Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[sherlockandjohn]

 

since I am far more of a softy than either John or Sherlock ... if that plane hadn't turned around, I don't think I could've borne it. For that alone I will forgive Moftiss just about anything else. :-)

 

Mhm, me too. Even though it did ruin a perfectly beautiful poetic moment, it would have been way too sad an ending for a series that won't be continued for another two years at least.

 

 

I'll have to agree with both points. It really took the emotional edge off this poetic moment, but they had to turn that plane around. There's only so much the writers can put the fans, and themselves, through. I wonder, though, if it could have been done in a way that didn't seem like such an easy escape.

[Arcadia]

 

 

So much subtext.

 

And so much good acting ....

[Slithytove]

I know lots of people aren't happy about Jim popping up again, but I could have kissed him when it became apparent that the plane would return because of him. The airfield farewell left me feeling depressed. Partly, of course, because Sherlock was going but mainly because I found it cold. I know John doesn't seem to be able to express emotions except anger, but he does feel them - we saw that in TRF - and a tiny, manly tear would have made all the difference to that scene. Oh, well.

 

I think Sherlock's emotions must have been genuine - presumably he did think he was going to his death. If not, and it's all a set-up, it is going to make even less sense than his jumping off the roof. (Who would the phone call from Mycroft be intended to fool? The flight attendant?)

 

Surely John must have thought Sherlock was likely to die. He isn't stupid and must have understood that the unlikelihood of their ever meeting again was because Sherlock was going off to risk his life. If not, how could they have been kept apart forever? Even if Sherlock was meant to go into permanent exile, he is clever enough to slip back into the country under a false identity. At the very least, he would manage to convey his whereabouts to John. I daresay Mycroft would be capable of preventing a law-abiding British citizen from travelling abroad, but John would presumably contest it in court, causing great embarrassment to the government. And would Mycroft be petty enough to try to keep them apart, anyway?

 

Incidentally, I don't think Mycroft fears that the British citizenry would riot if Sherlock was imprisoned. I think he fears that Sherlock's aggravating personality would provoke frequent riots amongst the prison population.

[T.o.b.y]

Incidentally, I don't think Mycroft fears that the British citizenry would riot if Sherlock was imprisoned. I think he fears that Sherlock's aggravating personality would provoke frequent riots amongst the prison population.

 

That was how I understood those lines as well.

 

Because you can never be sure with the Holmes boys, John might have doubted Sherlock was really going away for ever. And he might have reasoned the same way as you do: Even if Sherlock really would not be able to come to England again, there would have been plenty of ways to stay in touch. So perhaps he wasn't being cold, just bewildered and skeptical that this was all really such a big drama as it seemed. (My interpretation, however, is that he did feel a lot. To me, it looks as if he is about to tear up and desperately tries not to, so Sherlock makes a stupid joke to help them both save face).

 

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Incidentally, I don't think Mycroft fears that the British citizenry would riot if Sherlock was imprisoned. I think he fears that Sherlock's aggravating personality would provoke frequent riots amongst the prison population.

 

  And that's the beauty of the whole thing. No one has to agree with anyone else. It's all interpretation and head canon. I just got this vivid image in my head of all of the people that Sherlock helped along with all their friends and family along with everyone who has ever read John's Blog rising up and  staging protests

[Zain]

Incidentally, I don't think Mycroft fears that the British citizenry would riot if Sherlock was imprisoned. I think he fears that Sherlock's aggravating personality would provoke frequent riots amongst the prison population.

 

Really?

I actually read concern for Sherlock into this. Because I think Sherlock would rather have six months and the chance to survive than waste away in prison in complete boredom for years to come. I don't think he would have survived prison with its scheduled life, and the regulations. If he had been charged for homicide instead of being exiled, it would have been official business as well. A trial, a sentence. I believe it would have been much harder to allow Sherlock to return to London as a free man if he had been trialed. Because it was a "deal behind closed doors", he was a phone call away from home.

I also think Mycroft would have been looking for a reason to call Sherlock back asap. Let's take the last scene when he calls Sherlock back. I mean... it's not like there has been any crime committed as of yet. There wasn't even time to check if it was a hoax. Still, his first reaction is to use it as leverage to get Sherlock back.

I believe Sherlock put him in a tight spot: Mycroft values "the work." And then there's Sherlock who is his weak spot. We never truly know Mycroft's priority. Throughout the series, we get to know that he values both. We don't know what he prefers if he has to decide. In a way, I think he tries to juggle both because he is afraid of what his decision will mean. He compromises.

If he had sent Sherlock to prison, as should be and as the others had wanted, he'd have lost Sherlock. The prospects of getting him out of prison without showing his hand, without showing how much he cares for Sherlock and without making himself even more vulnerable, are rather bad.

If he had gotten Sherlock a "carte blanche", he'd have made himself very, very vulnerable. I doubt his colleagues would not have used this against him.

To me, this seems like Mycroft was forced to make a decision. Which I actually like. I would love to see Mycroft's first priority. Work? Sherlock?

Instead, he has pushed for a compromise: Sending Sherlock away. It's somewhat unfair to both, his work and Sherlock. He doesn't make a decision. To me, it stinks of stalling a decision Mycroft would rather not make yet. He bought himself six months.

[Slithytove]

I agree that Mycroft is trying to save Sherlock, by giving him a mission where there is a chance of survival, albeit a slim one. Prison would surely have killed him - he would either have provoked one or more of the other prisoners into murdering him or he would kill himself because he could not stand the boredom. I think Mycroft's reasons for not imprisoning his brother are little more than excuses. However, as excuses go, I think it is more likely that he was referring to prison riots, rather than riots in the streets. We are not a nation much given to rioting (although it does happen occasionally) and I doubt we would rise up to demand the release of a murderer, however famous or popular he might be......

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't think he would have needed to provoke anything, his just being being there would have been enough to spur someone into trying to get back a bit of their own on him.

 

 As for Britain's not rioting?  Seems there was some of that just a couple of years ago while they were filming one of the "Sherlock" seasons 2011, to be exact and the riots were quite widespread. Cars were over turned and even one of the prince's cars was attacked in London.

 

 And not everyone is going to care about what happened to CAM and would certainly see Sherlock as a hero for being the only one with the courage and gumption to finally step up and do something about him. I can even see some of the pm's applauding him even if it was in the privacy of their own drawing rooms. Like Mycroft said: "As my colleague is fond of remarking, sometimes this country needs a blunt instrument. Equally , it sometimes needs a dagger - a scalpel wielded with precision and without remorse."   Emphasis is my own.

 

 It would have been interesting to learn just who this "colleague" was. Lady Smallwood....perhaps?

 

  In all bluntness, to my point of view,  Mycroft having added and abetted CAM and protecting him in his committing such outrageous felonies as blackmail and "murder by remote control", not to mention Mycroft's involvement with such blackops as the CIA who carry out assassinations, a then calls Sherlock the murderer is pretty darn hypocritical.

[Slithytove]

Oh, sure, sometimes riots do break out here, though I'd say that the time when Charlie & Camilla's car was targeted was more of an out of control demo than a proper riot..... But they are fairly rare and hugely shocking to the average citizen, and they are invariably political, e.g. the poll tax, the G8 summit and (maybe the most frequent reason) the feeling that the police are picking on a particular racial group. We really aren't such a collection of repressed, stiff-upper-lipped individuals as we are perceived, and the journalist who said the English are actually a nation of freebooters might have had a point....but, sadly, I don't think we would riot over the imprisonment of a man who had shot another (unarmed) man through the head, even if the former was popular and the latter wasn't. Sadly.

 

You do have a point that Mycroft probably has a history of involvement in MI6 and CIA black ops and is somewhat hypocritical, therefore, to call Sherlock a murderer (even though he is.). Presumably the difference is that Mycroft is too self-controlled to kill someone himself and to do it in front of witnesses.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

But they are fairly rare and hugely shocking to the average citizen, and they are invariably political, e.g. the poll tax, the G8 summit and (maybe the most frequent reason) the feeling that the police are picking on a particular racial group.

 

  I can see them to be shocking to the average citizen to be sure, but rare? According to a historic timeline riots and demonstrations there has been quite a few just since the year 2000.

 

 

 

[Slithytove]

Yes, despite all the supposed similarities between Sherlock and Jim, there are echoes of Mycroft too. Hidden, detached,, "no-one gets to me and no-one ever will"....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Hhhmmm like "killing someone in front of witness"?   Eemmhumm sounds like someone else that doesn't like "to get his hands dirty". At least Sherlock was honest about it and made sure he had witnesses. I'll take Sherlock's high sense of ethics over Mycroft's any day of the week. Sherlock does not commit such acts lightly nor without great consideration....can't say the same for Mycroft by any stretch.

 

  The country wide riot in 2011 was over a man who the police shot who was apparently a drug dealer and a gang leader and had been arrested for murder and attempted murder and more then once.

 

  So in the light of that I can see why Mycroft just might be concerned about riots coming on the heels of the imprisonment of a far better man seen as a hero by many...especially on his first offense and in the defense of so many truly innocent people.

 

Since CAM was not an innocent....nor unarmed....his weapon was his ability to get away with creating "fairy tales" and printing them destroying everyone he come in contact with (Yes, CAM is a murderer too and probably has more then just one very innocent victim).  Hhhmmm maybe Moriarty knew something about this "poisonous snake" already.

[Caya]

Oh dearie me - Zain, I somehow (don't ask me) deleted your last post (I blame lag ). Everybody, those are Zain's words, not mine! (horray for caches) I'm really, really sorry .

 

Posted Today, 11:01 PM

Hhhmmm like "killing someone in front of witness"?   Eemmhumm sounds like someone else that doesn't like "to get his hands dirty". At least Sherlock was honest about it and made sure he had witnesses. I'll take Sherlock's high sense of ethics over Mycroft's any day of the week. Sherlock does not commit such acts lightly nor without great consideration....can't say the same for Mycroft by any stretch.

 

 

I think you're quite right. In some regards, Mycroft can be compared to Moriarty. While we know next to nothing specific about his job, there are enough hints that can be interpreted in a way that screams ruthless. Maybe that's why I've come to respect his character throughout the seasons. He isn't supposed to be someone we "empathize" with. There are enough occasions to remind us that Mycroft isn't someone you'd trust. Unlike with Mary, Irene, and some other characters, we are never given an excuse for his behavior. The script doesn't hint at every corner that this now is a good moment to turn a blind eye or two to his actions that so far defined him. There's hardly much about Mycroft's character that makes one feel endeared to him when you strictly look at the episodes. Imo, there's just one thing, and that is stressed throughout the series. His feelings for Sherlock.

He's a bit different from the other "ruthless" characters in the series. Neither Moriarty nor Magnussen had much of a redeeming point. Mary didn't do regrets either. The characters are somewhat limited in their dimension. Mycroft isn't. Because the writers show through his characterizationthat even those people pulling strings day in day out behind solid office doors have loved ones. People they care for. Mycroft might care next to nothing about some soldier in Afghanistan, but he might give the world for his brother. In a way, that's a very well-written conflict of interests. It makes for a rather conflicted character. But it's a strong characterization. It blurs the line between "good" and "bad." It gets hard to completely reject him, but it is hard to like him, too. He's neither. He isn't supposed to be a good guy. And he isn't supposed to be a bad guy either.

 

I don't intend to say the other characters are weak by default. They are written differently. We are led into specific directions. We are supposed to frown upon Moriarty and Magnussen without giving it a thought if maybe there's someone who will mourn them, someone they were nice to (because we are only shown how unlikely it is there's someone waiting at home for them). With Mary, we are supposed to sympathize. Mycroft doesn't suffer this kind of manipulation through the script because he essentially isn't supposed to be important. Yet he is a constant in the series because he is both, government and brother. He juggles those two roles at every appearance in the show. The other characters are reduced to one role.

 

Doyle sure had a thing for unpleasant people's names beginning with M. No wonder Moftiss couldn't resist adding Mary Morstan to that list.

[Zain]

No harm done

Thanks for putting it up once more, I suppose.

[Caya]

As for what I wanted to post when I mutilated Zain's writings instead, I kinda can see riots happening over Sherlock's arrest and imprisonment because of the Moriarty Affair. People might well go, "Yeah, now we're supposed to believe he's a murderer ... like last time, when we were supposed to believe you that he's a fraud. Just how stupid do you take us? Stop pinning crimes he didn't commit on him!"

[T.o.b.y]

 

Posted Today, 11:01 PM

 

I think you're quite right. In some regards, Mycroft can be compared to Moriarty. While we know next to nothing specific about his job, there are enough hints that can be interpreted in a way that screams ruthless. Maybe that's why I've come to respect his character throughout the seasons. He isn't supposed to be someone we "empathize" with. There are enough occasions to remind us that Mycroft isn't someone you'd trust. Unlike with Mary, Irene, and some other characters, we are never given an excuse for his behavior. The script doesn't hint at every corner that this now is a good moment to turn a blind eye or two to his actions that so far defined him. There's hardly much about Mycroft's character that makes one feel endeared to him when you strictly look at the episodes. Imo, there's just one thing, and that is stressed throughout the series. His feelings for Sherlock.

He's a bit different from the other "ruthless" characters in the series. Neither Moriarty nor Magnussen had much of a redeeming point. Mary didn't do regrets either. The characters are somewhat limited in their dimension. Mycroft isn't. Because the writers show through his characterizationthat even those people pulling strings day in day out behind solid office doors have loved ones. People they care for. Mycroft might care next to nothing about some soldier in Afghanistan, but he might give the world for his brother. In a way, that's a very well-written conflict of interests. It makes for a rather conflicted character. But it's a strong characterization. It blurs the line between "good" and "bad." It gets hard to completely reject him, but it is hard to like him, too. He's neither. He isn't supposed to be a good guy. And he isn't supposed to be a bad guy either.

 

I don't intend to say the other characters are weak by default. They are written differently. We are led into specific directions. We are supposed to frown upon Moriarty and Magnussen without giving it a thought if maybe there's someone who will mourn them, someone they were nice to (because we are only shown how unlikely it is there's someone waiting at home for them). With Mary, we are supposed to sympathize. Mycroft doesn't suffer this kind of manipulation through the script because he essentially isn't supposed to be important. Yet he is a constant in the series because he is both, government and brother. He juggles those two roles at every appearance in the show. The other characters are reduced to one role.

 

Zain, you've got a very good point there. I never looked at Mycroft that way. Of course you are right. Strange that I should feel he's actually one of the weakest characters. He feels the least real to me. It's not just that I don't sympathize with him, I don't even completely believe in him. Mycroft is amusing, yes, but I simply cannot get my brain to accept the idea of him as a human being. He's more like a character from a regular comedy show to me.

 

[Zain]

Yes, that's what I meant when I wrote that he essentially isn't supposed to be important. Every time he plays a major role for the plot, his actions happen off-screen. We are being told what he did. We don't get to see it. I suppose it's because whenever he is important for the plot, it's due to his work. But whenever he appears on-screen, he is stuck in the brother role.

 

So it's really hard to get a grasp of his character, to see past this weak ground for characterization. We barely see any action, until season three most characterization relies on what he says. I had my issues with Mycroft for two seasons. It took a two years wait for me to get a feeling for what kind of character he is. And since then, I've actually come to, well, not like, but respect him. In a way, he's the most human (which is a rather alarming picture of humanity). Caught between self-interest (work) and family. He's like a darker incarnation of our everyday struggle to find some middle ground between selfishness and selflessness. Well, that's what I read from him, subtext-wise

[Slithytove]

Hhhmmm like "killing someone in front of witness"? Eemmhumm sounds like someone else that doesn't like "to get his hands dirty". At least Sherlock was honest about it and made sure he had witnesses. I'll take Sherlock's high sense of ethics over Mycroft's any day of the week. Sherlock does not commit such acts lightly nor without great consideration....can't say the same for Mycroft by any stretch.

 

The country wide riot in 2011 was over a man who the police shot who was apparently a drug dealer and a gang leader and had been arrested for murder and attempted murder and more then once.

 

So in the light of that I can see why Mycroft just might be concerned about riots coming on the heels of the imprisonment of a far better man seen as a hero by many...especially on his first offense and in the defense of so many truly innocent people.

 

Since CAM was not an innocent....nor unarmed....his weapon was his ability to get away with creating "fairy tales" and printing them destroying everyone he come in contact with (Yes, CAM is a murderer too and probably has more then just one very innocent victim). Hhhmmm maybe Moriarty knew something about this "poisonous snake" already.

Yes, I do remember the 2011 riots - most of us were gobsmacked by the tv footage.

 

Mark Duggan, whose death was the catalyst, was shot by the police because they thought (wrongly, it seems) that he had a gun. The local people were angered by the police shooting of a young black man, which they felt was unjustified. Duggan's family fiercely deny that he was a drug dealer or involved with gangs.

 

However, I doubt that many of those who got involved as the riots spread had ever heard of Duggan. (We had a small copycat riot here in Leicester, and it wasn't motivated by justice for Mark Duggan). Maybe it was just bored kids caught up in the excitement, or maybe it was high youth employment and cuts in welfare benefits that meant there was an underclass of youngsters with no jobs, little money and a lot of anger.

 

Try as I might, I can't think of an instance when the English rose up in defence of a vigilante, which is how Sherlock might be viewed if he was able to explain that he had killed CAM to rid the world of a dangerous, unscrupulous man. I suspect that the best he could hope for is a petition to Downing Street and some strongly-worded letters to the newspapers.....

 

Mycroft is an interesting character and I like the fact that we don't have our arms twisted to like or understand him, though we can see that there is care and concern for his brother underneath the carefully calculated coldness. I would like to know why he irritates Sherlock so much - is it just sibling rivalry? - and why he seems so desperate to keep people at arms-length and frequently advises his brother to do the same.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Duggan's family fiercely deny that he was a drug dealer or involved with gangs.

 

  i can certainly appreciate this, it would take a very hard family not to defend a loved one. I would hope that they would.

 

  But that doesn't change Mark Duggan's arrest record or that a large number of violent riots resulted which could have been echoed by Mycroft and his reason for not wanting Sherlock in prison because as it has been shown in investigative reports, a peaceful demonstration can be used to incite greater violence for what ever purpose or any excuse.

[Zain]

 

Mycroft is an interesting character and I like the fact that we don't have our arms twisted to like or understand him, though we can see that there is care and concern for his brother underneath the carefully calculated coldness. I would like to know why he irritates Sherlock so much - is it just sibling rivalry? - and why he seems so desperate to keep people at arms-length and frequently advises his brother to do the same.

 

 

Do you have any concrete theories? I know some have been interested in the ring he wears. Just asking because it sounds like you do have a theory. Or at least spent some time contemplating it.

 

Sorry if I am cutting right into your discussion. I am reading it but I can't really contribute. Not my area. I distinctly remember something from the news but I don't think it was covered that much where I am living.

[Slithytove]

Well.....no-one can say that a riot would never happen (particularly when we are talking about a fictional character who, even in the less far-fetched stories, requires a pretty large suspension of disbelief.) I am just saying that, based on my own youthful experiences of going on political demonstrations plus my memories of coverage of events which have sparked trouble in the past, that I seriously doubt that the government would be at all worried about the public arrest of someone like Sherlock, particularly if it was proved he had murdered someone. We would be shocked and saddened, but unlikely to riot over someone proven to have shot another man (however unpleasant) through the head.

 

As for Mycroft.....I think the similarity between himself and Jim Moriarty might extend to their formative experiences. Mycroft's "Everyone dies. All hearts are broken" is a more elegant version of Jim's scream of "That's what people do!" It would be interesting to know, not only if Mycroft had suffered a loss at some point, but if Jim had also been hurt by someone's death, maybe when he was very young. Mycroft would try to protect himself from future pain by controlling himself and those around him, whereas Jim's response would be to seek revenge against the entire world.

 

The evident tension in the Holmes brothers relationship has never really been explained, although the fanfic writers have made plenty of attempts. There is a story on archiveofourown.org by iwantthatcoat which suggests that Mycroft, as a child/teenager, was sexually abusive towards his much younger brother, and that he was now in denial about it whilst Sherlock had blotted the details from his memory but retained a sense of unease, particularly regarding sexual relationships. This is obviously a controversial idea but works pretty well to explain Sherlock's spiky reactions to his brother and Mycroft's rather creepy, possessive interest in Sherlock's life. Can't see it ever becoming canon, though!

[Zain]

Ah, I know that one! Had to look at the author's works but then I recognized it.

While I do like the darkness in that story, I can't picture it as anything but AU. It is somewhat conflicting with my "impression" of Mycroft and Sherlock.

There's a similiarly chilling story that has got Mycroft seriously contemplating killing Sherlock as a baby because he cannot stand how nobody pays attention to him anymore. He then is frightened by his own thoughts, and develops a guilt complex that leads to his meddling and protective stance.

Sadly, the child neglect/abuse stories are rather AU, too, after they introduced their parents. I liked some of those theories as well. While Sherlock isn't such a dark series, the subtext often invites a dark "reading."

I love it when people come up with a setting that makes you say "Noooo" with exasperation, and then they lay it out in a well-written way that then makes you say, "Okay. I can imagine that."

 

Back on topic:

If Jim turns out to be Holmes brother No. 3, this could actually be some sort of connection between them. Funny how Sherlock and Jim have been compared to each other for quite a long time, but we both rather compare Mycroft and Jim. Maybe they are even connected through that one event. You mention death and loss of someone. Possible. But I could easily imagine betrayal to cause their reactions. Maybe by a parent?

Anyway, I completely agree. The subtext makes for a strong connection between Mycroft and Jim. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

that I seriously doubt that the government would be at all worried about the public arrest of someone like Sherlock, particularly if it was proved he had murdered someone.

 

   But the wonderful thing is, we are not talking about real life. It's definitely all about suspending reality. It's supposed to be fun and more then a little bit of escapism.  Mycroft is "The British Government" and he is clearly worried about something happening concerning riots.

 

  We are talking about a alternate reality where morally and soullessly devoid people like Magnussen can exist to destroy people and there are heroes like Sherlock Holmes who has the power, whether moral or government sanctioned, to do something about him.

 

  Movies and TV are full of this kind of tension and the "dragonslayers"  be it Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Captain America or who ever are more then willing to sacrifice.

 

  There is a saying that goes something like:  Evil can only flourish when the good people stand aside and do nothing.

 

   Magnussen was the evil in this little fairy tale and Sherlock Holmes, as ever, the white knight.

 

  It will be interesting to see if they do give more of Mycroft's background and if the writers also draw parallels along the Mycroft/Moriarty line.

   

  Someone "disappointed Mummy" in that family, and according to Sherlock, it wasn't him and if Jim turns out to be "the other one" I can see "Daddy Holmes" being a likely candidate.

[Zain]

   

 

 

  Someone "disappointed Mummy" in that family, and according to Sherlock, it wasn't him and if Jim turns out to be "the other one" I can see "Daddy Holmes" being a likely candidate.

 

 

I read that as a slight against Mycroft, actually. He quite stressed "me." Maybe Mycroft pointed out his father's infidelity? Which would be interesting since many stories have it the other way around: With Sherlock pointing it out and upsetting their mother.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I think it can be read in multiple ways, no doubt about that. It is subtext and means something different to everyone who taps into it. It could have certainly have something to do with Mycroft, absolutely.