Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

In "TRF" Sherlock says something about the papers and how they wrap the lie in the truth just enough to make it palatable and people will believe it. Moriarty, in the same episode says how he loves the news papers....they print fairy tales...and pretty "grimm" ones. Moriarty refers to people's pressure points the same wording that CAM uses.

 

  This show uses a lot of foreshadowing. Magnussen is a news paper mogul. He also tries, literally to "burn the heart out of Sherlock", Moriarty's verbal threat at the pool coming to fruition.  Putting John in the middle of a bonfire and giving Sherlock only 8 minutes to reach him?  In my opinion...and it is mine....this is very suggestive of a  strong connection between Moriarty and Magnussen. 

 

  So yes, if this is all true, then Magnussen is a liar  and no, I don't put much stock in anything he would say. He's a manipulator, he kills people through using his power through words.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm no expert on firearms or police procedure but I share Zain's discomfort about armed police. I think I've only seen them once in the UK, when we were at an airport and there were a couple of officers there with machine guns.

Perhaps I should mention that police in the US do not routinely carry rifles or machine guns (I've never seen them do it) -- I think Americans would share your discomfort about that! What they generally do is wear a pistol in a holster. And the only time I've ever seen police with any kind of weapons drawn was an apparent drugs bust in our old neighborhood in California.

 

I thought Mary said CAM had enough on her to send her to prison for life. I don't remember her saying it re. the A.G.R.A. flash drive. Again, I could be wrong.

Nope, you're not wrong. I actually looked it up this time (in Ariane DeVere's transcript), and found this:

The stuff Magnussen has on me, I would go to prison for the rest of my life.

 

So T.o.b.y was right -- Mary said she was worried about Magnussen turning her over to the law, but what he actually said (later) sounded more like a threat to sic her old enemies on her.

 

Given that we don't knew whether CAM was a liar or not, I don't think we can pick and choose what to believe. If he was telling the truth about being willing and able to contact people who hated Mary because of her past, why should he be lying when he said she'd been a very bad girl? One statement is as likely to be true, or false, as the other.

 

What I believe I said was that I agreed with T.o.b.y's interpretation of Magnussen's threat to expose Mary to her enemies (basically that he was implying they'd come after her with torches and pitchforks).  I don't believe that either T.o.b.y or I said that we believed he was telling the truth about his intentions.  We simply agreed as to what his threat seemed to be.

 

I will say, though, that I would certainly not dismiss his threats out-of-hand.  He's carried through with some of them in the past, so I would be on guard.

 

And I don't believe I said that Magnussen lied when he called Mary a "bad girl" -- merely that I wouldn't necessarily take his word as gospel.

 

[Arcadia]

Watched Hounds again last night ... at the end, Sherlock says he doesn't understand why the innkeepers didn't put down their vicious dog. "Sentiment?" he asks. "Sentiment" John confirms. Aside from being a funny scene (love Sherlock's groan at the idea of "sentiment"), it's also a bit of a continuity error, given HLV's revelation of Redbeard. Anyone have an "in story" theory to explain it?

[Janie]

I noticed that too. Well, maybe he didn't understand why they felt sentimental about a vicious dog while Redbeard was a good one? I don't know. I've been wondering about it too.

[Arcadia]

That's pretty good, it even explains why he guessed the right answer so quickly. I'll go with that!

[sfmpco]

And so what does all this mean with "Gotta see a man about a dog."  Still don't get that.

 

I honestly thought SH was thinking of maybe getting a dog.  After all... Redbeard.

[sfmpco]

Interesting tweet from AA today regarding her interview above:

 

amanda abbington @CHIMPSINSOCKS · 4h

I must stress that I didn't mean firing a gun was fun, I meant that scene with Ben was fun. Guns are not fun. At all. So I apologise.

 

Edited July 11, 2014 by Carol the Dabbler
Pale text is nearly invisible against the white Mobile or IP.Board background

[Carol the Dabbler]

"See a man about a dog" is usually a slang expression meaning that the speaker (typically a man, I think) needs to visit the bathroom.  Heaven knows why it would mean that!

 

So in this case, it was presumably some sort of play on that meaning vs. the hound.  But beyond that, I don't get it either.

 

[Arcadia]

And so what does all this mean with "Gotta see a man about a dog."  Still don't get that.

 

I honestly thought SH was thinking of maybe getting a dog.  After all... Redbeard.

Well, in the context of the show (since I just watched it and can still remember such things :-) it literally meant he was going to walk over to the innkeeper and tell him he knew the truth about the dog. But it's also a play on words, as the other meaning is as Carol says. Clever boy, our Sherlock.

[sfmpco]

No, looked it up... definiely a slang British term for needing to using the bathroom, but Carol is right that it's also a play on the word "hound."  Learn something new and useless every day!

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think you're both saying the same thing, more or less.

 

[sfmpco]

I can't quite pin-point it, but it has always seemed terribly awkward, that handshake at the end of HLV.  For two guys who are best friends and one is leaving perhaps forever, a simple handshake seems awfully cold and detached.  Maybe that's what SH was trying to do??? Detach himself emotionally.  Because normally two best buddies would have hugged each other.  But a handshake is so "just business".  I've seen this scene a zillion times and I'm still hoping John will hug him even though i know it will never happen.

[sfmpco]

And another thing... in the panel discussion with Vertue/Gatiss/Moffit a couple of days ago, someone in the audience said that we all now know what Sherlock's real name is - i.e. William Sherlock Scott Holmes.  Yet, I never took that to mean that when he said it, and John doesn't react to it being some sort of revelation of Sherlock's "real" name either.

 

What is the consensus?

[T.o.b.y]

I can't quite pin-point it, but it has always seemed terribly awkward, that handshake at the end of HLV.  For two guys who are best friends and one is leaving perhaps forever, a simple handshake seems awfully cold and detached.  Maybe that's what SH was trying to do??? Detach himself emotionally.  Because normally two best buddies would have hugged each other.  But a handshake is so "just business".  I've seen this scene a zillion times and I'm still hoping John will hug him even though i know it will never happen.

 

I think a lot of people feel the same way you do about that scene. I don't. I love it the way it is. After all, Sherlock Holmes is no ordinary being. As John himself said, there is no "usual" in his case. No normal either, I should say.

 

In my own biased, subjective fashion, what I see during that scene is two men utterly helpless in the face of their few last minutes talking together (or so they think - John at least, you never know with Sherlock, but I prefer to believe he was not playacting this time until series 4 proves me wrong). Emotions, "this kind of stuff", especially when it comes to mutual affection, have never been their strong suit. I think John is sort of stunned, numb, can't really process what is happening, can't really believe that the game is indeed over. And the last thing he wants is to start to cry and loose face in front of Mycroft and everybody else. Or Sherlock, for that matter. Who, on the other hand, seems truly and deeply sad to me, but he's had time enough to prepare for that, so he's kind of made his peace with the situation, and he's just trying to pull off the inevitable goodbye with as much good grace and dignity as possible, also to help John through it by not being embarrassing and by making him laugh.

 

When I think of that scene, a quote from "Pride and Prejudice" comes to mind:

 

"You might have talked to me more (...)''

``A man who had felt less, might.''

[sfmpco]

Yes, excellent, that makes perfect sense.

[jesskayding]

And another thing... in the panel discussion with Vertue/Gatiss/Moffit a couple of days ago, someone in the audience said that we all now know what Sherlock's real name is - i.e. William Sherlock Scott Holmes. Yet, I never took that to mean that when he said it, and John doesn't react to it being some sort of revelation of Sherlock's "real" name either.

 

What is the consensus?

 

About that being Sherlocks real name... I may be remember in wrong, but I think one of the writers said what you said. Its not his real name. I don't know.. I may be making things up.

[Arcadia]

 

I can't quite pin-point it, but it has always seemed terribly awkward, that handshake at the end of HLV.  For two guys who are best friends and one is leaving perhaps forever, a simple handshake seems awfully cold and detached.  Maybe that's what SH was trying to do??? Detach himself emotionally.  Because normally two best buddies would have hugged each other.  But a handshake is so "just business".  I've seen this scene a zillion times and I'm still hoping John will hug him even though i know it will never happen.

 

I think a lot of people feel the same way you do about that scene. I don't. I love it the way it is. After all, Sherlock Holmes is no ordinary being. As John himself said, there is no "usual" in his case. No normal either, I should say.

 

In my own biased, subjective fashion, what I see during that scene is two men utterly helpless in the face of their few last minutes talking together (or so they think - John at least, you never know with Sherlock, but I prefer to believe he was not playacting this time until series 4 proves me wrong). Emotions, "this kind of stuff", especially when it comes to mutual affection, have never been their strong suit. I think John is sort of stunned, numb, can't really process what is happening, can't really believe that the game is indeed over. And the last thing he wants is to start to cry and loose face in front of Mycroft and everybody else. Or Sherlock, for that matter. Who, on the other hand, seems truly and deeply sad to me, but he's had time enough to prepare for that, so he's kind of made his peace with the situation, and he's just trying to pull off the inevitable goodbye with as much good grace and dignity as possible, also to help John through it by not being embarrassing and by making him laugh.

 

When I think of that scene, a quote from "Pride and Prejudice" comes to mind:

 

"You might have talked to me more (...)''

``A man who had felt less, might.''

 

 

Oh yes, yes, yes. I thought that moment was perfect, it felt so them and it broke my heart. A hug would have reduced it to something ordinary.

 

 

And another thing... in the panel discussion with Vertue/Gatiss/Moffit a couple of days ago, someone in the audience said that we all now know what Sherlock's real name is - i.e. William Sherlock Scott Holmes. Yet, I never took that to mean that when he said it, and John doesn't react to it being some sort of revelation of Sherlock's "real" name either.

 

What is the consensus?

About that being Sherlocks real name... I may be remember in wrong, but I think one of the writers said what you said. Its not his real name. I don't know.. I may be making things up.

 

I think they were kidding? I mean, I assume Moftiss just made it up (i.e., it's not canon) but I don't think they meant Sherlock just made it up. If you see what I mean.

 

Are two middle names common in Britain? Or sort of an upper class thing, maybe? I'm more familiar with a single middle name.

[jesskayding]

It seems so!.. I wouldn't be surprised.. In mexico it's common to have 5 names.

 

I think it goes a 1st name..then 2 middle names.. Then 2 last names.. For Mexicans I mean.

[sfmpco]

Well I don't see why someone would be calling their kid Sherlock if that wasn't his first name, because that would be a rough name to be saddled with as a kid.  

[Arcadia]

Honored ancestor, perhaps?

[sfmpco]

Honored ancestor, perhaps?

 

No, what I mean is, if his name WERE "William Sherlock Scott Holmes," why call him Sherlock?

[jesskayding]

You couldn't walk around with the name Sherlock in any school I grew up in. Daily beatings.. Unless he happened to be really cool/ likable... Would have to have a lot of swag.... Or he'd have to be really hardcore/ tough.

[jesskayding]

I think Arcadia's saying maybe to honor an ancestor named Sherlock. Maybe a unique name like that wouldn't get you beat up in Britain. Hay Janine called him Sherl, like it wasn't nothing but a chicken wing on a string.

[sfmpco]

Sherl... always loved her saying that.  Humanizes him just a little more.

[Carol the Dabbler]

And another thing... in the panel discussion with Vertue/Gatiss/Moffit a couple of days ago, someone in the audience said that we all now know what Sherlock's real name is - i.e. William Sherlock Scott Holmes. Yet, I never took that to mean that when he said it, and John doesn't react to it being some sort of revelation of Sherlock's "real" name either.

 

What is the consensus?

About that being Sherlocks real name... I may be remember in wrong, but I think one of the writers said what you said. Its not his real name. I don't know.. I may be making things up.

 

 

I'm no expert on Holmesiana, but I've heard that "William Sherlock Scott Holmes" is fan canon from way back, just as "John Hamish Watson" is.

 

Perhaps one of our Sherlockian scholars can either tell me I'm mistaken or else flesh that out a bit.