The Ice Man and The Virgin

[Sherlock_luvr]

All we do know about Karachi is what BC said at a "Scandal in Belgravia" round table, "That only one man knows what happened and it was romantic."

 

Exactly:)

[perma-nerd]

Like Gatiss, I have a rounder face and a narrow, defined nose, and I've often said I resemble a snowman. It seems it would be totally Moriarty-style to make this intense dramatic-sounding nickname when all he's referring to is Mycroft's physical appearance... 

 

I also wouldn't put it past the writers to troll us in exactly the same way, knowing the fans would read a lot into the nickname. Though it does also match Mycroft's seemingly icy personality.

 

**Sorry if this is double-posted; my Internet connection is very poor and I can't tell if it has gone through.**

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Welcome to the Forum, perma-nerd!     And no, you didn't double post, everything looks fine.

 

 Mycroft really is frosty, isn't he?  The only time he thaws is with Sherlock.  I just wish Mycroft was less of a bully to him.

 

 

[perma-nerd]

My character interpretation of Mycroft is that he was cruller to Sherlock when they were kids, and is now nicer and perhaps even remorseful about his earlier cruelty (my evidence for this is mainly series-3 based so I can't really explain it).

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh I don't doubt that Mycroft does care. I mean he does still run to Sherlock when he needs some serious "leg work" done and they even socialize like playing board games and that "hat"....but Mycroft will still bring up hurtful memories....Redbeard....for instance. I suppose if he has the one in the family that looked after Sherlock he is like the perpetual parent. A child is always a child, forever and forever. But he really does need to realize that Sherlock is no longer "the idiot child". I think that is happening, yes. But I suppose like everything it's a process.

 

  But I love the Mycroft's voice over at the end of "His Last Vow"  "England does."

 

   And as T.o.b.y said....so don't we all.

[T.o.b.y]

I wonder whether the show would still work without Mycroft. I'm sorry, but often I think I'd like him to be gone. Yes, he makes for some very funny dialogues and he brings out the petulant teenager in Sherlock beautifully, but he towers over him way too much for my taste and his omnipotence often weakens the drama, in my humble opinion. He offers a way too easy way out for the writers. 

 

He was a much lesser character in the original and I wish they'd either kept him that way or not introduced him at all. Or at least made him less powerful and less superior. I'd like to see Sherlock grow stronger and more independent of him and I'd like to see Mycroft mess up for a change.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

He was a much lesser character in the original and I wish they'd either kept him that way or not introduced him at all. Or at least made him less powerful and less superior. I'd like to see Sherlock grow stronger and more independent of him and I'd like to see Mycroft mess up for a change.

 

   I agree with you on this although I love the scene in "The Empty Hearse" where Sherlock and Mycroft are just hanging out at 221b. And for all of Mycroft's bullying, Sherlock has grown. Yes, Mycroft can push his buttons, family is like that. But Sherlock has more then just a little clout in his own right. I mean really. How many people are going to be allowed into "The Palace" naked, wrapped in nothing in a sheet?  No, Sherlock has some pull of his own.

 

 Maybe it's a little jealousy that makes Mycroft feel the need to try to reassert a little older brother authority once in awhile.

 

 Plus I think Sherlock took a big step in of taking hold of his independence when he forced Mycroft out as his "voice of reason" at the reception and turns to John.

[Arcadia]

 

Plus I think Sherlock took a big step in of taking hold of his independence when he forced Mycroft out as his "voice of reason" at the reception and turns to John.

Yes, I loved that, I hope that is played with some more in the future.

[Carol the Dabbler]

You've got to be right about him seeing Sherlock as the perpetual child -- that must have been the point of those scenes with Moffat Jr. as the young Sherlock.

 

In that context, I think the mention of Redbeard was meant as a warning, in hopes that Sherlock could avoid ever letting someone mean that much to him again.  Apparently, Mycroft doesn't know of any other way to avoid being hurt.

 

I had previously taken his "All hearts are broken" as a sort of poetic comment on the unpredictability of life.  But now I'm thinking that Mycroft sees every relationship as nothing but a disaster waiting to happen.  No wonder he doesn't allow himself to feel lonely.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

n that context, I think the mention of Redbeard was meant as a warning, in hopes that Sherlock could avoid ever letting someone mean that much to him again.  Apparently, Mycroft doesn't know of any other way to avoid being hurt.

 

  I think you're right, and think that is also brought out in "The Empty Hearse" when Mycroft insists that he's not lonely and Sherlock throws his words back at him: "How would you know?"  But at least Sherlock is now ready to allow himself the space to feel. Hurt if it needs be, but he doesn't want to be Mycroft. Not now, certainly not when he gets to Mycroft's age. He realizes that he is a man of emotion.  He still needs to control it do the "Work" but he can also appreciate John's friendship. Not to mention the hug Lestrade gave him after calling him a bastard. He's come to the space in his life where he doesn't want to throw that away.

[Janie]

I wonder whether the show would still work without Mycroft. I'm sorry, but often I think I'd like him to be gone. Yes, he makes for some very funny dialogues and he brings out the petulant teenager in Sherlock beautifully, but he towers over him way too much for my taste and his omnipotence often weakens the drama, in my humble opinion. He offers a way too easy way out for the writers. 

 

He was a much lesser character in the original and I wish they'd either kept him that way or not introduced him at all. Or at least made him less powerful and less superior. I'd like to see Sherlock grow stronger and more independent of him and I'd like to see Mycroft mess up for a change.

 

I usually agree with most of what you write, T.o.b.y., but the only exception is Mycroft. I just love the character and can't imagine the show without him. I think it would lost lots of its dynamic if he were gone.

[T.o.b.y]

I usually agree with most of what you write, T.o.b.y., but the only exception is Mycroft. I just love the character and can't imagine the show without him. I think it would lost lots of its dynamic if he were gone.

 

Well, then it's a good thing his loss his highly unlikely. After all, he is played by Mark Gatiss himself and I would be very much surprised if he wrote his own part out of the series. Very surprised. No, I expect we'll see more and more of Mycroft and maybe he'll find his way into my good graces sometime, after all at some point. I can get used to a lot - see series 3! But I had an aversion to the character from before I ever saw "Sherlock"; I thought he was a dumb idea of Doyle's to begin with. At least Gatiss plays him very entertainingly and he does get some great lines.

 

[Janie]

He doesn't have to be there more, not even in every episode, just in the background and ready to help Sherlock out of trouble. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right.  And he can be very useful.

 

I suspect we'll be seeing more shifts in the dynamic between the Holmes brothers, which could be highly interesting and presumably entertaining as well.  So hang in there, T.o.b.y -- you may begin to see the point of Mycroft after all.

 

[T.o.b.y]

At the moment, I think the point of Mycroft is to bring out the child in Sherlock, to make him look human and vulnerable by comparison. He also really is the "fairy godmother" of the series who provides easy solutions to all sorts of problems, be they financial or legal.

[Oatcake]

Returning to the title of the thread, it occurs to me to consider Moriarty's motives in using those descriptions - being strictly accurate probably wasn't his aim!  Rather he was wanting to recruit Irene into seducing the brothers in order to extract secrets and generally exercise power.  Since Irene is portrayed as an tntellect equal to Sherlock presumably she was extremely bored with her usual clients, people who were sensuous and experienced enough to 'know what they like'.  So she discovers secrets and takes compromising photos as a game to spice up her life... and would rather have the danger which follows than be bored.  So Moriarty lures her with a very different (and therefore 'interesting') pair of men - cold and virginal - and she happily goes into battle.

 

Meanwhile, I've just re-watched SIB and I was struck by the scene immediately following the identification of not-Irene in the morgue.  Mycroft, John and Sherlock all seem to agree that this is an occasion where S might turn to drugs - and such an occasion has happened at least once before since John moved in to 221b. (The evidence being Sherlock's hope that his socks haven't been messed up this time.)  Presumably there have been no other semi-romantic problems in the past, but this does seem to show that Sherlock is not nearly as cold and unemotional as he likes to make out, and some events do cause him to feel deeply.

[Caya]

Hello Oatcake and welcome to the forum!

 

Yeah, the general consensus seems to be that Sherlock only *wishes* he were an unemotional sociopath .

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello, Oatcake -- welcome to Sherlock Forum! 

 

I think you're probably right, Moriarty wasn't trying to describe the Holmes brothers with objective accuracy.  You've got a good point, that those nicknames would intrigue Irene.  Also, if he was already holding a grudge ("IOU") against Sherlock (and perhaps Mycroft as well), perhaps he was partly being derogatory just for the sake of being derogatory.

 

Thanks for jumping right in with your comments!

 

[T.o.b.y]

I've been roaming the world wide web a bit too daringly these past few evenings (anything to forget my job for a few hours...) and I've come across a lot of comments à la "now we know Sherlock really is a virgin because he didn't sleep with Janine". Uh - hm. That kind of confuses me. I mean, I don't really care that much what the writers think Sherlock's sex life is like anyway (I'm sure we're never going to see any of it on screen and so each to his or her own head canon - I'd like to settle for blissful ignorance, thank you very much) but I really don't see why not jumping at the opportunity to get laid by one person means you never slept with anybody.

 

I don't think Janine is terribly alluring. Sexy, maybe, in a rather coarse sort of way, but if I were the man who was offered "dinner without being hungry" by Irene Adler, I wouldn't settle for her either.

 

If Karachi really happened, who knows what Sherlock and Irene got up to after the terrorists were dead. And who knows where he's been during his two years of absence. He certainly learned to flirt between series 2 and 3.

 

Then, I noticed a lot of people think Janine more or less proved Sherlock is gay. Which I also don't understand. I must say, I'd kind of like that because it would be nice to have a major fictional character just be gay as a detail which is not at the center of the story, but I really doubt it's what they meant by "the kind of man you are". At the wedding, I think Janine thought he was gay, but my interpretation is she realized later that it's more complicated than that. I love complicated and unique, and in this case also uncertain, so I'm quite happy with what we've seen.

 

Just needed to vent a bit... Sorry. I really should learn to stay away from the internet version of "crap telly".

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Just needed to vent a bit... Sorry. I really should learn to stay away from the internet version of "crap telly".

 

 Venting is good, and if Sherlock can get hooked on "crap telly" then how are we mere mortals to avoid it?  I think a lot of the posts around the web could be from female fans who want it to always be John/Sherlock so they don't have to get all jealous like the uproar over Mary Morstan being added to the story. But that's just my opinion.

[T.o.b.y]

Thanks, Fox... I suppose you're probably right. And I'm really little better myself with my insistence on "Sherlock must remain single". My reaction to Janine was exactly like John's in His Last Vow - and I basically knew how it was all going to end. Still.

 

Poor Sherlock. I guess if it makes him happy he's welcome to all the dating he wants. It's just that I feel his isolation and aversion to romantic love are essential characteristics of the original detective and I wouldn't like the adaptation to stray that far from it's source.

 

And I might as well admit that like anybody else who obsesses about this show, I do want Sherlock and John's relationship to be at the emotional center of the story. I just don't think that necessarily must include sex or sexual longings or whatever. Though after series 3, I've stopped being violently opposed to the idea, I simply don't think it's important or ever will be made important and I'd almost be willing to bet on it's not being the writers' intention. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I agree. The canon is about the male bonding between Watson and Holmes even when Watson had a wife or two keeping the hearth fires burning. But even as close as these two men were....and are......Sherlock was still very much his own man and would kept his own council even to the exclusion to his biographer/blogger.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think it's also been mentioned that Sherlock may have had an unhappy love affair some years back, before we "met" him, at which point he decided to focus on his work instead.  So he could well be a heterosexual non-virgin for all we know.  Or a gay non-virgin.  Or whatever -- I agree with you, T.o.b.y, I don't see how his non-romance with Janine proves anything whatsoever.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

I think it's also been mentioned that Sherlock may have had an unhappy love affair some years back, before we "met" him, at which point he decided to focus on his work instead.

 

 

    The early fandom seemed to think so and tried to ferret every evidence of it most of it, as always, is guess work.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, everybody is welcome to believe what they like best, but Holmes never struck me as experienced in love matters at all. And the way Sherlock reacted to Irene in A Scandal in Belgravia makes the most sense to me if he really never had a romantic relationship and / or sex before.

 

Whatever put Sherlock off human interaction, it wouldn't have had to be a love affair. Just the experience that strong feelings got in the way of his brain work and made life messy and uncontrollable would have been enough, I suppose.