Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Arcadia]

LOL !       Arcadia, you are the woMAN !    

Yayyyyy!!!  What do I win?  I  hope it's a pony.....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

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

 

     Oh, never fear. I'm read it....and I'm still chuckling and belly laughing.  Priceless, Arcadia absolutely priceless.

 

[Caya]

 

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

 

Well we do have her own words that John will no longer love her once he's read up on her former life on the A.G.R.A. stick. That doesn't exactly make her sound like the assassin equivalent of Robin Hood .

[Arcadia]

 

 

 

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. 

 

Oh, yeah, CAM needed to go. But Sherlock's supposed to be this big brain, and the only solution he can think of is murder? Dull. Boring. Predictable.

 

If we're looking at it strictly from a story-telling p.o.v., there's no reason why Moftiss couldn't have come up with a plot that didn't involve killing Magnussen. It was the writer's choice to give him a mind palace, instead of a computer which could be blown up, or whatever. So I'm praying that they have a reason for this other than just because they thought Sherlock looked cool blowing someone away. I hope they have a point to make. (Altho I question their maturity level, at times.) So, from a story-telling p.o.v. -- what's the point?

 

I expect two (double-spaced) pages on this topic by tomorrow. Cite examples. Don't forget to sign your work.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I expect two (double-spaced) pages on this topic by tomorrow. Cite examples. Don't forget to sign your work.

 

  Okay, I'll do my best. But when you have two writers, Mofftiss....who seem to be the real sociopaths behind the fake one....what's a Consulting Detective to do?

[Zain]

 

 

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

 

Well we do have her own words that John will no longer love her once he's read up on her former life on the A.G.R.A. stick. That doesn't exactly make her sound like the assassin equivalent of Robin Hood .

 

 

And, while we do not know that Mary does not have a sympathetic motive, we are not given one. If she had a good reason, why would she keep silent at all times?

 

If we keep HLV in mind, everything surrounding her motive and possible "good intentions" is recounted by Sherlock and at no time confirmed by Mary. Even when he asks her if he is right. She deflects.

To me, that is highly suspicious. Sure, I am inclined to think badly of her, because I am upset about her role and her attitude. I suppose someone else might be inclined to see the good in her, or at least to expect the good to be there. However, it is indisputable that she offers nothing in her defense whatsoever. Nor does she collaborate with Sherlock. Even when he helps her, and even when he provides her with some sort of good intention behind her actions, she refuses to pick up on it.

One may read whatever one wants into this.

[Arcadia]

 

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.

 

And then they twist us the other way .... because John doesn't keep him straight, does he? He KILLS for John.

 

Ooooooh, those clever bast****.....Moffftttttissssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Now I think I love them again....)

[Arcadia]

 

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

 

Well we do have her own words that John will no longer love her once he's read up on her former life on the A.G.R.A. stick. That doesn't exactly make her sound like the assassin equivalent of Robin Hood .

 

Maybe what's on the stick is her involvement in revealing the prisoner abuse by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

 

One thing I will say against Mary; she doesn't read her men very well. She thinks learning the truth will break John; it doesn't. She thinks Sherlock is a threat to her; he isn't. (Yet she can tell when he's lying .... hmm.)

[Arcadia]

 

 

I expect two (double-spaced) pages on this topic by tomorrow. Cite examples. Don't forget to sign your work.

 

  Okay, I'll do my best. But when you have two writers, Mofftiss....who seem to be the real sociopaths behind the fake one....what's a Consulting Detective to do?

 

Okay, okay .... you can work with a partner. I am nothing if not flexible.

[Caya]

 

Maybe what's on the stick is her involvement in revealing the prisoner abuse by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

 

One thing I will say against Mary; she doesn't read her men very well. She thinks learning the truth will break John; it doesn't. She thinks Sherlock is a threat to her; he isn't. (Yet she can tell when he's lying .... hmm.)

 

Er ... knowing she was revealing prisoner abuse would make John stop loving her? What kind of [censored] would that make John? I'm kinda starting to wonder what your image of John is .

 

And John never learned the truth as far as we know - not the whole truth, anyway. He burned the stick and kept his eyes firmly shut on her past. For all we know, she may have been perfectly right in that assessment.

[Arcadia]

 

 

And, while we do not know that Mary does not have a sympathetic motive, we are not given one. If she had a good reason, why would she keep silent at all times?

 

If we keep HLV in mind, everything surrounding her motive and possible "good intentions" is recounted by Sherlock and at no time confirmed by Mary. Even when he asks her if he is right. She deflects.

To me, that is highly suspicious. Sure, I am inclined to think badly of her, because I am upset about her role and her attitude. I suppose someone else might be inclined to see the good in her, or at least to expect the good to be there. However, it is indusputable that she offers nothing in her defense whatsoever. Nor does she collaborate with Sherlock. Even when he helps her, and even when he provides her with some sort of good intention behind her actions, she refuses to pick up on it.

One may read whatever one wants into this.

 

Exactly! She neither confirms nor denies.

 

Does Moftiss have a reason for this? Shall I assign another thesis? Oh, wait, I think that's been done already......

[T.o.b.y]

One thing I will say against Mary; she doesn't read her men very well. She thinks learning the truth will break John; it doesn't. She thinks Sherlock is a threat to her; he isn't. (Yet she can tell when he's lying .... hmm.)

 

U-huh, even Mary's assessment of "human nature" is not infallible. I suppose she'd tent to think the worst of people, with her background. Whatever that is, exactly...

 

 

 

Oh, yeah, CAM needed to go. But Sherlock's supposed to be this big brain, and the only solution he can think of is murder? Dull. Boring. Predictable.

 

If we're looking at it strictly from a story-telling p.o.v., there's no reason why Moftiss couldn't have come up with a plot that didn't involve killing Magnussen. It was the writer's choice to give him a mind palace, instead of a computer which could be blown up, or whatever. So I'm praying that they have a reason for this other than just because they thought Sherlock looked cool blowing someone away. I hope they have a point to make. (Altho I question their maturity level, at times.) So, from a story-telling p.o.v. -- what's the point?

 

 

The point, in my humble opinion, is to render a good adaptation of the story "Charles Augustus Milverton". Which is remarkable for having a villain whom Holmes does not beat and whom he only gets saved from by the timely interference of a murderer. Also a story where Holmes acts more like a dragon slayer acting on behalf of the damsel(s) in distress than a detective.

I think I read somewhere that Moffat claims he interprets the story as being a lie by Dr Watson to protect Holmes who shot Milverton himself. So I guess he thought he was being faithful to the spirit of the original, and while I don't agree on that detail, I think in all, he really was.

[Arcadia]

 

Maybe what's on the stick is her involvement in revealing the prisoner abuse by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

 

One thing I will say against Mary; she doesn't read her men very well. She thinks learning the truth will break John; it doesn't. She thinks Sherlock is a threat to her; he isn't. (Yet she can tell when he's lying .... hmm.)

 

Er ... knowing she was revealing prisoner abuse would make John stop loving her? What kind of [censored] would that make John? I'm kinda starting to wonder what your image of John is .

 

John's a soldier. Most of the military people I know (which is a lot) get VERY defensive when anyone criticizes the military, for any reason. Even when the "wrongdoing" seems obvious to, uh, others. (It goes back to Vietnam, I guess, but let's not open that can of worms.) So she might think John would do the same in a similar situation, esp. if she does indeed turn out to be an American.

 

I don't necessarily think he would react that way. That's why I pointed out that she doesn't read him very well; it's not whether John would stop loving her, it's that she thinks he might. She might be wrong.

 

Maybe I should try a different example. How do we feel about Wikileaks? 

   

And John never learned the truth as far as we know - not the whole truth, anyway. He burned the stick and kept his eyes firmly shut on her past. For all we know, she may have been perfectly right in that assessment.

Erm, yeh ... okay, I cede that one. Nice counter move!

 

Wait, am I Mycroft? Or Sherlock?

[Caya]

Would a British soldier really react that way, though? I'm afraid I must deflect that one to our British board population, as I have no idea. However, generally speaking the world outside the US tends to think that Abu Ghraib and Wikileaks are a horrible and a great institution, respectively. So my bet would be on that while this reaction (hating on her for revealing abuse) might be possible for a US soldier (and that wouldn't cast a particular good light on our hypothetic friend either imho), I really doubt that a Brit would react that way. Especially one who's (supposed to be) a basically decent man like John.

 

Calling all gentle Englishmen and -women here ... what's your take on this?

[Arcadia]

 

Oh, yeah, CAM needed to go. But Sherlock's supposed to be this big brain, and the only solution he can think of is murder? Dull. Boring. Predictable.

 

If we're looking at it strictly from a story-telling p.o.v., there's no reason why Moftiss couldn't have come up with a plot that didn't involve killing Magnussen. It was the writer's choice to give him a mind palace, instead of a computer which could be blown up, or whatever. So I'm praying that they have a reason for this other than just because they thought Sherlock looked cool blowing someone away. I hope they have a point to make. (Altho I question their maturity level, at times.) So, from a story-telling p.o.v. -- what's the point?

 

The point, in my humble opinion, is to render a good adaptation of the story "Charles Augustus Milverton". Which is remarkable for having a villain whom Holmes does not beat and whom he only gets saved from by the timely interference of a murderer. Also a story where Holmes acts more like a dragon slayer acting on behalf of the damsel(s) in distress than a detective.

I think I read somewhere that Moffat claims he interprets the story as being a lie by Dr Watson to protect Holmes who shot Milverton himself. So I guess he thought he was being faithful to the spirit of the original, and while I don't agree on that detail, I think in all, he really was.

 

I'd give you an A, but that's only 2 paragraphs, not 2 pages. Excellent use of examples, clever twist on the question. B+.

[Arcadia]

Would a British soldier really react that way, though? I'm afraid I must deflect that one to our British board population, as I have no idea. However, generally speaking the world outside the US tends to think that Abu Ghraib and Wikileaks are a horrible and a great institution, respectively.

I hope many Americans feel that way too, but the area I live in is heavily military/spy/homeland security. Hardly a representative cross-section of the population! -- you get a really skewed picture of human nature living here. I've heard people argue vociferously in favor of torture, it's a weird feeling to be in the same room with them. Yet these same people will cry like a child if their pet dog falls ill. Humans are endlessly fascinating......

[Arcadia]

Okay, gang, obviously I am
a) in a weird mood today
b ) having wayyyyyy too much time on my hands.
 
Hope no one was offended by any of my smart ass remarks, it was meant in good fun but I know it doesn't always come across that way. Think I'm going to go away and shut up now. (The rest of you upon reading this statement --->  )   But don't get too excited, I'll be back.

[Zain]

 

Would a British soldier really react that way, though? I'm afraid I must deflect that one to our British board population, as I have no idea. However, generally speaking the world outside the US tends to think that Abu Ghraib and Wikileaks are a horrible and a great institution, respectively.

I hope many Americans feel that way too, but the area I live in is heavily military/spy/homeland security. Hardly a representative cross-section of the population! -- you get a really skewed picture of human nature living here. I've heard people argue vociferously in favor of torture, it's a weird feeling to be in the same room with them. Yet these same people will cry like a child if their pet dog falls ill. Humans are endlessly fascinating......

 

 

How come that so many soldiers argue in favor of torture in the US?

I cannot say that I have many contacts which work in military, it's not exactly our main working sector. I know that soldiers see a lot of horrible things, and some take this as a reason to voice extreme opinions. I'd say, though, that on average, soldiers here are not more in favor of what I'd call inhuman treatment and a differenciation belonging into the 19th/20th century, an "us-them" attitude. Sure, there is an "enemy" in their minds, but it is not like they only fight and kill. Often, soldiers help to build public facilities, or they communicate with locals to find out their needs and problems, to get information, and so on. I just wonder why many soldiers in the US (as you described, I am taking your information at face value, I have almost no knowledge in that regard) turn away from a humanitarian attiude. Should their experience not teach them to value life and frown upon causing pain, emotionally and physically?

 

And yes, I am a horrible idealist. I know

But it has gotten me through life quite well so far...

[Arcadia]

Zain, I wish I had an answer for you. My country mystifies me, sometimes. So generous one minute, so belligerent the next.

 

To be fair, only two people who I heard argue in favor of torture were military. The others were civilians. They were all angry, white men who felt their place in the world, and America's place in the world, was threatened. As I suppose it is. (Too bad for them....)

 

I'm probably not the best person to answer this question, because I don't think the way they do. But ... I think their argument is that we have to use all means necessary to defend our way of life, or we'll lose it. MY argument is that if we use such tactics, we've already lost it. I don't get much support when I make that argument, I'm just told I'm being naive.

 

My nephew's in the military, and most of his work is what you described: building facilities, communicating with locals, etc. He doesn't believe in torture; I hope most of his peers are like him. They probably are, I just don't meet enough of them.

[Zain]

Thank you for your answer. I cannot say it clears up the mystery, but I think your reasoning is sound. And it is very interesting to hear about your personal experience.

Yes, fear drives people to do horrible things. Not that it is any justification. It is very sad, though.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

 

Really?!  Darn, now I'll have to watch another of my favorite episodes all over again -- and clear to the end, at that!

 

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.

I've heard that when someone is sufficiently harassed as a young child, they often internalize the harasser's voice, and continue to harass themselves, as it were, even after they're grown up and the other person is long gone. Perhaps this Mycroft's role in Sherlock's mind palace.

  

True.....I love gushing......especially about Sherlock.....who doesn't. But those eighteen months long hiatuses can get monotonous.

The first hiatus was 18 months (which was plenty long enough!), but the second was a full two years, and what with Moftiss now claiming that "it's always been two years," I imagine the current hiatus will be at least that long. *sigh* So -- stiff upper lip, and all that.

 

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 ...

 

Or they'll just ignore the whole question and carry on as though nothing happened. Which might at least be an improvement over the "explanation" given in "Empty Hearse"!

 

And, while we do not know that Mary does not have a sympathetic motive, we are not given one. If she had a good reason, why would she keep silent at all times?

 

As someone suggested a ways back (sorry, don't recall who), it's possible that Mary could not defend herself without divulging secrets that are not hers to divulge -- perhaps putting an innocent person in danger.

 

And John never learned the truth as far as we know - not the whole truth, anyway. He burned the stick and kept his eyes firmly shut on her past.

 

I've been criticizing John for not trusting Mary enough to ask her to explain WHY she did whatever it was that she did -- I would have loved to hear him say, "Please help me to understand." But it just occurred to me that maybe he knows more than we're aware. Sherlock sure acts like he knows something we don't (quite possibly from reading the stick). So maybe he told John, at least some of it.  John said he had not read the stick -- not that no one had told him what was on it.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Sherlock sure acts like he knows something we don't (quite possibly from reading the stick). So maybe he told John, at least some of it.  John said he had not read the stick -- not that no one had told him what was on it.

 

 

 Absolutely Sherlock does act like he knows a whole lot more then we do. And as for how much he told John about what was on that drive...or not have told him, Sherlock has a way of dropping heavy hints.  Like moving John's chair back into the setting room with a bottle of perfume on the side table. John was pretty quick on the uptake. So maybe not in so many words....but something....somehow.....no doubt.

[T.o.b.y]

I've been criticizing John for not trusting Mary enough to ask her to explain WHY she did whatever it was that she did -- I would have loved to hear him say, "Please help me to understand." But it just occurred to me that maybe he knows more than we're aware. Sherlock sure acts like he knows something we don't (quite possibly from reading the stick). So maybe he told John, at least some of it.  John said he had not read the stick -- not that no one had told him what was on it.

 

That's pretty much what I'm hoping for, because it is the most rational and sensible in my eyes. I cannot believe Sherlock would not take a look at that flash drive, with our without John's permission. And even if John didn't want to face any details he might not like to pop up in his head when lying in bed with his wife at night, he'd be a complete and utter fool if he didn't at least try to find out in a general way what the "problems of her past" were and especially how they might come to bear on their shared future.

 

So until the writers prove me wrong (again), I'll believe Sherlock studied the whole thing very thoroughly and then told John it's fine, you can trust her. Maybe not in so many words, but demonstratively inviting them both to his parents' house for Christmas to make up should be enough of a hint in that direction.

 

I too am a bit afraid we'll never learn more about Mary, that her past will remain unexplained and that she'll simply be an established character next season like everybody else. But while there's hope I'll take it... Heck, I'm still hoping for some more insight on The Fall if Moriarty is back!

 

[Slithytove]

When did Sherlock get the chance to study Mary's case so thoroughly? He was hospitalised after the shooting, and by the time he met her in the empty house he had come up with the "surgery" excuse and was effectively telling John to forgive her - because it was his own fault for liking dangerous people! - and to trust her. Unless Mycroft turned up at the hospital with Mary's file, how could Sherlock have enough data to form the opinion that she was trustworthy? He seems to have based this opinion on his deduction that she called the ambulance, but he doesn't even know that that is true.....and calling for help for the victim, if you are the perpetrator, hardly amounts to a noble deed.

 

And then maybe he read the A.G.R.A. information.....maybe. And maybe it has information which helps to justify her past killings (though Mary herself thinks it will have the opposite effect.). Will it also have information that will justify the gunning down of an unarmed witness? That, for me, is something which can never be excused, even if her past turns out to be a series of completely understandable killings (!).

 

There is no justification for her attack on an innocent bystander (which was Sherlock's role, in this instance.). She did it because learning the truth about would destroy John? She knows that Sherlock's "suicide" nearly destroyed him. How would he cope if Sherlock died again, for real this time? And what would it do to him if he ever found out that his wife was the murderer?

[Arcadia]

I agree, I don't know when Sherlock would've had a chance to read the drive --- where did that thing come from anyway? If it's so devastating, why'd Mary bring it with her? Why wasn't she the one who destroyed it, and a lot sooner?

 

Of course, they just introduced it as a quick and easy way to symbolize her past. There's an awful lot of short cuts like that in the script, that's for sure. It's almost like they should've spread the story out over a few more episodes, if they'd really wanted it to make sense. To be honest, I don't think they cared if it was logical, as I've stated elsewhere I think this season was about emotional interactions. I don't believe emotion and reason are actually opposed to each other, but that seems to be the point they keep making over and over again in S3.

 

And the emotions do make sense to me. Hurt, betrayal, rage, sorrow ... I could desconstruct this episode into a million little pieces, but I still just love the "feel" of it. Oh, Moftiss, you've played me again....... :-)