Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[sfmpco]

Isn't Redbeard, basically, a forerunner of John - in other words, someone Sherlock loved and lost?

 

That, presumably, was what Mycroft was implying when he spoke to Sherlock at the wedding. Sherlock loved the dog and his heart was broken when it was put down. Similarly, he loved John (platonically, at least) and was hurting because he was losing that love too.

 

As for the mind palace scene, it was pointed out in a meta on archiveofourown.org - sorry, can't remember the author - that the corridor Sherlock runs down in his mind palace is extremely similar to the one John runs down in ASiP, searching for Sherlock. In his mind palace, when he is dying, Sherlock desperately searches for John to save him but finds a previous lost love, i.e. his childhood pet. (And, I would guess, his only friend when growing up.).

 

I think Redbeard works as a symbol of Sherlock's love and trust for John, and his fear of losing him. Therefore it would make sense that CAM had noted the significance of the dog, as it would have been young Sherlock's pressure point in the same way that John is his adult pressure point. Losing Redbeard was, in a way, a rehearsal for the real thing, loving and trusting John and feeling the pain of loss - an emotion which Mycroft guards against, by keeping everyone at a distance. Can't imagine he had an adored dog when he was child....

 

Excellent analogy of the metaphors.

[Zain]

 

I agree with you there. I think Mycroft is profoundly unhealthy in so many ways and his manner of caring about his little brother feels decidedly creepy to me. I think he's jealous of John, for example. Because, lets face it, John may be a "goldfish", but he's a hell of a lot better brother figure to Sherlock than Mycroft is...

 

Poor Sherlock. One does wonder where those seemingly nice parents of his were when the boys were growing up together. Somehow, that happy Holmes homestead in His Last Vow fails to convince me.

 

 

Maybe they were busy with the defective third sibling. Who knows.

More likely, though, they had a somewhat... laissez-faire approach to raising Sherlock. It often happens with second-born children that are a few years behind their older sibling. Because the older sibling is less dependent, and the younger child "imitiates" and clings to the older child, parents are not as atuned and worried about the younger one.

 

Is John a better brother figure? He let Mary get away with shooting Sherlock. I don't know. I can't really see him caring as much about Sherlock as Mycroft does. Mycroft has got a lot of flaws, but in this regard, I am sure that he would not forgive Mary. Even if Sherlock does...

 

 

Isn't Redbeard, basically, a forerunner of John - in other words, someone Sherlock loved and lost?

 

That, presumably, was what Mycroft was implying when he spoke to Sherlock at the wedding. Sherlock loved the dog and his heart was broken when it was put down. Similarly, he loved John (platonically, at least) and was hurting because he was losing that love too.

 

As for the mind palace scene, it was pointed out in a meta on archiveofourown.org - sorry, can't remember the author - that the corridor Sherlock runs down in his mind palace is extremely similar to the one John runs down in ASiP, searching for Sherlock. In his mind palace, when he is dying, Sherlock desperately searches for John to save him but finds a previous lost love, i.e. his childhood pet. (And, I would guess, his only friend when growing up.).

 

I think Redbeard works as a symbol of Sherlock's love and trust for John, and his fear of losing him. Therefore it would make sense that CAM had noted the significance of the dog, as it would have been young Sherlock's pressure point in the same way that John is his adult pressure point. Losing Redbeard was, in a way, a rehearsal for the real thing, loving and trusting John and feeling the pain of loss - an emotion which Mycroft guards against, by keeping everyone at a distance. Can't imagine he had an adored dog when he was child....

 

An interesting thought. I like it.

But, because you inspired me... to offer another perspective. Not competing with yours, just offering a different angle.

 

Redbeard as a symbol of Sherlock being afraid of not mattering enough. I also recall that meta essay, though I cannot name the author. You are completely right, the corridor was connected to ASiP. This time, though, it is Redbeard who "saves" him, when he was actually looking for John. John is not there, though. Because Sherlock unconsciously is afraid that John would not choose him, if he would have to choose between saving Mary and saving Sherlock. His absence in the mind palace is rather peculiar. As if Sherlock is shielding himself from considering how John would react. Would he, for instance, reject Sherlock? Not believe him?

Did Sherlock for instance meet up with John before they went to set the trap for Mary, because he was afraid John would need hard evidence, otherwise he would reject Sherlock outright?

To get back to yours, yes, Redbeard could represent his fear of losing John.

 

I wonder if Mycroft had anything but Sherlock in his childhood/adolescence. He seems rather disconnected from his parents, too. Not overly familiar with them, either. Maybe Mycroft simply brings up Redbeard, because he was jealous of the dog, who took away Sherlock's attention.

[Arcadia]

OR ... Maybe John didn't appear in the mind palace simply because Sherlock doesn't associate John with the things he needed to know at that moment. Mycroft appears to be his role model for logic; Redbeard is a memory that is calming; Molly & what-ziz-name are the forensic experts. God knows what Jim represents; a death wish? John's a friend, former flat-mate and his shooter's husband, none of which were much use to him at that moment. And of course, John's a doctor, but maybe that's not what Sherlock associates him with in his funny old brain.

 

OR ... !! ... Maybe the writers just wanted to have another scene with Molly in it. I'm just glad they didn't make room in the mind palace for Billy Wiggins.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Just came across this article about "the real Appledore."  (It's a few months old, so my apologies if someone has already posted this link.)

 

 

And now back to the in-depth analyses!

 

[jesskayding]

Technically... John was mentioned in his mind palace by Moriarty... The very mention of John being in danger was Sherlock's inspiration to fight for his life.

[sfmpco]

Just listened to a podcast with Gatiss/Moffit where they specifically talked a little about Redbeard - and that in their minds Sherlock had been told as a child that Redbeard was sent to a farm (instead of being put down).

[Redbeard]

Technically... John was mentioned in his mind palace by Moriarty... The very mention of John being in danger was Sherlock's inspiration to fight for his life.

 

True!  Bringing to life the part in his best man speech where he says something about he will solve the crime but John Watson will save your life?  (Gotta go find that transcript!)

[Arcadia]

Just came across this article about "the real Appledore."  (It's a few months old, so my apologies if someone has already posted this link.)

 

 

And now back to the in-depth analyses!

That's quite a beautiful piece of architecture. Would make a nice museum.

[Slithytove]

Given that John is the most important person in Sherlock's life - a point established by CAM but also by Sherlock's assumption, in TRF, that John is the target of Jim's threat - his absence from the Mind Palace scene is strange and presumably significant. For instance, Molly and Anderson both have forensic knowledge but John was an army doctor and therefore very familiar with gunshot wounds, so why doesn't Sherlock imagine him as the advisor on how to survive such an injury? As Sherlock's closest and most trusted friend, you would expect him to occupy that role, particularly after the way Sherlock went on in TSoT about "John Watson will save your life."

 

I would also have expected him, rather than the dog, to appear as a source of calm and reassurance. However, the person who wrote the meta, to which I referred, did suggest a couple of reasons for John's absence. She said that, if he found a kind and welcoming John in his Mind Palace, Sherlock might want to stay there rather than return to reality to fight for his life. If, on the other hand, he found an angry John - a John who would scold him and/or punch him - he might feel he had no good reason to return to a real life where his best friend was furious with him. These are good points, I think, though it is also possible that Sherlock can't find comfort in a relationship which has been fundamentally altered, thereby causing him pain and a sense of loss. Of course, he lost Redbeard too, but maybe he remembers the dog as an uncomplicated source of love and companionship, unlike the complexity of a relationship with another human being.

 

As Zain points out, John's absence could be due to the fact that Sherlock has a subconscious fear that, if it comes to a choice between himself and Mary, John will not choose him. That is a sad fear but, given that Mary is John's wife, not an irrational one.

 

John does, of course, have a role in the Mind Palace scene, i.e. as the spur which prompts Sherlock to fight his way back to life. This emphasises that John is indeed Sherlock's pressure point, his "damsel in distress", as CAM puts it. However, I don't think this really explains why he does not appear as a helper when Sherlock is dying. Are the writers saying that other people in Sherlock's life - Molly, Anderson, Mycroft and even Jim - represent sources of strength which Sherlock draws upon in extremis, whereas John is his Achilles heel, his pressure point? And why is it Jim, who is surely playing the Devil's advocate, who points this out?

[Redbeard]

John's glaring absence from the mind palace has to be intentional but why?  Slithytove both of those ideas sound plausible to me.  Maybe it was also Sherlock's way of protecting "mind palace John" from knowing what Mary had just done to him.  That is kind of out there I guess but maybe he didn't want to imagine having to deal with John in that scenario?

[jesskayding]

Given that John is the most important person in Sherlock's life - a point established by CAM but also by Sherlock's assumption, in TRF, that John is the target of Jim's threat - his absence from the Mind Palace scene is strange and presumably significant. For instance, Molly and Anderson both have forensic knowledge but John was an army doctor and therefore very familiar with gunshot wounds, so why doesn't Sherlock imagine him as the advisor on how to survive such an injury? As Sherlock's closest and most trusted friend, you would expect him to occupy that role, particularly after the way Sherlock went on in TSoT about "John Watson will save your life."

 

I would also have expected him, rather than the dog, to appear as a source of calm and reassurance. However, the person who wrote the meta, to which I referred, did suggest a couple of reasons for John's absence. She said that, if he found a kind and welcoming John in his Mind Palace, Sherlock might want to stay there rather than return to reality to fight for his life. If, on the other hand, he found an angry John - a John who would scold him and/or punch him - he might feel he had no good reason to return to a real life where his best friend was furious with him. These are good points, I think, though it is also possible that Sherlock can't find comfort in a relationship which has been fundamentally altered, thereby causing him pain and a sense of loss. Of course, he lost Redbeard too, but maybe he remembers the dog as an uncomplicated source of love and companionship, unlike the complexity of a relationship with another human being.

 

As Zain points out, John's absence could be due to the fact that Sherlock has a subconscious fear that, if it comes to a choice between himself and Mary, John will not choose him. That is a sad fear but, given that Mary is John's wife, not an irrational one.

 

John does, of course, have a role in the Mind Palace scene, i.e. as the spur which prompts Sherlock to fight his way back to life. This emphasises that John is indeed Sherlock's pressure point, his "damsel in distress", as CAM puts it. However, I don't think this really explains why he does not appear as a helper when Sherlock is dying. Are the writers saying that other people in Sherlock's life - Molly, Anderson, Mycroft and even Jim - represent sources of strength which Sherlock draws upon in extremis, whereas John is his Achilles heel, his pressure point? And why is it Jim, who is surely playing the Devil's advocate, who points this out?

Keep in mind he did tell 30 others besides John that he faked his own death (TEH)...

 

" Who knows what goes on in that funny little head of his?"

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

I used to have this theory that little Sherlock did some kind of experiment on Redbeard and thus killed him by mistake (or made him so ill that he had to be put down).

 

 

T̵̢͜H̢̢A̵̧̡̧̕T̨̨̛̛͘'̧́̀͜S̴͞ ҉͢͝N͏O̸͞T̷̛͡͠ ̸Ó̵̴̧K̵̴͞A̵̴͟͜Y͟͠҉͏

[jesskayding]

 

 

 

 

Poor Sherlock. One does wonder where those seemingly nice parents of his were when the boys were growing up together. Somehow, that happy Holmes homestead in His Last Vow fails to convince me.

 

I see Sherlock's parents being there for both he & Mycroft

.. And their other brother... I still wonder what Mycroft did to him....

 

It seems that it takes every ounce of them to even bear being in the presence of their ordinary parents. Even when Sherlock's mom tried to hug/kiss him... He pushes her away..."oh for goodness sake". Then slams the door in his parents faces.

His poor parents not ever getting the gratification of emotional reciprocation from their own children.

[T.o.b.y]

Given that John is the most important person in Sherlock's life - a point established by CAM but also by Sherlock's assumption, in TRF, that John is the target of Jim's threat - his absence from the Mind Palace scene is strange and presumably significant.

 

My theory for why John was not in that mind palace scene is that it was for a dramatic reason. Since the thought that "John is in danger" is the turning point at which Sherlock decides he'll focus all his energy and willpower not on minimizing pain or blood loss or mental trauma, but on simply coming back to life and keeping true to his vow to "be there", no matter what, the writer had to keep John out of the scene until that turning point was reached. Phew, what an awful sentence. I bet I'd be kicked out of any writing class for that. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, if John had been around sooner, the dramatic momentum (is that an actual expression? whatever) of the scene would have been weakened. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As for the theory on Sherlock having done in poor Redbeard with an experiment gone wrong....I guess he didn't...and a very good thing.....imho.....but.if he had killed Redbeard and it was a foreshadowing of his friendship with John...then I don't think we would find Sherlock dosing John up with chemicals and compounds.

[Arcadia]

 

Given that John is the most important person in Sherlock's life - a point established by CAM but also by Sherlock's assumption, in TRF, that John is the target of Jim's threat - his absence from the Mind Palace scene is strange and presumably significant.

 

My theory for why John was not in that mind palace scene is that it was for a dramatic reason. Since the thought that "John is in danger" is the turning point at which Sherlock decides he'll focus all his energy and willpower not on minimizing pain or blood loss or mental trauma, but on simply coming back to life and keeping true to his vow to "be there", no matter what, the writer had to keep John out of the scene until that turning point was reached. Phew, what an awful sentence. I bet I'd be kicked out of any writing class for that. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, if John had been around sooner, the dramatic momentum (is that an actual expression? whatever) of the scene would have been weakened.

 

That is my thinking as well, but, you know, we have to try to find "in story" reasons for everything, or where's the fun? 

 

And that was an excellent sentence, grammatically correct and I followed every word of it!

[T.o.b.y]

That is my thinking as well, but, you know, we have to try to find "in story" reasons for everything, or where's the fun? 

 

True, true...

 

Well. Why isn't John in the mind palace, second try at an explanation without resorting to the mechanics of writing that I know nil about anyhow, by the way. Hm.

 

I used to be under the impression that John is not part of "Sherlock's little world" the way Molly, Anderson, Mycroft (and presumably Lestrade, though he doesn't show up here) are. All these people have one thing in common: Sherlock knew them before John, and he was still alone. John seems to be more of a separate entity, and therefore he's company.

 

As for Moriarty, he personifies Sherlock's darker side, I think, which Sherlock by the time series 3 comes around has "under control", chained and locked away - but, it's not dead! He needs it now and again, it seems.

 

The problem with my "John isn't a voice inside Sherlock's head because he's one of the few people Sherlock recognizes as a person and not a function" is of course that John is a voice inside Sherlock's head, at least he was in The Empty Hearse. Damn. I'm not really getting anywhere here.

 

 

[jesskayding]

As for the theory on Sherlock having done in poor Redbeard with an experiment gone wrong....I guess he didn't...and a very good thing.....imho.....but.if he had killed Redbeard and it was a foreshadowing of his friendship with John...then I don't think we would find Sherlock dosing John up with chemicals and compounds.

Or would we?

[Slithytove]

 

 

Given that John is the most important person in Sherlock's life - a point established by CAM but also by Sherlock's assumption, in TRF, that John is the target of Jim's threat - his absence from the Mind Palace scene is strange and presumably significant.

My theory for why John was not in that mind palace scene is that it was for a dramatic reason. Since the thought that "John is in danger" is the turning point at which Sherlock decides he'll focus all his energy and willpower not on minimizing pain or blood loss or mental trauma, but on simply coming back to life and keeping true to his vow to "be there", no matter what, the writer had to keep John out of the scene until that turning point was reached. Phew, what an awful sentence. I bet I'd be kicked out of any writing class for that. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, if John had been around sooner, the dramatic momentum (is that an actual expression? whatever) of the scene would have been weakened.

I think you're right that John's absence is probably to heighten the drama, as he is the catalyst for Sherlock's (improbable) return to life. It is interesting, though, that the writers chose to present it that way. They could have featured John and still kept the dramatic turning point. For instance, he could have appeared in the final Mind Palace scene, in distress and calling for Sherlock's help, or he could have been a distant, receding figure drawing Sherlock back towards life. That's just off the top of my head, of course, and I am sure the writers could have come up with a very dramatic way of featuring John as a catalyst in Sherlock's imagination.

 

However, they chose not to and, instead, gave the lines to Jim - why? I agree that Moriarty represents something in Sherlock's psyche which he has tried to lock up and bury deep within himself. It could indeed be his own dark side, or it could be his fears and nightmares which he will not acknowledge. We know Sherlock is brave but he is only human - he must have weaknesses and things which frighten him, and perhaps Jim represents these things. Maybe that is why Jim gets to deliver the warning about John, because losing John is Sherlock's greatest unacknowledged fear.

 

Just an idea....

[Arcadia]

Jim's also the one who almost convinces him to let go and die. Interesting that he's the same one who reminds Sherlock he has a reason to live....

 

Maybe Jim represents Sherlock's id? Hmmm, poor self-image, what can we do with that?

[sfmpco]

There's a lot of talk regarding HLV about Sherlock being so cold-blooded in order to kill CAM, but in ASIB, he likely kills a lot of people at the end in order to rescue Irene.  He wasn't wielding that blade to scare people off.  It was a slice and dice affair and likely very bloody, not that he ever blanched at blood or dismemberment.  A severed head in his fridge?  No problem.  A bag of severed thumbs in the fridge?  No problem.  Eyeballs in the microwave?  No problem.  An eyeball in his tea.  No problem.  Throw a CIA guy out the window several times?  No problem.  

 

Did he kill people during his 2-yr dismantling of Moriarty's web?  Likely.  In cold blood?  Likely.  Is he MI6 trained?  Likely.  At the end when he goes off for that mission, they wouldn't send him off on the mission without knowing he had certain training and skills for field work, and Mycroft makes illusions in TSOT that Sherlock has done government work before.

 

So, although I'm not saying that killing CAM was okay (this is not a morality discussion), I am saying that it is likely not the first time he has killed...in cold blood.

 

And then on the flipside he is the totally flummoxed, almost sweet/child-like man-child whose brain goes on full tilt when John tells him he's his best friend.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

A walking paradox is our Sherlock, a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

[T.o.b.y]

I think you're right that John's absence is probably to heighten the drama, as he is the catalyst for Sherlock's (improbable) return to life. It is interesting, though, that the writers chose to present it that way. They could have featured John and still kept the dramatic turning point. For instance, he could have appeared in the final Mind Palace scene, in distress and calling for Sherlock's help, or he could have been a distant, receding figure drawing Sherlock back towards life. That's just off the top of my head, of course, and I am sure the writers could have come up with a very dramatic way of featuring John as a catalyst in Sherlock's imagination.

 

Yes, but wouldn't it have been terribly difficult to do so in a way that isn't too romantic? Besides, the people in Sherlock's mind palace don't seem to be representatives of their actual live counterparts so much as different aspects of his own personality, who take on different voices. The mind palace scene is basically Sherlock talking to himself, I think.

 

I like the Moriarty solution. First of all, because it's another way of the series coming full circle. In series 1, it was Moriarty who made Sherlock see that he did have a heart, by using John, by putting John in danger, and then in His Last Vow, of course it is Sherlock's "inner Moriarty" who taunts him with "John Watson is in danger". Besides, for some reason, it seems to be the villains' job in this series to tell the characters (mostly Sherlock) the truth about themselves. So it's appropriate, from my point of view, that Moriarty gets to point out how Sherlock is failing his vow and that yes, he does have a reason to live.

 

Speaking of a reason to live: Wasn't that "the final problem", anyway? Staying alive - what for? So of course it has to be Moriarty who brings this up again!

 

And by the way. Isn't it dark and sad and interesting that Sherlock didn't fight for his life for it's own sake? He's not all too fond of living, it seems. One of my favorite "send a shiver down my spine" moments in the entire series is when, in The Hounds of Baskerville, Sherlock immediately associates "Liberty In" with "Liberty in death" and calls this "the only true freedom". He has a death wish for sure. And who could be better to personify that than Moriarty?

 

It would be quite in character with the original Mr Holmes. He claimed that he would die gladly, if he could take Moriarty with him. I always had the impression that Mr Holmes, sooner than live to lose his mental faculties in old age, would gladly be killed on some adventure, provided his exit made a big enough smash and bang and drama. Unfortunately, there were always people and countries who needed him and dragons to be slain...

 

 

So, although I'm not saying that killing CAM was okay (this is not a morality discussion), I am saying that it is likely not the first time he has killed...in cold blood.

 

And then on the flipside he is the totally flummoxed, almost sweet/child-like man-child whose brain goes on full tilt when John tells him he's his best friend.

 

Well, it kind of makes sense, though. With that kind of background, you don't exactly expect yourself to become anybody's friend, let alone best man, I guess.

 

I love that bit where Sherlock is asked to be best man. I think it's the moment he realizes that John truly has forgiven him for The Fall and that is mostly why he is so stunned. I suspect that if you would have asked Sherlock before he jumped off that roof "who is John Watson's best friend?", he'd have said "me, of course" (if he wouldn't have laughed the question to scorn).

[sfmpco]

Well, he might have said "me, of course," but I get the distinct impression that he's never EVER been considered anyone's best friend before.  Friend is one thing, BEST friend is an entirely different level of friendship.  I think they were unspoken best friends in TRF but to have John raise him back to that level after the 2-yr fake death really speaks about John's ability to forgive and not bear a grudge which bodes well also for him forgiving Mary.  That's not to say he and Mary don't still have issues to work on, but he has chosen to forgive and get the ball rolling again.  The romantic always forgives, and John is the romantic.  

 

I love the whole asking Sherlock to be the best man and then the whole best man speech.  That speech cracks me up all the way through.

[Arcadia]

There's a lot of talk regarding HLV about Sherlock being so cold-blooded in order to kill CAM, but in ASIB, he likely kills a lot of people at the end in order to rescue Irene.  He wasn't wielding that blade to scare people off.  It was a slice and dice affair and likely very bloody, not that he ever blanched at blood or dismemberment.  A severed head in his fridge?  No problem.  A bag of severed thumbs in the fridge?  No problem.  Eyeballs in the microwave?  No problem.  An eyeball in his tea.  No problem.  Throw a CIA guy out the window several times?  No problem.  

 

Did he kill people during his 2-yr dismantling of Moriarty's web?  Likely.  In cold blood?  Likely.  Is he MI6 trained?  Likely.  At the end when he goes off for that mission, they wouldn't send him off on the mission without knowing he had certain training and skills for field work, and Mycroft makes illusions in TSOT that Sherlock has done government work before.

 

So, although I'm not saying that killing CAM was okay (this is not a morality discussion), I am saying that it is likely not the first time he has killed...in cold blood.

Y'know, I saw the same scenes and it never occurred to me that he killed anyone, and I don't find it likely at all. After all, he's a self-styled detective, not a secret agent. A consulting detective, no less; that certainly doesn't imply a "have gun, will travel" mentality.

 

Taking down Moriarty's network ... they showed what he did in Many Happy Returns. He served on a jury, he gave clues to the police, he unmasked a woman in a monastery. The implication is that he worked within the law, not outside of it.

 

In Irene's case, I assumed exactly that; that he was just wielding that blade to scare people off. However, I can see how it might be taken as an invitiation to a knife fight. In which case, I can't imagine why someone didn't just pull a pistol and shoot him, Indiana Jones style. I think it far more likely he made everyone jump back a pace, then ran like hell after Irene.

 

However, even if anyone did fight back, Sherlock would have been defending himself -- with a sword, probably against guns -- a far different situation than shooting an unarmed man. No, I can't see him as a cold-blooded killer.