Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Arcadia]

Lestrade's a bit complicit in aiding and abetting criminals too. He lets Sherlock slide for causing bodily harm to a CIA agent for love of a woman.
 
It was clearer in the unaired pilot, but when Sherlock figures out it was John who shot the cabbie, so does Lestrade. (How could he not, with Captain Obvious telegraphing it all over the place.) Watch his reaction after Sherlock walks away. Heck, he even warns Sherlock  that he's about to be arrested in TRF. What kind of policeman is this guy, anyway?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well there ya go then.....we have hypocrites falling all over themselves....in canon and out of it.

[Arcadia]

They could form a club! Hypocrites Anonymous! Their motto: "We do it for love, whatever that is." Once a month they get together and look the other way at a crime scene.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well they would have to have a very good reason though......somehow a love match of some sort has be involved. They  can't  be caught breaking the code  of the club.

[Zain]

 

It is also great to show Mycroft's faster intellect by having Sherlock focusing on the wrong details regarding what kind of gun shot him instead did the bullet pass through him and shattering the mirror.  Sherlock is dancing around the wrong details.

 

Mycroft hasn't just been shot, so it's only natural that his head would be working better than Sherlock's at that point.

 

I started to post just that much, but then I realized --

 

Where is Mycroft's helpful hint about the mirror actually coming from?  Since (as you mentioned earlier) we're apparently seeing inside Sherlock's mind palace -- isn't "Mycroft" is a manifestation of Sherlock's own intellect, merely a technique that Sherlock uses to help himself focus?

 

We're working with a lot of layers here!

 

 

Interesting remark.

Mycroft appears, to me, to be some sort of higher instance in Sherlock's mind. Sherlock asks him for advice, he is a child in front of him, Mycroft corrects Sherlock's conclusions. Like a judge that looks down from his seat to the witness box.

Maybe it's a case of "What would Mycroft do", a case of Sherlock unconsciously attempting to emulate his older and "wiser" brother. Because his older brother always knows what to do, even when Sherlock does not. Not that I share this belief.

But I could imagine that their childhood left some sort of imprint on Sherlock, some sort of inferiority complex. While we do see Sherlock openly reject Mycroft and question him, he still seems to look up to him as if Mycroft held a universal solution to everything. When he is in trouble, he asks Mycroft for help, too, like with Moriarty.

[Redbeard]

Well there ya go then.....we have hypocrites falling all over themselves....in canon and out of it.

 

Well..I don't agree with that.  I think the situation with Mary is different than the others.  I didn't find them hypocritical before.  In every other case that they let someone get away it was always because on some level they were deserving.  Like strangers in the stories they let go not just because they were lovers, but more because they killed someone bad, or because they had a sympathetic motive.  It has to be justifiable in some way.  Same with Lestrade looking the other way if Sherlock or John commit crimes.  He knows them, he knows they have done what they have done for good reason.  If Sherlock and John were to walk around the streets of London and randomly shoot unarmed citizens, I don't think Lestrade would look the other way just because they are friends.  But there has always been at least a case to be made that justice was served.  The murders are almost always the result of a heated impulse, something that drove a good person to take an action that was heinous.  But the people themselves were in some way "on the side of the angels".

 

But not so with Mary.  John doesn't even want to look at what she has done in the past.  He doesn't care if she is a good person, if she was justified, if she was on the side of the angels or just a cold blooded killer.  Even in the one instance we all know for sure - shooting Sherlock - it was as selfish and cold-blooded as it gets.  No on the side of the angels there!  This is what I don't get.  They don't care if she murdered innocent people, children, animals...why?  Because she's a fun girl to have around? 

 

That is why I really hope we get something in Series 4 because if John and Sherlock just really don't care...it doesn't seem like John and Sherlock to me. 

[by the sea]

Annnnndd, the debate goes on! I love this stuff, I hope no one minds if I hop in here and stir it around some more...

 

 

Yes, I'm afraid that in the end this is at the heart of my forbearance... I am witlessly following Sherlock, wherever he may lead. If he trusts Mary, I will too. Because I have no will of my own, apparently. (I can hear my mother now: "And if he jumped off a building, would you jump too?")

 

 

 

 

LOL !       Arcadia, you are the woMAN !     You can tell your mother that it's OK ... remember when Sherlock jumped off a building, he didn't land !     Ultimately, the show is about Sherlock.  He is my hero (even though John is my teddy bear  ) and he is the hero of the piece.  We pretty much have to follow him to the ends of the earth 'cause that's why he's there !  He clearly has a place for Mary ... it might even be a bad place, but we don't know that yet ... although it certainly doesn't look like it.  So, if we're truly Sherlock's disciples, we should bow to his instincts since he's the one with all the crazed criminal experience.

 

Debbie

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

They killed.....and yet they are on the side of the angels.  Mary kills.....we don't know her motivations.......and yet....heaven forbid that she could ever be on the side of the angels?

  

  Naw.....that don't quite work out.....does it?

[Redbeard]

 

Annnnndd, the debate goes on! I love this stuff, I hope no one minds if I hop in here and stir it around some more...

 

 

Yes, I'm afraid that in the end this is at the heart of my forbearance... I am witlessly following Sherlock, wherever he may lead. If he trusts Mary, I will too. Because I have no will of my own, apparently. (I can hear my mother now: "And if he jumped off a building, would you jump too?")

 

 

 

 

LOL !       Arcadia, you are the woMAN !     You can tell your mother that it's OK ... remember when Sherlock jumped off a building, he didn't land !     Ultimately, the show is about Sherlock.  He is my hero (even though John is my teddy bear  ) and he is the hero of the piece.  We pretty much have to follow him to the ends of the earth 'cause that's why he's there !  He clearly has a place for Mary ... it might even be a bad place, but we don't know that yet ... although it certainly doesn't look like it.  So, if we're truly Sherlock's disciples, we should bow to his instincts since he's the one with all the crazed criminal experience.

 

Debbie

 

 

Yeah but we can't bow too much because then otherwise what would we have to discuss?  "Sherlock is awesome" would start to make for a boring message board after a while, though I'd give it a shot if everyone's into it lol.  Thank goodness these discussions help keep it alive and fill the void during the infernal wait. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

True.....I love gushing......especially about Sherlock.....who doesn't. But those eighteen months long hiatuses can get monotonous. So yeah.....if we all act like Mycroft and Sherlock and quibble the finer points like good siblings do, that's a good thing.

[Redbeard]

They killed.....and yet they are on the side of the angels.  Mary kills.....we don't know her motivations.......and yet....heaven forbid that she could ever be on the side of the angels?

  

  Naw.....that don't quite work out.....does it?

 

 

I never said she couldn't be on the side of the angels??  She might be.  (Though her own words of John not loving her anymore if he knew the truth doesn't sound like it).  I just hope it is resolved one way or the other, and the storyline not ended there.  (And I also hope that Sherlock and John had determined it before they sided with her...maybe they did...again I am hoping there is more to come that they did not show us.)  My opinion is based on what they have left us with so far...I am no way assuming what we are yet to be told. 

[by the sea]

They killed.....and yet they are on the side of the angels.  Mary kills.....we don't know her motivations.......and yet....heaven forbid that she could ever be on the side of the angels?

  

  Naw.....that don't quite work out.....does it?

 

I don't see why not.  There might be any number of reasons why Mary killed people.  We're assuming that the intentions were somehow associated with evil but maybe her motives were heroic but misconstrued by CAM and his minions and she knew that they would present distortions of her actions to the world and she couldn't allow that to happen.  Killing CAM seems a bit drastic in that scenario but maybe there were other lives/reputations at stake and she couldn't afford to let the information leak.  I'm thinking of the greater good here.

 

Debbie

[Arcadia]

Well they would have to have a very good reason though......somehow a love match of some sort has be involved. They  can't  be caught breaking the code  of the club.

They're hypocrites, of course they break the code of the club!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

We're assuming that the intentions were somehow associated with evil but maybe her motives were heroic but misconstrued by CAM and his minions and she knew that they would present distortions of her actions to the world and she couldn't allow that to happen.  Killing CAM seems a bit drastic in that scenario but maybe there were other lives/reputations at stake and she couldn't afford to let the information leak.  I'm thinking of the greater good here.

 

  I agree. Always have....or tried to anyway.  Moriarty said in "TRF" that he loved news papers because they printed "fairy tales.  CAM was a newspaper mogul and a master blackmailer. We know that one least one of his victims has committed suicide....perhaps driven to it because his wife dared to go to Sherlock Holmes and expose CAM's involvement. CAM admits that he is blackmailing whole nations so yes....there are many lives and reputations that CAM could destroy if he felt justified.

 

I too feel that killing CAM was a bit drastic....but it's canon.  A lady of title shoots Charles Augustus Milverton with John H. Watson and Sherlock Holmes witnessing the whole thing, Holmes destroys all evidence that was in that CAM's safe.... he and Watson bolts...and are almost caught, at least one servant describes the two fleeing men especially Watson and Lestrade is highly amused when Holmes comments on it. But they forever hide the identity of the killer.

 

 In our version Sherlock shoots CAM....in front of a boat load of witnesses....including his own brother.  He effectively destroys CAM's files but does not try to flee nor hide his own involvement. He makes no excuses and accepts responsibility and the consequences.

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

They're hypocrites, of course they break the code of the club!

 

  Oh sigh.....yes I did envision that you know.  But it creates such a vicious circle. Now those that broke the rules of that Hypocrite's Anonymous Club is going to have to form another club....oh my.

[by the sea]

 

 

I too feel that killing CAM was a bit drastic....but it's canon. 

 

I only think killing CAM is drastic in terms of the hypothetical defence I posed for Mary up there somewhere.  In terms of our story, I think it was crucial ... if only to get his character out of the way 'cause I can see him being very distracting if he'd been left functional.  I like the way it was handled in the original ... I hadn't read the ACD story ... but in the modern version, I think Sherlock had to be seen ridding the world of this vermin ... you've probably noticed that CAM is a villain I particularly love to hate !  ... it sort of clears the way for old secrets to become important one at a time.

 

Debbie

 

PS ... Look at me !  I'm a Detective CHIEF Inspector now ... joining the ranks of Barnaby and Banks.  I'm honoured. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yay! Congratulations, Debbie! 

[sfmpco]

Was just thinking about when Moriarty threatens Sherlock with, "I will burn the heart out of you" and how John is later put into the fire - John being Sherlock's pressure point.  Of course, Moriarty was already dead when that happened, but it's still interesting.  Not making a case for JohnLock as I don't see a case to be made.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

"I will burn the heart out of you" and how John is later put into the fire - John being Sherlock's pressure point.  Of course, Moriarty was already dead when that happened, but it's still interesting. 

 

  Yes it was very interesting, indeed it was and since Moriarty had dealings with the newspaper world....I wonder who gave CAM the inspiration for that.....or was it just one of those coincidences.

[Arcadia]

Given that we have just had three episodes showing us the hard lessons Sherlock has to learn about emotions, it is nicely ironic that the series ends with Sherlock claiming that he can kill because he is a high functioning sociopath. No sociopath cares so little for their own well being that they would risk being shot by armed police or going to prison for life, all for the sake of a friend.

This is a lovely observation, I hadn't thought of it in quite that way. And it makes me feel very sad for Sherlock, like he thinks he himself doesn't have any value. Although I've always suspected him of having self-esteem issues; narcissists usually do.

 

I hope they give up on the "sociopath" remarks, finally. It's never made sense except as a punch line, and it won't be funny after HLV.

 

That is why I'm inclined to see Mary as the psychopath, as she puts her own freedom above her friend's life, her husband's happiness (how much would he grieve if he lost Sherlock again, for real this time?) and even her unborn child (breaking & entering to commit murder being a rather risky business....)

 

Or, maybe, just maybe ... she's putting John's welfare above all else, risking everything to protect him from something she thinks will "break" him, to keep him from losing "the best thing that could've happened" to him. I don't agree with her decision -- John's made of sterner stuff than she thinks, and in any case he surely would rate Sherlock's life higher than his own well-being -- but I don't know how anyone can be certain of her motive. Maybe it was self love -- and equally maybe, it was for love of John. The line "I would lose him forever" doesn't just mean that she, Mary, would lose John ... if John breaks, like she thinks he would, he would be lost to everyone, including himself.

 

We can't be sure of Sherlock's motive either. We are inclined to believe he did it for John, but for all we really know, it was a deeply personal, selfish act of ego-driven rage. He could've been using the "Mary's safe now" line as a bluff. But we know Sherlock better, or think we do .... so this seems unlikely. I think that's all many of us are saying ... yes, Mary looks bad. But we haven't known her long, and what we do know is all surface stuff. So when Sherlock and John seem to accept her, we think maybe there's a reason we should too.

 

Or they are both terribly, horribly wrong about her and we have a season of regret lying ahead. Or it's just poorly written, and none of us were meant to think about any of this. Or ...

[Arcadia]

If three is a crowd....what does four make?  A double two some?

Or doubles tennis! Anyone have a racket I can borrow?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Somewhere there is a link to a meta that talks about "HLV" and the moments leading up to CAM's shooting.   Sherlock knows he's not really a sociopath. He feels to much and to deeply. His relationship with Lestrade, Molly, Mrs. Hudson and John gives the lie to that claim. That is why he has to say that whole bit of being a High-functioning sociopath out loud.

 

  He doesn't want to take this action but at this point he sees no other recourse, he has to talk his way into the shooting. If he can just focus on burying those emotions....force them deep. Try to recapture that suppression of feeling and emotions, that then he will be able to carry it out. 

[Arcadia]

 

 

 

Interesting remark.

Mycroft appears, to me, to be some sort of higher instance in Sherlock's mind. Sherlock asks him for advice, he is a child in front of him, Mycroft corrects Sherlock's conclusions. Like a judge that looks down from his seat to the witness box.

Maybe it's a case of "What would Mycroft do", a case of Sherlock unconsciously attempting to emulate his older and "wiser" brother. Because his older brother always knows what to do, even when Sherlock does not. Not that I share this belief.

But I could imagine that their childhood left some sort of imprint on Sherlock, some sort of inferiority complex. While we do see Sherlock openly reject Mycroft and question him, he still seems to look up to him as if Mycroft held a universal solution to everything. When he is in trouble, he asks Mycroft for help, too, like with Moriarty.

Interesting response!

Ahhhh, someone else who sees an inferiority complex in Sherlock. Which Mycroft misinterprets, perhaps, as wildness and resentment? When it's really just Sherlock trying to play catch up? Or, not ....

 

Man, I just love TSo3 more all the time. What looks like a deduction scene can also be interpreted as a moment in which Sherlock rejects cold reason (Mycroft) in favor of humanity (John). Or is it even more subtle; is this when he starts to reconcile the two, recognizing that one can coexist with the other? He doesn't have to choose between them, he just has to be .... himself? Hmmmmm. I am definitely reading wayyyyyy too much into this script. (But it's fun!)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Or is it even more subtle; is this when he starts to reconcile the two, recognizing that one can coexist with the other? He doesn't have to choose between them, he just has to be .... himself? Hmmmmm. I am definitely reading wayyyyyy too much into this script. (But it's fun!)

 

  Which is feeding the on going debates so don't feel to bad. Maybe in rejecting Mycroft in that scene he can finally say to himself and to Mycroft....that caring can matter. Yes, everyone dies....like Redbeard.....all hearts may be broken.....but friendship counts.  John keeps him straight....what ever that may mean.

[Arcadia]

 

Well there ya go then.....we have hypocrites falling all over themselves....in canon and out of it.

Well..I don't agree with that.  I think the situation with Mary is different than the others.

 

AHA! Come to me, young padawan, and I will lead you to the dark side ....

 

I didn't find them hypocritical before.  In every other case that they let someone get away it was always because on some level they were deserving.  Like strangers in the stories they let go not just because they were lovers, but more because they killed someone bad, or because they had a sympathetic motive.  It has to be justifiable in some way.

And how do we know that Mary does not have a sympathetic motive? Bwahahaha...

 

Same with Lestrade looking the other way if Sherlock or John commit crimes.  He knows them, he knows they have done what they have done for good reason.

Like how John and Sherlock know Mary better than we do?  (lip curl...)

 

If Sherlock and John were to walk around the streets of London and randomly shoot unarmed citizens, I don't think Lestrade would look the other way just because they are friends.  But there has always been at least a case to be made that justice was served.  The murders are almost always the result of a heated impulse, something that drove a good person to take an action that was heinous.

Like young Sherlock.  A most promising pupil.

 

But the people themselves were in some way "on the side of the angels".

 

But not so with Mary.  John doesn't even want to look at what she has done in the past.  He doesn't care if she is a good person, if she was justified, if she was on the side of the angels or just a cold blooded killer.

Because he already knows her. Intimately. Far more than any of us ever will. That's why he married her.

 

Even in the one instance we all know for sure - shooting Sherlock - it was as selfish and cold-blooded as it gets.

Not according to Darth Sherlock.

 

No on the side of the angels there!  This is what I don't get.  They don't care if she murdered innocent people, children, animals...why?

Or maybe they do, but she didn't.

 

Because she's a fun girl to have around?

No, no, no, bwahahaha!!!! It's because it's .... what they like! (Okay, you have me there, that IS a pretty lame line....)

 

(Hope this reads as funny in this post as it did in my head ... apologies if not!)