Jump to content

Recommended Posts

By the way, I never did understand what Sherlock is referring to as Mycroft's idea... What do y'all think??

That's a really good point, I'm not sure what Mycroft's supposed idea was, either. It think it must either be faking Sherlock's death or faking Sherlock's death without letting John in on the secret. I imagine both plans would have evolved out of a conversation of Sherlock and Mycroft so that it's hard to put a finger down on who really had the idea, but I'd think that neither of them planned ahead for 2 years. After Sherlock jumped and disappeared, things just evolved. Maybe they didn't plan what Sherlock would be doing after "dying" and they just didn't spare a thought about John's feelings - the Holmes brothers wouldn't necessarily consider one bloke's feelings but just do what was necessary in the situation (and then expect that poor bloke to understand it was the rational thing to do). So maybe their mistake was not that they decided to keep John in the dark about his best friend's fate for 2 years, but that they just never thought about telling him.

 

 

it could be that Mycroft suspected trouble, but didn't care much whether or not Sherlock and John managed to bridge the gap between them. After all, he speaks the word "friends" in the same mocking tone that Sherlock used in HoB.

 

 

That makes me think of the end of Study in Pink when Mycroft says: "Interesting, that soldier fellow. He could be the making of my brother – or make him worse than ever."  I wonder how Mycroft would judge John at the end of season 2 or even 3: Was he the making of Sherlock (like "he really helped him to grow up") or did he make him worse than ever (like "OMG, now he starts to think about friends and that sort of stuff more than ever")?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, remember how Mycroft says "friends" like it's the F word? And how he taunts Sherlock about Redbeard during John's wedding? Since Mycroft cares about nobody (except himself and Sherlock), he's pretty well-protected from emotional damage. Maybe he wants Sherlock to have that same protection, especially after Redbeard's death -- he knew John's wedding would hurt Sherlock. In fact, Mycroft doesn't seem too surprised when Sherlock goes back into drugs just a month after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it could be that Mycroft suspected trouble, but didn't care much whether or not Sherlock and John managed to bridge the gap between them. After all, he speaks the word "friends" in the same mocking tone that Sherlock used in HoB.

 

That makes me think of the end of Study in Pink when Mycroft says: "Interesting, that soldier fellow. He could be the making of my brother – or make him worse than ever."  I wonder how Mycroft would judge John at the end of season 2 or even 3: Was he the making of Sherlock (like "he really helped him to grow up") or did he make him worse than ever (like "OMG, now he starts to think about friends and that sort of stuff more than ever")?

 

I've wondered about that myself, but am not sure what the answer would be (in Mycroft's eyes - I know what my own answer is!). Maybe it's both? Maybe it's and, not or.

 

Well, remember how Mycroft says "friends" like it's the F word? And how he taunts Sherlock about Redbeard during John's wedding? Since Mycroft cares about nobody (except himself and Sherlock), he's pretty well-protected from emotional damage. Maybe he wants Sherlock to have that same protection, especially after Redbeard's death -- he knew John's wedding would hurt Sherlock. In fact, Mycroft doesn't seem too surprised when Sherlock goes back into drugs just a month after.

 

Never thought that Mycroft might suspect John getting married to have caused Sherlock to relapse, but then again, since he was so certain that Sherlock had, in fact, gone back to drugs, it's likely that he would be wondering why ... and then the thought of John's domestic bliss doesn't seem far away. Interesting thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, remember how Mycroft says "friends" like it's the F word? And how he taunts Sherlock about Redbeard during John's wedding? Since Mycroft cares about nobody (except himself and Sherlock), he's pretty well-protected from emotional damage. Maybe he wants Sherlock to have that same protection

 

Maybe - who knows. I think saying "friends" as if it was an expletive was more Sherlock is The Hounds of Baskerville, though - Mycroft's version sounds "merely" contemptuous to me.

 

If Mycroft had been truly worried that Sherlock would go back on drugs after the wedding, though, then he'd kept a closer lookout, don't you think? As we saw it, he had to be notified of the fact by John, and he was not aware that his little brother had begun to chase after Magnussen, either.

 

A wicked part of me thinks that Mycroft simply doesn't like the idea of Sherlock being better at something than himself, and if he should be, then that area has to immediately be pronounced meaningless or even harmful, just so Mycroft can remain "the smart one".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Mycroft had been truly worried that Sherlock would go back on drugs after the wedding, though, then he'd kept a closer lookout, don't you think? As we saw it, he had to be notified of the fact by John, and he was not aware that his little brother had begun to chase after Magnussen, either.

Or -- they're in cahoots again, and once more keeping John (and us) in the dark. At this point, I sure wouldn't put it past them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea, Toby, though it really clashes with my impression of Mycroft.

There is something inherently dark and wrong about him. But then, I somehow see something good in him, too, and that good in him is his obsession with keeping Sherlock... alive? In some form or another, he cares. I am not stating that it's good for Sherlock, it isn't in 3 out of 4 cases, but on the other side, that's Mycroft's biggest flaw, and I harbour the anticipation that they make it his tragic flaw in the end. He is the kind of character where you are not sure where his loyalties lie. And especially after the way John brushed off the fact that his wife shot Sherlock, I feel like I need someone to fiercely care about Sherlock. It's like getting all the hurt scenes, but the comfort ones were cut out of the story.

 

 

My take on Mycroft's sudden disinterest in Sherlock's life is tha it will be part of the explanation in S4. Mycroft had his attention on Eastern Europe, not on Britain as it seems. He missed to spot Mary, he didn't notice the drugs. On the other hand, his absence when Sherlock was in hospital almost seems too staged when you consider how they presented him in series 3 (apart from the Magnussen deal). He indulges his brother and plays children games with him. He allows Sherlock to persuade him into a "deducing contest." He is shown to phone Sherlock and complain about their parents (which is not a practical call, it is social, an update and a shared point of moaning about their parents). Then Mycroft kept an eye on John (though doubtful how close, depending on whether he knew about Mary or not), and he certainly didn't do that for his own peace of mind. And no matter how.... let's call it controversial... his appearance in Serbia had been, he invested time into his brother's retrieval, time off his usual working ground, and with considerable risk to himself. Mycroft neither did any "legwork" when the Royal family was "blackmailed", nor when the missile plans had gone missing in TGG. However, he got, pardon my language, his ass off the chair when Irene Adler died and Sherlock had a danger night, as well as when his brother was taken captive in Serbia.

 

But I still love that theory. And to a certain degree, he probably despises it whenever Sherlock has got more success than him. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from your interpretation of John's behavior, I like what you say.  I hadn't noticed before, but you're right, Mycroft seems perfectly capable of being involved in Sherlock's life when it suits him -- but not when it doesn't.  (I'm still kinda wondering, though, whether that's an emotional reaction on his part, or merely another deep dark plot that he and Sherlock have cooked up.)

 

 

As for John, I think you do him a disservice by saying that he "brushed off the fact that his wife shot Sherlock."  He certainly did not "brush it off" immediately -- he was furious.  Then we see Sherlock urging him to trust Mary.  We see nothing at all of the next few months, only the culmination when Sherlock brings them together for Christmas, and John finally speaks to Mary and tentatively makes up with her.  So it takes John several months to bring himself to do as Sherlock asks him to do.  I don't see that as "brushing off" the matter, more like, "Well, I don't like it one bit, but if it's what Sherlock wants, then I'll do it for his sake.  I just hope to heaven that he knows what he's doing."

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for John, I think you do him a disservice by saying that he "brushed off the fact that his wife shot Sherlock."  He certainly did not "brush it off" immediately -- he was furious.  Then we see Sherlock urging him to trust Mary.  We see nothing at all of the next few months, only the culmination when Sherlock brings them together for Christmas, and John finally speaks to Mary and tentatively makes up with her.  So it takes John several months to bring himself to do as Sherlock asks him to do.  I don't see that as "brushing off" the matter, more like, "Well, I don't like it one bit, but if it's what Sherlock wants, then I'll do it for his sake.  I just hope to heaven that he knows what he's doing."

 

Hmmmm... Carol, I'm not saying I disagree, exactly, but I have a hunch that what some people might find a bit - irritating - about John's attitude is that he doesn't seem to mind the fact that his wife shot his best friend and nearly killed him, so much as that his wife "lied" to him (rather kept the truth from him, but John sees that as lying.) From His Last Vow, I did get the impression that the latter was John's primary concern. Sure, he wasn't best pleased about the shooting, but still, the fact that she married him under false pretenses, so to speak, seems to weigh much heavier with John than that she near-fatally wounded Sherlock or once killed people for a living.

 

I'm not complaining about this, mind you. I think it's pretty human, and more emotionally realistic than one usually sees in fiction. It fits in pretty well with my prior impression that "John is not first and foremost a cuddly nice morally upright guy in jumpers", too. But I understand why others disapprove!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, right, I see your point.  Lemme see -- how about this -- Sherlock says he's OK with Mary shooting him (because she also "saved his life" -- yeah, right!), and John figures that part is Sherlock's lookout, so OK fine, he'll go with Sherlock's interpretation (at least it beats trying to make sense of everything all at once).  And Sherlock also says that John should trust Mary in the future, so fine, that's settled too.  Which leaves just the part where Mary didn't tell John the truth in the past -- dealing with that is left up to John.  So of course he focuses on that part.  How's that?

 

God knows why John trusts Sherlock, but that does seem to be his default mode.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

God knows why John trusts Sherlock, but that does seem to be his default mode.

 

Maybe because Sherlock isn't a murderer in his eyes until HLV? We did get to see John's apprehension when he spots the suitcase in Sherlock's possession in ASiP. That seems to be the line he draws, doesn't it? Well, until HLV at least. He also tends to storm out whenever Sherlock takes someone's suffering for granted. 

 

I can understand why he trusts Sherlock, though. That may be a completely mental and subjective view, but I'd rather have a friend who endangers me because he's short-sighted beyond redemption when it comes to living outside of his mind palace, but who cares, than trust a person who I know to be deceitful and to consciously harm others, myself included. The first one, you just want to smack over the head and be exasperated with... the second, that's the one who is someone to keep at distance.

 

It just stretches my capabiity of willful suspension of disbelief. John is supposed to be a GP, and he was the first to arrive at the scene of the crime. He basically saw Sherlock heart stop in front of him twice. You save somebody's life by getting a bullet out of a body, not by putting it in there in the first place. And that's something he should know by heart. I never took him for a character who deludes himself to such great lengths. But that's what it is, in a way. He is not questioning it. Because he might not like the alternative, I suppose.

His reaction seems to be all over the place, anyway. As if the actor's interpretation and the intention of the writer completely missed each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, remember how Mycroft says "friends" like it's the F word? And how he taunts Sherlock about Redbeard during John's wedding? Since Mycroft cares about nobody (except himself and Sherlock), he's pretty well-protected from emotional damage. Maybe he wants Sherlock to have that same protection, especially after Redbeard's death -- he knew John's wedding would hurt Sherlock. In fact, Mycroft doesn't seem too surprised when Sherlock goes back into drugs just a month after.

 

I see it a little differently (and maybe a little the same).  

 

Where I maybe differ a bit is that I don't think either Mycroft or John thought at all about an emotional component to Sherlock's resumed drug use (nor do I think there was one).  I think both of them were thinking that John was the stabilizing influence in Sherlock's life that kept him from running his life off the rails with destructive behavior, and without John around, Sherlock would go right back to whatever he was doing around the time of SiP.  Neither of them give him any credit for becoming a better person in the intervening six years.  

 

Although I think Sherlock felt disappointment after John's wedding, I think it was the normal, human disappointment you feel when your best friend moves into a new life stage and you don't.  I think that the level of emotional devastation that people (not necessarily you, Bendy) sometimes ascribe to Sherlock in that case is over the top.  John was getting married and starting a family, not getting sent to the electric chair, and Sherlock knows that.  So, I don't think anyone really thought that it was missing John that sent Sherlock back into drugs, but more that Mycroft and John both think that Sherlock can't really be trusted to live alone. 

 

The nice thing is that, in the midst of the whole ToS/HLV arc, Sherlock expands his own family without anyone ever really acknowledging it.  T.o.b.y wisely pointed out some time ago that ToS was really also Sherlock's wedding to Mary and John, and I think that was the case.  HLV, for me, is in part about Sherlock fighting to keep his own family together in the midst of some incredible challenges.  

 

And yeah, I'm rambling today.....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for John, I think you do him a disservice by saying that he "brushed off the fact that his wife shot Sherlock."  He certainly did not "brush it off" immediately -- he was furious.  Then we see Sherlock urging him to trust Mary.  We see nothing at all of the next few months, only the culmination when Sherlock brings them together for Christmas, and John finally speaks to Mary and tentatively makes up with her.  So it takes John several months to bring himself to do as Sherlock asks him to do.  I don't see that as "brushing off" the matter, more like, "Well, I don't like it one bit, but if it's what Sherlock wants, then I'll do it for his sake.  I just hope to heaven that he knows what he's doing."

I largely agree with this, but I also agree that we were not shown the depth of John's hurt and anger. IMO, it was a wise decision to leave that out of the show, that's soap opera territory. But from what I did see and hear, I felt the implication was that John did a lot of soul-searching for several months, and that included deciding how he felt about all of Mary's actions, not just the lying. I also don't think he's forgiven her so much as given her a chance to prove she deserves to be forgiven. After all, they've been married less than a year; I can see him wanting to explore whether they can go forward or not, rather than tossing the whole thing out before it truly gets underway. Especially since his best friend is pushing him to do that very thing.

 

God knows why John trusts Sherlock, but that does seem to be his default mode.

Because Sherlock's usually right in the end, even if his methods are questionable? But yeah, I'm finding it harder and harder to trust Sherlock, and I'm uncomfortable with John doing so, so readily ... it makes him look stupid, and he doesn't deserve that. I prefer the skeptical John from S1.

 

I can understand why he trusts Sherlock, though. That may be a completely mental and subjective view, but I'd rather have a friend who endangers me because he's short-sighted beyond redemption when it comes to living outside of his mind palace, but who cares, than trust a person who I know to be deceitful and to consciously harm others, myself included. The first one, you just want to smack over the head and be exasperated with... the second, that's the one who is someone to keep at distance.

Yes, that fits my thinking as well. I'm not convinced, however, that John actually trusts Mary so much as he's giving her a chance to prove she is trustworthy.

 

The funny thing to me is, when S3 first ended, I was fairly positive we had learned everything about Mary we were going to learn. Now I think her story's just beginning. I'm probably wrong on both counts. :rolleyes:

 

 

...

Although I think Sherlock felt disappointment after John's wedding, I think it was the normal, human disappointment you feel when your best friend moves into a new life stage and you don't.  I think that the level of emotional devastation that people (not necessarily you, Bendy) sometimes ascribe to Sherlock in that case is over the top.  John was getting married and starting a family, not getting sent to the electric chair, and Sherlock knows that.  So, I don't think anyone really thought that it was missing John that sent Sherlock back into drugs, but more that Mycroft and John both think that Sherlock can't really be trusted to live alone. 

 

The nice thing is that, in the midst of the whole ToS/HLV arc, Sherlock expands his own family without anyone ever really acknowledging it.  T.o.b.y wisely pointed out some time ago that ToS was really also Sherlock's wedding to Mary and John, and I think that was the case.  HLV, for me, is in part about Sherlock fighting to keep his own family together in the midst of some incredible challenges.  

 

And yeah, I'm rambling today.....

Ramble on, I love this.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem a sociopath has is they do know what feelings are, but in many cases they can only feel them as a surface emotion. They know they should be feeling something, but they are unable to process exactly what.

But as a spectrum Asperger's he would be drawn to people who shared his own obsessions, which Molly did. He may not be able to it into words but it would be there on some level.

 

Perhaps we're missing something, our Sherly is very narcissistic, maybe the reason why he says "sociopath" is because it sounds better?

Asperger's (or mild autism as it is now called according to the DSM-5) is a disorder that Sherlock may look upon with disgust as it is perceived as a lacking rather than an asset (like being a sociopath may be viewed).

Perhaps he wishes to be viewed as a caulis unfeeling meanie when he is in fact unable to perceive these emotions that he does feel but does not understand? This inability to understand emotions may be viewed as a handicap, one which he must hide.

 

Of course this is just one theory and not one I support fully.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe you're right.

 

Of course, with any normal family, it would be the brother, wouldn't it?

 

I don't know. My sister and brother are my sister and brother, but I don't call them friends. Sherlock's relationship with Mycroft seems a heck of a lot worse than mine with my siblings. I think they do care about each other but are not in the slightest was friends.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, there's a difference between friends and relatives, and Moriarty did say he was targeting Sherlock's "friends," so clearly he was not intending to include Mycroft.

 

I wonder what he'd have said if he had been targeting Mycroft too?

 

Hey there, petnurser -- congratulations on your first post!  :welcome:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"All your friends will die, and all your archenemies too" ? :p

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 2 Anonymous, 11 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.