of the fandom agrees with the idea. They also want some kind of opposite pole to Mary who has become somewhat intruding on John and Sherlock's friendship.

 

 

A dear friend, long presumed to be dead, coming out of nowhere just the day they are getting engaged. This is bound to change the dynamics of the friendship. Even best friends do not remain best friends for all times. There are always ups and downs.

With John newly wed, it is no surprise Mary shares his love along with Sherlock. Priorities will change. Its what happened in ACD too. I like realism in my programmes. I find this realistic enough.

 

But would you really throw away the thumbdrive in reality? Or not file a divorce when your wife shoots your best friend?

 

I suppose there's friendship, and then there's friendship. With Sherlock and John, I always had this deeper, more intimate ( soul-intimate, not physical-intimate) friendship in mind. A beautiful bond that one shares with one or two persons in life, if with any at all. The one person that should not exists and it defies all logic, but that person is your first priority because you would be nothing without them... The person you'd go down with because there is nothing else to do.

 

I missed that in s3. Like slithytove put it two pages before: I missed the "you and me against the world."

The kind of friendship where someone could not imagine life without that person. One of the major things I was disappointed with was John's decision at the airfield. If you had asked me in s2, or in s1, I would have told you that John would always board the flight "to death" with Sherlock. Because that's what they do. Sherlock runs head-forward against a wall, and John will follow. And when John is in danger, Sherlock will jump. Whether he'll jump down a building or into a fire... doesn't matter. It's what they do. Because with them, the other always comes first. Even if one should prioritize something else, e.g. Mary or Harry, or whatever.

 

S3 takes this friendship apart. Sherlock doesn't come first with John anymore. It's very sad. Because with Sherlock, John will always come first. It's unequal. It's unfair. And I am not sure I am so much in favor of this friendship if it is this one-sided in s4. It hurts to see someone be this dependent of another person, especially if that person can do without you.

 

 

Mmmm, but that approach didn't work with Molly, even, why would it work with somebody else? The problem is, John isn't replaceable. Well, that's not a problem dramatically (the opposite would be), but I don't quite understand why a new character should be able to convincingly replace John when Molly Hooper couldn't - and she and Sherlock go further back and are really close in their own way.

Not that I want John to be replaced by anybody, even temporarily. I love Molly and I really like that little interlude where Sherlock takes her as an assistant, I even think "hey, this could actually work really well, too", every time I see it, but I'm always relieved somehow when Sherlock calls her "John" by mistake. It feels - right.

 

Well, I cannot speak for Caya but since I am advocating Victor a lot these days, may I offer one more post on the topic?

 

The idea of bringing Victor Trevor into s4 isn't about replacing John.If anything it is about bringing John back into the show. In s3, I get the feeling that John and Sherlock are drifting apart. Yes, there are words, and Sherlock pines after John in an almost indecent way. But that's it. John doesn't. It is about Sherlock who pines after John. John is happy with seeing Sherlock once a month, going on a case and returning to his family. He is not interested in being more than an occasional assistant. He didn't even seem particularly annoyed at Sherlock or himself for not keeping in contact for a month. He is retreating, and it is a conscious decision.

 

Of course we had Molly trying to "replace" John. Well, it was Sherlock who tried to replace John. And he failed. Molly didn't want to replace John, and he was reminded of John all the time. The problem is: John did not even notice that Sherlock attempted to replace him. Nor did Sherlock succeed. He couldn't stop thinking about John.

The idea behind Victor Trevor is simple. It really doesn't matter if they are ex-lovers, former friends, friends who drifted apart or simply old acquaintances (like room mates). It is about somebody who John is unfamiliar with and doesn't feel particularly friendly about and who John actively observes being intimate with Sherlock. Not physically intimate. It is about knowing someone. The details whether Victor uses a pet name, knows what Sherlock thinks, whether he gets Sherlock to eat or to be nice, or whether he is even worse than Sherlock and he is the one that taught Sherlock that body parts belong in the fridge, whatever, it does not matter. That is not as important as the fact that he could get Sherlock to look at him and see Victor. Not a replacement for John. Victor should be someone that Sherlock wants to be there (e.g. at a crime scene) because he's Victor, and because of their shared past. Not because there's a vacancy.

I do not wish for Victor to be a recurring character or for them to become the show's next one true pairing. It is about one episode. Two at most, and I think that would actually be too much space for his character. It is about John pining after Sherlock for once. Not romantically. I want to break up this one-sided depedency s3 introduced.

 

Maybe it's in vain and their friendship is lost, because, as dragonslayer proposed, priorities change. And maybe their friendship never was this strong and we simply idealized it. But I feel like it is essential to get back to what made this show popular. Not Mary. It was Sherlock and John's friendship.

 

I think it was you, Toby, who proposed that we could simply have Mary fade into the background. Like Caya, I have moral objections against that. But I also think it would not be enough. It would not repair John and Sherlock's friendship.

[Slithytove]

I know that I will carry on watching, even if we get a hideous amount of the Watsons's domestic life in S4 and (worse still!) Mary never gets her comeuppance. Even if I get frequently exasperated, I love Sherlock himself and I can put up with an enormous amount of annoyance on his behalf! However, I do want desperately for something to happen to prioritise John and Sherlock's friendship again, and Victor Trevor might be the way to do it - particularly if Mary is gone as well.

 

Mary's death wouldn't have to mean another episode of grief for John. If he still loved her, it would undoubtedly break his heart, but what if he hated her? I agree it is unlikely that he would shoot the mother of his child (though it would be dramatic), but it is not improbable that someone grows to loathe their spouse. Happens all the time, so why shouldn't it happen to John & Mary?

 

What if her personality, the one John fell in love with, was as false as her identity? What if she was a cold-hearted killer? What if Mary was the Big Bad or, at least, a Colonel Moran figure whose sole motivation was to find and destroy Sherlock, maybe to avenge Moriarty? She could even be one of the snipers involved in previous cases, i.e. TBB and/or TGG. Wouldn't John hate her then? She could die in dramatic circumstances without us having to endure another bout of unbearable sorrow for John. He might even be relieved that she was out of his life and their daughter's, particularly if her crimes put Baby Watson's life at risk.

 

I know it won't happen, as the writers have a sentimental streak and also seem to think Mary is somehow redeemed (although, personally, I can't see how or why) but I think it would work and could put Sherlock back at the centre of John's life, where he belongs.

[T.o.b.y]

 Even if I get frequently exasperated, I love Sherlock himself and I can put up with an enormous amount of annoyance on his behalf!

 

Mhm, so can I. And the annoyance, for me, fades away with time, anyways - Sherlock, it seems, can reconcile me to anything, even fake deaths and Janine (I love Janine now, whereas, when I first saw her, I went oh no.)

 

So many great comments I'd love to pick up on, and so little time before work... *Sigh*.

 

Victor Trevor: I'm not sure I like the idea of using him to invoke jealousy, but I would still be interested generally in how these writers would use "The Gloria Scott" on their version, so why not. They'll manage something good if they want to.

 

John's priorities: I think I am probably part of a minority, there, but the current dynamic has huge appeal for me. It's another example of how on Sherlock, people behave not as (we think) they should, but as they often do in real life, whereas the stories around and about them are utterly fantastical. I see Sherlock playing the violin for John and Mary, planning their wedding, wincing at the sight of the empty chair and leaving the party with his collar turned up and I think oh my god, I've been there! It's a way to make us connect to Sherlock emotionally, and that is not an easy thing to do with a character like him. How many heroes can be so heroic and far away and yet so human and easy to relate to? And so dark and disturbing at the same time?

 

Apart from that, not to worry, John can get as married as he likes and have twelve kids for all I care, the story is about Sherlock and always will be about Sherlock, and John is Sherlock's blogger and best friend and invaluable assistant, and so he will remain. And I don't think anybody involved in making the show wants anything else. Poor Mary so far has been little more than a plot device to really put the romance in bromance, if you ask me.

 

As for idealizing their friendship beyond what is there, I think that happened with Doyle's original, but on this version, they did the idealizing (and romanticizing) themselves and we're just following along...

 

 

[Arcadia]

Like is not strong enuff, I love that last post!

[Arcadia]

Man, I've got to move to another time zone, I miss all the good conversations!

So, I think I have a theory ...

I get the impression from reading these posts that most of those who never really liked Mary are also people who want to see Sherlock and John as "monogamous" partners (platonic or otherwise). "Just us against the world!"

 

And most of those who are okay with Mary are also fine with the thought that Sherlock might have more than one profound relationship in his life; friends and loves and family, the more the merrier.

Me, for instance; I just want to see the poor slob happy, if that means 32 friends, a lover and a teddy bear in the garden, that's fine with me. And I'm okay with Mary being one of those friends.

What do you all think? Is there something to this? Or maybe I'm just not that much of a romantic.

(What I fear, however, is that Sherlock will end up fundamentally lonely, because that's apparently "canon". Nooooooo, too sad for me! But I have a feeling that's where it will go.)

[sherlockandjohn]

 

...

 

John's priorities: I think I am probably part of a minority, there, but the current dynamic has huge appeal for me. It's another example of how on Sherlock, people behave not as (we think) they should, but as the often do in real life, whereas the stories around and about them are utterly fantastical. I see Sherlock playing the violin for John and Mary, planning their wedding, wincing at the sight of the empty chair and leaving the party with his collar turned up and I think oh my god, I've been there! It's a way to make us connect to Sherlock emotionally, and that is not an easy thing to do with a character like him. How many heroes can be so heroic and far away and yet so human and easy to relate to? And so dark and disturbing at the same time?

 

Apart from that, not to worry, John can get as married as he likes and have twelve kids for all I care, the story is about Sherlock and always will be about Sherlock, and John is Sherlock's blogger and best friend and invaluable assistant, and so he will remain. And I don't think anybody involved in making the show wants anything else. Poor Mary so far has been little more than a plot device to really put the romance in bromance, if you ask me.

 

As for idealizing their friendship beyond what is there, I think that happened with Doyle's original, but on this version, they did the idealizing (and romanticizing) themselves and we're just following along...

 

 

While I don't love the current dynamic, it does have it's interesting parts. And I'm in agreement here that the show's writers and producers are themselves mainly interested in the friendship between John and Sherlock, so I don't think I need to be concerned that they'll change focus. HLV was just one episode. It doesn't have to define the rest of the show, and I don't think it will. We've already been thrown for several loops during the three series, and I believe we will be again.

 

I don't think we are idealising the friendship, either. I, for one, would never have foreseen Sherlocks's heartfelt wedding speech; nor would I have come up with something so sentimental for him myself. I am definitely brougt along for the ride.

[sherlockandjohn]

Man, I've got to move to another time zone, I miss all the good conversations!

 

So, I think I have a theory ...

 

I get the impression from reading these posts that most of those who never really liked Mary are also people who want to see Sherlock and John as "monogamous" partners (platonic or otherwise). "Just us against the world!"

 

And most of those who are okay with Mary are also fine with the thought that Sherlock might have more than one profound relationship in his life; friends and loves and family, the more the merrier.

 

Me, for instance; I just want to see the poor slob happy, if that means 32 friends, a lover and a teddy bear in the garden, that's fine with me. And I'm okay with Mary being one of those friends.

 

What do you all think? Is there something to this? Or maybe I'm just not that much of a romantic.

 

(What I fear, however, is that Sherlock will end up fundamentally lonely, because that's apparently "canon". Nooooooo, too sad for me! But I have a feeling that's where it will go.)

 

Oooh, I had to comment on this. If in real life, sure, I'd happily agree with you. But as it is, I really enjoy the very human sociopath who has trouble with his social skills, and who only has one friend as close as John Watson. And I want John's closest friend to remain Sherlock, and for the show to remain focused on that friendship. I have no doubt it will.

 

Apart from that, they can have friends, sure, but I still prefer Sherlock to be slightly bad around other people That works, of course, even though he has friends (as we see plenty of evidence of). He still treats Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade less than nicely a lot of the time, yet they are still his friends.

 

As for Sherlock ending up lonely, that's sad. I hope they don't go with canon there and separate him and John. And I don't imagine they will. If they do, I think I'll be sorely disappointed.

[Arcadia]

Separate them, no. But I can see them having Sherlock go back to holding himself apart. And after CAM, I think he'll be hardened. Hope I'm wrong.

[Arcadia]

Johnny-come-lately here ... not only am I in the wrong time zone, but then my wireless signal mysteriously disappeared. (Anyone know a good detective?)
 
Still, I can't resist joining in, however belatedly, so here goes...

 

... John didn't really know why he wanted to be around Sherlock at all ...

I get this, because I've wondered the same thing myself! Sherlock's such an ass, why do I adore him so much? Then it occurred to me it might be the same reason for me as for John; Sherlock makes me laugh. I've always thought S&J's friendship started when they laughed together after the taxi chase. And I doubt if I would watch this show if it wasn't so unexpectedly funny.

 

One reason (among many) why I wouldn't complain if Mary stuck around for a while is that I'm really curious how her friendship (or whatever you want to call it) with Sherlock will develop in the future. Theirs is one of the most interesting relationships on the show at the moment, or at least it could be, if only an tenth of its potential is realized...

Yes, I would like this too. I can't help it, I'm perpetually curious about what's going on in Sherlock's funny old head, and this could illuminate him somewhat.

 

I don't think she'd necessarily be any more "in the way" than Lestrade or Mrs Hudson or Molly.

That's was my original impression as well, that it was really important to them to get the balance right. I must say, tho, I don't think Lestrade's "in the way" enough!

 

Hmm, I think I like Sherlock despite that (his coldness) ...

Ditto. Maybe I'm delusional, but I keep thinking the "warm" Sherlock is the real one and the "cold" Sherlock is just the way he protects himself. Or, well, something like that. More than that, really. Actually, he's just freakin' complicated ....

 

Scratch that; I love Sherlock even when I don't. Does that make sense?

None whatsoever. Welcome to my world.

 

... I do want desperately for something to happen to prioritise John and Sherlock's friendship again....

But their friendship was the absolute center of S3! Virtually every scene was about their friendship! Head butts, motorbikes, bonfires, drunken games, serviettes, speeches, drug tests, betrayal, murder ... those were all about their friendship, imo, about what stupid, trivial or dangerous thing they will do for each other.

 

I grant you, John might have less time for Sherlock than he did before. And that's a little sad. But I don't see that his heart has changed. He's there in a tunnel with a bomb, he's breaking into CAM's office, he's in the heart of darkness at Appledore. He doesn't need to be in any of those places; except that Sherlock is his best friend, so yeah, he does need to be there. Because he loves his friend. He also happens to love his sister, and his wife, and no doubt his child, and for all I know he loves 50 or 600 or 1000 other people. I don't believe it takes anything away from Sherlock that John is capable of loving more than one person at a time. Love is not finite; the more you give, the more you have to give. Something Sherlock has yet to learn, methinks. He still thinks love is something you selfishly hoard lest it disperse, like a scent in a breeze. He's getting there, tho. If Mycroft doesn't get to him first.

Hm, I just realized how Sherlock-centric I tend to be. I adore John, but I don't wonder what he's thinking and feeling about everything. Well, I don't need to, do I ... he's usually an open book. Sherlock's the real mystery in every episode, isn't he? I guess I'm still girlish enough to want to solve that mystery. Good grief.

[Slithytove]

I'm not sure that people who dislike Mary now necessarily disliked her prior to HLV. I liked her as a character in the first two episodes, though I was admittedly a bit concerned that she might upset the central dynamic between John and Sherlock. You can't really compare Mary to Molly or any of the other minor characters, because there is no other character whose emotional impact can affect the central relationship in the same way. However, if Mary had been allowed to fade into the background like the original Mrs Watson, I would not have minded her and I suspect that many others feel the same. (In the original stories, all other characters, including Mary, seem like shadows compared to the three- dimensional reality of Holmes and Watson. Lestrade probably gets top billing but, even so, we see him only as he flits briefly in and out of Baker Street life.). The shooting of Sherlock was, for me, a deal-breaker. It changed my feelings towards Mary for good. Even if they make her a background character now, she will always be the woman who nearly killed Sherlock, and it will always seem wrong that John is with her.

 

The question of why John wants to be with Sherlock is interesting. I think it begins with curiosity and admiration. For ACD's Watson, admiration and the need to be needed always seemed to be the basis for his friendship. I found his unswerving devotion to Holmes rather touching and lovely, but maybe it wouldn't be convincing in the 21st century. So we have an edgier John who hits Sherlock and yells and swears at him, but still regards him as his best friend. I suppose we are supposed to accept the John-likes-dangerous-people theory, but it seems to me that Sherlock just makes him feel alive. That was what happened in ASiP, when he rescued John from a pointless existence, and it seems reasonable as an explanation of why John wants to stick around. Sherlock infuriates him, amuses him, drags him into adventures and, as John says, "I'm never bored."

 

I do feel, though, that their friendship changed in S3 in a way that weakened it. Yes, they were together in moments of crisis. Yes, Sherlock's loneliness and uncertainty showed us the warm heart behind the cool facade. Great. But now let's have a bit more of Watson's heartfelt devotion and loyalty, even if Mary has to go, or if Victor has to turn up to show John that he too was "not the first.". Or maybe we just need to go back to John's point of view, after seeing so much through Sherlock's eyes.

[T.o.b.y]

Man, I've got to move to another time zone, I miss all the good conversations!

 

So, I think I have a theory ...

 

I get the impression from reading these posts that most of those who never really liked Mary are also people who want to see Sherlock and John as "monogamous" partners (platonic or otherwise). "Just us against the world!"

 

And most of those who are okay with Mary are also fine with the thought that Sherlock might have more than one profound relationship in his life; friends and loves and family, the more the merrier.

 

Sorry, but I have to disappoint you there: John can have as many friends and family as he likes, but Sherlock Holmes is a different story. He wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes if he had a normal social life. Isolation and loneliness are essential characteristics for him and if they eradicate those, they'll have to give the character a different name, in my opinion. Personally, I like Sherlock the best at his most "sociopathic", even though I only love him because I know there's that "great heart" somewhere behind the armor of coat and rudeness.

 

And I am afraid I'm not even keen on Sherlock being all too happy most of the time. I'm a bit of a sucker for dark, moody heroes.

 

I also totally buy that "the two of us against the rest of the world" concept - for Sherlock! It doesn't have to be like that for John at all.

 

 

Oh, don't worry about your timezone! The written word is patient. Just quote whatever post you want to answer, I'd say, and if it's ten pages back, so what? I can't imagine anyone objecting.

 

[sherlockandjohn]

 

...John can have as many friends and family as he likes, but Sherlock Holmes is a different story. He wouldn't be Sherlock Holmes if he had a normal social life. Isolation and loneliness are essential characteristics for him and if they eradicate those, they'll have to give the character a different name, in my opinion. Personally, I like Sherlock the best at his most "sociopathic", even though I only love him because I know there's that "great heart" somewhere behind the armor of coat and rudeness.

 

And I am afraid I'm not even keen on Sherlock being all too happy most of the time. I'm a bit of a sucker for dark, moody heroes.

 

I also totally buy that "the two of us against the rest of the world" concept - for Sherlock! It doesn't have to be like that for John at all.

 

Wholeheartedly agreeing with you on Sherlock's personality (though I tend to love the excited "four serial suicides and now a note" Sherlock the best - again because, as you also say, we know he's got a big heart, too). I don't want him to get along with everyone; that would make him too perfect. We can't have a perfect brain and a perfect heart in the same person (don't take my use of the word "perfect" too seriously).

 

I'd like the "two of us against the rest of the world" to go for John as well as for Sherlock. Doesn't have to be entirely literal, though! It's not like I want them to be against Mary, Lestrade, Mrs. Hudson... But I do want them to have that connection that says, "If your life is on the line, I'll risk my own to save you." That's why I can understand and agree with those who want to see more of that side to John in s4.