Mycroft Holmes

[Arcadia]

To be fair (but why? :D ) that gesture might not be what it looks like. And as someone else said to me about another scene, it was cut so it doesn't count, right? :p

[Shadow Dweller]

:o Not enough, I want more where they exchange words in well-lighted environment.

[sittything]

I think we need a discussion and tribute to the facial expressions of Mycroft Holmes up in here...

 

[Shadow Dweller]

That's probable his version of this forum's emoticon :D

[Shadow Dweller]

Many times I think that Mycroft overcompensate on face expressions. That could be a byproduct of keeping himself tightly controlled every second for years, it is yet another mask that supposed to make him get along with 'ordinary' people.

[Arcadia]

That's probable his version of this forum's emoticon :D

 

 

Many times I think that Mycroft overcompensate on face expressions. That could be a byproduct of keeping himself tightly controlled every second for years, it is yet another mask that supposed to make him get along with 'ordinary' people.

 

It works too. I think of Mycroft as smart but otherwise ordinary, whereas Sherlock I think of as smart and extraordinary.

 

I also note that Sherlock is capable of making the same kinds of "socially acceptable" faces, he just chooses not to most of the time. Maybe that's why I trust him (in spite of all his sneaky tricks) and wouldn't trust Mycroft further than I can throw him? :D

[Shadow Dweller]

I think both of them are capable to mimic socially-acceptable behaviour but to different degrees. However, both of them have the same Achilles' heel in form of being awkward in close interaction with people that they let into their 'inner circle'. Mycroft's expression here is exaggerated just like so many other times, it make me think that he might be someone whose facial expressions are hard to read because it mostly composed from subtle twitch of muscles. Combine that with solemn and serious behaviour then we get a recipe for a Vulcan-alike character who forced himself to be expressive in order to fit in.

[J.P.]

I think that many times Mycroft's facial expressions are fake - and he doesn't even bother to hide this. Like his false smile first time he meets John.

Maybe he just hides behind those mimic contortions.

 

Mark and Ben share an unbelievable elasticity of their faces. They are such great shapechangers too. Maybe they are related also in RL?

[J.P.]

And here is how Mycroft's career started: "Big Brother - The Early Days"

 

 

 

The Film's original title is Spaced

[Boswell]

A reply i posted on another thread started me off on a mini-exposition of how I see Mycroft's character: as someone more evolved, for lack of a better word, than Sherlock. He's not simply smarter than Sherlock, he's also wiser. Mycroft and Sherlock use their intellectual gifts in vastly different ways - for Sherlock, his intellect is his defining characteristic, for Mycroft it is a resource, one of several, which he puts to use in achieving his life's aim, namely heightening his power. 

This interpretation I have of Mycroft as a power centre draws, of course, from BBC Sherlock and The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle's original Mycroft may or may not lend himself to this interpretation, in fact Doyle appears to hint that Mycroft is simply the smarter but lazier brother, but I like the new dimension added by TPLoSH and, therefore, BBC Sherlock.

Mycroft says of Sherlock that he could have been a philosopher or scientist yet he chooses to be a detective. I take that to mean that Sherlock is content to bask in the glow of his intellectual powers, in and of themselves - as a musician would enjoy his music for it's own sake - even though those intellectual powers afford Sherlock the potential to expand the boundaries of his personality and be 'more', as it were. Like a musician, Sherlock needs the acknowledgement of a knowledgeable and appreciative audience, whereas Mycroft is completely secure and self-aware, knows just how good he is and has no need for external 'approval'; he has sufficiently mastered himself to be able to use his intellect in ways that allow him to influence everything in his circle of concern.

He is no ordinary ladder climber either, it is not mere position that he craves but actual power, preferably stripped of all its trappings. Unlike Sherlock or Moriarty, who are rockstars/drama queens, Mycroft does not enjoy the limelight but prefers to be the unseen hand working the levers that matter. 

 

And, as I said in that other thread, Mycroft truly believes he is not lonely. He has transcended the need for companionship, possibly because he may have given up on the possibility of there existing anyone that matches his intellect and his philosophy. Sherlock may find a worthy companion in John, but the two are hardly equally matched. Mycroft's emotional needs are not so great as to make him 'lower' his standards for a companion, and he finds human attachments to be mere temporary distractions from his life's true purpose. In that respect he is almost sage-like.

Yet he is aware of his attachment to Sherlock, he thinks Sherlock - and Sherlock alone - has the potential to be like himself and therefore is drawn to protecting, and hopefully 'improving' Sherlock, triggering the Big Brotherly behaviour pattern, which I suspect annoys Mycroft himself as much as it does Sherlock because he knows he does it out of an almost-compulsive attachment than any other 'higher' purpose.

 

 

[Shadow Dweller]

It is good that you state that post as 'how you see Mycroft's character' instead of 'how Mycroft is'. Since how people see a character is inevitability influenced by their own way of thinking then the only question that might arise is, "For that PoV, which incidents in the series 1 - 3 that become a base for each point above?"

[Boswell]

It is good that you state that post as 'how you see Mycroft's character' instead of 'how Mycroft is'. Since how people see a character is inevitability influenced by their own way of thinking then the only question that might arise is, "For that PoV, which incidents in the series 1 - 3 that become a base for each point above?"

Ok I'll try to come up with a coherent reply to your question, but in the meantime I'm still curious about why you thought attributing Sherlock's fake death plan, including keeping John in the dark, to Mycroft makes Mycroft seem two-dimensional - the original discussion we were trying to have in that other thread

[Shadow Dweller]

o_O Is that the impression that you get? None in my post ever imply such thing. It is the - "emotion is bad and forming ties with human beings is dangerous" stuff. - It is the kind of thinking that could be expected from (wo)manchild who is not only blind like bat in a room full with glaring light and blasting music but also completely enamored with the idealized image of perfect human supercomputer. It is completely unrealistic and extremely foolish for someone who moves in the world of shadow dealings.

[Arcadia]

Shadow, are you saying that you believe Mycroft DOESN'T think that emotion and forming ties with people are bad? If so, that would be an interesting take on his character, since what he says implies the opposite. However, I agree with Boswell that Mycroft is wiser ... wise enough, perhaps, to realize that some human bonds are necessary if one is to remain human? And that's what makes him a multi-dimensional character; there's more to him than what we see on the surface?

 

I think his wisdom is clouded with cynicism, though. "Caring is not an advantage" implies that having an advantage over other people is more important than caring about people, and that's a pretty cynical outlook, imo. But I don't think that makes him two-dimensional either; it just shows for all his intelligence he has some blind spots.

[sittything]

Given that Mycroft is a good bit older than Sherlock, I wonder how much of his outlook on caring being negative is because he was ostracized by other kids for being so bright?   I'm sure other kids didn't "get" him anymore than he understood them.  Then by the time Sherlock came along, Mycroft was already cynical and jaded and decided to "teach" Sherlock not to care to spare him the pain of rejection.

[Arcadia]

'Tis possible.
 
My brother who was 11 years older than me tried to teach me stuff, but it wasn't to spare me anything; it was so I'd be more like him! :D (And I am, in fact, more like him than I am like my other two siblings.) So I tend to think it's less caring about Sherlock's welfare and more wanting to "improve" Sherlock; with himself as the example Sherlock should live up to.
 
(BTW, my brother was a great guy, not rubbish at all, I'd be happy to live up to his standards. But I never will!) (I am required to say this, just in case... :P )

[Carol the Dabbler]

Aren't the two of you saying the same thing?

 

[J.P.]

Funny, once Ben was wondering about fans cutifying Sherlock, and that would be dangerous if you'd meet him in RL.
But it applies even more to Mycroft. If you look through the fan-arts you see so many portraits of him as funny (starting with the cakes - where did this came from?) or actually really human under his ice. As at the Con the moderator said that in his opinion Mycroft was a smashing big brother - you should hear the applause... I too want to see him this way.

But in the series he is mysterious and quite sinister character.
 

[intellect] for Mycroft it is a resource, one of several, which he puts to use in achieving his life's aim, namely heightening his power.

I wonder how he sees himself. What does his power mean to him? Does he see himself as a patriot? As someone who holds the strings to world's welfare/peace/whatever. What is his motivation?
 
He seems to like showing his power from time to time though - hijacking John was such a drama queen thing!
Or his: "look frightened and scuttle". The way he orders Sherlock to the palace.
 

...triggering the Big Brotherly behaviour pattern, which I suspect annoys Mycroft himself as much as it does Sherlock because he knows he does it out of an almost-compulsive attachment than any other 'higher' purpose.

 
I like that.
 

I agree with Boswell that Mycroft is wiser ... wise enough, perhaps, to realize that some human bonds are necessary if one is to remain human?

 
The question is - does he want to be "human"? Why should that concept be attractive to him? He despises all human...

[sittything]

I'm definitely far more guilty of "cutifying" Sherlock than I am Mycroft.  I almost feel like it's hard not to, what with all of the touches of humanity they showed in him in season 3.   I think there's more potential there for a "good man" than you have with Mycroft.  That being said,  I generally assume that Mycroft is operating out of a sense of responsibility and altruism as far as service to country and familial relations (Sherlock, parents) goes.  I tend not to attribute nefarious intents to Mycroft, of course unless he thought it would lead to some carefully calculated greater good.  I definitely don't doubt that Mycroft is the more dangerous of the two.  I still adore him, though.    Or maybe that's the Mark Gatiss affect.

[Shadow Dweller]

@Arcadia:

 

>> are you saying that you believe Mycroft DOESN'T think that emotion and forming ties with people are bad?

 

Exactly. That's only what the surface impression that many people get but it is also contrary with the physical fact of being human. My take on his character is, Mycroft think that emotion and 'caring' are part and parcel of reality but both are to be tamed and allowed to show their colour in selective situations where they can bring advantage. Not acknowledging that as human being he was and always would be prone to be influenced by both (even by 'caring', which is a behavioural act with many different possible reasons behind) is like hiding your head in sand and hope that the problem will not touch you. That's what Sherlock did and why Irene Adler succeed to manipulate him.

[Arcadia]

Aren't the two of you saying the same thing?

I don't think so? The motives are different ... although maybe the results would be the same, if I had been as smart as Sherlock....

 

@Arcadia:

 

>> are you saying that you believe Mycroft DOESN'T think that emotion and forming ties with people are bad?

 

Exactly. That's only what the surface impression that many people get but it is also contrary with the physical fact of being human. My take on his character is, Mycroft think that emotion and 'caring' are part and parcel of reality but both are to be tamed and allowed to show their colour in selective situations where they can bring advantage. Not acknowledging that as human being he was and always would be prone to be influenced by both (even by 'caring', which is a behavioural act with many different possible reasons behind) is like hiding your head in sand and hope that the problem will not touch you. That's what Sherlock did and why Irene Adler succeed to manipulate him.

Yes, I see. That makes sense; although I think he could be gracious enough to share that wisdom with Sherlock. ;)

[Shadow Dweller]

I blame that on Sherlock's male pride and his rebellious attitude toward most thing that came from Mycroft ^_________^

[T.o.b.y]

I don't really like Mycroft... Of all the main characters he just seems the least real. I think there's something cartoonisch about him, as if a mastermind from a Bond or superhero film had stumbled into the Sherlock series and was trying to tell everyone what to do in a world that is much more complex than his own.

 

He makes the most sense as Sherlock's personified superego. I used to think he was evil, but then I saw Magnussen and decided nope, that's the evil version of Mycroft (just like Moriarty is the evil version of Sherlock). Mycroft isn't evil, he's just... cold and sour. With a disturbing streak of sadism somewhere in there. The only human factor about him seems to be his affection for his brother, and that isn't entirely healthy, if you ask me.

 

If they ever turn Mycroft into an actual human being, I will be pleasantly surprised. The way he is now, I really wouldn't mind if he faded more into the background and was only brought forward occasionally to enable a few good jokes.

 

I did like his role in A Scandal in Belgravia, though. He really added to the story there.

[J.P.]

A thought while walking the woods: Mycroft shows his human face and reactions mostly in TGG. He looks sincerely sorry when he apologizes about the information he gave to Jim. But if we go with the almost official version that the whole game was staged by the Holmes bros, ironically, he is lying in those scenes. Which makes him like Sherlock - his human side is fake.

[Arcadia]

That makes me sad.... :(