Mycroft Holmes

[Surelock]

My head cannon is that Mr. Holmes left Mrs. Holmes to largely deal with the children because they were all geniuses and he wasn't. He didn't see himself to be a fitting father to them. 

 

I guess this would mean that Mycroft, Sherlock and Euros never had a strong father figure in their life which makes sense because they don't seem to show any typical fatherly traits.

 

For example, the way Mycroft is protective of Sherlock always looks more like the protectiveness that a mother has rather than the protectiveness a father has. Mycroft's habit of monitoring Sherlock and trying to get close him despite Sherlock's lack of appreciation looks more like something a mother than father would do. A father would more likely watch from a distance and be more subtle about what they're doing. 

[bedelia1984]

My head cannon is that Mr. Holmes left Mrs. Holmes to largely deal with the children because they were all geniuses and he wasn't. He didn't see himself to be a fitting father to them. 

 

I guess this would mean that Mycroft, Sherlock and Euros never had a strong father figure in their life which makes sense because they don't seem to show any typical fatherly traits.

 

For example, the way Mycroft is protective of Sherlock always looks more like the protectiveness that a mother has rather than the protectiveness a father has. Mycroft's habit of monitoring Sherlock and trying to get close him despite Sherlock's lack of appreciation looks more like something a mother than father would do. A father would more likely watch from a distance and be more subtle about what they're doing. 

 

Yes and your theory is also encouraged by the 'I'll be mother' exchange in Scandal. I do see Mycroft as more of an over-bearing mother type, always certain that he knows what's best for everyone.

 

I know the only mention of an affair that we ever heard was that Benedict let something slip about there maybe being an affair on the father's side in an interview. I can't help but think that there was an original plan there that shifted. In a way, I would have liked that affair storyline better as it is less showy and more believable than Eurus (as a source of childhood trauma). I wonder could they revisit this as an idea? Maybe I'm just over-eager to make the father more interesting.

 

Also, there is the mother's connection to the world of mathematics, which is canon is connected to Moriarty. It also says something in HLV about her doing laterally competitive line dancing??? Maybe she shares Mycroft's love of theater.

[Arcadia]

I had been echoing some of the points about Mycroft and mistakes he made that had consequences in TFP over in our chat on Sherlock's thread.

 

I wanted to add that I felt it was a but unfair of me not to mention Uncle Rudy's culpability.

 

I wonder does anybody know, is Rudy still alive (I had assumed not)?It seems like Rudy supported Mycroft in hiding Eurus away, and perhaps encouraged the attitude that she would be best hidden and isolated.

 

Does it seem like Uncle Rudy was influencing Mycroft to become the keeper of family secrets, and in a way his own successor?

 

It seems a bit like Rudy had a more parental role with Mycroft than the Holmes parents. Much as Mycroft saw himself as responsible for Sherlock. Again, I can't help but wonder why the parents were so little involved with their own children. Maybe they were distracted by the grief of losing Eurus?

 

My thinking was, the family was so devastated by the situation with Eurus that they needed help to cope, and so welcomed help from Uncle Rudy ... and/or, Uncle Rudy was someone who was actually in a position to take swift action. Having been in crisis situation a couple times myself, I know what a relief it can be when someone you trust offers to "take care of things." 

 

But maybe Mummy & Daddy shouldn't have trusted him quite so much. Let's check Ariane DeVere's transcript.... http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/91118.html

 

MYCROFT: After that, our sister had to be taken away.

SHERLOCK: Where?

MYCROFT: Oh, some suitable place – or so everyone thought. Not suitable enough, however. She died there.

JOHN: How?

MYCROFT: She started another fire, one which she did not survive.

SHERLOCK (firmly): This is a lie.

(John looks towards Mycroft, who hesitates only for a moment.)

MYCROFT: Yes. It is also a kindness. This is the story I told our parents to spare them further pain, and to account for the absence of an identifiable body.

SHERLOCK: And no doubt to prevent their further interference.

MYCROFT: Well, that too, of course. The depth of Eurus’ psychosis and the extent of her abilities couldn’t hope to be contained in any ordinary institution. Uncle Rudi took care of things.

SHERLOCK (softly, intensely): Where is she, Mycroft? Where’s our sister?

MYCROFT: There’s a place called Sherrinford; an island. It’s a secure and very secretive installation whose sole purpose is to contain what we call ‘the uncontainables.’

...

MYCROFT: That’s where our sister has been since early childhood. She hasn’t left – not for a single day.

So as I understand it, Rudi had Eurus committed to Sherrinford, told Mummy & Daddy it was a "suitable" location, then faked her death. And then for some reason confided in the pre-teen Mycroft and had him inform the parents of her "death." Ugh ... man, this is really one screwed up family!!!! Maybe he mistook Mycroft's intelligence for maturity? Or more likely, Moftiss just screwed the pooch on the timeline, as they are so wont to do. :P

 

Anyway, I don't think any of this necessarily implies any extra closeness between Mycroft and Uncle Rudy. Doesn't rule it out, either. Maybe it's just that, as the eldest son, Mycroft was the one entrusted with the truth....?

 

 

I am forgetting...is Mycroft even in the ending montage?  I think maybe once with the parents, that is where the mom takes his hand.  But was he shown other than that?  It would have been nice to see him in Baker Street, even if he had a sneer on his face lol.

 

No, I don't think he is. Maybe they felt showing him being forgiven by Mummy was sufficient.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say Mycroft went against his own directive. He was the one who was best equipped to deal with Euros as he knew her ever since he was a child. He could decide what to do with her and nobody in Sherrinford could challenge him on that matter because nobody else had the experience he had.

 

Or, as a family member he was far too invested to be objective? Imagine what would happen if family members started making the decisions on the fate of their criminal relatives in general. Mycroft's only personal experience of Eurus ended when he was 12, too, after that he only knew her when she was incarcerated, through occassional visits, so hospital or prison staff etc would have known her better than him in a day-to-day sense. Do we know at what stage she began solitary confinement?

 

Based on the above, I would say right away.

[Arcadia]

 

Now it's true that Mr. and Mrs. Holmes are fine with Euros at the end of The Final Problem but remember Euros at the end of The Final Problem is much different from the Euros at the start of The Final Problem. At the start of the episode, Euros was a psychopath that didn't mind brainwashing other people into killing themselves and their loved ones. If Mr. and Mrs. Holmes knew this, it might cause them great pain especially at their age. My point here is that we never really find out how Mr. and Mrs. Holmes would have reacted to the knowledge of their daughter being a mass murdering psychopath. It makes sense for Mycroft to hide such details from them.

Do you really believe that Eurus has changed? I don't feel assured of that at all. And I strongly believe that at the end, they know who their daughter was. If you look at the fact that at 5 she was capable of possibly murdering another child- and they knew it to be at the very least possibly, likely in fact- it is not so surprising the way Eurus truned out. It seems to me that both Sherlock, Mycroft and the parents at the end are risking that through getting close to Eurus again they will be even more hurt by her next criminal act. She does seem to not want to physically hurt her family, but emotionally she has hurt them all, Sherlock most deeply.

 

I agree; I don't think she's changed at all. I don't think she can. Mycroft says she would kill again if she had the chance, and I think, based on everything they said and showed about her during the episode, that he's right. Now is there another side to her that wasn't revealed to us? That's possible, but we can't assume that, imo.

 

In any case, I'm not sure it really matters, because as I see it, the whole point of Eurus' story is to illustrate the change in Sherlock. He's the one who finally figures out what her problem is (I think?), and he's the one who uses that understanding to begin mending the family. Mummy and Daddy couldn't do that, partly because they didn't know Eurus was still alive, but also because, for whatever reason, they thought it best to pretend she never existed. Eurus certainly couldn't, because she's a murderous psychotic; all intellect, no human understanding. Mycroft couldn't, because he's "limited", as Mummy says; he thought it was kinder to "protect" the others from the truth, but failed to realize his own arrogance ... he thought he was the only one equipped to handle the truth, and thereby denied the others a chance to cope with it. Not only that, but he failed in showing kindness to Eurus; who, it could be argued, needed it the most, because she couldn't help being what she is. She's a monster, yes, but not by choice.

 

So I think what Sherlock (bless him) finally figured out, once he realized she was the girl on the plane, was that Eurus, like the rest of them, suffered too. She may not have known what suffering was, but she could still be affected by it ... at minimum, she thought she was utterly alone. (For thirty-plus years, apparently, with no respite ... it's a wonder she's not crazier than she already is...) But more importantly, once he understood the problem, he used sentiment, not reason, to confront it. Is it logical to be kind to a monster? Possibly not; you're not likely to receive a positive response. But it is compassionate; and showing compassion is it's own reward. It makes you better, it makes you stronger, it improves the lives of everyone around you. And I think that's what we're supposed to believe Sherlock figured out. That, or something like that.

 

I'm still puzzled by this exchange between Sherlock and John, though, as Eurus is being led away ....

 

JOHN: You gave her what she was looking for: context.

SHERLOCK: Is that good?

JOHN: It’s not good, it’s not bad. It is what it is.

 

According to Oxford, context means "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed." Mirriam-Webster offers up simply "setting."

 

So what "setting," or "context," is John referring to? What does Eurus know now that she didn't know before? And how does it affect her understanding of the world?

 

I have to ask you one question: Do you agree with Mrs. Holmes when she says Sherlock has always been the adult one? I strongly disagree with her on that. I always thought Mycroft was more mature and adult like than Sherlock.

That puzzles me too; I think they've often portrayed Sherlock as being rather immature for his age. It's almost like they're using the word "adult" here to mean something else. "Perceptive", perhaps? We've frequently noticed that, in spite of his statements that he doesn't "do" emotion, he's pretty good at deciphering what it is in other people, and how it motivates them, and ultimately, how to embrace it to improve himself. But it's still an odd thing for his mum to say.

 

 

[bedelia1984]

 

I'm still puzzled by this exchange between Sherlock and John, though, as Eurus is being led away ....

JOHN: You gave her what she was looking for: context.

SHERLOCK: Is that good?

JOHN: It’s not good, it’s not bad. It is what it is.

 

According to Oxford, context means "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed." Mirriam-Webster offers up simply "setting."

 

So what "setting," or "context," is John referring to? What does Eurus know now that she didn't know before? And how does it affect her understanding of the world?

 

 

 

I thought this context was something you touched on earlier in your post- the emotional context of being shown kindness by her brother, of being a part of a family once again. As you said, Eurus doesn't understand perhaps exactly what she is missing, but she just knows that something has been. And she seems incapable of reaching out in a constructive way- so Sherlock has to understand her, in an emotional context, and reach in to her. It is funny, isn't it, because she scolds him that emotional context gets him every time- and yet ultimately that is what he needs to understand, to solve the final problem. She places him in cage after cage where intelligence alone can't get him out- and he ultimately sees that is what she is trying to tell him, that it will take something other than solving a puzzle to save her, too.

 

I have to ask you one question: Do you agree with Mrs. Holmes when she says Sherlock has always been the adult one? I strongly disagree with her on that. I always thought Mycroft was more mature and adult like than Sherlock.

That puzzles me too; I think they've often portrayed Sherlock as being rather immature for his age. It's almost like they're using the word "adult" here to mean something else. "Perceptive", perhaps? We've frequently noticed that, in spite of his statements that he doesn't "do" emotion, he's pretty good at deciphering what it is in other people, and how it motivates them, and ultimately, how to embrace it to improve himself. But it's still an odd thing for his mum to say.

 

I'm starting to see the family as sort of reversed, with the children in some ways taking on the role of parents. We see very little of the Holmes parents, all we really get is the sense they like being taken out to musicals, and that they have a good relationship and are fond of their children. But maybe they are just irresponsible people? The father suggesting his mother gave up her work for the children and line dancing is an odd line. It makes her sound very flaky.

 

I wonder if it possible the mother also had some mild form of mental health issue, similar to Eurus but less severe, more manageable, perhaps medicated? So to an extent, that could have taken the parents out of their traditional role, and made the mother see them more as 'adults' in the house?

 

Any way you swing it, how could she see her traumatised son, who never remembered his sister, as the 'adult' of the family- when there was clearly something wrong underneath causing that block, and the drug problem, and even his post- Eurus issues making friends? Unless some part of her is slightly mad, and was looking at Sherlock thinking, this guy's got the right idea, I wish I could block out the memory of Eurus too?

[Carol the Dabbler]

We see very little of the Holmes parents, all we really get is the sense they like being taken out to musicals, and that they have a good relationship and are fond of their children. But maybe they are just irresponsible people? The father suggesting his mother gave up her work for the children and line dancing is an odd line. It makes her sound very flaky.

 

I don't recall him mentioning the line dancing, just the children. And for women of her generation, that was perfectly normal. One quit work to raise children. For a generation or so younger, it would have been unusual, but still hardly flakey.

 

As for the parents' current activities, line dancing and musicals, that doesn't make them irresponsible. They're retired. That's what retired people do, indulge in their hobbies while they're still able.

 

Sorry I can't help just yet with Sherlock being the grown-up. I'm still working on that one -- though I will admit to cheering when she said that, so apparently I think she's right, whatever she means.

[bedelia1984]

 

We see very little of the Holmes parents, all we really get is the sense they like being taken out to musicals, and that they have a good relationship and are fond of their children. But maybe they are just irresponsible people? The father suggesting his mother gave up her work for the children and line dancing is an odd line. It makes her sound very flaky.

I don't recall him mentioning the line dancing, just the children. And for women of her generation, that was perfectly normal. One quit work to raise children. For a generation or so younger, it would have been unusual, but still hardly flakey.

 

As for the parents' current activities, line dancing and musicals, that doesn't make them irresponsible. They're retired. That's what retired people do, indulge in their hobbies while they're still able.

 

Sorry I can't help just yet with Sherlock being the grown-up. I'm still working on that one -- though I will admit to cheering when she said that, so apparently I think she's right, whatever she means.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply that her giving up work for the children would be flaky- but the line dancing bit was what I thought sounded that way, as if the children and the line dancing were both reasons of similar importance. And actually I read that line in the HLV shooting script, so it might have been a bit that was edited out (a joke that fell flat, maybe)?

 

It just seems sort of odd to me that the mother went from being a mathematical genius to spending her time doing line dancing and musicals, (not that one can't have both). So I meant flaky in the sense that her interests seem to come and go and differ wildly. I must own up I'm reading a lot in to very little information. I suppose I have a hard time believing that she would be satisfied not doing something that offered more mental stimulation, in the same way that Sherlock is crawling the walls if she doesn't have a case? I do understand that she would have had good reason to give up work when the children were small , especially given Eurus' difficulty, but how about in the 20 years or so since the boys left home? Or more, if they were in boarding school?

 

I'd love to know the father's profession, also.

[Arcadia]

 

I'm still puzzled by this exchange between Sherlock and John, though, as Eurus is being led away ....

JOHN: You gave her what she was looking for: context.

SHERLOCK: Is that good?

JOHN: It’s not good, it’s not bad. It is what it is.

 

I thought this context was something you touched on earlier in your post- the emotional context of being shown kindness by her brother, of being a part of a family once again. As you said, Eurus doesn't understand perhaps exactly what she is missing, but she just knows that something has been. And she seems incapable of reaching out in a constructive way- so Sherlock has to understand her, in an emotional context, and reach in to her. It is funny, isn't it, because she scolds him that emotional context gets him every time- and yet ultimately that is what he needs to understand, to solve the final problem. She places him in cage after cage where intelligence alone can't get him out- and he ultimately sees that is what she is trying to tell him, that it will take something other than solving a puzzle to save her, too.

 

Okay, thanks, that helps. I don't know why I'm having so much trouble articulating this to myself. Because I didn't really buy the way it happened in the show, maybe? I still see no in-character reason for Eurus to suddenly be so vulnerable and helpless when Sherlock finds her in her room; it's just for the convenience of the story, it seems to me. So that undercuts the impact of the scene, maybe, and maybe that's why I'm having so much trouble internalizing it? I approve the outcome, I just can't get a grip on what got us there, or something.

 

And then I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Is that good?" "It is what it is" exchange. If Sherlock "saved" her by giving her context, how can he wonder if that's a good thing? Unless maybe he's wondering if he actually saved her, since she's being returned to her solitary confinement ... hmmm. Need another think on that one. Or someone could just enlighten me again. :D

[Arcadia]

Sorry I can't help just yet with Sherlock being the grown-up. I'm still working on that one -- though I will admit to cheering when she said that, so apparently I think she's right, whatever she means.

 

I didn't cheer, exactly, but I did have a sense of satisfaction that she took Mycroft down a peg. Although I would have liked it even better if Sherlock had finally outsmarted his big brother. That was high on my wish list for this season.

 

I'm trying to think if anything on my wish list made it into this season. I don't think so, although Sherlock's emotional development comes close.

 

I don't think any of my predictions came true either, except that the CAM affair had no effect on said emotional development. :( I did anticipate that "the other one" could be a sister, but I didn't exactly predict it. But it certainly didn't come as a "shock" that the sibling was a girl.

[bedelia1984]

 

 

I'm still puzzled by this exchange between Sherlock and John, though, as Eurus is being led away ....

JOHN: You gave her what she was looking for: context.

SHERLOCK: Is that good?

JOHN: It’s not good, it’s not bad. It is what it is.

 

I thought this context was something you touched on earlier in your post- the emotional context of being shown kindness by her brother, of being a part of a family once again. As you said, Eurus doesn't understand perhaps exactly what she is missing, but she just knows that something has been. And she seems incapable of reaching out in a constructive way- so Sherlock has to understand her, in an emotional context, and reach in to her. It is funny, isn't it, because she scolds him that emotional context gets him every time- and yet ultimately that is what he needs to understand, to solve the final problem. She places him in cage after cage where intelligence alone can't get him out- and he ultimately sees that is what she is trying to tell him, that it will take something other than solving a puzzle to save her, too.

 

Okay, thanks, that helps. I don't know why I'm having so much trouble articulating this to myself. Because I didn't really buy the way it happened in the show, maybe? I still see no in-character reason for Eurus to suddenly be so vulnerable and helpless when Sherlock finds her in her room; it's just for the convenience of the story, it seems to me. So that undercuts the impact of the scene, maybe, and maybe that's why I'm having so much trouble internalizing it? I approve the outcome, I just can't get a grip on what got us there, or something.

 

And then I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Is that good?" "It is what it is" exchange. If Sherlock "saved" her by giving her context, how can he wonder if that's a good thing? Unless maybe he's wondering if he actually saved her, since she's being returned to her solitary confinement ... hmmm. Need another think on that one. Or someone could just enlighten me again. :D

 

 

I feel a bit the same about the Eurus change of heart. On paper, it makes sense, because they have that trapped little girl on the plane right from the start.But I don't see that vulnerability there in the character, onscreen not in that way. And the actress is marvellous, so it isn't her. Maybe I do see it when she is 'Faith' actually, but not in The Final Problem. I think part of the issue is that they tried to mash Eurus and Moriarty together too much, and blurred some of the lines around Eurus in the process. Should Moriarty and Eurus have ever had the same aims, really? They seemed to want such different things from Sherlock.

 

About the 'is that good?' line, I don't fully understand either. But I did wonder if what he actually meant was, was he right to give Eurus what she wanted, in the sense of whether it was right for him to give her kindness and attention in return for the havoc she had caused. And that John's response meant, that it wasn't a right-or-wrong situation at that point, and basically that Sherlock had done the only thing he could.

 

There is a part of the story that lies unaddressed, because Eurus still took Victor away from Sherlock, that was his friend, and in the traumatic response after she took a lot of other things away from him too. I don't know that the Sherlock we see in the scene with John has fully processed all of that. By the time he is playing the violin with Eurus, that for me is when he has some peace with her and who she is. There had to have been a process of forgiveness too, for that to happen.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I did anticipate that "the other one" could be a sister, but I didn't exactly predict it. But it certainly didn't come as a "shock" that the sibling was a girl.

Well of course not, after the carefully-neutral way they worded Mycroft's comment.

 

We've been watching the DVD extras, and in a couple of places Moftiss are risking dislocated shoulders by patting themselves on the collective back over the clever way they fooled all of us into thinking there was a third brother. Apparently they believed that Mycroft's reference to "brotherly compassion" would throw us off, but I believe it took me all of a second or two to realize that the "brother" in that phrase was Mycroft himself, and that the "other one" could be of either gender.

 

Maybe they were blinded by the Tom Hiddleston rumors. I dunno. But there were already "maybe it's a sister" comments on this forum and elsewhere on the internet within a few days.

 

I'm now thinking that they may believe intent=result, in which case all those "there's a clue that everybody missed" claims are about as accurate as "everybody assumed it was a brother."

[Arcadia]

 

 

I did anticipate that "the other one" could be a sister, but I didn't exactly predict it. But it certainly didn't come as a "shock" that the sibling was a girl.

Well of course not, after the carefully-neutral way they worded Mycroft's comment.

 

We've been watching the DVD extras, and in a couple of places Moftiss are risking dislocated shoulders by patting themselves on the collective back over the clever way they fooled all of us into thinking there was a third brother. Apparently they believed that Mycroft's reference to "brotherly compassion" would throw us off, but I believe it took me all of a second or two to realize that the "brother" in that phrase was Mycroft himself, and that the "other one" could be of either gender.

 

Maybe they were blinded by the Tom Hiddleston rumors. I dunno. But there were already "maybe it's a sister" comments on this forum and elsewhere on the internet within a few days.

 

I'm now thinking that they may believe intent=result, in which case all those "there's a clue that everybody missed" claims are about as accurate as "everybody assumed it was a brother."

 

Just to play devil's advocate -- I did wonder if what they meant by "surprising everyone" wasn't that the sibling was female, but that E, the therapist and Faith all turned out to be the same person, and that person was the Holmes sibling. That came as a shock to little ol' unobservant me, and Sian Brooke in her interview seemed to think she had largely pulled it off.

 

But I agree, on the DVD it sounds like they think they fooled everyone into thinking it would be a man. Silly boys.

[Pseudonym]

So they're a bit enamoured of their own cleverness, just like Mycroft. And perhaps not as clever as they thought, also like Mycroft. 

[Arcadia]

 

 

I thought this context was something you touched on earlier in your post- the emotional context of being shown kindness by her brother, of being a part of a family once again. As you said, Eurus doesn't understand perhaps exactly what she is missing, but she just knows that something has been. And she seems incapable of reaching out in a constructive way- so Sherlock has to understand her, in an emotional context, and reach in to her. It is funny, isn't it, because she scolds him that emotional context gets him every time- and yet ultimately that is what he needs to understand, to solve the final problem. She places him in cage after cage where intelligence alone can't get him out- and he ultimately sees that is what she is trying to tell him, that it will take something other than solving a puzzle to save her, too.

Okay, thanks, that helps. I don't know why I'm having so much trouble articulating this to myself. Because I didn't really buy the way it happened in the show, maybe? I still see no in-character reason for Eurus to suddenly be so vulnerable and helpless when Sherlock finds her in her room; it's just for the convenience of the story, it seems to me. So that undercuts the impact of the scene, maybe, and maybe that's why I'm having so much trouble internalizing it? I approve the outcome, I just can't get a grip on what got us there, or something.

 

 

I feel a bit the same about the Eurus change of heart. On paper, it makes sense, because they have that trapped little girl on the plane right from the start.But I don't see that vulnerability there in the character, onscreen not in that way. And the actress is marvellous, so it isn't her. Maybe I do see it when she is 'Faith' actually, but not in The Final Problem. I think part of the issue is that they tried to mash Eurus and Moriarty together too much, and blurred some of the lines around Eurus in the process. Should Moriarty and Eurus have ever had the same aims, really? They seemed to want such different things from Sherlock.

 

I could see it in Faith, but since Eurus was playing a role there, I don't think it's a guide to her real character. Imo, they just needed some sort of bridge between the moment when Eurus says "I never had a friend" and when Sherlock finds her, I think. Maybe if she'd started crying when she said that, or looked sad, or said how much it hurt to be friendless ... something to get her from evil-dark-tormentor-Eurus to lost-helpless-little girl-Eurus. Something besides the audience's imagination, I mean.

 

About the 'is that good?' line, I don't fully understand either. But I did wonder if what he actually meant was, was he right to give Eurus what she wanted, in the sense of whether it was right for him to give her kindness and attention in return for the havoc she had caused. And that John's response meant, that it wasn't a right-or-wrong situation at that point, and basically that Sherlock had done the only thing he could.

Yeah, I think John meant something along those lines ... but I'm not sure Sherlock was questioning his action so much as he was questioning whether the outcome left Eurus in a better or a worse place. ??? Not sure. Are we supposed to think that by finding context, Eurus finally understood the consequences of her actions, and that's why she was left in a catatonic state?

 

At any rate, I completely agree with the below ... if the story is about Sherlock finding his humanity, I think that's the point at which it truly happens; when he decides to give of himself to her, whether it does her any good or not. He doesn't do it to get anything out of it, it's all for her. I like that. I'll have to tell my brother to go and do likewise. :P

 

There is a part of the story that lies unaddressed, because Eurus still took Victor away from Sherlock, that was his friend, and in the traumatic response after she took a lot of other things away from him too. I don't know that the Sherlock we see in the scene with John has fully processed all of that. By the time he is playing the violin with Eurus, that for me is when he has some peace with her and who she is. There had to have been a process of forgiveness too, for that to happen.

Yup.

[Surelock]

 

I didn't mean to imply that her giving up work for the children would be flaky- but the line dancing bit was what I thought sounded that way, as if the children and the line dancing were both reasons of similar importance. And actually I read that line in the HLV shooting script, so it might have been a bit that was edited out (a joke that fell flat, maybe)?

 

 

Mycroft mentioned his parents' line-dancing at the beginning of His Last Vow when he believed that Sherlock really had a drug problem:

http://arianedevere.livejournal.com/67234.html

 

MYCROFT (slowly walking along the hallway): You haven’t been home all night. So, why would a man who has never knowingly closed the door without the direct orders of his mother bother to do so on this occasion?

(Sherlock has raised his head and flipped back his hood while Mycroft progressed. Now Mycroft reaches the door and puts his hand on the door knob. Sherlock hurls himself up into a sitting position.)

SHERLOCK: Okay, stop! Just stop.

(Mycroft turns the knob but doesn’t open the door.)

SHERLOCK: Point made.

JOHN: Jesus, Sherlock.

(Mycroft releases the door knob and comes slowly back along the hall.)

MYCROFT: Have to phone our parents, of course, in Oklahoma.

(Sherlock looks down and closes his eyes.)

MYCROFT: Won’t be the first time that your substance abuse has wreaked havoc with their line-dancing.

 

 

 

It just seems sort of odd to me that the mother went from being a mathematical genius to spending her time doing line dancing and musicals, (not that one can't have both). So I meant flaky in the sense that her interests seem to come and go and differ wildly. I must own up I'm reading a lot in to very little information. I suppose I have a hard time believing that she would be satisfied not doing something that offered more mental stimulation, in the same way that Sherlock is crawling the walls if she doesn't have a case? I do understand that she would have had good reason to give up work when the children were small , especially given Eurus' difficulty, but how about in the 20 years or so since the boys left home? Or more, if they were in boarding school?

 

I'd love to know the father's profession, also.

 

Well technically she went from being a mathematical genius to raising three ingenious children. That offered her mental stimulation.

 

I'm not sure what she would do in her old age though.

 

 

Any way you swing it, how could she see her traumatised son, who never remembered his sister, as the 'adult' of the family- when there was clearly something wrong underneath causing that block, and the drug problem, and even his post- Eurus issues making friends? Unless some part of her is slightly mad, and was looking at Sherlock thinking, this guy's got the right idea, I wish I could block out the memory of Eurus too?

 

 

I'm starting to think Mrs. Holmes just said that to spite Mycroft.

 

Mrs. Holmes is very protective of her children. In His Last Vow, she said she would turn monstrous if she ever found out who shot Sherlock (which ironically ended up being Mary, the woman she was serving tea to in her cottage).

[bedelia1984]

I'm really at a loss as to what changed Eurus, because as people have mentioned, Sherlock turning the gun on himself was predictable. I wonder if on some level, Eurus saw herself as responsible for hurting those she loved, for pushing them all away, and wanted to force Sherlock to do the same? Then, when that was proving impossible, she went back to being the tormentor herself, but somehow her heart wasn't in it. Was it that she learned something from Sherlock? But his treatment of her at that point hadn't really changed. He chose John and Mycroft over the girl on the plane, in a way, so really once again she was coming last with him. The odd thing is, she was in that bedroom, falling apart, before Sherlock found her, so it didn't really seem to be just about him or anything he was doing?

 

 

About the 'is that good?' line, I don't fully understand either. But I did wonder if what he actually meant was, was he right to give Eurus what she wanted, in the sense of whether it was right for him to give her kindness and attention in return for the havoc she had caused. And that John's response meant, that it wasn't a right-or-wrong situation at that point, and basically that Sherlock had done the only thing he could.

Yeah, I think John meant something along those lines ... but I'm not sure Sherlock was questioning his action so much as he was questioning whether the outcome left Eurus in a better or a worse place. ??? Not sure. Are we supposed to think that by finding context, Eurus finally understood the consequences of her actions, and that's why she was left in a catatonic state?

 

He might have been questioning everything. I suppose when we had that huge shift in Eurus, we have a villain of a kind we haven't really had on the show before, in that we see something behind what she is doing that is not totally within her control. So at that point, Sherlock is in uncharted territory, and wondering whether the whole business has been properly handled. I would argue that the handling of Eurus in the intervening years is the more troublesome aspect, and they touch on that with the scenes with Mycroft and the parents.

 

 

 

 

MYCROFT (slowly walking along the hallway): You haven’t been home all night. So, why would a man who has never knowingly closed the door without the direct orders of his mother bother to do so on this occasion?
(Sherlock has raised his head and flipped back his hood while Mycroft progressed. Now Mycroft reaches the door and puts his hand on the door knob. Sherlock hurls himself up into a sitting position.)
SHERLOCK: Okay, stop! Just stop.
(Mycroft turns the knob but doesn’t open the door.)
SHERLOCK: Point made.
JOHN: Jesus, Sherlock.
(Mycroft releases the door knob and comes slowly back along the hall.)
MYCROFT: Have to phone our parents, of course, in Oklahoma.
(Sherlock looks down and closes his eyes.)
MYCROFT: Won’t be the first time that your substance abuse has wreaked havoc with their line-dancing.

....
 

 

Any way you swing it, how could she see her traumatised son, who never remembered his sister, as the 'adult' of the family- when there was clearly something wrong underneath causing that block, and the drug problem, and even his post- Eurus issues making friends? Unless some part of her is slightly mad, and was looking at Sherlock thinking, this guy's got the right idea, I wish I could block out the memory of Eurus too?

 

 

I'm starting to think Mrs. Holmes just said that to spite Mycroft.

 

Mrs. Holmes is very protective of her children. In His Last Vow, she said she would turn monstrous if she ever found out who shot Sherlock (which ironically ended up being Mary, the woman she was serving tea to in her cottage).

 

 

Thank you for the real quote- they got the line dancing in, for another scene, though! I wonder why they needed to, it seems quite a throwaway line/ hobby to have?

 

That line about turning monstrous always made me wonder whether Mrs. Holmes had a dark side. Also, the quote you provided makes it clear the parents did know about his drug habit- never mind the fact that they were drugged by him themselves. Maybe she was just being spiteful to Mycroft.  I can sort of imagine that she pitted the boys against each other sometimes. All those squabbles about who upset Mummy the most. 

[Arcadia]

Okay, folks, the "Mycroft S4 spoilers" thread has now been merged with the regular "Mycroft" thread ... enjoy!

[Pseudonym]

What's going on with Mycroft's kitchen? It looks like the tiles have been chipped off the wall, but on the right they look like they are there and the light is just reflecting weirdly. Not exactly the posh upperclass kitchen I would have expected. And that weird light on the right that looks like a shower head. 

 

[J.P.]

I don't think it's his kitchen. I think it's the River House (MI6) It reminds me more of Myc's bunker office, than his very stylish, Victorian house.

 

As for the tiles - they are no tiles at all. It's a posh and very expensive wallpaper. Don't have a link at hand, but someone online has found the source of said wallpaper. Things people buy  …

 

Things Arwel buys…

[Pseudonym]

It's so ugly! Looks like when I had to strip the tiles off my kitchen wall. Doesn't he have a note about ringing Sherrinford on the fridge though? Or am I remembering wrong?

[J.P.]

Maybe it's his private fridge! So nobody would know how much cake he stores there :P

[Pseudonym]

Taxpayer money going on terrible wallpaper and cake. So sad.  :'(

[Doe]

 

 

 

5 Season Name Is : Mycroft's empty fridge. ))

[Boton]

 

 

It just seems sort of odd to me that the mother went from being a mathematical genius to spending her time doing line dancing and musicals, (not that one can't have both). So I meant flaky in the sense that her interests seem to come and go and differ wildly. I must own up I'm reading a lot in to very little information. I suppose I have a hard time believing that she would be satisfied not doing something that offered more mental stimulation, in the same way that Sherlock is crawling the walls if she doesn't have a case? I do understand that she would have had good reason to give up work when the children were small , especially given Eurus' difficulty, but how about in the 20 years or so since the boys left home? Or more, if they were in boarding school?

 

Oh, gad, I'm going to do it.  So far, I've resisted getting into any discussions that go the direction of wanting the Sherlock characters to represent my own experience, but I'm going to jump in just to defend Mummy Holmes.

 

Ages ago, I mentioned that I test as EPG (exceptionally/profoundly gifted), and Toby and I had a great discussion about that which continued in PM for a while. I'm probably not dissimilar to either Mummy Holmes or Mycroft (except I don't have kids).  I also have been a fairly keen ballroom dancer for over a decade now, and I love a good line dance, too.  To me, it is not at all incongruent to say that someone can be very intelligent and academically precocious, and also say that they enjoy being domestic and pursuing hobbies that don't require using all your intellectual firepower all the time.

 

Intelligence is kind of like height.  Just because you're tall doesn't mean you store everything in your house near the ceiling or that you have to play basketball to really enjoy yourself.   :D

[bedelia1984]

 

Oh, gad, I'm going to do it.  So far, I've resisted getting into any discussions that go the direction of wanting the Sherlock characters to represent my own experience, but I'm going to jump in just to defend Mummy Holmes.

 

Ages ago, I mentioned that I test as EPG (exceptionally/profoundly gifted), and Toby and I had a great discussion about that which continued in PM for a while. I'm probably not dissimilar to either Mummy Holmes or Mycroft (except I don't have kids).  I also have been a fairly keen ballroom dancer for over a decade now, and I love a good line dance, too.  To me, it is not at all incongruent to say that someone can be very intelligent and academically precocious, and also say that they enjoy being domestic and pursuing hobbies that don't require using all your intellectual firepower all the time.

 

Intelligence is kind of like height.  Just because you're tall doesn't mean you store everything in your house near the ceiling or that you have to play basketball to really enjoy yourself.   :D

 

 

Thank you for adding a real-life perspective! It wasn't the fact that she might have unusual hobbies that made her seem flaky to me (I have a bit of a range myself), but the fact that she would give up her career and never return to it (assuming she didn't), and only maintain those hobbies, after the kids left home. I wonder, do you find it at all odd that Mrs. Holmes completely abandoned mathematics, or do you think that fits too? For a while, I thought she hadn't and was hiding some secret other career or identity.