Mycroft Holmes

[Shadow Dweller]

I can but because of his nature would not be the touchy-feely type without a lot of conscious efforts. Of course that conscious efforts is for strategic purpose to incite desired effects and not because he feels like doing it. His style of romance probably to provide for his partner instead of often saying, "I love you," or other mushy expressions and actions. His is the attraction of the mind instead of 'I need you to make me whole' style of 'soulmate' (which might come later but seriously, the intellectual connection is the key). And while we are on this topic, what do you think about this?

 

http://thenorwoodbuilder.tumblr.com/post/38258643327/which-is-mycrofts-type

 

Lady Smallwood might fit with the second type, me thinks. The intelligent femme fatale. Mycroft's love is very adult in my eyes, not the teenagers' 'making gaga eyes towards the prince charming' kind, his is the love of a worldly man who knows that feelings are transient and it is best to enter a relationship with both eyes free from the rose-coloured glasses.

[Amber§]

I think that, apart from all the reasons concerning feelings, real love and so on, Mycroft has no time for relationships. If you are one of the people at the top of the World, you don't have time for yourself or for other people, you work 24 hours a day.

Then, maybe there's also another reason: Mycroft certainly has a lot of enemies. To love someone or at least to let other people know, is dangerous for that person, Mycroft's enemies could menace him through hurting the ones he loves. So marriage isn't a possibility, in my opinion.

[J.P.]

Amber§, this is what I think too. But having this kind of pressure points doesn't prevent others in similar positions to have love interests and families, so I think he uses this argument for an "excuse", but IMO there are at least some other reasons. At least he must be comfortable without company. Maybe his career demands enough of human interaction, that he is happy not seeing anyone in his free time. Maybe he's afraid his children could be like Eurus. Maybe having a serious romantic relationship doesn't fit into his self-made self-portrait…

 

I suspect he is pretending to be a gentleman. You could easily mistake his manners for kindness. He know how to play by rules, but he thinks he is above them.:D

[Shadow Dweller]

He definitely needs a flexible view of the rules to be able to work in the current level else he would be only one of the paper-pushing bureaucrats (in corporate term he is a member of the board of governors instead of a middle manager). I would say that he is someone jaded to the ways of the world and the only idealistic innocence that might remain is on the area of romantic relationship.

 

;) I suspect he could be a blend of Vito and Michael Corleone if not on the side of the angels.

[Doe]

He liked corporate woman who was threatened by Magnussen.

[Shadow Dweller]

He liked corporate woman who was threatened by Magnussen.

Lady Smallwood? It is the other way I think, him was the oblivious party of the two. Although in that kind of circle Lady Smallwood's offer for drink might not necessarily purely for romance.

[Boton]

 

I did read a really lovely fan fic that examined Lady Smallwood providing some very sweet, very much physical comfort to Mycroft after the events at Sherrinford, and it was just lovely.

Link, please?

 

 

Apologies for the delay.  Enjoy!

 

http://archiveofourown.org/works/9366371

[Pseudonym]

This is what I had always thought of Mycroft. I just can't see him being so squeamish as he is in TLV. He always does the cold, flat eyes so well that he seems dangerous, not just as someone who can send people after you but as someone who is dangerous in himself as well. But apparently not :(

 

[Shadow Dweller]

Mr. Snow? :D

 

I agree, in season 4 he seems to take a 180 degrees turnover and become an ordinary (wimpy) bureaucrat. They might try to portray him as a complex character but did it in a choppy manners. It would be better if the complexity is subtle and handled in increments to provide smooth transition.

[Arcadia]

Which one is TLV?

 

Oh, I don't know, I can believe someone can be cold-blooded in his decision making but still squeamish about physical violence. After all, tucked away in his office he's not likely to see the blood 'n' guts realities of his actions; it's all in abstract.

 

If you're thinking of his "I can't get blood on my hands" remark ... to be honest, in that position I doubt if I would agree to take the gun either, no matter how many lives were at stake. There's a difference between someone getting away with murder due to inaction on my part, and committing the murder myself. The burden of blame is, perhaps not less, but different. Maybe it shouldn't be, but I know that's how I think I would feel. God forbid I should ever have to find out. But I'm glad John couldn't pull the trigger, and I kind of wish he'd refused to take the gun too. And it troubles me that the implication is that Sherlock would have shot the governor without a second thought.

[Shadow Dweller]

Imagine, someone who pulled a sword from his umbrella, gun and later pulled the gun's trigger with expectation to hurt the intruder, that speaks about internal aggression (sleeping dart? unlikely since it still will give his opponent time to harm him). He also too willing to let the little girl on the plane died. Look how he reacts when Mary is dying in front of his eyes. If one of the goals is to proof that he have moral brake it was done in poor way. It would be make more sense if he rationalized the decision to execute the governor as, "I am sorry but you needs to die for the greater good and better it is me than Sherlock who do it." There's Sherlock in the room, Mycroft's first priority at so many times at the past. It doesn't make sense if he never involved in tense 'negotiation' with terrorists where they have highly-valued hostage. That particular scene shows that he doesn't understand about the ever-shifting balance between buying more time and concession.

[Pseudonym]

I didn't expect any of them to have a problem with shooting the Guv. 

[Arcadia]

Imagine, someone who pulled a sword from his umbrella, gun and later pulled the gun's trigger with expectation to hurt the intruder, that speaks about internal aggression (sleeping dart? unlikely since it still will give his opponent time to harm him). He also too willing to let the little girl on the plane died. Look how he reacts when Mary is dying in front of his eyes. If one of the goals is to proof that he have moral brake it was done in poor way. It would be make more sense if he rationalized the decision to execute the governor as, "I am sorry but you needs to die for the greater good and better it is me than Sherlock who do it." There's Sherlock in the room, Mycroft's first priority at so many times at the past. It doesn't make sense if he never involved in tense 'negotiation' with terrorists where they have highly-valued hostage. That particular scene shows that he doesn't understand about the ever-shifting balance between buying more time and concession.

 

Oh no no no, Mycroft's not the one with the moral brake! That would be John, and I hope, now, Sherlock. No, Mycroft's the bureaucrat, able to rationalize away morality under a mask of objectivity. No, the point I was trying to make was, Mycroft is courageous enough at making decisions when the results are at a remove from him. But put him where he has to see the consequences of his actions face to face ... that takes a different kind of nerve, one that he probably doesn't have much experience with.

 

However, I note that John, who does have that kind of experience, was also unable to pull the trigger, thereby dooming the governor's wife to death. So the result was the same; the difference being that John at least weighed his options, while Mycroft thought of himself first. But the burden of guilt is different for both of them than it is for Eurus, who actually pulled the trigger. That's all I'm trying to say.

 

I didn't expect any of them to have a problem with shooting the Guv. 

 

Really? Cuz why?

[Pseudonym]

For Mycroft because I always believed he didn't care much about normal people, and whilst I understand the point about him being a bureaucrat and removed from the bloody reality I always thought he was cold enough not to care if it came down to it. I certainly didn't expect him to start heaving at the sight of someone shooting themselves in front of him - I thought he'd be more likely to straighten his tie, sneer, and walk off without thinking too much about it. Or at least acting as if he didn't think about it - I can believe that when he is alone at night it would come back to haunt him. I would have thought showing a reaction like he did would have been the ultimate weakness for him, maybe it's not that I believe he is completely cold, but that he acts that way and would never let that mask drop, even around his brother. 

 

For John I thought he would have shot the Guv to save his wife. He just lost Mary, I think he would have sacrificed himself to save her, and would have shot the Guv out or respect for him trying to do the same thing. We know he can shoot people pretty cold-bloodedly (the cabbie), and whilst I don't think he would want to kill the Guv or necessarily be okay with it, I think he would do it. 

 

Sherlock. A lot of this relies on your head-cannon as to what he got up to while he was away. Personally I don't think Magnussen was the first person he killed, because when you are infiltrating a dangerous criminal web stopping to get each member of each cell arrested (with the necessary evidence, and not having them released on bail, and actually being convicted, possibly in some areas that are a bit backwards in regards to policing), it's inefficient. I think he got people arrested where he could, did try to avoid killing people, but after the first few times he didn't shy away from it either. I don't think he didn't care, he probably went through hell over it, but he did it because it meant saving those he cared about at home and it meant to be could come back. And that's without stirring the hornet's nest of his apparent lack of reaction at killing Magnussen (though we don't see him after, he could have had a break down for all we know). I think he would have shot the Guv because he had killed people before, and it would have saved John from having to do it. Also he would have looked at it coldly and analytically - kill one person to save another or let both die? He's less emotional than John when it comes to such simple equations, so he would have done it. 

 

I don't think it was meant to be him though was it? Wasn't it meant to be one of the other two? 

 

[bedelia1984]

I think it makes total sense that Mycroft was unwilling to dance to Eurus's tune. For one thing, he is the only one who knows her well as an adult. He knows more about the power dynamics at play and how best to deal with her. He also, I would guess, is aware that she is fickle and untrustworthy, so they cannot rely on her to follow through on any of the terrible bargains she offers the guys. In this scenario, the only thing Mycroft can do is to choose his own behaviour- to murder or not, everything else in an unknown quantity. To murder for the greater good might be one thing, if you have a guarantee, but if you are dealing with someone known for unpredictability, you cannot base such a serious action on a mere possibility of a possible positive outcome.

[Pseudonym]

Mycroft's reaction wasn't that rational. I could have believed it more if it was. 

[Shadow Dweller]

John is not the only one with moral brake, only his is painfully obvious no one can miss it and therefore it also marked him as a simple-minded man compared with the Holmes brothers in that regard. An exploitable weakness that the enemies and friends keep using to make him dancing on their tunes. Mycroft on the other hand, look at the environment he works in, that's eating or be eaten. He is not like a sheltered child playing videogames with simulated violence, he actually dealt with the matters of life and death himself. He would already be desensitized and hardened to be able to stay in that kind of environment or he will not survive for long.

 

By nature terrorists cannot be trusted and so is your business competitor. You can choose to sulk like a child about the unfairness of the world or dive in and get yourself dirty to achieve something. Imagine if people tasked to protect the citizens from their threats are wimps, it is the 'ordinary' people who will suffer because their supposed protector is a bunch of inexperienced cowards.

[bedelia1984]

...

By nature terrorists cannot be trusted and so is your business competitor. You can choose to sulk like a child about the unfairness of the world or dive in and get yourself dirty to achieve something. Imagine if people tasked to protect the citizens from their threats are wimps, it is the 'ordinary' people who will suffer because their supposed protector is a bunch of inexperienced cowards.

 

That old adage of not negotiating with terrorists also applies though... as soon as they started doing 'bad' things to meet with Eurus's approval, they ran the risk of her escalating and asking worse of them. Appeasement often produces worse behaviour, an idea of which a man like Mycroft is likely keenly aware. Taking a stand against their demands is often the only choice- even if a hostage or two has to die along the way.

 

Also, I think it is important not to take the way Mycroft behaves in the test at face value, or a genuine representation of his feelings. In some of the tests, we see how he deliberately 'acts' a certain way, in order to elicit other emotional responses from Sherlock, and others. In his own way, Mycroft is a hero too, trying to save his brother and even John from feeling they need to become monsters to play Eurus' game.

[Arcadia]

While I do agree with the logic of your argument, Bedelia, I don't think they portrayed Mycroft as a man acting on principal in that moment, but more as a man revulsed by the situation, and out of his depth. So while there may have been an element of his knowing Eurus too well to trust her, and wanting to protect Sherlock any way he could, I also think we are supposed to be a little annoyed by the hypocrisy of someone who can coldly decree the death of someone else ... unless he's the one who has to do the killing.

 

I think the difference between me and Shadow, though, is I don't really see that "weakness" as a fatal flaw. I think it's okay to be just human sometimes, and if it means tossing up your lunch all over your shoes, well, that just elicits sympathy from me. Been there, done that, know what humiliation feels like, wouldn't wish it on anyone else.

 

And as far as the guv goes ... ah, crud, I gotta go. Damn students, always expecting me to show up for class........

[Shadow Dweller]

Bedelia, you forgot to calculate their bargaining positions at that time. The Holmes brothers are in disadvantage while Eurus have the whole fortress as resources, that alone had flipped the power balance much. In theory it is unadvisable to appease a terrorist but real life is not like that especially if there's human life in stake. You either appear to play according to their rules or all will be lost. Sherlock knows that at that time, I am glad that he is not that naive to think that he can refuse to play instead of trying to buy more time while looking for holes to use.

 

@Arcadia: Yeah yeah, I am the voice of evulz here and what a fun role it is ;) My point still stand, it is jarring and make no sense if we consider what kind of environment Mycroft works in and what he might have to do at the past to achieve that position. Do you think that all these years nobody ever try to figure out his real limits?

[bedelia1984]

While I do agree with the logic of your argument, Bedelia, I don't think they portrayed Mycroft as a man acting on principal in that moment, but more as a man revulsed by the situation, and out of his depth. So while there may have been an element of his knowing Eurus too well to trust her, and wanting to protect Sherlock any way he could, I also think we are supposed to be a little annoyed by the hypocrisy of someone who can coldly decree the death of someone else ... unless he's the one who has to do the killing.

 

I have to admit I am biased of course, I have a soft spot for Mycroft in general, and especially in this episode because we see his faults, and that probably makes me like him more.

 

Bedelia, you forgot to calculate their bargaining positions at that time. The Holmes brothers are in disadvantage while Eurus have the whole fortress as resources, that alone had flipped the power balance much. In theory it is unadvisable to appease a terrorist but real life is not like that especially if there's human life in stake. You either appear to play according to their rules or all will be lost. Sherlock knows that at that time, I am glad that he is not that naive to think that he can refuse to play instead of trying to buy more time while looking for holes to use.

...

 

I agree their position for bargaining was very weak, but I can still see a point in not giving in, for the reason it makes Eurus believe that they will fight back, which makes them more interesting opponents, more worth playing with and less worth tossing into the sea immediately. I think Sherlock gradually comes around to thinking the way I described about Eurus because he sees with the phone call that even if he does things her way he may not 'win' and so he also opts out of playing by turning the gun on himself- so he makes a fairly significant move towards not playing by her rules either, in the end. If only he'd thought of it sooner, maybe we could have had more time in the episode not spent in Sherrinford...

[Shadow Dweller]

Of course they will fight back and if Eurus have the slightest knowledge about human psychology she would not expect otherwise. The most uninteresting people to play with are those who insist to hold to their principles, that is the mark of inflexible people and therefore too predictable. Toss them into the sea and choose the next plaything like what Jim did to an old woman who choose to speak out of the script at The Great Game, BOOM!! Lulling the enemy into complacency is what Sherlock try to do and it is even more obvious with the 'time to act like a soldier' choice. He is pragmatic and no longer so much the hot house flower who needs shielding from the messiness of the outside world. John almost executed the governor and I would like to know what is in his mind that made him balking from the responsibility at the last moment.

 

Eurus had shown her cards too early and Sherlock had correctly read that she is fixated on him, that is like she is giving him certain amount of power over herself.

[bedelia1984]

I'm curious, Shadow Dweller, to the extent you feel Mycroft behaved incorrectly in that scene, do you think it may have been for predominantly emotional reasons? I might have been reading too much into it all myself, but I felt like Mycroft would have been floundering following the revelation of Eurus, as well as the possibility he had mishandled her captivity. At the beginning, I thought he might have been a bit in denial about how bad things were about to get in Sherrinford? I thought this episode was a bit humbling for Mycroft in general, though I know others here differ on the level of responsibility he had for things that went wrong.

 

For me, if he was a bit in denial as well, it would make even more sense that he couldn't pull a trigger. He still wanted to believe the situation wasn't that bad and could be salvaged, that he wouldn't be forced to kill to do it. I don't consider him wrong for not killing, but I do think he was wrong about what Eurus was capable of doing, or at least that he didn't want to admit it to himself.

[Shadow Dweller]

What I see is a terrible execution of what could be character-defining for all of them. It is Mofftiss' fault, they can do much better than this as we already see at the previous seasons. I too have soft spot for Mycroft because from all he seems to be the one closest to my mindset.

 

There are two archetypes in the entertainment industry, the chessmaster and the magnificent bastard, Mycroft keeps flipping between the two. At the previous seasons he is the second type but in S4 he is the first and that's what is ridiculous.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard

[Carol the Dabbler]

John, who does have that kind of experience, was also unable to pull the trigger, thereby dooming the governor's wife to death.

 

That old adage of not negotiating with terrorists also applies though... as soon as they started doing 'bad' things to meet with Eurus's approval, they ran the risk of her escalating and asking worse of them. Appeasement often produces worse behaviour, an idea of which a man like Mycroft is likely keenly aware. Taking a stand against their demands is often the only choice- even if a hostage or two has to die along the way.

 

Also, do we have any reason to believe that, if one of them had shot the governor, Eurus really would have freed the wife?  I mean, consider her treatment of the three Garridebs.  And consider what happened after Sherlock gave in and humiliated both himself and Molly.

 

Nope, I don't think it makes a bit of sense to play her game, since she seems to make up the rules as she goes along.