On Mycroft and trust

 (Sherlock Meta by thenorwoodbuilder)

I’m always amazed at the amount of information about the characters that the writers (here Moffat) managed to convey through this very short exchange:

1. John establishes himself again as “Queen and Country”: he is initially very surprised that Mycroft doesn’t trust his own men, because he, instead, implicitly trusts his Country’s institutions: he once decided to serve his Country in the army, after all, so he supposes that one can trust one’s own Secret Service…

This is also one of the reasons why, according to me, once he realized that Mycroft was actually NOT a criminal mastermind, but instead (not only Sherlock’s elder brother, but also) a government official (or the British Government…), John coudn’t help but feeling that it was his duty to help him, both in relation to the cases he decides to submit to Sherlock (see tGG), and when it comes to keep Sherlock himself safe (albeit, in this respect, he was, of course, primarily driven by his affection and concern for Sherlock himself, as well as by his ability to relate to situations where one sibling has to deal with a “problematic” other sibling - two traits which, of course, both he and Mycroft share).

2. John is not the only one to have “trust issues”. Mycroft confirms himself (after his first appearance, in ASiP, upon which I’ll come back soon) as a person who doesn’t easily grant his trust to anybody, not even to people - his own colleagues and subordinates - who, afer all, have taken an oath to serve and protect their Country.

On one hand, it’s quite logical, in his line of work: for a man who (presumably) has made a career into the Secret Service, and who has a certain experience, is a sort of professional bias to always suspect of anything and anybody, just on principle. He presumably had occasions, in the past, to get first hand experience that this world is full of double- or even triple-agents, that almost nobody is what appears to be, and that almost everybody has his own secret agenda…

But, on the other hand, it’s also possible that Mycroft chose this particular line of work - in the Secret Service, amongst all the ways he could find to put his talent at the service of his Country and of its innocent citizens - also because of a certain personal attitude towards people: that is, it’s possible that he chose a work that requires, as a prerequisite, the attitude to suspect everyone, always, because he intimately was already persuaded that people - or at least the vast majority of people - can never be trusted. So, he entered the Secret Service (also) because it was a work that suited his persuasion that the majority of people would be capable of everything, under the right (rectius: wrong) circumstances, that nobody is totally trustworthy and loyal, and that always be on guard is however a necessity for any sensible person. A persuasion that, of course, his experences at work could only have strenghtened.

But then the interesting question becomes: WHY did Mycroft feel this way? WHAT in his past experiences - in his childhood or youth - persuaded him that nobody can be really trusted? WHICH betrayal had he to endure, from a person or persons he should have been able to trust unconditionally (and of course I’m thinking primarily to one or both of his parents…), and who, instead, revealed him/herself unworthy of such trust?

3. Obviously, this little exchange also offers the final proof that Mycroft’s initial “abduction” of John, in ASiP, with its corollary of threats and offer of a bribe, was just a way to “test” him, his courage, his honesty, and more generally his personality, in order to satisfy himself that Sherlock was not going to share his flat with someone who could be tempted to “sell” him away out of fear or greed - or, even worst, who since the beginning approached him with evil intentions (first of all, the intention to get leverage upon the British Government by hurting or kidnapping his one little brother…). A “procedure” that, given Sherlock’s quite placid - and even a little amused - reaction when John related his recent experience to him, was probably a sort of tried and tested routine, for similar occurrences. But a “procedure” the whole purpose of which John probably only realized after this little exchange at the Palace, given the small, understanding smile with which he replied to Mycroft’s observation about the “venality” of professional spies… (albeit I’m persuaded that John started to suspect Mycroft’s true motives since he discovered his identity, that is, that he is Sherlock’s brother; but he got a confirmation from the man himself only at this moment).

Even more, in this little dialogue Mycroft is basically telling John that he trusts him much more than he trusts his own men - not only when it comes to his loyalty to Sherlock, but also when it comes to dealing with delicate matters of State… And I suppose that, if already before this John’s attitude towards Mycroft was certainly not an hostile one, after this display of trust on Mycroft’s part, he couldn’t but reciprocate, as it is an instinctive reaction for human beings to trust in turn a person who demonstrates to trust us.

Hence, probably, the escalation of cooperation with Mycroft we see through this episode, with John and Mycroft discussing how to deal with a foreseable “danger night”, first; then John willingly reporting to (the person he believed to be) Mycroft (but was instead Irene) about Sherlock’s reactions to Irene’s death; and finally John and Mycroft discussing together whether tell Sherlock about Irene’s “second” death, in order to spare him more suffering.

Hence, also, the fact that Mycroft, during his second confrontation with John in tRF, feels the need to apologize apparently to Sherlock, but in fact, according to me, actually (and mainly) to John himself…

4. Finally, the other thing that gets a confirmation in this scene (albeit, in this case, we already could infer it by tGG) is that, when it comes to really delicate matters, the only person Mycroft feels he really CAN trust, his Sherlock. That is: he may not always trust his maturity and ability of stay out of danger’s way, but  he has not the slightes doubt that Sherlock could never, ever intentionally betray him, or his Country. Mycroft knows that his little brother may be stubborn, may be reckless, may be - as he’ll have to aknowledge on the “Bond Air” - a “lonely, naive man desperate to show off”, and therefore make foolish mistakes; but Sherlock would never deliberately hurt or harm his elder brother, would never intentionally fail him. Mycroft knows this, and is openly (or at least, as much openly as being an Holmes would allow…) aknowledging it in this scene.

With regard to Sherlock reciprocating this sentiment, and to my theory about the Brothers’ secret conspiracy in tRF, I’ll just point you to my previous posts.

Regarding Harry

 (Sherlock Meta by thenorwoodbuilder)

Dear reader, I feel compelled to start by warning you that THE TRAPEZIST IS BACK! Because I’m going to write an entire post of ramblings about a character we have not even seen in the episodes (no, not Sebastian Moran – not yet, at least…).

That is, I’m going to address the subject of John Watson’s mysterious sibling: Harry.

(Dear fellow mycroftians, don’t worry: I’ll find a way to link my analysis of the Watson Siblings to the study of the Holmes Brothers. Just be patient an follow my delirium reasoning.)

Let’s start, as usual, with the Canon. In the original ACD’s stories, we’re made aware that Watson had an elder brother only after the death of said sibling. In The Sign of Four Watson receives a watch and shows it to Holmes, who deduces from it that it had been his elder brother’s and that “he was a man of untidy habits – very untidy and careless. He was left with good prospects, but he threw away his chances, lived for some time in poverty with occasional short intervals of prosperity, and finally, taking to drink, he died”.



Incidentally, the same scene is featured in the first episode of “Murder Rooms”, but with Arthur Conan Doyle himself in the place of Watson, and Dr. Joseph Bell as the one who deduced from the watch Doyle’s father’s problems. I don’t know if this adaptation has any grounding in reality, but it’s quite certain that Doyle depicted Watson’s brother with many traits that belonged to his own father (as I’ve already briefly mentioned): the good prospects (in his case, an artistic talent, a middle-class background and a good marriage) that went wasted; the alternating of prosperity and poverty; the drinking (which, for Charles Altamont Doyle, was added to mental problems). Anyway, Watson is hurt by Holmes’ statement, as he initially thinks that his friend made inquiries into the history of his brother (and please do notice that the “researching” thing will come back in The Reichenbach Fall, but reversed, with Sherlock telling John that he “researched him” and his family); Holmes replies with an apology for having unintentionally hurt his feelings and the assurance that he “never even knew that Watson had a brother until he handed him the watch”.

(On a side note, you may notice that this episode is set in 1888, that is, seven years after Holmes and Watson firstly got acquainted: this makes me always laugh a little at Watson’s display of surprise in discovering only after several years that Holmes, too, had an elder brother – which he imputes to Holmes’ very private nature. As if he had not been very private about his own brother…!)

From this little exchange we may deduce that, albeit not being indifferent or enemy to his brother (his emotional reaction shows sorrow for his “unhappy brother’s” end), Watson, for some reason, had chosen long before to not be in touch with him (otherwise, Holmes would have most probably known of his existence before). He is pained by his sad life and – presumably – even sadder death as an alcoholic. So we might reasonably presume that they were mainly his brother’s addiction, and the unpleasant repercussions it had upon his character and his way of life, that had driven Watson away from him.




And now let’s compare the canonical Harry (well, actually all we know is that his name begun with an H, but let’s assume the name is the same) to his modern counterpart, that is John’s sister, Harriet (Harry) Watson. We don’t know, in this case, whether she is the elder or the younger of the two Watson siblings. I’d bet on her being the elder, anyway, mainly for two reasons: 1) because there was no narrative need, presumably, to change this detail; 2) because, as John is stubborn, and capable of handling even difficult customers (such as Sherlock, for instance…), if HE were the elder, he would probably have tried to impose himself upon his sister in a way or another, in order to make her quit drinking (such as Mycroft probably did with Sherlock and his dangerous “experiments” with drugs), while, being the younger, he had neither the authority, nor, presumably, the confidence to push her too hard. Anyway, we know she is an alcoholic, as her canonical counterpart, and that her addiction is affecting her life, as she got a divorce probably also because of her drinking habit (it’s not so uncommon that it is the party “at fault” to leave the other, as the sense of guilt and shame quite easily turns into rage and resentment). Here, however, the similarities end.



Because our John, unlike the canonical Watson, keeps in touch with his sister: he calls her quite regularly, he exchanges comments with her on his blog, he would even have spent (or maybe did spend at least part of) Christmas Day with her, if not for Sherlock’s reaction to Irene’s death. So our modern John looks more close to his troublesome sibling, despite their “not getting along”, than his canonical counterpart. Just in the same way as Mycroft is a much more present and significant figure  in Sherlock’s life than his canonical counterpart even was for Sherlock Holmes. So, the first conclusion we may draw is that the Mofftiss are very interested in their characters’ human interactions, and particularly in family relationships – which is one of the features of the show that I like the most.

But what is more interesting to me is how John’s “complicate relationship” with his own sister affects his relationship with both Sherlock and Mycroft – that is, the parallels and the influences between the “complicate relationship” of the Watson Siblings and the “complicate relationship” of the Holmes Brothers.



I’ll start with Sherlock’s attitude towards John’s relationship with Harry. We know that the scene of the “mobile phone deduction” in A Study in Pink ingeniously follows the pattern of the “watch deduction scene” in The Sign of the Four. But this is exactly what makes the differences more interesting. Obviously I’m not thinking about the different details which were required in order to adapt the chain of deductions to a different object in a different context; what is really interesting is what Sherlock says, that Holmes didn’t. That is: in the Canon, Holmes didn’t utter any deduction, supposition or comment about Watson’s relationship with his brother; in A Study in Pink, Sherlock, instead, extends his reasoning to John’s relationship with Harry, and quite interestingly his first hypothesis is that John has a sibling (of course we knows that here he makes a mistake and says “brother”) whom he “doesn’t approve of, possibly because (s)he is an alcoholic, more likely because (s)he recently walked out on his wife”; and again, in the cab, he remarks that it’s evident that John has problems with his sibling, maybe because he liked her wife, maybe because he doesn’t like her drinking. So our modern Sherlock provides much more personal remarks than his canonical counterpart – maybe just because he is less polite than a Victorian gentleman, but maybe (also) because the writers decided to draft him as more interested in human relationships and, most of all, having decided to give a lot more space to his relationship with HIS own brother, they wanted to show us that Sherlock is immediately interested in what he perceives as another “complicate siblings relationship”, with which he can to some extent identify.



The other interesting feature is, of course, that John’s and Harry’s positions are exactly mirroring Mycroft’s and Sherlock’s ones. John, albeit the younger sibling, is the one who is constantly worried for Harry, because of her dangerous lifestyle, that he would like to persuade her to abandon, and who is both pushed away by her addiction and driven to her by his affection; Harry, in this case the elder sibling, is the one who refuses his brother’s advice and keeps recklessly hurting herself with her drinking habit. While, between the Holmes Brothers, the elder, Mycroft, is the one who is constantly concerned about his brother’s recklessness (which ranges from the risk of a relapse into drugs, to the risk of Sherlock killing himself while pursuing excitement and adrenaline through his work as consulting detective), and who takes upon himself the responsibility of watching over him, being at the same time pushed away by Sherlock’s resentment (and maybe by the painful memories of his past problems with drugs), and bound to him by his affection; Sherlock, the younger, is the one who had (but the risk of a relapse is always present) problems with substances, who keeps having a dangerous lifestyle, because of his work, and who systematically refuses to listen to his brother – at least in his face.




But even more interesting, Sherlock seems to transfer on Harry the distrust (and maybe the dislike) that he perhaps feels towards himself as an ex-addict, and that he almost certainly supposes Mycroft feels toward him for the same reason. Consider, to this effect, also the exchange between Sherlock and John at the Christmas party, in A Scandal in Belgravia: John says that, for the first time in her life, she has made an effort and stopped drinking, she is clean; to this, Sherlock replies just “nope” – and John shuts him up. Here we see that John, albeit being a doctor and knowing that an alcoholic needs much more than good intentions to quit drinking, and that many relapses are probable before a true and firm decision to stop is taken (there is also this subtext, I think, in his “shut up!” to Sherlock), has decided to show trust to his sister, by accepting to spend Christmas Day with her, presumably in order to encourage her in her fight against her addiction. Sherlock, on the contrary, stresses how unlikely it is that Harry will keep faith to her word and really keep sober at least for a while. This sharp remark, according to me, is not only imputable to Sherlock’s annoyance at John’s decision to spend Christmas Day away (and therefore to be forced to spend Christmas Day alone: sentiment!) – which IS, of course, a component, as Molly quite awkwardly points out. It’s also a statement that comes out of experience: both the general rules of experience that tell us how an alcoholic generally behaves, AND – more significantly – HIS OWN experience with drugs. Sherlock knows that the craving for artificial stimulus is always present in him, whenever a “difficult” time happens, and he probably imputes his ability to resist it and stay clean to his own exceptional qualities (which is partly true and partly an umpteenth demonstration of his lack of modesty and his dangerous overconfidence…), qualities which he doesn’t admit in “ordinary people” in general and Harry in particular: hence his inference that she won’t be able to stay clean and will end up hurting his brother again by relapsing into drinking.



Another thing is maybe worth noticing here: Sherlock allows John to play a “big brother” role with him, much more than he allows it – al least apparently – to his own elder brother (to whom, anyway, then turns when things become really difficult for him, while quite literally shutting his door in John’s face in A Scandal in Belgravia). That is, Sherlock allows John to be much closer than Mycroft; he listens to him, at least to some extent, and he accepts from John advices, admonitions and reproaches that one would expect coming from an elder brother, while he generally answers to any remark coming from Mycroft with a bellicose attitude; he looks more openly for John’s approval than for Mycroft’s (which, however, deep down is quite important to him, I believe: just see his reaction – the look in his eyes – at Mycroft’s reproach on the “plane of the deads”, in A Scandal in Belgravia). It is as if he could accept from John observations and reprimands that he is not able to accept when coming from Mycroft because either of his pride, or of the “too much history between them”, or of both, while in John he recognizes as much resemblances to his own elder brother – his caring attitude, his desire to watch over him, his disposition towards tutoring him in human relationships – as to invest him with a sort of vicarious “big brother” role, without the “handicap” of a shared past.



At the same time, John, too, seems to transfer on Sherlock, at least to some extent, that caring and protective, but also authoritative, attitude he is not able to fully display with his own sister. Maybe it’s also because, between Sherlock and him, he is the elder, but I’d assume that, even in this case, their “fraternal” relationship is mostly eased by the fact that they don’t have to be constantly confronted with a shared past (and this includes also the fact that, when John firstly met Sherlock, he had already mostly overcome his problems with drugs, and therefore John had not to watch him hurt himself as Mycroft did, and as he himself had to with his own sister and her drinking habit). Besides, John could also possibly see in Sherlock both a hope that Harry, too, might one day be able to quit her addiction, and a way to make amends for not being able to help his sister more, by helping at least Sherlock to remain clean.



Probably for the same reasons, John empathizes to some degree with Mycroft (or at least this is my impression), and this is the main reason he finally agrees to help him watching over Sherlock. Because it’s quite evident, from his conversation with Mycroft at Christmas, as well as from his attitude towards (what he believed to be) Mycroft’s summon, in A Scandal in Belgravia, that they have been having an agreement for some time, and that this agreement concerns the best way to look after Sherlock’s wellbeing. The information John so sternly refused to give to Mycroft for money in A Study in Pink, he now is quite eager to share with him (even a little TOO eager, as I’ve observed before…), and this is because he now knows that Mycroft’s concern is real, and it’s mostly similar to the concern he feels towards his own sister. So, even if maybe he doesn’t fully trust Mycroft, he trusts him about caring for Sherlock. This is also the reason, according to me, why John then, in The Reichenbach Fall, looks so hurt by Mycroft’s (alleged) “betrayal” of Sherlock: he’s not only worried about the negative repercussions on Sherlock of Mycroft’s (alleged) leakage to Moriarty, neither he is offended by it just on Sherlock’s behalf; he feels also PERSONALLY betrayed, because he had believed till now (quite rightly, according to me) that Mycroft would have always kept faith to their agreement, would have always done his part in protecting Sherlock. (On a side note, I also suppose that Mycroft perfectly understands this, and this is another reason why I believe that his final apology, even if addressed to Sherlock, was actually meant mainly for John himself).



And so finally we come to Mycroft’s perspective. He, too, according to me, recognizes in John a person with similar experiences and a similar attitude towards his own sibling as the ones he has in relation to Sherlock, and this is the reason why he relies so much on John when it comes to protect Sherlock from external dangers but also, and even more, from himself. Since A Study in Pink, after having “tested” him and, even more, after John saved Sherlock’s life by killing the cabbie, Mycroft knows that John is a trustworthy person; but, given his proclivity, too, towards risk and adrenaline, he is still in doubt about the fact that his influence on Sherlock will be really good (“this soldier fellow… could be the making of my brother, or make him worst than ever”). Even in The Great Game we may assume, by Mycroft’s attitude towards John as soon as he enters the flat, in the morning after the explosion, that he has not yet decided if the good doctor will be a valuable asset in handling his troublesome little brother; but I’d assume that, by the end of the episode, he made his mind up about it, and that their full cooperation started soon after the incident at the pool. And I also think that this cooperation, this agreement, is something more than Mycroft just USING Watson to watch over Sherlock; of course Mycroft is a master at manipulating people, and Watson is no exception, but my opinion his that, beneath this, Mycroft also feels a genuine affinity with John – an affinity that John, too, as I’ve said, recognizes and values.



Even more, I’m under the impression that, as for John his friendship with Sherlock and the role of his protector and caregiver he took upon himself are also a way to deal with various unresolved issues with his own sister, and to be, at least vicariously, closer to her, for Mycroft, too (and maybe even more for him), John is also a sort of projection of himself next to his little brother. Mycroft knows that, for various reasons we may only suppose, but which are linked to their shared background, Sherlock wouldn’t accept any attempt on his part to get closer, to be more actively present in Sherlock’s life; maybe, he himself is scared of getting closer to his brother, either because of the dysfunctional relation to emotions and sentiments the brothers developed because of the education they received and the kind of family they grow up in, or because of the unpleasant, painful memories linked to Sherlock’s problems with drugs, or for both these reasons and many more. Anyway, he is only human, and it’s quite evident that he deeply cares for his brother, and that he is linked to Sherlock by a very strong bound of affection, so – being him willing to admit it or not (and I’m for the “not”) – he probably suffers, at least unconsciously, for the rift that keeps them back one from the other. Thus, being able to watch over Sherlock by means of John, who shares everyday life with him, and getting information on Sherlock’s wellbeing directly from his best friend, is – according to me – also a comforting way, for Mycroft, to feel more close to his brother, to share more of his life, without being too directly intrusive and, most of all, without the risk of rejection which is a constant in their face to face interactions. And I wouldn’t exclude that Sherlock, too, might tolerate John’s regular interactions with Mycroft (which he is quite certainly aware of) mostly for the same reasons. After all, deviousness seems quite an holmesian personality trait…

Finally, a question for you all: do you think we’ll ever see Harry in the flesh? (I bet on “no”) Would you like to see her? (Me yes, greatly!) How do you think she will interact with John and Sherlock (and maybe with Mycroft)?

Sherlock and John are friends

 (Sherlock Meta from before S3 
by thenorwoodbuilder, tookmyskull and consultingdragoness)

thenorwoodbuilder:



So, today I’m going to push my natural vocation to play Devil’s advocate to new and unprecedented extremes - so be warned!

Now, I have to make some preliminary remarks.

If you’re masochist enough to have been reading my ramblings for some time, you perfectly know what my opinion about Sherlock’s and John’s relationship is: I stick to the  Canon, and I am firmly persuaded that both canonical Homes and Watson, AND modern Sherlock and John, are the very epitome of what a true friendship is. This is one of the two main reasons that have glued me to Sherlock Holmes since I was a child - because I’m lucky enough to know this kind of friendship (and also to know what life without this kind of friendship is), and value it above anything else, and I’m always deeply moved when I see it so well portraied in cinema or literature.

No argument could ever (and, I presume, will ever be able to) persuade me that there is or could ever be any kind of “romantic” relationship between our two heroes - by which I don’t mean that they don’t love each other deeply: friendship IS love, and, according to me, in its more selfless and noble form.

Not even the alleged (I’ve read may opinions in this sense) “exclusive” nature of John’s and Sherlock’s relationship could persuade me differently: actually, I don’t see their relationship as being so terribly exclusive, considered that John has as many girlfriends as he wants (Sherlock being a hell of a best friend to introduce them to being irrelevant, considered that this is just part of Sherlock’s annoying attitude towards mankind in general… And John’s inability to keep a girlfriend for more than eight months - this is more or less the duration of his relationship with Sarah, as we might deduce from his blog - has more to do with his personal inability to concentrate his efforts on women who appear to be “right” for him, instead of throwing himself at any good-looking and breathing thing in a skirt he casts his eyes upon, than with any “interference” on Sherlock’s part…). John also goes out with his “friends” (I would use more correct expressions, such as “significant human interactions”, but I suppose they would sound quite strange, or even rude… maybe we might call them “buddies”, however) as he pleases (in A Scandal in Belgravia we are told that he spends the occasional evening with Mike Stamford, for example, and he and Lestrade are on first name terms, so presumably they frequent each other socially, every now and then…), and Sherlock not going with him, again, has more to do with Sherlock’s scornful attitude towards “ordinary people” and “ordinary life” and “ordinary fun” (because they are “BORING”…), than with any form of possessiveness towards John.

Even when, on Christmas Eve, in A Scandal in Belgravia, Sherlock - according to Molly - “complains” about John’s decision to spend Christmas Day with his sister, I’m under the impression that he is more annoyed by the fact that John is going to voluntarily place himself (again, we might presume) in a situation in which - according to Sherlock - he’ll end up being disappointed and hurt again by his sister’s inability to really quit drinking, than by the fact that John won’t be with him on Christmas Day per se.

More generally, as I’ve already observed in some private conversations, a certain “exclusiveness” we might find in Sherlock’s and John’s friendship is basically due to the extreme rarity of this kind of true friendship: the vast majority of people don’t know more than one or two friendships of this kind during their whole lives, and not always simultaneously (and there are many people who are not so lucky as to experience this kind of friendship at all…). Only the luckiest amongst the lucky are blessed with many true friendships.

Currently, neither Sherlock, NOR John, have any other friend of this kind. So it’s perfectly logical that the bond that links them is stronger than any other relationship with other “acquaintances” they might have. And it would remain as much strong even in case one of them were lucky enough to find another person whom he’ll be able to consider a “true friend” (which would be, of course, even harder than for many people, as both Sherlock AND John appear to be extremely private and selective persons), or even when John will get - as Canon prescribes - married with Mary Morstan (around Series 4, according to me).

This kind of friendship simply is different - and complementary - to any other kind of love bond a human being can experience in his/her life.

This is my unfaltering persuasion.

And yet… - AND YET!

As I’ve told at the beginning of this long rambling, I can’t resist the temptation to play Devil’s advocate, even against myself - no, better: PARTICULARLY against myself!

And so: were I looking for evidence to support a “Johnlock theory”, I wouldn’t use feeble arguments such as “Sherlock follows John everywere”, or “Sherlock boycotts John’s dates”, or the like…

No, I would draw your attention to a very little, and yet very suggestive, fact.

At the beginning of ASiB we see the unnamed client of Sherlock entering the flat and giving Mrs. Hudson a fright by fainting in Sherlock’s and John’s kitchen. And it is at this moment that Mrs. Hudon raises her head and, looking towards the second floor, where John’s room is, yells: “Boys! You’ve got anoter one!”

So, now the intriguing question is: what were John AND SHERLOCK doing together in JOHN’S room, considering that John always keeps his computer, his bills, his… everything but clothes and very personal objects, we might presume, in the living area of the flat? And considering also that John appears to spend all his spare time in the living room, and so does Sherlock…

Were they looking at John’s collection of stamps?

Well, I’d say that there is, at least, some ground for speculation, here…



[Now, returning to my usual self, some plausible alternative explanations of Mrs. Hudson’s gesture:

1. Mrs. Hudson just suffers from arthrosis.

2. On the second floor there is not only John’s room, but also the box room where all past cases - and related relics - are filed, and Sherlock and John where actually fighting their way through that mess, in order to retrieve some document or object of significance for a new case.

3. John and Sherlock were not on the second floor, but on the roof: Sherlock wanted to hide from an unespected call from Mycroft, and just dragged John with him to better annoy his brother, as he then found an empty flat to greet him.

…Or any other explanation to the same effect you might like.]



tookmyskull:

Because I’m also a lifelong, card-carrying Devil’s Advocate, my remarks come from observing the bigger picture outside of the actual Sherlock universe.

1. Fans who are into shipping will ship anything, whether it has any in-universe validity or not. Arthur is shipped with Merlin, Dean gets shipped with Castiel (and sometimes even his own brother!) in Supernatural, canes gets shipped with scarves. As a “non-shipper,” I rather see this is as a fun game for many, while others take it very, very seriously indeed. Either way, one can wink at it or engage in it as one sees fit.

2. The Sherlock writers have repeatedly said that the show is a “vanity project” for them. A lot of what they include are just tongue-in-cheek, inside jokes, leaving me to question to what extent one can take what happens very seriously from the point of view of the show’s actual plots. They based S2 not so much on the spirit of Doyle’s Canon, but on other adaptations and parodies they liked (Rathbone’s “A Woman in Green” and “The Spider Woman” and “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes” for example). Some of these jokes/references were handled brilliantly - others I view as experiments that, at best, didn’t quite work and at worst, were totally illogical to the actual plot and required the characters to say/do things that seemed totally out of character for them.

3. Because Sherlock is rife with inside jokes, one has to consider how Mrs. Watson was handled not only by Doyle, but by the traditional Holmes fandom pre-Sherlock, and then consider how the Sherlock writers may be playing with all of that. The original Watson was married, yes, but was constantly neglecting his duties at home to run off on an adventure with Holmes. The modern John, while not married (at least, not yet!), does the same thing to his girlfriends. Meanwhile, traditional Holmes fans (including me), while they may have viewed Mrs. Watson (Mary Morstan) with affection, did, quite frankly, find her very much in the way and secretly wished she wasn’t around, so Holmes/Watson could be a full-time team once more. Doyle finally dealt with this after he brought Holmes back from the dead by killing off poor Mary Morstan, so Watson again could live with Holmes full-time. Watson did take a mysterious second wife much later on, an act for which Holmes states he never forgave him! And, of course, there is the iconic line: “Come if convenient; if inconvenient, come all the same.” And Watson always did come (and I don’t mean that in a shipping sort of way!). In the modern version, John does the same thing.

It could be that, taking all of the above into account, the Sherlock writers are just having fun playing with the long-standing idea that, girlfriends or not, John and Sherlock are attached by the hip and their collaboration will always take precedence over any other relationship one or the other may enter into.

As for the shipping, the writers themselves cannot blame the fandom for doing it, as they certainly have made every effort to plant the idea in viewers’ minds with all of the gay baiting John and Sherlock have endured. The writers have been very contradictory and vague themselves about why they have chosen to do this. While they may insist, on the one hand, that the pair are NOT gay in their version, they also seem perfectly willing to wink at all the shipping and leave plenty of doubt in fans’ minds.

This frankly irritates me a lot, simply because I really dislike being “twitted.” If they want to create a gay version of the saga, why not? The characters have been represented in every other possible way! But why be so confusing about it? Am I really supposed to believe, for example, that Irene Adler’s pulse would go up, even though she declares herself a lesbian? Only gays and lesbians can answer this question, not me!  

consultingdragoness:

*Rubs hands together in glee, because I too get off from playing Devil’s Advocate and if you don’t know I ship it like fedex by now, what are you even doing on my blog*

So I’m pretty sure the entire bit about ‘exclusivity’ is like 99% my fault. Quick re-hash: My main argument for why they’re in a relationship vs a friendship is that a relationship is exclusive: they’re emotionally dependent on each other to the extent that John cannot keep a girlfriend because he’s too invested in Sherlock:I don’t think the reason has to do with John skirt-chasing/being otherwise incapable of commitment, as we see that it’s never for anyone but Sherlock that he rushes off/leaves his girlfriend- Sherlock comes first, regardless of anything and that’s a bit much for just a friendship. Also note that while you could argue that he just doesn’t take the time to get to know his girlfriends enough to love them in the same way, he ‘fell’ almost instantly for Sherlock. So, yes, maybe John just needs to meet the right woman, but considering the likelihood of him being able to not put Sherlock first is very much nil and that Sherlock can’t seem to keep from tearing apart his girlfriends (and it’s not like John doesn’t let it happen. Also, when Sherlock tears into them, it’s a lot more deliberate than his off-hand cruelty in deductions: it’s a bit more, um, personal?!) Anyways, it seems a bit like John’s already taken, doesn’t it? Not to mention that Irene’s insinuation that they’re in a relationship goes largely unchecked and that John stops protesting after that: he accepts it and, except for a last-ditch effort with the psychologist, he seems to decide his dating life can also take a rest. John’s perfectly capable of making friends and girlfriends if he desires to (we already know he’s pretty damn charming when he wants to be), he just chooses not to. Because he prefers Sherlock. And really, only Sherlock.

As for Sherlock, well— I don’t think he really gets the difference between friendship, love and sexual attraction at all (note the “we go on dates line” in The Blind Banker and Irene and really just everything), but he clearly depends on John and he’s never allowed himself to do that with anyone, so yes, even if it were more than friendship, I don’t think Sherlock would be the one to notice that they’re way more co-dependent than even the best of friends normally are. The only thing I can say is: if Sherlock Holmes think you’re attracted to him on your first dinner out: I mean, you probably are. He can at least read the signs of attraction, even if love is not his area.

That being said, Tookmyskull is right: if they’re just baiting us, I will personally shoot a  few holes in the wall. I think they need to commit the characters one way or another and hopefully next season will do that. If Sherlock is gay/enamored a bit with John, it actually would be far from the first portrayal of Sherlock Holmes to lean in that direction (Remember “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes”? That was the 1970's too, if I’m not mistaken.)

Also,  I”ve ‘shipped it’ since I read ACD canon. I”m actually not going to get into a prolonged analysis on that— cleverer people with more time and more writing space have put that particular argument forth many times. Suffice to say that Sir Arthur was fairly liberal for his time and also rather good friends with Oscar Wilde, so it’s not out of the realm of possibilities that there’s some real homoerotic subtext in canon— Again, though, I’m a Holmesian, not a Victorian era scholar, which is another reason why I’m not delving into that. (Google it if you’re interested!)

It’s probably also worth it to note that my entire assumption about Johnlock is simply that they’re in a relationship, that it’s more than a friendship and that they’re ‘soulmates’. I’m not implying that it’s sexual in any way, because, frankly, I couldn’t care less. I actually think, despite Moffat’s claims to the contrary, that Sherlock is largely asexual. ACD Sherlock struck me as more likely to not actually be asexual: the Victorian era meant he could have been a number of different sexualities and simply be keeping it under wraps.

As for the Irene pulse thing: sure, she could be attracted to him, though it doesn’t have to be physical.  She could also be turned on by the danger aspect. ‘Love’ was (I really, really hope) simply Holmes being very unfamiliar with the laws of attraction vs love. You know,  I felt like at times they were trying to put forth some sort of testament to the fluidity of sexuality, but it fell a bit flat to me. I guess the implication was that we’ve had a character who’s fallen in love with Holmes despite her sexuality and that the same character then implies that John’s the same way, so yes, it’s canon that Moffatiss care about 2 cents for whatever sexuality that characters think they are, for better or for worse!

I could go on, but I think we all already know we could each write a short novel on the topic.

Mycroft and The Low Tar Cigarette

 (Sherlock Meta by ibelieveinmycroft and thenorwoodbuilder)

Sherlock: Do you ever wonder if there's something wrong with us?
Mycroft: All lives end, all hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage, Sherlock.
Sherlock: This is low tar!

ibelieveinmycroft:

I love this scene. I love this moment. I love that the cigarettewas low tar.

Imagine Mycroft’s thinking: believing Irene dead, and knowing his brother would be upset, wants to both help and test Sherlock with that cigarette. But, well aware that Sherlock has been trying to quit and uses nicotine patches, and also thinking of his health, Mycroft acquires low tar cigarettes to that ends.

Of course, Sherlock notices.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Ok, folks. As I’ve been recklessly [;-)] encouraged to express a totally crazy speculation of mine about the “low tar cigarette affair”, I’m going to ramble - be warned.

However, I must make a preliminary remark: the saner part of my brain finds ibelieveinmycroft’s explanation of Mycroft’s choice of cigarettes perfectly reasonable and most probable. But the crazier, more bizarre part of my mind feels the need to build upon this simple choice of a low tar cigarette a whole castle of suppositions… which I’m now going to inflict upon you.

First question: does Mycroft himself smoke? Against: John tells him “you don’t smoke” and we actually don’t see him smoking in any other circumstance. For: he not only has cigarettes and lighter in the morgue (where he could well have brought them just to test Sherlock), but we see him smoking in front of Speedy’s in A Scandal in Belgravia. Besides, Sherlock doesn’t appear surprised when his brother produces a cigarette and a lighter, as if he knew that Mycroft, at least occasionally, smokes. Against: when he meets John in front of Speedy’s, Mycroft replies to John’s remark that he “also doesn’t frequent cafes”, meaning - presumably - that he USUALLY doesn’t frequent cafes, as well as he USUALLY doesn’t smoke; he also makes a quite disgusted face when inhaling the smoke from the cigarette, like he was not accustomed to smoking. For: he, after all, sometimes DOES frequent cafes, and therefore maybe he also sometimes smokes (as we see him doing in this case); his disgusted face may be caused by the same aversion to low tar tobacco that his little brother displayed in the morgue. Against: he could have just find in his pocket the same pack of cigarettes and the same lighter that he used to test Sherlock in the morgue and, being nervous or wanting to look nervous in Watson’s eyes, he just followed an impulse to light himself a cigarette. For: since the “test” at the morgue to the meeting at Speedy’s six months have passed, Mycroft doesn’t even wear the same suit and, in any case, a neat and fastidious person like him wouldn’t be still carrying in his pocket cigarettes and lighter from six months before, if he had not use for them, just out of distraction. Finally, and most of all, a friend of mine, a heavy smoker and acquainted with smokers of any sort, ensures me that only a smoker would take the pain to carry upon his person cigarettes and lighter.

So, all “fors” and “againsts” considered, my final assumption is that Mycroft is, after all, a smoker, albeit maybe just an occasional one, or one of those persons who smoke a couple of cigarettes per day.

But here we are still in the realm of (almost) sanity… Now, instead, I’m going to throw myself into more reckless and acrobatic speculations. Because the second question is: what might we deduce about Mycroft’s personality from the fact that he, as a smoker, chooses to smoke low tar cigarettes that he, quite apparently, doesn’t enjoy so much?

Ladies and gentlemen, enter the trapezist!

So, Mycroft - according to assumption N.1 - is a smoker. He’s not a heavy smoker, unlike his brother (we know that Sherlock Holmes is an heavy smoker from the Canon; but also from Sherlock’s attitude towards nicotine patches and cigarettes in the episodes, we can safely assume the same for his modern counterpart). Sherlock is probably the kind of person who either smokes 60 cigarettes per day, or needs to quit completely, because he is no man for half measures; Mycroft is more the kind of person who keeps the number of cigarettes he daily smokes quite low (2-4), but doesn’t even try to quit. He, besides, chooses low tar cigarettes, which he himself doesn’t enjoy any more than his little brother does, but that are - allegedly… - less harmful for the health. So he keeps doing an unhealty thing, but tries to limit the damage by smoking moderately and choosing low tar cigarettes (which he doesn’t like). Put this togheter with him being apparently on a permanent diet - but at the same time being significantly framed twice near a glass of alcohol; with him keeping an umbrella with every kind of weather; with him disliking and rejecting “legwork” - that is, unnecessary human interactions; with him always being the perfect, traditional, even stereotypical English gentleman; and what do you obtain?

I think you obtain the picture of a man who, consciously or (more probably) unconsciously decided to seclude himself from life. He is better at human interaction, on a superficial level, than his younger brother, but all his human relationships (with the only exception of the one with his brother, which is, however, “complicate”) are, actually, quite superficial and, ultimately, meaningless (useful, of course, but humanely meaningless). He retreated from life and he doesn’t ever knows (or doesn’t aknowledge anymore) that a part of him, deeply inside, regrets it. He doesn’t like risks - that is, not risks related to his work, but the kind of risks that life implies, that human relationships imply: the risk of suffering that is always inextricably linked to the pursuing of happiness. “Caring is not an advantage” also because, if you care for someone, you might lose someone, you might be hurt by someone. And Mycroft already cares - and can’t help caring - for one person, his little brother; but he doesn’t want to accord this kind of leverage upon himself to anyone else.

His personality is quite different from Sherlock’s: Sherlock, with all his difficulties in aknowledging his own feelings and emotions (a trait, however, from which Mycroft - the Ice Man - is not immune, even if he is more open about his sentiments when it comes to his concern for his little brother), is an extroverted person by nature: he is curious about persons, about how and why they do the things they do, about how they feel in given situations (he keeps being surprised by people’s different reactions to having just killed a person, for example, and constantly asks John why people should mind this or consider that…); he has chosen a profession which requires a lot of “legwork” - i.e., that implies, fundamentally, human interactions and the study of human interactions; he throws himself at people, like he were saying: “like me or not, this is how I am, and I’m not going to change: take me as I am or leave me” - but, in the end, while, at Christmas, he is surrounded by friends - John, Lestrade, Mrs. Hudson and, quite significantly, Molly - Mycroft, instead, is alone in his vast house, staring at the flames in the fireplace like a sort of Redlaw just hopped out of Dicken’s The Haunted Man.

As much as Sherlock is not a man for half measures, Mycroft is a man who, instead, keeps himself equally distanced from anything and anyone (the only exception being his little brother, with whom, anyway, his bound, albeit strong and affectionate, is all but simple and painless, looking quite like a sort of “rubber band”). He wants to be the strong man who needs no one and who can be completely autonomous; even with his brother, he is the one in charge, the one who watches over and protects, the one who cares and help (being his help required or not), the one who takes the weight of responsibilities upon his shoulders. He presents himself to the world (and probably to himself) as a cold, impassive, powerful, independent, totally autonomous man, forgetting that it’s in the nature of the human being to need other human beings, to be in relation to others, to be, at least to some degree, dependant from others; it’s like he were constantly wearing an armour, which, conceived to shield him from the dangers of emotion and sentiment, like every too rigid, too tight armour, ends up blocking his blood circulation and freezing him, without him even being aware of it.

Ok, I know that I’m depicting Mycroft like a sort of cross between Phileas Fogg, Professor Redlaw, and Mr. Stevens from Ishiguro’s The Remains of the Day… (I’d say also Spock from Star Trek and Allanon from Terry Brooks’ fantasy books, if it weren’t TOO crazy, even for my standards), but I warned you that this was going to be a completely mental rambling… So, if you’ve kept reading it till now, you just got what you deserved!

A Love-Friendship: Why I Don’t Ship Johnlock

 (Sherlock Meta by sherlockcharacteranalysis, sherliholmes, 

thecutteralicia and thenorwoodbuilder)

sherlockcharacteranalysis:

(This is not an attempt to bash anyone that does; it’s just some thoughts I’ve been thinking about lately that I’m trying to work out.)

I recently got around to reading The Quiet Man and The Progress of Sherlock Holmes by ivyblossom. I am not a Johnlock shipper by any means, but I found both of these really wonderfully written, especially "Progress". (Sherlock’s voice in that piece is just perfect.) They are the only two (non-AU) Johnlock fictions that I’ve ever seen that give due justice to the two characters and the bond between them. (In fact, they’re definitely among the best Sherlock fanfictions I’ve read in general.)

(EDIT: My views on this have changed a bit since I wrote this. I think I do ship them in an emotional sense, and I have definitely read lots of wonderful Sherlock fanfiction, Johnlock or otherwise, other than Progress and The Quiet Man. That being said, I still stand by the main points I wrote out below.)

I have to say I’m still not entirely convinced though.

"Progress" as a story worked for me because it’s almost an AU. It was written before series 2 when more liberties could be taken with the characters, and it assumes from the start that both Sherlock and John have romantic feelings for each other. With that assumption, the events which unfold between the two of them in the story were true to character and emotionally genuine.

However, I never see a trace of romantic feeling in either of them on the actual show. There just isn’t that kind of tension between the two of them.  They’re in love, but it’s purely emotional.

Which is why I found “Quiet Man,” as beautifully structured as it is, less convincing, because this one tries to follow the show more closely, and like the show it assumes that their love is purely emotional at the beginning. Then, throughout the story, it turns romantic, but I find the assumption that emotional love will just naturally turn romantic (and then physical) just completely problematic. Why should the fact that the two of them love each other with all their hearts, more than anyone else, imply that they want to be sexually involved with each other? The attraction between them is not in anyway physical, so it always seems like a huge leap (if not a mistake) when they do become physically involved. I just don’t buy it. I also don’t think either Sherlock or John would just naturally make that assumption either.

Just once I would love to find a Sherlock fanfic that explores this emotional relationship that they have (and their possible complications). I find that the friendship fics treat their relationship too much like a regular (if close) friendship and ignore the obvious infatuation between them, whereas the romantic ones assume a physical attraction that isn’t there. What they actually have doesn’t fit in either box.

For it’s this, this emotional love that they share, which makes their friendship so fascinating. Which makes the show so fascinating (at least to me). It’s not something we see represented at all in our culture these days, being in-love with a friend as a friend, platonically, even though it’s a completely real phenomenon. While there are representations of friends who love each other in our culture, friends-in-love are always in-love romantically and end up a romantic couple.

Except here between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson. So while I can understand and even appreciate interpretations of Sherlock and John being involved romantically, I also can’t help but feel like such an interpretation takes something away from what they already have. Their relationship is perfect as it is, why turn it into something that it’s not?

sherli-holmes:

Reblogging because there’s some really interesting points up there and also in your other post here. No I agree with you, love comes in all forms and they’re both absolutely in love with each other, but that doesn’t necessarily mean sexually. Let me just pre-face this by saying that we don’t really have a word for what these two are to each other: it’s a bit of a failure on society’s part that such a relationship defies labeling unless there’s sex involved.

Unlike you, I DO ‘ship Johnlock’ though and the reason is basically just that, the way I read the original books, I wonder if the relationship between them was just a platonic/emotional or something more: I guess it should be noted that Doyle was known to at least be sympathetic/friends with two men who were vilified for being homosexual and that a few of the dates and comments in his stories are suggestive, if nothing else.

While reading Sherlock Holmes on the surface in this day and age suggests a definite asexuality (whether self-imposed or not), you have to remember that a closeted homosexual in the Victorian era might have some of the same characteristics. Not, of course, that he’d necessarily be in love with Watson even if he was gay, but, again, that’s something to worked out in context.  Hmm, that’s actually a post I want to do at some point: delving into canon and finding out hints to the exact nature of his and Watson’s relationship: it just seems like it could be an interesting project! There’s a good bit of literature that goes both ways on the subject and a quick google search would draw out some of it: I’ll try making a masterpost of the better pieces at some point, on both sides.

The BBCverse is different: we can no longer make the leap that a closeted man who shows little interest in sex might be homosexual, especially not when there are openly gay relationships on the show. (Side note: I thought it was interesting Moffat made a bit of a fuss when someone suggest Sherlock was asexual: I would have thought that the BBC version was absolutely leaning in that direction)

 I also think it’s interesting that the BBC never has Holmes deny that he’s homosexual or that they’re in a relationship: even Moffat doesn’t deny it! I love that point in TBB where he asks John about his dates and follows it up with “Isn’t that what we do?” I think, personally, that Sherlock has had so little experience with relationships that he considers John to be his partner (and by partner, I mean whatever the hell that actually means to him) and reacts accordingly. I see Sherlock as finding sexuality to be merely an inconvenient/irrelevant point to that discussion, whereas John, as you’ve mentioned, is fairly conventional and it means a lot more to him: he clearly thinks it’s a salient point on whether or not a relationship exists. I guess we also have to question whether or not we agree with him: if sex is the only thing that John’s NOT getting out of this relationship, then isn’t Johnlock canon? Depending on how you define Johnlock: I personally think it’s been canon since ASiB.

As for fan fic: yes, I agree, I think it’s slightly problematic to assume that just because they’re in love, they’re going to end up turning it into physical love: but I also just don’t think that the vast majority of human beings can separate physical and emotional love so completely, at least not outside a strict tv screen (which, of course, is exactly what this is). However, a sexual human being would likely take an emotional attachment of this nature (and by this nature, i mean that they clearly don’t act like siblings and, yes, there is a certain degree of sexual tension that has been either written in or portrayed by the actors) and possibly turn it into something sexual.

If we take that as also true for our fictional characters (which I’ve already noted is problematic, but bear with me), then Holmes becomes the question mark in to a physical relationship. He’s really not sexual at all, at least in his portrayal so far and so that would be an obstacle. On the other hand, I could see Watson, if he got over his latent homophobia (likely a combination of associating the word with failure, thanks to his sister, and, of course, his military life), tending in the direction.

*Throws up hands* Just me! I know at this point I’m getting into psychoanalysis of fictional characters, which is a terrible idea and so I’m going to back off slowly. I’m just pointing out that while black/white is easy to conceive of/portray on the screen, it’s not so viable in a realistic solution. Also that Sherlock doesn’t try for black and white: there’s a definite grey area, as suggested not just by the people around them, but by themselves and the actors (‘Do you have a boyfriend?’ ‘Are you wearing pants? ’ ‘Is that the boring teacher?’ ‘You and those cheekbones.’ ‘The gayest story in the history of television’, among others.)

It would be harder to write a fan fic without giving the reader that emotional satisfaction of having them beholden to each other in a way that goes beyond the purely emotional (that sentence sounds like a contradiction, but I swear it isn’t!) Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be attempted. Another side note: I have my own opinions on The Quiet Man, some favourable, others less so and probably for different reasons, but, like you, I truly enjoyed The Progress of Sherlock Holmes.

Anyways, that all being said: I’m actually with you and Moffat on one point: does it really matter whether or not they’re sleeping together? Of course it doesn’t. They love, defend- hey, let’s just put it this way— they love, honour and obey each other. And while I’m sure comparing their relationship to a marriage is not going to sit well with some people, it quite honestly is. They are the most important person in each other’s life. Sex is, as has been mentioned, irrelevant.

One day, I’m going to get around to posting a massive meta on why I ship Johnlock, but this will have to do for now!

thecutteralicia:

This is a fascinating discussion on a fascinating issue. I’d like to add just a few very quick points that probably don’t contribute anything, but are interesting bits of backstory that kept coming to my mind while reading:

* In addition to Moffat and Gatiss declining to label Sherlock’s sexuality when specifically asked, they’ve also written it so that John, in the series universe, doesn’t even know Sherlock’s sexuality either.

* Moffat and Gatiss are hugely influenced by Billy Wilder’s The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (calling it “the template” for the series), which is probably the only major Holmes adaptation where (taking into account Wilder’s stated intent) Sherlock is gay. Mark certainly takes that interpretation, and has described it as a film where we watch Sherlock Holmes fall in love with John Watson.

* Moffat has said that he makes a distinction between sex scenes and love stories, and finds the latter much more satisfying to explore. He’s specified that John is straight, “whatever Sherlock is,” but further explained that that has little to do with John being completely “infatuated and fascinated” by Sherlock. And that, similarly, Sherlock adores and is devoted to John while at the same time being indifferent to sex. That’s what fascinating about their relationship to me, and indeed about the series’ approach to sexuality in general. In contrast to many American shows, where sex is considered hugely important (many shows are nothing but jokes, fears and angst over sex) and the ultimate goal and pinnacle of a love relationship, in the world of Sherlock sex appears to be an adaptable bodily function; a footnote that may or may not accompany love. The love - the all encompassing emotional bonding, dependency and fascination - is the end goal.

* There’s no question that John and Sherlock love each other and are emotionally involved. That’s spelled out in the scene where Jeanette dumps John: we presume that Jeanette and John are sexually involved, yet he is so emotionally intimate with Sherlock that it takes complete precedence over anyone or anything else. John literally appears to feel nothing at the prospect of losing his sexual partner, but is completely the opposite when it comes to losing Sherlock. As you mention above, if it’s canon that the only thing John gets from his girlfriends is sex and everything else (including love, intellectual stimulation, emotional intimacy, etc.) is received from Sherlock, what does that mean? If John were gay and Sherlock was still himself and uninterested in sex, would they continue as is and John just continue to have boyfriends on the side? And according to Moffat, for Sherlock thinking is sex, so does that mean that Sherlock does receive everything he could wish for in a partner in John?

thenorwoodbuilder:

This debate is very interesting, even if I’m not a shipper (except, perhaps, of Lestrade and Molly…) of anyone on the show, and particularly of Johnlock, basically because I stick to the Canon, on this respect - given also the fact that BBC series has not given any real hint that the writers want to take any different road.

But there is a point of all this very interesting exchange I feel I MUST contest: when sherli-holmes (b.t.w.: welcome, dear!) says: “we don’t really have a word for what these two are to each other”.

No, folks, we DO HAVE a word - one of the most beautiful words, for one of the most beautiful and wonderful sentiments - for this: and this word is FRIENDSHIP.

If there is a thing that Sherlock (Holmes) and John (Watson) are, both in Canon and in BBC adaptation, is the perfect, exemplar representation of what a true, spontaneous, unbreakable friendship IS.

And this also Gatiss and Moffat have aknowledged.

This is what has always most moved me, in the Canon: this incredibly strong bond of friendship which these two very different men share, this totally free and selfless bond of unadulterated love born of adventures and dangers faced together, as well as of a unexpressed (but clearly perceived on both parts) and shared affinity. The miracle of two lonely human beings finding each other in a vast universe and discovering in each other a kindred spirit, without any claim, any obbligation, any tension - sexual or otherwise - just love in its purest (by which I mean: most free and selfless) manifestation.

This is the miracle of friendship, this is what true friendship (and not all that bunch of superficial human interaction we use to call “friendship” in everyday life, out of laziness and fear of solitude…) is (as I’ve already stated before), and this is what make Holmes and Watson and their relationship something marvellous and unforgettable. Because friendship is stronger than romantic (and even more just erotic) love, stronger even than blood and family. Friendship doesn’t require anything from a friend, but friendship itself: no expectations, no desires, no tension, no jealousy, no claims, no obligations. Everything is just spontaneous and unconditioned love, which doesn’t even need to be shown through open manifestations: true friends know they are friends, they don’t need to talk about it. And when they happen to voice out loud this friendship, it’s always something which is at the same time sweet and awkward, because friendship is so much more strong of what any word could say…

And this is exactly what the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson is. The miracle of true friedship, that Conan Doyle suceeded to immortalize like few other writers. This is his greatness, and will always be.

(Forgive my quite heated tone, but I am lucky enough to personally know this kind of true friendship, and I strongly feel the need to do it justice…)

Thirteen Instances Of Caring: Or, 

Why Mycroft Holmes Is An Amazing Big Brother

 (Sherlock Meta by ibelieveinmycroft and thenorwoodbuilder)

ibelieveinmycroft:

Mycroft Holmes bears the brunt of a lot of anger, both on our screens and off it. I understand; he’s a difficult character to get along with. We are given no black and white reason to like him. Sherlock, our titular character and protagonist, has an extremely antagonistic relationship with him. And the nature of narrative is that one is usually expected to side with the hero, so we side with Sherlock in their sibling war.

However, we cannot asses them and their fraternal bond in the same way we would ordinary people. The Holmes brothers, through an unpredictable quirk in genetics, have been gifted a strange and special kind of genius. Because of it, they are both difficult, damaged human beings who have trouble communicating on an emotional level. Both are so similar, each the only one really capable of understanding the other perfectly; and yet, I also think that this makes them more liable to misunderstand the other too. And, for the same reasons we sympathise with Sherlock’s anti-social bite and bile, we must pause to reassess Mycroft.

It’s easy to see why Sherlock does not get along with his brother. Mycroft is controlling and secretive and more than a little sinister. He has an enormous amount of wealth, privilege and influence that he exerts to keep tabs on his wayward little brother. He’s undemonstrative, he’s prosaic. Sometimes his behaviour is both morally and emotionally vague.

But are we to interpret these as the actions of a Machiavellian puppet-master, out to control his brother as though he were an asset to utilise or a weapon to be deployed? I’m not convinced; for this to be the case Mycroft’s every action would have to be a manipulation, and this simply doesn’t ring true. Furthermore, this would require Sherlock to continue a willing association with a brother solely out to control him – apart from anything else, this is an interpretation that doesn’t give our ever-perceptive hero much credit. The truth is likely more complex. Because, while Mycroft never allows Sherlock beyond the locus of his control, perhaps there is good reason for that. Their shared past has been left hazy, but what little we do know, such as Sherlock’s past addiction problems, indicate the rationale for Mycroft’s over protectiveness. There have been problems he does not want to see repeated, so uses his resources to help avert them. Sherlock pushes back against this, as well a grown man might, but never hard enough to actually push his brother away - it is in concession to his brother, a reluctant acknowledgement that maybe, just maybe, Brother Knows Best.

Ultimately, Mycroft gives a lot more than he takes. Although he says that caring is not an advantage, Mycroft can’t seem to stop. They are brothers; they have grown up and grown apart, and don’t really fit into each other’s worlds very well anymore, but brothers they remain. Maybe sometimes Mycroft takes it too far; he is a Holmes, after all. By virtue of their troubled intellect, their relationship is so much push and pull – a descent into childishness at one moment, an ascent onto a philosophical plane the next. But what permeates every facet of their sibling rivalry is the compassion and concern. The love there is quite real. It’s complicated and painful, as love often is, but never doubt its authenticity.

Although his role in The Reichenbach Fall may still be up for discussion (I’ll send you back here for my theories on that), Mycroft’s every other appearance on screen demonstrates a persistent, attentive and cautiously administered care on the part of the elder Holmes.

Reading Mycroft Holmes is difficult; maybe some of this is conjectural, born of reading between the lines and assuming double-meanings. But we’re Sherlockians, it’s what we do.

I’m afraid I’ve written another enormous thing, so please see under the cut:

1) A Study in Pink, The Warehouse

I wonder if all Holmeses have a flair for the dramatic? Because Mycroft’s kidnapping of John Watson was just that; carefully orchestrated theatrics, designed to intimidate. It’s also hinted that this is not the first time Mycroft has stepped in to assess, and attempt to bribe, Sherlock’s acquaintances. A creepy thing to be doing, certainly, but ultimately a caring one.

When John mentions his encounter to Sherlock, his immediate recognition of the situation - “Did he offer you money to spy on me?” - suggests that this is not the first time this has happened, although perhaps that Sherlock didn’t immediately twig that it was Mycroft who had picked up John, suggests that this is the first time he’s moved in so quickly. Mycroft already knows how swiftly the relationship between John and Sherlock has progressed, quipping, “since yesterday you’ve moved in with him and now you’re solving crimes together. Might we expect a happy announcement by the end of the week?” Perhaps Mycroft doesn’t always move with such expediency when Sherlock makes a new acquaintance, but how many people does Sherlock take into his confidences to quickly? It’s understandable why this behaviour would alarm Mycroft.

As to the bribery, Mycroft does assure John that he doesn’t want anything “indiscreet” or that John would be uncomfortable with. Although a monumentally unsettling action, I think all Mycroft wanted was to ensure someone stayed with his brother, and to pass him information of his well-being. Although sinister and immoral, I cannot read Mycroft’s offer as being in any way malevolent. I just think Holmeses sometimes need to be reminded when they’ve crossed a line. When John turns down his offer, Mycroft does not ask again – his whole expression changes, along with his manner. In many ways the conversation becomes a little more threatening, but Mycroft also becomes more thoughtful, as he begins to reassess John.

I think, perversely, this is the time when we see Mycroft at his most honest. True, John has no idea who he is, but Mycroft has good opportunity to reveal himself as Sherlock’s big brother – John asks directly, twice – and he chooses not to, even if John would be more inclined to help him if he knew his identity. I think the anonymity of the situation prompts Mycroft to be more open than he would be normally. He says that he worries about Sherlock, “constantly,” and I believe him. That he wants his “concern [to] go unmentioned” is, we will later discover, not an unreasonable thing for Mycroft to want. Sherlock pushes back against Mycroft at every opportunity, and I think it is evident that any previous overt attempts at care have failed for this reason.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Well, I agree with most of this, albeit Mycroft’s behaviour remains a bit too overprotective and, most of all, illegal, for my tastes.

We have also to admit, however, that, if Mycroft really is the Brithish Government, he then has many reasons to worry about the character and integrity of his brother’s flatmates: whoever can reach Sherlock, can reach him; and harming or kidnapping Sherlock could be a very effective way to harm Mycroft or gain leverage upon him, and therefore upon the Governement. So, a lot of people are potentially interested in harming or controlling Sherlock… Hence Mycroft’s need of having his little brother’s safety well and constantly monitored. Of course, in addition to the other reasons linked to Sherlock’s profession (and recklesness, and probable drug precedents, etc.).

And I can understand that this kind of surveillance would be hard to endure for almost everyone, and even more so for such a fiercely proud and stubborn young man as Sherlock is. So, here we have another possible reason for the “difficult relationship” the Holmes Brothers share: Mycroft’s work, and its repercussions on Sherlock, surely enough don’t help…

Anyway, coming back to this scene, I’m also under the impression that Mycroft is testing Watson: I’m not so sure that, if Watson had accepted the offered bribe, Mycroft would really have sent him back to Baker Street… I’m more under the impression that he would have him disposed of… After all, what kind of associate would he have been, for his brother? Not certainly a trustworthy one… So, the whole “chat” between Mycroft and Watson seems to me to have been conceived by the former in order to test John’s greed (or lack of it), John’s morality (or lack of it), and John’s courage (or lack of it), as well as his patience and self-control. All qualities that would be well needed, in an associate of Sherlock’s.

Of course Mycroft has done this before: he can’t afford untrustworthy people around his one little brother… As well as Sherlock is legitimate to get annoyed at this - as any adult human being would be - he probably understands his brother’s motivations: hence the light tone he uses when asking Watson about his abduction…

ibelieveinmycroft: 

2) A Study in Pink, The Crime Scene

Minutes after a fatal shooting that Sherlock was involved in, Mycroft’s car pulls up on the crime scene. We know not a lot of time can have passed between the shooting and this moment – John and Sherlock have just reunited, and Sherlock has just escaped the confines of the shock blanket. It’s fairly clear that Mycroft has rushed across London to the scene.

Mycroft doesn’t appear to be there for any other reason than to ensure his brother is well taken care of.  The situation appears to be an unusual one, as Sherlock asks, without irony, “What’re you doing here?” Evidently Mycroft doesn’t materialise at Sherlock’s every crime scene. But, presumably, Sherlock isn’t involved in fatal shootings that often and, otherwise, Mycroft normally keeps his distance. I can see why, knowing his brother as well as he does, Mycroft would be alarmed by the turn of events, involving two pills and a gunshot wound, and decide on a personal appearance. For once, I don’t think there’s anything other to the line, “As ever, I was concerned about you.”

Mycroft makes one last comment in this scene, indicating that he keeps Sherlock under surveillance. He ends the episode upgrading his surveillance to “Grade Three. Active.” Who knows how long Mycroft has been monitoring his brother – probably a very long time – but, until now and Sherlock’s sudden and unprecedented shift in behaviour, it wasn’t ‘active’ surveillance. I can see how this can be perceived as Mycroft prying, but I choose to interpret it as Holmesian flawed affection.

By the end of the episode, Mycroft has also reconsidered John – likely making the same deductions as his brother regarding the gunpowder burns on John’s fingers – and decides he may have a positive effect on Sherlock. In this, Mycroft is, as ever, correct.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Of course, Mycroft DEFINITELY shows up at the crime scene just out of (real) concern! So concerned is he for his little brother’s wellbeing, that he doesn’t care to be seen in a very public place, full of policemen and - presumably - reporters. He, who works in the shadows, who officially holds a “minor position” in the British Government, and whose favourite refuge is the unsociable Diogenes Club! Using the canonical words, “it is as if you met a tram-car coming down a country lane. Mycroft has his rails and he runs on them. What upheaval can possibly have derailed him?” - only an extreme concern at hearing about the dangers from which his little (and reckless) brother has just narrowly escaped!

… Speaking of which, who could possibly have informed Mycroft so soon about the whole business? Well, I’ve my suspicions about a certain detective inspector, who - certainly - doesn’t “just” do what Mycroft asks him (as he says to Sherlock in The hounds of Baskerville), but - probably - is not averse to cooperating with Mycroft when it comes to Sherlock’s safety…

ibelieveinmycroft:

3) The Great Game, 221b Baker Street

The flat opposite 221b explodes, and John rushes around in a panic as soon as he sees the story on the morning news. Even though this is very early in the morning, Mycroft is already there. In fact, he seems to have been there for a while – he has removed his coat and is well-settled into that chair. I think it is fairly evident that, upon hearing of the explosion, Mycroft rushed round to check on his brother.

The case file, relating to The Bruce Partington Plans, that Mycroft has brought with him is, in some ways, something of a pretence, or a secondary reason for the visit. I suspect that Mycroft had this file ready to give to his brother and, had a bomb not just gone off, would have delivered it at a more sociable hour. The previous scenes, in which we saw Sherlock in his dressing gown, arguing with John and sulking on the sofa, establishes Sherlock as idle, antsy and in need of a case. Mycroft, ever aware of Sherlock’s case load, provides.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Even more so, when you consider that this would really have been a perfect “armchair case” for Mycroft to handle personally, with all modern forensic reposrts… So, this WAS a pretence, if ever I’ve seen one!

And the look he gives to poor Watson, as soon as he enters the room! Mycroft doesn’t ever aknowledge his presence with a “good morning”, and instead looks at him as he was something vaguely disgusting… It’s like he’s trying to convey to him the message: “where were you, you useless sod, instead of being here to protect my precious litte brother with your own body, as a dutiful human shield?!”.

ibelieveinmycroft:

4) The Great Game, Mycroft’s Offices

When Mycroft leaves 221b, after Sherlock’s petulant rejection of his case, Mycroft says to John, with characteristic unnerving omniscience, “See you very soon.” John, as predicted, turns up at Mycroft’s offices later that day. Mycroft is incredibly busy at that moment – he had stated earlier in the day that he couldn’t possibly leave the office due to “the Korean elections,” and, when he enters the office he is still reading a file. John had been checking his watch; evidently, Mycroft had kept him waiting. But, in spite of the overload of work his department is presently burdened with, he made the time to see John, to give him the information his brother refused to accept that morning.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Sorry, but here I can’t appreciate our beloved Mycroft too much: the gesture he uses to ”ask” Watson to sit down is of the kind one would use with a well trained German Shepherd… Let’s speak openly: he is manipulating Watson, here, at his best - he is toying with him, and Watson himself knows it…

ibelieveinmycroft:

5) A Scandal in Belgravia, The Palace

This scene acts as a confirmation of Mycroft’s motives for delivering cases to Sherlock. Mycroft knows exactly which cases his brother has taken and, thus, when Sherlock is unemployed and in need of a distraction. This happened before in The Great Game and it’s happening again now. Their exchange regarding “the hiker and the backfire,” the solution to which Mycroft has deduced from merely glancing at the police reports, is evident of this. Seeing that the resolution to Sherlock’s case is “a bit obvious” – and, indeed, Sherlock has already solved it – Mycroft has him brought to the Palace to attend to something more worthy of his time.

This scene is also a window into their childhood, and, perhaps, the source of Mycroft’s role as his brother’s keeper. Their altercation on the subject of Sherlock’s attire, ending with the very parental “Sherlock Holmes, put your trousers on!” is very suggestive. As, indeed, is Sherlock’s response to Mycroft’s “I’ll be mother,” – just why is this a “whole childhood in a nutshell”? We may never learn much about their past, but this bit of dialogue prompts so many questions about their relationship as children.

I’ve discussed this recently, so I’ll leave this section here.

6) A Scandal in Belgravia, 221b Baker Street

Mycroft is round at 221b very early the next morning – the boys are still having breakfast. Although he is discussing the case, he learns nothing from their discussion, I rather do think he’s come to check up on his brother after the shooting at Irene Adler’s house. This is borne out by Mycroft’s reaction to Mrs Hudson’s admonishment, “Family is all we have in the end, Mycroft Holmes.” We have never seen Mycroft’s mask of calm superiority slip for anyone but Sherlock before, but it does here. He snaps at Mrs Hudson for that remark about family, as it’s clearly something he has rather taken to heart. Family is important to Mycroft, and he blames himself for what happens with the CIA assassins that threaten Sherlock and John. Indeed, the final time we see that CIA man, Mycroft has brought him to heel.

Although Sherlock scolds his brother for being rude to Mrs Hudson, Sherlock’s rejoinder, “Although do, in fact, shut up,” suggests that he understands what had made Mycroft snap. Sherlock knows how Mycroft feels about family, even if they are both terrible at expressing those feelings, and knows that he doesn’t need any more blame for his missteps.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Totally agree! AND the way Mycroft tells Sherlock he’ll be out of the case, the moment (as I presume) he learns (through the phone call he receives) exactly why and how much the CIA is involved with the Adler business, shows - according to me- how much he is worried about his brother’s safety, now that the case is no more a simple potential blackmail, but a much more international conundrum involving terrorist cells and CIA trained killers.

Also, this is one time when Sherlock understands, from his brother’s tone and glance, that he really has to give up, and stops arguing almost instantly. They CAN understand each other perfectly well, these brothers, when they really need and want to…

ibelieveinmycroft:

7) A Scandal in Belgravia, The Holmes Ancestral Home

When Sherlock rings his brother, Mycroft is seen sat in what is identified in the commentary as the Holmes Ancestral Home. The location of this house is unknown, but is certainly outside of London (Sussex is a likely contender, given Sherlock’s choice of location when he retires). Its countryside location is also confirmed by Mycroft’s attire – tweed is country wear, a fabric he would never wear in the city. Mycroft has evidently returned to the country house for the Christmas holiday.

But when Sherlock calls him with the Irene Adler problem, though surprised by the call, he immediately returns to work. Barely hours later (Molly and Lestrade have left 221b, but Mrs Hudson and Jeanette are still there), Mycroft has tracked down a body that could be Irene, had her sent to St. Bart’s, changed into suitable city attire and returned to London to escort Sherlock to the morgue.  Not only does he ensure that the body is sent somewhere that Sherlock is familiar with – a “home from home,” – but he also travels sixty miles on Christmas Eve to ensure his brother doesn’t have to face tragedy alone.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Could we mention the fact that SHERLOCK - when he understands that Irene is probably dead, or soon to be - CALLS HIS BROTHER while at the same time SHUTTING THE DOOR of his room in JOHN’s face?

I mean, John is his friend, Shelock clearly trusts him, and likes him, and is fond of him; BUT, he doesn’t thik John could really understand him, or could really help him, when he himself is probably too confused and upset. So he turns to the only person he think could really understand and help him - his big brother. The whole scene could be resumed with Sherlock asking Mycroft “help me”, and Mycroft replying “I’m here for you”.

ibelieveinmycroft:

8) A Scandal in Belgravia, The Morgue

This is everyone’s favourite scene for good reason. It’s the first and, so far, only time, we see Mycroft and Sherlock talk alone, as brothers. With no one else to impress, a lot of the immaturity, hostility and pettiness has been stripped away. When they’re not performing to anyone else, they speak to each other as equals, Sherlock does not shy away from asking his brother’s opinion, and Mycroft gives it without malice.

Although Mycroft’s declares “Caring is not an advantage,” this cannot be read as Mycroft saying that he doesn’t care. Quite the opposite: he is counselling Sherlock against becoming emotionally invested in Irene’s death, because caring has already been his own undoing. Mycroft also seems to half-deliver this line to himself, pausing significantly between uttering the words and saying Sherlock’s name. Certainly, Mycroft’s life may have been easier if he did not care for his younger brother. His resources wouldn’t be so divided, he wouldn’t have to pause in his affairs to clean up after Sherlock and he wouldn’t have the emotional fall out from when his brother gets in trouble. Without his love for his brother, he would truly be the Ice Man, and would probably run all of Europe by now. As it is, his caring has held him back and, eventually, exposes him to weakness. But he can’t seem to stop.

As if to reinforce that point, moments after that conversation, we see Mycroft contacting John to ensure Sherlock remains safe. We don’t know how long Mycroft has been colluding with John to keep Sherlock safe, but the “sock-index” line and that they obliquely refer to it as a “a danger night” indicates that this is not the first time this has happened. The saddest thing about the exchange between John and Mycroft is that Mycroft admits that he is never sure if a night is going to be a danger night. As omniscient as he is, Sherlock seems to remain a blind-spot for him.

9) A Scandal in Belgravia, Flight 007

Although the scene at the morgue was beautiful, I find this scene more moving, because it speaks volumes about the brothers’ relationship. When Sherlock arrives on the plane, he is his usual self – intrigued by the mystery. When Mycroft reveals his involvement, and Sherlock puts all the pieces into place, his small smile and remark of “Neat” shows that he’s duly impressed by what his brother has been masterminding. Sherlock remains quite indifferent, mocking Mycroft’s perceived failure at screening his MOD people, until Mycroft shouts at him. It is a genuine burst of anger, and the only one we have ever seen. Frustration and irritation, yes, but never anger. It is enough to stop Sherlock in his tracks.

Yet, in spite of this rare burst of anger, Mycroft immediately turn it back in on himself, blaming himself for underestimating Irene, and even apologising to Sherlock. That line, “I’m sorry, I didn’t know” kills me every time.

When Irene threatens to expose the source of the intelligence leak as Mycroft’s “own little brother,” the look on Mycroft’s face speaks volumes. Although I rather suspect Mycroft does not want his weaknesses exposed to his “masters,” I would interpret his expression quite differently. It’s a look of horror, but not one of selfish concern. He was staring her down until she brought up his brother; it’s only when Irene mentions Sherlock that he can no longer meet her gaze. His primary concern is, here, to protect Sherlock from charges of terrorism and, perhaps, treason, from an authority higher than Mycroft himself that he would not be able to circumvent.

(Incidentally, who else was alarmed to find out that Mycroft has masters? I suppose they are meant to be much younger in the BBC series, so Mycroft might not be quite so indispensable yet. I like to imagine Mycroft’s direct superior being played by Christopher Lee.)

10) A Scandal in Belgravia, The Holmes Ancestral Home, again

The negotiations with Irene prove how much he is willing to give away for Queen and Country; we don’t see Irene’s list, but one can assume she wanted millions. Mycroft was prepared to acquiesce to her demands to spare his brother. Had Sherlock not been part of the equation, one assumes Mycroft may have had more options open to him. But, even when faced with a threat like Irene, and asked to sacrifice so much – surely something that will damage his career irrevocably – he is still not prepared to sacrifice Sherlock to his masters.

Sherlock realises his mistakes in this scene, and what his brother does for him. When Sherlock cracks Irene’s code, saving the proverbial day, he hands the phone and its contents to Mycroft and calls him “Brother.” A small acknowledgement, maybe, but one I always find incredibly moving.

thenorwoodbuilder:

And he doesn’t even TRY to look at the phone’s contents… Considering how curious he is, this is probably another way to apologize to his brother… Besides, that “brother” he addresses Mycroft with, is probably a way of tellink “for how much we can disagree on many things, and don’t get along most the time, we really are on the same side when it comes to really important matters”.

ibelieveinmycroft:

11) A Scandal in Belgravia, Speedy’s Café

I find this scene a little confusing, and think it may be one that will have some light shed on it in series three, but, for now, let’s read it straight.

Mycroft has potentially upsetting information regarding Irene Adler and, knowing his brother’s feeling, resolves to hide it behind a nice, fairy-tale resolution, and have John, someone who Sherlock has very fond feelings for, deliver the information. Mycroft treats the situation with all the subtlety and grace that propelled him to the position that he currently occupies.

Additionally, we see here that Mycroft still understands his brother much better than John does. John thinks that the way Sherlock refers to Irene as “The Woman” is indicative of loathing. Mycroft is the one who reads it correctly, as “a salute” – as it is in the canon – to the one woman who matters.

The last thing about this scene is the most haunting. After mentioning that Sherlock initially “wanted to be a pirate,” he enters, what the commentary calls, a little fugue state. Blatantly, the memories of their childhood together still hang very heavily over him.

thenorwoodbuilder:

Could we mention the fact that Mycroft also deftly manoeuvres to let Sherlock have a little memento (the phone) of Miss Adler’s? Really, what other reason could he have had, to give John the Adler’s file - containing the now stripped phone - to bring up in the flat and then, soon after, back to himself? To bring it up for a nice little walk, in order to let it breathe a little mountain fresh air?

Of course Mycroft decided not to “lock up” Irene: he didn’t “feel kind” towards her, after all the trouble she had caused, and - most of all - after she had hurt his little brother. But neither he wanted his brother to be affected again by her death, Hence all this complex charade…

ibelieveinmycroft:

12) The Hounds of Baskerville, The Diogenes Club

In Mycroft’s brief appearance here, he receives the call about a security breach at Baskerville, and immediately deduces that it must be Sherlock and John. He send two texts in quick succession to Sherlock, both of which Sherlock ignores. Mycroft’s contact alerts Sherlock to the fact that his offices know and, therefore, that the building will soon enter code red, giving Sherlock time to escape. Had Sherlock responded, I think Mycroft may have somehow contrived some way to allow Sherlock continued access – after all, he was able to grant it later – but with no way of knowing for sure that it was his brother, it would have been foolish for Mycroft to override the system.

13) The Reichenbach Fall, The Diogenes Club

Mycroft’s first appearance in this final episode is just one last instance of Mycroft doing what he always does: watching Sherlock, combing for threats, trying to keep him safe. Summoning John, he hands over carefully prepared folders, likely full of all manner of classified information, just to keep his brother informed.

There’s not a lot more I can say about the events of Baskerville and Reichenbach, as it relates so closely to The Fall, and, frankly, has left us with a lot of question marks.  I’m certain all will be explained in series three and, as Messrs Moffat and Gatiss have promised us lots more Mycroft next series, I think that will lead to Mycroft either being vindicated or redeemed. His mistakes, if mistakes they were (I’m not buying it), will not have been borne of a selfish desire to manipulate his brother, but to save millions of people from a mad man with a key code that could do untold damage.

I would like to conclude with a recent quote from Mark Gatiss on the subject of the Holmes brothers’ relationship: “What I like best about Sherlock & Mycroft’s relationship (and it’s all inspired by ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’) is the antagonism mixed up with genuine care. It feels like a very real family relationship!”

So, dear friends, if that doesn’t convince you, then I don’t know what will.

thenorwoodbuilder:

For how many changes they make, the Moftiss always stick to Canon’s core: as there the Holmes Brothers were allies, as (I bet) they’ll turn up to be in the tv series…