Mycroft Holmes

[sittything]

I wish I could find it again ... there was something in an interview about Sherlock believing the dog had gone to a good place, or something like that ... then discovering later that it had died. In other words, he discovered he'd been lied to about what happened to his dog.

 

But they seem to be hinting there's something more to it, don't they? Unless it turns out to be a giant Scarlet Roll Mop.......

 

I know I've read that in a fan fic or two, but maybe that fact actually had its basis in reality (interview) then.  

[Arcadia]

I know I've either heard it or read it, but to unearth it now .... oof. Although I do wonder if it could be in the S3 extras....

[J.P.]

I think it's a fandom lore.

[Arcadia]

Nope, nope, I actually heard it with my own ears ... or maybe read it with my own eyes ... somewhere. Gah, now it's going to drive me crazy. They mentioned that, then Gatiss talked about how they were going to tease the word "Redbeard" for awhile but decided to go ahead and reveal it in HLV. I can see it in my mind's eye! Grrrrr.....

 

Even if I do find it they'll probably make up a new story to suit their needs anyway......

[Arcadia]

Looking for distraction, I found a "novelization" of TRF, which I didn't really read, but at the end there were some author's comments ... written after S3, but before, I believe, TAB. My own view of Mycroft is not as harsh as this author's, but I still don't trust him, and this sort of mirrors my reasons why. So I thought I'd throw it out here so we could gnaw at it for awhile.
 
The story is located here, and below are the comments I'm referring to.
 

Author's Note

The Fear of Mycroft

After watching the third series of Sherlock (spoiler alert, hey hey), I can now say this without reservation: Mycroft Holmes frightens me. Even more than Moriarty. Even though Moriarty is the one I'm supposed to be frightened of.

 

In the Canon, Mycroft is basically a variation of Sherlock: corpulent instead of reedy, imperturbable instead of mercurial. Mycroft's intelligence (which exceeds Holmes') engenders confidence and competence, in spite of his distaste for legwork. But in the show Sherlock, Mycroft is basically a secret agent—less James Bond, though, and more O'Brien, the Thought Police agent from 1984; or V, putting Evey in a prison cell in V For Vendetta.

 

Here is what I mean when I say I'm frightened of Mycroft: Moriarty is frightening in the micro. His body language and speaking style are scary because they turn on a dime, and because his outward mannerisms in no way reflect whatever's going on inside his head. Where Sherlock is all about perceiving order and pattern, Moriarty is all about chaos creation. He might do just about anything at any given moment in time. And that's a scary person to stand next to.

 

But in the macro, Moriarty is utterly predictable. He is working against the Holmes brothers. He's a terrorist and a crime lord. He is Loki. He's the destructive half of Shiva. He's the Erinyes, he's Eris, he's the Bacchanalia risen from the dead, dancing through London and leaving death in his wake. Whatever he's doing at any given moment, you can assume that it is bad, and react accordingly.

 

In contrast, Mycroft is stability. He works for one of the most stable and long-lived governments in the modern world. Mycroft is happy to be Atlas, holding up the sky of the British Empire. Mycroft does the dirty work that keeps the rest of us happy and safe in our beds at night. In the macro, Mycroft is a stabilizing force.

 

But in the micro? Mycroft is Abraham sacrificing Isaac. "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac whom thou lovest, and get thee to the land of Moria, and make of him a burnt offering." He's Agamemnon, sacrificing his own family for war. Mycroft is the thin, invisible line you cross when you lose yourself. And what's troubling is not so much Mycroft's willingness to sacrifice his family members, or his resignation in the face of sending Sherlock off on a suicide mission, but rather his inability to even see that as a sacrifice, or to identify it as a possible source of pain. I'm pretty sure that Mycroft is going to get Sherlock killed someday, and if he ever feels upset about it, it will be about the necessity of Sherlock's death—as Abraham felt sad to lose his son, even as he took him to Moria, and tied him to a rock, and would have killed him with his own hands with not a peep of dissent if not for the sudden appearance of a ram calling the whole thing off. Mycroft has no idea that Sherlock might have been lonely during his two dead years. It doesn't occur to him that that may have been difficult for his little brother. And that, more than anything, is what ensures that unless Sherlock is very careful and very guarded, sooner or later he's going to get crushed under the wheels of his big brother's wagon.

 

Mycroft is not a reassuring person to stand next to, because at no time does your welfare ever cross his mind. He doesn't think of small details like your life, or even his own. He's only concerned with the macro—which, for him, is Britain—and will sacrifice anything to protect it. Contrast that to John Watson, the archetype of a loyal friend. Once John decides that he's on your side, he would, I'm quite sure, allow the British empire to come tumbling down before betraying a friend. John will sacrifice himself, but not to make that choice for anybody else. He's basically (along with, to a certain extent, Mrs Hudson) the only relationship that Sherlock has that isn't either conditional or obligatory.

 

 

[J.P.]

Oi...

[Arcadia]

That's it? C'mon, you can mount a better defense than that! :d

[J.P.]

Isn't it OBVIOUS?

[Arcadia]

No! :d

[Shadow Dweller]

That's an interesting POV and entirely possible since we did not really know the inner working of his mind. I actually know someone who behaves like that in real life. However, in Mycroft's, it is doubtful that he is so stupidly see family only as a tool for whatever he is working at at the moment. He is strategic and measured (he himself is also a factor to count in the equation). From the Art of War, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle". He can be his own greatest enemy. he also needs a reputation as a dependable and trustworthy person else he will soon find himself become a threat and more or less expendable himself in many people's (who matters in power and influence) eyes. A completely ruthless and backstabbing person might be admired but only from afar, he will find himself with no real ally at all if he cultivated that kind of reputation. Fear only can motivate loyalty so far but when you are down on your luck you better have allies who is willing to help you out from the goodness of their heart (or something like that).

[Van Buren Supernova]

Great. I have a lot of work to do and waste time writing this instead. Gah.
 

But in the macro, Moriarty is utterly predictable. He is working against the Holmes brothers. He's a terrorist and a crime lord.

While I agree those are true, I strongly disagree that Moriarty is predictable to the point that he is less scary than Mycroft. As we saw, he used whatever and whenever ways to achieve his agenda, and those things did not necessary look evil/bad, and definitely not obvious/predictable. He works through Jeff Hope, General Shan, Irene Adler, Kitty Rilley, Richard Brook, manipulate to turn Scotland Yard, creating the assumption of key codes, turn assassins against each other.
If all, he is never obvious.
He even revealed himself to John and Sherlock through Molly, and Mycroft. There are methods to his madness, yes, in very complicated pattern, but not a good old obvious villains in superheroes movies. He is way more sophisticated than that, maybe more Jokerish and more chameleon-ish.

That brings to Sherlock and Mycroft's Reichenbach plan.

To me, I buy the elaborate plan from Holmes's brother to bring down Moriarty.
Moriarty had been walking amongst them all this time. Encountered with Sherlock, in SIP and TBB. Then with both brothers in TGG, raising up the stake in games that made it clearer than ever about how far he would go, treating people like dust. Then with Irene Adler, without error from her side, Moriarty won. He was putting himself out there, and the Holmes brothers always have one big fat weakness, innocent people.

So, it's just normal (for them) that both had to plan something instead of just waiting for Moriarty to make a move, because otherwise he would always have upper hand. And Holmes's plan had to predict a couple of steps ahead for possible moves and counter moves, crazy chess game, because they were dealing with powerful enemy who had the same thinking. They also had to go back a couple of steps sometimes in order to win. Just like in war and game strategy, sometimes the only way to move ahead is retreat a couple of steps to lure the enemy in.

Reputations ruined, life at stake, fake death, isolation, possible real deaths in the other twelve scenarios must be there. I believe they both made calculations with cold heads and clear objective, whatever needed to be done to stop Moriarty would be done. Sherlock must agreed, even suggested himself about Lazarus, (he was a different man compared to HLV. Even after HLV I don't doubt for a second that if Lazarus made sense, he would do it). I don't think it's solely Mycroft's coldness and I don't believe he would crush Sherlock, now or eventually. If he had to choose between saving England and Sherlock, Mycroft is probably the only person I would trust with possibility of middle brilliant solutions, like Coventry Conumdrum.

In fact, from three of them, I would say Mycroft is the least scary.



(Which brings me to what I say before, beside small nitty gritty and some factual errors (that I enjoy picking, it's their fault for giving too much time and interesting things to ponder about :P), I would say the overall story and how they integrate with each other is very well written. I probably could only name a very few serials out there that match it. And for other serials, the storyline, plot holes are head-banging obvious sometimes.

So setting the small things aside, I bow to this one still).

[J.P.]

Beside what Shadow and Van Buren wrote - Mycroft must have a strong sense of responsibility coming with his status, he might bend rules, but IMO he will always operate within a certain limitations and to achieve something he sees as higher goals. Knowing this goals would make him quite predicable. We as viewers don't know them (yet), what makes him such a mystery. But I do believe he has them, as well as some kind of moral values / ethics. 

 

Moriarty will always do evil things, but I don't see him as predicable. You cannot even read his body language. He doesn't care for anything, including his own life, what he wants is distraction. There are no rules, no limits for him. 

 

 

As for Mycroft not caring, I could simply quote Mark saying that he do care, but I don't think you will let me get away with it.

 

Mycroft is scary (and he also likes to intimidate people, what makes showing off a family trait), mostly because you don't know, what he is capable of, and he won't tell you, beside hinting that it's a lot. He would use anybody to achieve his higher goals and it's hard to predict, how far he would go. He might see people as figures in his own chess play - all, except his brother. 

 

Okay, one could argue that his care is nothing more than a care for a valuable and useful tool, but his reactions are too strong for that. I'm not talking about his conversations with John (I worry about him constantly... the Danger Night... what we say Sherlock about Irene... tell him I'm sorry), because he surely sees John as a tool and manipulates him. I'm talking about the drug bust in HLV, about him worrying that Sherlock grieves after Irenes "death", and above all, going under cover to Serbia. He who hates legwork and would be able to send specialists to rescue his brother. Of course he have to hide his affection, so he plays that cruel game and watch Sherlock being tortured - otherwise someone could assume there might be a something in this cavity in his chest. 

 

But in the end this is more my own gut reaction, based more on how Mark decided to portrait him, than on hard facts.

 

 

[Arcadia]

As the youngest sister of not one but three quite a bit older siblings I think one thing that makes me wary of Mycroft is his tendency to act as if he's the boss. It's impertinent at their age, and I don't blame Sherlock for digging in his toes whenever Mikey gets that way. I also very much identify with Sherlock's line in TAB: "Maybe there are one or two things that I know that you don’t." Call it ego, but it's humiliating when siblings act as if they know everything you do and more. Even if they actually do.

The other side of it is: I find Mycroft's protection very smothering, and I don't think it's been good for Sherlock. He needs a reality check, not a security blanket. I don't doubt Mycroft cares about Sherlock. But when he says things like "this is all my fault" -- that's presumptuous. Of course it's not his fault, because Sherlock is an adult human being in full possession of his faculties, and to the extent that anyone can be, he's responsible for his own failings. For Mycroft to take the blame robs Sherlock of both his independence and his dignity. No wonder he still seems like a child sometimes! Which can be cute; but I like him even better when he acts like a man, which is a much harder and braver thing to do. But Mycroft (not intentionally, I'm sure, but still) threatens to take that away from him. I'm still a bit troubled by that "Why don't you get me a pardon like a proper big brother?" line ... oh, Sherlock, no. Time to stand up, young man, and stop cheating your way through life.
 
Having said all that, "I'll always be there for you," is, to me, a step in the right direction. Before it's been "you will do what I say" or "you're such a screw-up" ... but this is more like an offer of friendship. "I won't be an interfering busybody/bodyguard anymore, but if you want my affection and the comfort it provides, it's yours." Maybe Mycroft's growing up too?
 
And finally, I think Sherlock actually does know more than Mycroft sometimes, and I think he hit it right on the nose in TEH; Mycroft really is lonely. Especially now that Sherlock has John.
 
PS -- Their apparent collaboration in TRF is even more puzzling to me as more of their relationship is revealed; it hardly seems credible that Sherlock would have willingly let "that interfering Mycroft" anywhere near any of his own plans. Which could lead to the conclusion that they were mostly Mycroft's plans, and he more or less forced the Reichenbach "solution" on Sherlock. I hope that's not the case, but it actually sort of fits. And Sherlock did claim that keeping everything from John was mostly Mycroft's idea. But then again, Sherlock is frequently somewhat less than completely truthful, especially with John ......
 
PPS -- It also occurs to me ... am I right, and is Sherlock at his meanest with Mycroft when witnesses (especially John) are present? When it's just the two of them alone, aren't they a bit "nicer" to each other? So maybe Sherlock is hiding his own affection behind a wall of snark, lest John find out he's really a sentimental bag of goo after all.

[J.P.]

Probably they both suspect that they are softies in their very hearts and it scares them (again - just projecting my own problems on them)

 

Their relationship is far from being normal. It's quite toxic to be honest, but we are arguing with the statement that Mycroft doesn't care.

 

I haven't included things from TAB, because the text in question was written before the special came out, and we still don't really know what was real - if anything at all. But  whatever Sherlock says in the last plane scene - I wouldn't give it too much meaning. Sherlock is desperately trying to escape this very unpleasant situation of being caught on the act (whatever he has really done) and acts in a way like in the Christmas Disaster scene for example. Angry kid throwing a tantrum.

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure the author meant that Mycroft doesn't care; she just fears he would sacrifice anyone, even those he cares for, for what he perceives to be the greater good. And to be honest, I'm not sure that isn't the correct attitude for someone in his position ... that is, I assume he is entrusted with the welfare of his country, and ideally, someone in that position shouldn't be compromised by familial ties. Or should they? Maybe we want someone in that position to be as human as possible? Don't know.

 

Anyway, it would indeed be interesting to know what she thinks now that TAB has aired ... since they certainly seem to be making the case that Mycroft does, in fact, care a great deal. I wonder if this will cause him to make a horrible mistake ......

[Shadow Dweller]

That kind of attitude actually will only make him a totally self-serving person in the eyes of everyone (especially his superiors). Now ask yourself as a citizen and his boss, would you entrust a rabid attack dog to guard your home, one who will turn against you the moment your eyes are not on him? Better yet, would you trust your safety to a known serial killer who did not discriminate his victims and kill to fulfill whatever ideal he have in mind? Even in the world of organised crime certain degree of trustworthiness is paramount. Who would form an alliance with someone known to kill his client when whim demand it, without putting a bullet in his brain once the objective achieved?

[sittything]

But in the micro? Mycroft is Abraham sacrificing Isaac. "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac whom thou lovest, and get thee to the land of Moria, and make of him a burnt offering." He's Agamemnon, sacrificing his own family for war. Mycroft is the thin, invisible line you cross when you lose yourself. And what's troubling is not so much Mycroft's willingness to sacrifice his family members, or his resignation in the face of sending Sherlock off on a suicide mission, but rather his inability to even see that as a sacrifice, or to identify it as a possible source of pain. I'm pretty sure that Mycroft is going to get Sherlock killed someday, and if he ever feels upset about it, it will be about the necessity of Sherlock's death—as Abraham felt sad to lose his son, even as he took him to Moria, and tied him to a rock, and would have killed him with his own hands with not a peep of dissent if not for the sudden appearance of a ram calling the whole thing off. Mycroft has no idea that Sherlock might have been lonely during his two dead years. It doesn't occur to him that that may have been difficult for his little brother. And that, more than anything, is what ensures that unless Sherlock is very careful and very guarded, sooner or later he's going to get crushed under the wheels of his big brother's wagon.

 

I will admit that Mycroft was sending his little brother off to die at the end of HLV, but I'm still not convinced that Mycroft didn't have a larger plan that included the appearance of sending Sherlock off to die.  Unless, of course, maybe he really thought that imprisoning Sherlock would be a worse fate than sending him on a likely suicide mission?   But other than the end of HLV, when has Mycroft ever sacrificed family for some greater good?

 

Mycroft is not a reassuring person to stand next to, because at no time does your welfare ever cross his mind. He doesn't think of small details like your life, or even his own. He's only concerned with the macro—which, for him, is Britain—and will sacrifice anything to protect it. Contrast that to John Watson, the archetype of a loyal friend. Once John decides that he's on your side, he would, I'm quite sure, allow the British empire to come tumbling down before betraying a friend. John will sacrifice himself, but not to make that choice for anybody else. He's basically (along with, to a certain extent, Mrs Hudson) the only relationship that Sherlock has that isn't either conditional or obligatory.

 

I don't even understand this paragraph.  Mycroft not concerned with my welfare?  Well, no.  But he's certainly concerned with Sherlock's, and I'm sure despite his complaining about Christmas and Les Mis, he'd concern himself with his parents' welfare too.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that he'd concern himself with the welfare of Sherlock's friends because Sherlock cares about them.  That's not to say Mycroft won't complain and roll his eyes, but he'd help them out... all while acting extremely put out.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Arcadia
Added quote boxes

[sittything]

I'm not sure the author meant that Mycroft doesn't care; she just fears he would sacrifice anyone, even those he cares for, for what he perceives to be the greater good. And to be honest, I'm not sure that isn't the correct attitude for someone in his position ... that is, I assume he is entrusted with the welfare of his country, and ideally, someone in that position shouldn't be compromised by familial ties. Or should they? Maybe we want someone in that position to be as human as possible? Don't know.

 

Anyway, it would indeed be interesting to know what she thinks now that TAB has aired ... since they certainly seem to be making the case that Mycroft does, in fact, care a great deal. I wonder if this will cause him to make a horrible mistake ......

 

I think sacrificing someone for the greater good is too nuanced and situational to even try to say if it's good or bad.  If everyone can't be saved, do you save the greatest number?  Do you save the most important people who can provide some essential service?   To me that's not being heartless or scary.  That's making the best of an impossibly terrible situation, hopefully through logic and reason and not emotions.

[Shadow Dweller]

Two words, 'Bond Air'. It is much easier to sacrifice a plane-ful of living people than arranging the flight of the deads. That alone speak about his character, therefore in my eyes the theory about a purely ruthless Mycroft Holmes doesn't make any sense at all. That author probably asleep through the ASiB and the nearly end of HLV to get such idea.

[Arcadia]

...would you entrust a rabid attack dog to guard your home, one who will turn against you the moment your eyes are not on him?...

Who would form an alliance with someone known to kill his client when whim demand it, without putting a bullet in his brain once the objective achieved?

I have a feeling Moriarty had plenty of alliances. Even bad guys take risks if they think the rewards merit it....

 

Our neighbors down the street used to have a very, very dangerous Rottweiler; the animal was savage, and wasn't trusted even by the owners. But they seemed confident they could control it, soooo ... they had it. (I wasn't so confident; I stopped walking that way, which I guess suited them just fine.) Although I guess they did get rid of it eventually; I haven't seen the poor thing in years. It was terrifying to encounter them on the street; but I'll bet no one broke into their home!

 

I will admit that Mycroft was sending his little brother off to die at the end of HLV, but I'm still not convinced that Mycroft didn't have a larger plan that included the appearance of sending Sherlock off to die.  Unless, of course, maybe he really thought that imprisoning Sherlock would be a worse fate than sending him on a likely suicide mission?

I think either one could be true; either Mycroft had a plan to save Sherlock, or he was doing him "a favor" by arranging for "exile" instead of prison. Either way, I think he did the most he thought he could for his brother ... without compromising his own position.

 

There's something weird about that scenario, isn't there? First we have Mycroft professing the loss of Sherlock would break his heart (which I believe), then the next thing we know he's sending him off to his death, completely expressionless. Makes you wonder what else might be going on......

 

But other than the end of HLV, when has Mycroft ever sacrificed family for some greater good?

 "You know what happened to the other one..."

 

 

Mycroft is not a reassuring person to stand next to, because at no time does your welfare ever cross his mind. He doesn't think of small details like your life, or even his own. He's only concerned with the macro—which, for him, is Britain—and will sacrifice anything to protect it. ....

I don't even understand this paragraph.

 

Yeah, I think she overstates her case here. For one thing, she can't know what crosses his mind. And he certainly IS interested in the small details of Sherlock's life, if no one else's. But I suspect he would sacrifice anything to protect Britain ... that is, I assume, his job, after all. I could find that rather admirable in the right circumstances ... but I do have to agree it's not very reassuring, if you happen to be one of those who would be sacrificed!

 

I think sacrificing someone for the greater good is too nuanced and situational to even try to say if it's good or bad.  If everyone can't be saved, do you save the greatest number?  Do you save the most important people who can provide some essential service?   To me that's not being heartless or scary.  That's making the best of an impossibly terrible situation, hopefully through logic and reason and not emotions.

 'Xactly.

 

Two words, 'Bond Air'. It is much easier to sacrifice a plane-ful of living people than arranging the flight of the deads. That alone speak about his character, therefore in my eyes the theory about a purely ruthless Mycroft Holmes doesn't make any sense at all. That author probably asleep through the ASiB and the nearly end of HLV to get such idea.

Well, by his own admission, this was the work of a great many people, not just Mycroft; even if he had wanted to sacrifice living people, I imagine he would have been over-ruled by softer heads. But I can't see Mycroft sacrificing anyone; IF he can find an alternative. But in lieu of an alternative, I'm quite willing to believe he'd do anything. He's quite like his brother in that way, I suspect.

[Shadow Dweller]

 

The nature of alliance is always temporary and it needs a certain amount of trust in order to work. No trust, no alliance. There are plenty other freelancers out there besides Jim and his band of psychopaths.

 

Your neighbor can control that rottie, that's why the dog stay. What if he cannot control it? The dog won't be there no matter how useful. This is not about softer head or something like that. Think like a man, Arcadia, a man who used to be in control of his surroundings instead of imagining the worst scenario. Mycroft is not as delusional and foolish as Sherlock, who was enamoured with the notion of a perfect thinking 'machine'.

[Arcadia]

The nature of alliance is always temporary and it needs a certain amount of trust in order to work. No trust, no alliance. There are plenty other freelancers out there besides Jim and his band of psychopaths.

 

Your neighbor can control that rottie, that's why the dog stay. What if he cannot control it? The dog won't be there no matter how useful. This is not about softer head or something like that. Think like a man, Arcadia, a man who used to be in control of his surroundings instead of imagining the worst scenario. Mycroft is not as delusional and foolish as Sherlock, who was enamoured with the notion of a perfect thinking 'machine'.

 

Hey, if I could think like a man ... I'd be even less sensible than I already am. :p (Sorry, men, couldn't resist! :d )

[J.P.]

Re: Sherlock‘s exile: I don‘t think the decision was emotionless. Mycroft is very good at hiding his emotions. He cannot allow himself a luxury of emotional reactions in front of his superiors. But I‘m quite sure he spent sleepless nights agonizing about what to do (remember how he looked like after Bond Air failed?) Sending Sherlock on a mission at least gaves him a chance, while being in prison would almost surely end fatal and the riots were surely a lesser problem. 

 

 

 

I suspect he would sacrifice anything to protect Britain ... that is, I assume, his job, after all. I could find that rather admirable in the right circumstances ... but I do have to agree it's not very reassuring, if you happen to be one of those who would be sacrificed!

 

Being in a powerful position forces you to make cruel, somethimes impossible decisions. Mycroft‘s lack of attachement is surely helpful here. I think if I was the one to be sacrificed by him, at least I would be quite sure that there is a reason important enough behind this. Which makes Mycroft a lot more predicable and trustworthy than Jim. 

 

I doubt Jim has allies. He has people he can control by fear or hope for benefits, or he can make them think they can control him. 

 

PS: You probably see my Mycroftcentric attitude shining through. Yes, I admire the bastard. Yes, I don't think treating your loved ones as anybody else when it comes to making big scale decision is cruel and inhuman (and it includes the other one, whatever might have happened) But I also think Myc indeed has one pressure point and it‘s Sherlock. Which makes me fear of a horrible mistake like Arcadia.

I just hope as hell Mycroft is not corrupt. This would make my little Sherlock world fall apart.

[Shadow Dweller]

'Sensible' is subjective, one can think that it is sensible to think the worst of the unknown or taking the other direction, which is to think in term of resources and control and trying to decide its worth and the cost of managing it.

 

Question of ethics? Is it even relevant in the realm of real world politics?

 

If Mycroft is corrupt, it will transfer the focus of the series to him from Sherlock. He is already a show stealer right now , it is necessary to add more? :lol:

[J.P.]

I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't even mind a Mycroft spinn-off. :D