Mycroft Holmes

[J.P.]

 

Even though Myc insists that he's not lonely.  He may actually be lonely, but he has trained himself to eradicate the recognition of that uncomfortable feeling from his mental lexicon.  If he has a twinge of loneliness, he confuses it with indigestion, or perhaps a headache.

 

Recognizing loneliness has been a challenge for me too, just as it has Mycroft.  What constitutes "lonely" when you are an only child?

 

That's true, and something I can relate to as well.  For a long time I was unable to recognize my own loneliness.  If I'd been asked back then whether I was lonely, I probably would have responded with a weird look and a 'No,' (why would you even think that?).  It wasn't until I developed a close bond with someone who was a steady part of my life for a time that I realized how lonely I'd unknowingly been.  It's one of those situations where you don't know what you're missing until you've had it.

 

I think Mycroft's loneliness is not what people usually think it is - lack of people around. Myc's loneliness in a strange way reminds me of Eurus' - it's not so much a lack of people but lack of people you can connect to. And who would be able to connect with those two on their levels? There is only Sherlock, but we know how this relationship looks like.

Oh, I do feel lonely sometimes, but it's like a headache, or irritation, or PMS - it is not a part of me. I am actually the one who actually believes Mycroft when he says he's not lonely. It's like with sex - people always assume you have it, or if you don't, you at least want it. But some don't care.

 

I've had 3 really close friends. One I lost to emigration with 13, the next to a pregnancy/family at 17 and the last on my emigration at 23. Since then I just cannot find anyone, maybe because I don't want to be left alone again, which combined with the assumed INTP traits makes me a hermit. And I really cringe at the idea of keeping "friends" as a matter of social net.

[Artemis]

I think Mycroft's loneliness is not what people usually think it is - lack of people around. Myc's loneliness in a strange way reminds me of Eurus' - it's not so much a lack of people but lack of people you can connect to.

Oh I completely agree, and that’s what I think loneliness actually is. People who think loneliness is simply a lack of people around don’t fully understand it, in my opinion. There’s a difference between being alone and being lonely.

 

I think it’s certainly possible that Mycroft really is not lonely like he claims, but who knows. It’s all open to interpretation. (And just to be clear, my reply up there was rather in response to Boton’s experience than it was meaning to say anything about Mycroft’s character.)

[Arcadia]

I hear you both. I don't think I have anyone right now I would truly classify as a "close" friend, but I don't really feel lonely either. I have "good" friends; that is, people I feel comfortable turning to, or spending time with ... but I don't seek them out like I did my "close" friends. In many ways, it suits me better; at this point in my life, I need my alone time more than I need people time.

[Artemis]

I haven’t reached the point where I prefer not having a close friend, but it’s been long enough now that I am growing accustomed to it again. I don’t have any good friends either though, or any kind of friends at all. So it can be a little saddening still when I do want to connect and spend time outside of my own company.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, I think I would find that hard. Do you engage in any activities where you might get to know people? I've always had trouble making friends, and went without for years until I joined a volunteer group. Didn't really make "close" friends there either, but at least I could hang out with people who had a shared interest. I had a good time.

 

Seems to me like most of my friends have made the first overture, too. It's a wonder I have any! But I feel I've been really lucky in most of my friends. Lord knows I didn't do anything to deserve them. :rolleyes:

[bedelia1984]

It's really interesting reading the discussion of friendship and loneliness and friendship as it relates to Mycroft, and modern life too.

 

If Mycroft's more 'unique' qualities make it more difficult for him to make friends, that probably says something universal about how as we age and become, through individuation more definitely 'ourselves' it becomes increasingly difficult to find other people with whom we have a lot in common, or with whom we have an ease of connection- or at least to find such people conveniently located and available to us.

 

Then again, Sherlock and John are a good example of friends who don't have much in common, but their friendship is perhaps a bit idealised? To me they have a level of warmth and unquestioning loyalty, and sheer free time to spend together normally reserved for childhood friendships? (Of course, that wasn't so much the case in season 4)

 

I think it becomes increasingly difficult to make friends as you get older and more set in your ways, though I was delighted to make a friend at a class a couple of years back, and it has been a very rewarding friendship as it turns out. It's nice to think it is still possible to meet people you have things in common with. Sometimes it seems as if after the age of thirty or so, so many people have settled into a life of a definite sort or another, and lost all interest in meeting new people. A lot of the friends I have seem content with the social set they are in, and with increasing demands of marriage, kids etc, they aren't bothered meeting new friends, in fact they struggle to see their old ones.

 

 

[Artemis]

Yeah, I think I would find that hard. Do you engage in any activities where you might get to know people? I've always had trouble making friends, and went without for years until I joined a volunteer group. Didn't really make "close" friends there either, but at least I could hang out with people who had a shared interest. I had a good time.

 

Seems to me like most of my friends have made the first overture, too. It's a wonder I have any! But I feel I've been really lucky in most of my friends. Lord knows I didn't do anything to deserve them. :rolleyes:

 

As much as I can, yes, but it hasn't proven fruitful.  I've also volunteered at other places besides the library over the years, with not much better results.  I always count on the fact that I'm going to have to be the one who makes the first approach if I want to talk to someone; no one ever approaches me.  Which is difficult, 'cause I'm not really the kind of person that comes easily to, even with practice.  Not that it matters, nothing comes of it anyway.

 

*Shrugs*

 

 

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that's why I volunteer for something I love to do anyway ... not looking for companionship, really, just looking to be around people who have a similar passion. So I get involved in creative stuff, where the rules of conduct aren't so rigid. Of course, that's also where I've made my worst enemies ... hm, I may need to rethink this strategy.....

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I do think there's a certain point of view underlying Sherlock, a sort of mild liberalism ... prejudice is bad, gay is okay, the surveillance state is a necessary (?) evil ... but I wouldn't say the show promotes those attitudes, exactly, it just treats them as the norm.

 

Maybe because it's a British program, and the current norm there is noticeably more liberal/socialistic than what we Americans are used to?  (At least that's true in many things -- apparently we're ahead of them in physical accessibility, though, and probably some other areas as well.)

 

... whether they intended it or not, the show and the characters just feel so relatable to so many of us.

 

... at least till His Last Vow.  :(   (Though they may have gotten that anomaly out of their collective system with Final Problem.  Let us hope.)

 

I've had 3 really close friends. One I lost to emigration with 13, the next to a pregnancy/family at 17 and the last on my emigration at 23. Since then I just cannot find anyone....

... it seems as if after the age of thirty or so, so many people have settled into a life of a definite sort or another, and lost all interest in meeting new people. A lot of the friends I have seem content with the social set they are in, and with increasing demands of marriage, kids etc, they aren't bothered meeting new friends, in fact they struggle to see their old ones.

 

I've certainly experienced that.  Used to be (when I was in my teens and twenties) that whenever I entered a new environment, I made a few new friends, so it never occurred to me that I needed to make any effort to keep the friends I already had.  But what I've seen the last few times I moved is that the people I'd like to be friends with already have enough friends (sometimes from as far back as high school, often from church), so they simply don't need me.  Would it be different if I'd never moved?  I have no idea, really.

 

Sherlock and John are a good example of friends who don't have much in common, but their friendship is perhaps a bit idealised? To me they have a level of warmth and unquestioning loyalty, and sheer free time to spend together normally reserved for childhood friendships?

 

Maybe this has to do with the Moftisses having first "met" the two characters when they were little kids themselves?  I agree, their relationship is more as friends, whereas Conan Doyle's characters are more colleagues (albeit very friendly ones).

[J.P.]

 

Do you engage in any activities where you might get to know people?

LOL, this was always what the therapists were asking me.

Activities are okay, but people. <_<

 

If I agree to an activity, only when there is enough for me in spite of people. ;) Nobody ever could get that. And I never saw being social as something having a value of its own.

 

As for Mycroft (and me) - why want to engage emotionally, if it definitely will end in tears? Spending time and energy on something so ephemeral as love (of any kind), especially when other people are not exactly trying to make a closer connection 10 times a day. We don't want to know how it feels like, because it will make the missing it afterwards even worse.

[Arcadia]

Aw, I used to think so, but it doesn't, really. As long as the memories you keep are the good ones.

 

But y'know what, that's okay. You don't have to have certain kinds of relationships to have a good life. I know other people make it seem so, but I suspect most of them are just people of good will who want everyone else to have the joy they have. They don't stop to think that people who don't have what they have may actually have something even better! But I think it's meant out of kindness and concern (usually), and that's not so bad, is it? I've learned to feel happy for them (usually :smile:) and still keep what I have for myself. It all works out somehow.

 

Boy, I'm in a disgustingly upbeat mood tonight, aren't I? :d I think I'll go and burn some dinner.

 

[Artemis]

People do seem to be less open to new connections as they get older, I've noticed.  For just about everyone I know, their friends are people they've known since high school or earlier, especially their closest ones.  Some of them will have newer friends they only see in certain places, like work or church, but never outside of that.
 

LOL, this was always what the therapists were asking me.

Same, lol.
 

because it will make the missing it afterwards even worse.

True.  :(  In my experience, at least (sorry, Arcadia).

 

 

[Artemis]

I agree, their relationship is more as friends, whereas Conan Doyle's characters are more colleagues (albeit very friendly ones).

 

"Comradeship" could be a good word to use in either case.

 

 

[J.P.]

It kind of reminds me of my relationship with cigarettes - why ever start, given the possibility of addiction? :D

[bedelia1984]

It kind of reminds me of my relationship with cigarettes - why ever start, given the possibility of addiction? :D

 

Although, J.P., friendship helps you live longer whereas cigarettes have the opposite effect!

[J.P.]

Erm… I think they are speaking about normal people. I mean average… You know what I mean ^_^

[Arcadia]

Ordinary. ;)

[J.P.]

Not necessarily. Because it would look as if I saw myself as extraordinary. :rolleyes:

Maybe from the middle of the Gaussian distribution graph?

[Arcadia]

Well, okay, if you must make it that simple ... :p

[Pseudonym]

Is Mycroft overprotective or simply interfering? 

I used to think he interfered because he was overprotective, for example kidnapping John to make sure John was a good influence as well as trying to recruit him as a spy. But now I wonder if Mycroft isn't particularly protective at all, and if it's just fic that has clouded my view of him, because he doesn't seem to care all that much that Sherlock gets shot by a 'friend' or beaten up by another. If he's not interfering to be protective why does he do it at all? 

[Hikari]

35 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

Is Mycroft overprotective or simply interfering? 

I used to think he interfered because he was overprotective, for example kidnapping John to make sure John was a good influence as well as trying to recruit him as a spy. But now I wonder if Mycroft isn't particularly protective at all, and if it's just fic that has clouded my view of him, because he doesn't seem to care all that much that Sherlock gets shot by a 'friend' or beaten up by another. If he's not interfering to be protective why does he do it at all? 

Can  . .'both' be the right answer?

Mycroft has many layers.  On the one hand, he is Big Brother to Sherlock, and the only sibling he's got  (I should say--M. is Sherl's only Canonical sibling and the only one I accept or recognize.  Eurus wasn't a realistically-drawn little sib for Sherlock; she was a mind-fluck to he fans by a writing duo that had gotten tired of their little toy) . . and Mycroft's equally large role is . .he's Big Brother to the entire United Kingdom, as, well 'the' British government.  Duty to country is continually doing war in Mycroft with his duty to his family, and his role as his brother's keeper.  I think M. cared very much when Sherlock was shot and beaten . . not showing it externally does not equate to not-caring, particularly when one is an English public schoolboy AND a Holmes--Stoicism in all things, stiff upper lip . . isn't that a British ideal?  Particularly a British upper class male ideal, which describes M.  He cares plenty and we've seen it oftentimes even in words--'Oh, Sherlock, what have you done?' . .'I worry about him constantly'  . . "Your loss would break my heart" (said by the same man who counseled his brother that 'Caring is not an advantage."  No, it's not--but Mycroft cares, anyway, even though it's operationally compromising.  When Lil Bro was getting beaten up by a Serbian thug, M. kept his counsel.  He may have had a twinge of concern, but he kept silent for the greater good of the operation . . which was, after all, rescuing Lil Bro from a much more severe penalty. 

He offered to sacrifice his own life in place of Sherlock's in the showdown with Euros, and he was not only prepared to do this, he was going to go out with style befitting an Englishman.  How much more of a display of caring can someone make than to lay down his life for another?  Turns out that Eurus had another target in mind, but Myc's offer was sincere.

Mycroft interferes because:

He is the British government. 

He is an Eldest, and we (I say we because I'm an eldest too) are bossy by nature.  We interfere in the affairs of our younger sibs because in general we are right more often than we are wrong.  Not because we are 'better'; because we have more life experience.  We like to manage things.  As the saying goes, if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. "Right" = The way Mycroft wants it done.  Naturally.

He's Mummy's favorite.  Usually the youngest gets that honor (it certainly was that case in my house) but at home Myc ruled the roost on two counts.  No wonder he grew up with such Teflon self-assurance.

Mycroft is overprotective because:

He is the British government.  If things go T!ts up on his watch, he's in the hot seat with Her Majesty.

He really and truly does love his little brother.  Two Holmes boys against the world.  One day Sherlock will realize this and maybe say "Thank you for managing the entire Reichenbach affair and oh, yes, getting me off a murder charge, Mycroft.  Not to mention saving my life all those times I OD'd.  I owe you bruh."

[Pseudonym]

What throws me is why he doesn't say or do anything about the shooting or beating? He's happy to let the woman who almost killed his baby brother come to the family home for Christmas dinner. I was expecting Mycroft to be a force to reckoned with when he realised what she'd done, but he didn't seem bothered. 

[Hikari]

19 minutes ago, Pseudonym said:

What throws me is why he doesn't say or do anything about the shooting or beating? He's happy to let the woman who almost killed his baby brother come to the family home for Christmas dinner. I was expecting Mycroft to be a force to reckoned with when he realised what she'd done, but he didn't seem bothered. 

Not *seeming* bothered is a Mycroft specialty--it's his line.  I think of Mycroft as all the stereotypical, if you like, characteristics of the upper crust Englishman, only magnified to the 100th power.  Mycroft doesn't just have a stiff upper lip--his upper lip is carved out of granite.  Only Baby Brother will test this resolve and make it quiver a bit--but M. never shows his hand if he can help it.  Yes, Mary did put a bullet into Sherlock--which rocketed her up to #1 on any number of Mycroft's watch lists . . he just didn't give it away.  Also, Mary is family, sort of, by extension . .and Watson decided to stay married to her despite her betrayal, so that makes things extra-complicated.  Sherlock was the one who was shot and even he has managed to forgive Mary.  I don't think Big Bruh would be so forgiving . .but on the surface, nothing will show.  Mycroft is unflappable, even in the face of his own death.  When John kicked Sherl in TDD, I don't think Myc was there, was he?  When the Serbian was beating on Lil Bruh, well, he was undercover.  Had Sherl not deduced a way to get the guy out of the room before it went any further I honestly believe that Myc would have walked over silently and slit the guy's throat.  Big M. learned Serbian in two hours . .he can do just 'bout anything.  Except maybe cry.

[gerry]

3 hours ago, Pseudonym said:

What throws me is why he doesn't say or do anything about the shooting or beating? He's happy to let the woman who almost killed his baby brother come to the family home for Christmas dinner. I was expecting Mycroft to be a force to reckoned with when he realised what she'd done, but he didn't seem bothered. 

It was likely Sherlock who invited John and Mary to Christmas at the family home though so what is Mycroft supposed to do about it except be polite to them?   It’s Sherlock’s choice who his friends are and I doubt Sherlock would let Mycroft affect who he decides them to be.  I took it as Mycroft accepting Sherlock’s choice which I think he does often because it’s not like Sherlock really listens to anyone anyway.  Sherlock does what Sherlock wants to do.

[Arcadia]

I guess I'm one of the few people who thinks we're supposed to accept Sherlock's interpretation ... that Mary saved his life by not shooting him in the head. But to me the show makes a lot more sense if you just take Sherlock at his word. Yeah, it's a preposterous explanation, but it's a rather preposterous TV series with a rather preposterous title character ... who has a rather preposterous name. Given all that, I don't have much trouble accepting that Mycroft simply believed Sherlock, and therefore had no reason to be bothered by Mary.

Heck, Moffat seemed so enamored with the idea of Mary following John and Sherlock around, secretly blowing the brains out of anyone who threatened them, that he probably figured that Mycroft would be delighted to learn such a deadly woman was around to look after Sherlock.