The Psyche Behind The Character

[Carol the Dabbler]

Aha!  The voice of reason! 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I'm learning

 

Anyway, what might Sherlock's attitude be towards his brother? I mean beneath the "don't boss me around just because you're older" attitude?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

  Sherlock could feel like Mycroft is to intrusive in his private life. The camera's, the listening devices. Maybe Sherlock wants Mycroft to trust him enough to stop spying on him.

[Caya]

Well there was no sniper on Mycroft, nor did Sherlock assume there was one. So both he and Moriarty think that Lestrade's closer to him than his own brother.

[T.o.b.y]

Good point! Very good point! You know, I never really noticed that. Of course, Mycroft probably has some means of protection that would have made it more difficult to set a killer on him than on "ordinary people".

[Carol the Dabbler]

  Sherlock could feel like Mycroft is to intrusive in his private life. The camera's, the listening devices. Maybe Sherlock wants Mycroft to trust him enough to stop spying on him.

 

All I can think of along those lines is Mycroft's use of the city's CCTV cameras to "stalk" John in "Study in Pink."  I assume the camera / microphone in "Reichenbach" was planted by Mrs. Hudson's supposed "repairman" -- are you thinking he actually works for Mycroft?  Or what am I forgetting?

 

[T.o.b.y]

It's certainly interesting that Sherlock wouldn't even go to Mycroft for help when he was running from the police (although I agree that Lestrade was probably more than happy to let him run). There must have been a possible alternative to the rooftop showdown as well involving his brother. Don't you think Mycroft would have been able to get rid of the snipers, for instance? Maybe, if Sherlock and his big brother weren't so reluctant to get along, there wouldn't have had to be any of this emotional leave-taking.

 

Of course I am happiest when Mycroft is least involved, but it doesn't make Sherlock appear any kinder to consider that he might have had an alternative and actually chose the dramatic way out at his friends' cost, does it?

[Carol the Dabbler]

It's certainly interesting that Sherlock wouldn't even go to Mycroft for help when he was running from the police ....

 

Especially in "Reichenbach," I consider anything Sherlock and/or Mycroft say or do to be suspect, if it could conceivably be part of their plan to fool Moriarty, or (in this case) their plan to fool John, or ....

 

So I would not say that Sherlock "wouldn't" go to Mycroft, but rather that he "didn't" -- perhaps because of their past difficulties, or perhaps for reasons he has not chosen to share with either us or John.

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Especially in "Reichenbach," I consider anything Sherlock and/or Mycroft say or do to be suspect, if it could conceivably be part of their plan to fool Moriarty, or (in this case) their plan to fool John, or ....

 

 

Plan to fool Moriarty - all right. But who needs a plan explicitly to fool John - poor guy?

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, mainly he has to believe that Sherlock is really dead -- perhaps meaning that he also needs to keep believing Moriarty is alive, the computer key code is real, etc.  Hard to tell what all's included at this point.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think in canon, Sherlock tells John something like: You needed to believe I was dead, because then the whole world would believe it too. Your face is to honest, to open.

[T.o.b.y]

Exactly. Here is a passage from "The Empty House":

 

"I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all-important that it should be thought I was dead, and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true. Several times during the last three years I have taken up my pen to write to you, but always I feared lest your affectionate regard for me should tempt you to some indiscretion which would betray my secret."

 

I didn't really word my question properly. I meant, what other reason than to fool Moriarty (or his people) would there be to fool John?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

To fool the rest of Moriarty's operatives. If Moriarty truly was the criminal master mind that Sherlock believed him to be, the spider in the center of a great world wide web of crime, then these organizations would need to believe Holmes to be dead. If those snipers and Moran, were watching John, or any one connected with Sherlock on the off chance that some how Sherlock had duped them, then who better then the emotional barometer, John.

[T.o.b.y]

... the emotional barometer, John.

 

Oh poor guy. This brings me back elegantly to Sherlock and his personality: This is another example of keeping his eyes on "the big picture" and to hell with ordinary concerns. So what if his friend has to go back to his (according to Mycroft incompetent) therapist if it's all for the sake of the greater good? He's probably going to expect John to just go "oh - I see - okay" when he finds out why he had to believe in Sherlock's death.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

He's probably going to expect John to just go "oh - I see - okay" when he finds out why he had to believe in Sherlock's death.

 

  I'm not convinced of that though. If Sherlock's distress on the rooftop was as real as it looked and felt, then he has to know that things cannot be the same when....or even...if...he is able to return. He may have hopes....but he does have a sense that there is going to be changes and not all of them for the good.

[T.o.b.y]

That depends on just how delusional (to quote the wonderful Irene) Sherlock is. On the one hand, you are right that after hearing his reaction on the phone and witnessing his speech in the graveyard, one would expect somebody of Sherlock's intelligence to realize it's sort of a big deal for his friend. On the other hand, he expects greatness from other people as well as himself, at least the people he has any kind of respect for. Not being too much tuned in to his own feelings and having kept them at bay all his life (for a good reason, from his point of view), I assume he won't quite understand (or want to understand) why anybody's heartache would have to be considered when it comes to fighting Moriarty.

 

You know, in a way Sherlock was right when he said "alone protects me" (even though at the time he said it, I don't think he even meant it, he just wanted to make John leave). If he'd never made friends, what would Moriarty have used against him? It does make life more complicated and more dangerous to care about people.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

You know, in a way Sherlock was right when he said "alone protects me" (even though at the time he said it, I don't think he even meant it, he just wanted to make John leave). If he'd never made friends, what would Moriarty have used against him? It does make life more complicated and more dangerous to care about people.

 

  I think he may, up to a point. But as for your comment on how complicated and dangerous it can be to care about people, sadly a lot of police and government agents have found that out at a cost.

[T.o.b.y]

And since I am a firm believer in the great heart behind the great brain, I think that it is especially dangerous for somebody like Sherlock Holmes.

 

I think the main reason why he chose to keep himself distant from feelings for other people was / is that he would feel too much or too strongly. He could never have given up his work and a relationship would have been more than a distraction from that, it would have led to very messy situations. Remember his reaction to Mrs Hudson being attacked - one doesn't really want to consider what he would have done in the case of a girl-friend or wife, does one?

 

The only kind of people he can let near him are very independent and well able to take care of themselves. John, especially, has the big advantage of actually increasing the level of safety on a case.

 

I don't think he likes things being that way, necessarily. One of my favorite moments is when he says this:

 

"Don't snivel, Mrs. Hudson. It'll do nothing to impede the flight of a bullet. What a tender world that would be."

 

It sounds so exactly like something "my" Mr Holmes would have said, but I haven't found any line like it in the stories. I think they made it up. Thanks to the brain who did!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Yes, because Sherlock, being what he is, a Consulting Detective, is going to make some powerful enemies and those closest to him could and probably would have been targeted, just as Moriarty targeted them, the three people closest to Sherlock.

[T.o.b.y]

Do you think that in The Great Game, Sherlock really was going to give Moriarty the stolen plans? Or do you think he just brought an empty memory stick to the pool? On the one hand, I can easily believe he didn't care much whether Moriarty had them or Mycroft at that early stage of his knowledge about his opponent (and himself). On the other hand, is (was) he really that careless?

And what might he have told Mycroft later about the whole thing? Did Mycroft ever get what he had asked for?

 

I wonder whether, when Mycroft had Moriarty imprisoned and was interrogating him, Moriarty told him "your little brother was going to give me the Bruce Partington data and the only reason I haven't gotten it is that I threw the memory stick into a swimming pool"?

If so, it might just have made Mycroft angry enough to really do some "blabbing" about Sherlock...

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

   I really don't Sherlock would set out to deliberately betray his country. I think there was something on that stick, but it probably would have been doctored with false information.

 

  If Mycroft really thought Sherlock unreliable, untrustworthy, he wouldn't have trusted him with the Adler affair. Yes, Sherlock did slip up seriously with the plane setting plan. But he more then made up for that later and some of that has to be laid in Mycroft's lap as well. He was pulling Sherlock into a situation without giving him all the information he needed.

[Selena]

/> I really don't Sherlock would set out to deliberately betray his country. I think there was something on that stick, but it probably would have been doctored with false information.

Well, Holmes did sell out some information in order to gain the criminal's trust in "His last bow". It may be that our Sherlock agreed that you have to sacrifice something in order to gain something else (the meeting with/possible capture of Moriarty, perhaps). He might even have known all along that Moriarty could secure the files for himself and simply wanted to see how the criminal mastermind would react to his offer.

[T.o.b.y]

 He was pulling Sherlock into a situation without giving him all the information he needed.

 

That seems to run in the family...

 

[T.o.b.y]

He might even have known all along that Moriarty could secure the files for himself and simply wanted to see how the criminal mastermind would react to his offer.

 

 

Good point. Although I did get the impression that until he met him in the flesh (and until he took John hostage), Sherlock's sympathies were with Moriarty, at least up to a certain point.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Dunno about his sympathies, but he's certainly intrigued by the man behind the challenges.