BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Theory: Mycroft created "Moriarty" (may contain spoilers)

Lola Red · October 24, 2016 7:36 pm

I have a little theory and as I recently found out that I am not the only one thinking along these lines (although detail my be very different), I thought I create a little space for us to discuss the possibility that Mycroft engineered the majority of Sherlock’s adventures in order to provide his baby brother with the mental stimulation he needs to stay clean. Even more, I think it is possible that he has created “Moriarty” for that exact purpose. The question is: how far would Mycroft go?

Starting with ASIP, we are introduced to Moriarty, who is “more than a man”. I think that “Moriarty” is not the name of a person, but the name of an operation. An operation run by Mycroft. The cabby has been specifically instructed to arouse Sherlock’s attention at a time when, if what Lestrade alludes to during the drug’s bust holds true, is in possession of, but has not yet consumed, drugs. We learn that Mycroft keeps close surveillance on Sherlock, and even increases it when John and Sherlock join forces, meaning he is likely very well informed about his brother’s state of well-being.

Next is TBB, we learn, once more, that the criminals in question had help. Their contact person? “M”. Of course we are to assume that M stands for Moriarty, but in TAB, when Mary gets a mysterious letter marked “M”, it stands for Mycroft.

TGG showers Sherlock with cases. Good thing, too. Lately, Sherlock has been bored, desperately bored. We see Mycroft very eager for Sherlock to take his (seemingly insignificant) case, which later appears to be connected to the rainbow of cases from Moriarty, who does not reveal himself until the pool. Not only we do not know how is behind the kidnappings, neither do the victims. Who is the man with the soft voice?
TGG might also mark the point where Mycroft starts to lose control over one of his players: the actor Richard Brook, hired to give “Moriarty” a human face. Either that or Mycroft is willing to sacrifice 12 people in order to keep his baby brother off the drugs. Or did Mycroft already implement the art of placing dead bodies in the place of living ones? Meaning the twelve people in the building might have been dead before the explosion. John says something about “an old block of flats”. Did Mycroft stuff a house full of bodies and execute and impromptu demolition?

Season 2 to follow

Last edited by SusiGo (October 25, 2016 3:22 pm)

SusiGo · October 24, 2016 8:00 pm

Lola Red: I love your thoughts and I agree. I think in series 3 and TAB we have been led to believe that Mycroft is very fond of Sherlock ("Your loss would break my heart", "I will always be there for you"). On the other hand there is the very big enigma of why Mycroft did not take action against Mary. And in TAB we have Sherlock suspecting that Mycroft and Mary are working together. So there is indeed room for doubt about Mycroft's motives and plans.

Lautrela: Yes, this. I always wondered if they really shot the scene just for fun. And with Mark in costume although he officially had no scene if I remember correctly. This would be a big rug pull for series 4.

Last edited by SusiGo (October 24, 2016 8:01 pm)

Lola Red · October 24, 2016 8:23 pm

Ok, here goes season 2:

In ASIB, we see Mycroft specifically requesting Sherlock’s services, while simultaneously a surprising number of people come by 221B and practically dangle the case of the missing corpses in front of an oblivious Sherlock. There is also one clear message Mycroft seems intent for Sherlock to learn: “Caring is not an advantage.” Did Mycroft realise at the pool how much John Watson means to Sherlock and saw the dangers that union would bring? Was Mycroft, unbeknown to Irene, both her target and her advisor? Or was Richard Brook “desperate” for the attention of his former employer?

THOB does not give us much of Mycroft, but there are two things that raise questions. First, Lestrade stated that he does not “just do what [Mycroft] tells [him]”. This means that not only do Lestrade and Mycroft know each other and communicate, but Mycroft also at least attempts to tell Lestrade what to do (and apparently he listens). Lestrade is (besides John’s blog and Mycroft himself) one of Sherlock’s influxes for cases. Second, we get a little scene of Mycroft looking down on Moriarty. He will later explain that he was trying to extract information, but according to Sherlock this was the start of the plan to bring Moriarty down. But if Mycroft was behind Moriarty the entire time, was he punishing an out of control minion, or was he drilling the actor for the final act?

TRF gets very twisted once you take THE into account. But lets start anyway. Sherlock starts raising his profile, a plan the brothers apparently have agreed on. Moriarty makes sure he is put on trial and claims to be the actor Richard Brook. Now this persona, who was “on TV” is quite easy to check, so to face it would require a major apparatus. Or none at all. If you want to tell a lie, the best way about it is to roll it up in the truth. A Holmes hired an out of work actor to play a part and bribed the jury to let him out of jail. Only it was not Sherlock, but Mycroft. Sherlock later claims that Mycroft and he have been plotting together to entire time, but if Mycroft was also controlling Richard Brook, only one person knew in advance what would happen on the roof of Bart’s Hospital. And Sherlock would once more get a lesson on why “caring is not an advantage” as well as the ultimate distraction and stimulation in the taking down of the criminal network created by "Moriarty".

Season three to follow

SusiGo · October 24, 2016 8:37 pm

Great thoughts. One addition of mine: I could never believe that Mycroft had Moriarty imprisoned and let him go. A man crazily obsessed with his brother, smearing Sherlock's name all over the cell. And there is more: Why would they show us Sherlock's utter panic when hallucinating Moriarty at Dewer's Hollow if all this was just some clever plan cooked up by the brothers? We see Sherlock being out of his mind of hear for the second time in the episode and this is contrasted with Mycroft letting Moriarty free.

Lola Red · October 24, 2016 9:23 pm

What do you mean? Do you not believe that Mycroft captured Moriarty in the first place? How would you interpret that scene and what we see when Mycroft talks about Moriarty's "imprisonment"?

Lola Red · October 24, 2016 9:28 pm

ok, here is season three:

TEH shows us Mycroft bringing Sherlock home. He has kept a close eye on John Watson, but still dismisses Sherlock sentimentality when it comes to “friends”. We also see someone else interested in John and Sherlock’s relationship: CAM (more on him later). This episode also introduces us to Mary Morstan, a former assassin/ secret agent for one of the organisations Mycroft occasionally embodies. She just recently met and fell in love with John Watson, who is still under Mycroft’s surveillance. She also seems to have no short term interest in keeping John and Sherlock apart, which is surprising once we learn about her past later on (we will, obviously, also come back to her later)

TSOT gives us little about Mycroft, except for a very telling conversation with Sherlock. Once more Mycroft warns Sherlock about getting involved with other people.

Finally, HLV. First we see Mycroft apparently unaware of Sherlock’s recent drug abuse and blossoming “relationship”, which is odd concerning that Mycroft is supposed to have surveillance on Sherlock and Sherlock’s drug abuse was obvious enough to spark CAM’s interest. Does he believe it is “all for a case”, as Sherlock states? What happened in the month that Sherlock and John apparently had no contact and which left both men worse for wear? Did Mycroft finally admit defeat and made sure that John would not only bring his young neighbour, but also Sherlock back home? Also, the case in question involves CAM, someone who Mycroft views as “occasionally useful”.
The shooting and its aftermath surely are among of the most discussed aspects of this episode, but what do they mean to Mycroft? On screen, Mycroft does not seem interested in the fact that his baby brother has been shot or that he escaped the hospital. Why is that? Is it because Mycroft already knew what had happened? Did he send in his own agent to take out the once useful CAM, before his brother could figure out who Mary really was? Or is Mycroft generally not interested in Sherlock’s physical health (he has send him into a house full of CIA agents before), but only concerned about his mental wellbeing?
What about Christmas, Sherlock shooting CAM and the aftermath? Mycroft for once verbalises his feelings for Sherlock and the role he envisions for him. CAM assures Sherlock that Mycroft will be a very proud big brother once he finds out what Sherlock has done. But something goes wrong and Sherlock ends up shooting CAM. Mycroft pushes for Sherlock’s punishment to be an exile mission. The same mission he has just told him not to take. Mycroft claims not to be “given to outburst of brotherly compassion”, but we know that that is not true. It just takes strange forms in him (kidnapping people etc.). And just when Sherlock is bound to leave the country, an old enemy reappears…

Edit: I decided to leave TAB out for now, because of the questions of which parts are part of the MP and which are not, but of cause everyone is free to speculate.

Last edited by Lola Red (October 24, 2016 9:58 pm)

SusiGo · October 24, 2016 9:34 pm

Lola Red wrote:
What do you mean? Do you not believe that Mycroft captured Moriarty in the first place? How would you interpret that scene and what we see when Mycroft talks about Moriarty's "imprisonment"?

Not sure about that. But I get the feeling Sherlock might not have known about the capture. It just does not sit right with me that we are shown explicitly how deeply afraid he is of Moriarty and how crazily obsessed Moriarty is and that Mycroft lets him go just like that. It is difficult to explain but I have wondered about that for a long time. They could have left out that scene at Dewer's Hollow but chose not to.

nakahara · October 24, 2016 10:24 pm

Sounds like an intriguing theory. I wouldn´t put it past Moftiss to pull out the stunt like this, TBH.

On the other hand, it brings many questions:

Does Mycroft willingly murder people to make Sherlock clean from drugs then? Did he arrange four cabbie poisonings, murder of Connie Prince, the blowing off of the old lady who started to describe him, murder of Andrew West?
And how does Irene play into it? Does she blackmail and humilitate Mycroft because she is in cahoots with him in reality?
And what about TRF? Why did Mycroft arrange such a media circus around Sherlock and why did he force him to jump from the roof via Richard Brook? Sherlock could be easily killed while performing the stunt. Even if Mycroft cared for Sherlock´s mental wellbeing only, your mental wellbeing ceases to exists if your body is dead, doesn´t it? So what exactly was Mycroft´s goal here? (And in HLV too?) Why do you teach a person that caring is not an advantage, if you actually force him to care for his friends and to even sacrifice yourself for them through such means?

Or is Mycroft the blackguard and a real criminal who doesn´t actually care for Sherlock? But that would take his motive for arranging Sherlock´s cases away? Also, if he wants to do Sherlock harm, why doesn´t he arrange that the cushion into which Sherlock jumps in TRF is empty? Or why doesn´t he make him rot in Serbian prison? He would definitely get rid of him that way, wouldn´t he?

Lola Red · October 24, 2016 10:25 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Not sure about that. But I get the feeling Sherlock might not have known about the capture. It just does not sit right with me that we are shown explicitly how deeply afraid he is of Moriarty and how crazily obsessed Moriarty is and that Mycroft lets him go just like that. It is difficult to explain but I have wondered about that for a long time. They could have left out that scene at Dewer's Hollow but chose not to.

According to the version of the fall Sherlock tells Anderson, he knew about the capture. Now I still have trouble with the big blue cushion, so I can understand everyone who does not believe a word he says there, but for the brothers to have worked together makes sense to me. And if ones believes that Mycroft was controlling Richard Brook, then there was relatively little risk in releasing him. What is the point that makes you sceptical? Mycroft releasing Moriarty or Sherlock knowing about it?

Lola Red · October 25, 2016 5:23 am

The major question for me is: How far would Mycroft go? Or in other words: how dark do we want this to be? Would Mycroft sacrifice people in order to keep Sherlock safe?
I do not see Irene as a problem, she does not need to be aware of who is behind Moriarty (I would not think Mycroft would reveal his identity that easily). Or, if you believe that Richard Brook was out of control by that point, It might be exactly as Mycroft says: the man she knows as Moriarty is desperate for Mycroft's attention. The interpretation of the fall would also depend on weather or not Richard Brook was being controlled or not. Did Mycroft enlist Sherlock's help to terminate a plan gone horribly wrong or did he successfully separate Sherlock and John to safe his baby brother (and possibly himself) from the dangerous effects of sentiment? In any case, if the fall was planed, there would have been little risk to it, compared to Sherlock's general lifestyle.
I absolutely do not think that Mycroft wants to get rid of Sherlock, I believe he does care for him, but we know that Mycroft's caring takes strange forms all theories aside. Which brings me back to the point above: How far would Mycroft go?

Liberty · October 25, 2016 8:03 am

I have come across this theory before, but I admit I've side-stepped it, because I really don't want it to be true. It turns Sherlock from a hero into an incompetent, possibly drug-dependent liability, who is indirectly responsible for the deaths he's been trying to avenge/prevent.

But I have to admit, I can see it fitting well with "wish fulfillment", "the story we've been telling from the beginning", and even something that's "very difficult to come back from" (if this is all revealed in S4, then we don't have Sherlock the genius, heroic, consulting detective any more, and would have to almost start again with a new story about him). And it seems clear that there's going to be something important about Mycroft in S4, and something to do with their relationship, and that Mrs Hudson strongly disapproves! And I still kind of want them to use that shot of Mycroft and Moriarty shaking hands. This would be perfect.

I'm not 100% convinced, though. (Or maybe I don't want to be!). I should like it and it reminds me a little of the plot of the film

Unbreakable

which I love. But I think that after all those years (well, since early 2014 for me), I don't want something that changes the characters so much. Mycroft, of course, would become the nemesis, the uber-villain, despite acting through love (a dangerous motivator!), because right from ASIP, there were actual deaths. I think the Mycroft that I know is ruthless and would kill (or more likely arrange a killing) if necessary, but I don't see him going that far, so I'd have to change the way I saw him. But Sherlock in particular would change in way that I wouldn't like ... and I really hate the thought that he is a danger to the world, instead of a saviour - that all that suffering could have been prevented if it wasn't for him and his problems with boredom and drugs.

nakahara · October 25, 2016 8:26 am

Liberty wrote:
I have come across this theory before, but I admit I've side-stepped it, because I really don't want it to be true. It turns Sherlock from a hero into an incompetent, possibly drug-dependent liability, who is indirectly responsible for the deaths he's been trying to avenge/prevent.

That´s exactly why I would be sorely disappointed if the writes by chance would go this way with Mycroft´s and Sherlock´s characters. I know that most people for some reason hate the idea of Sherlock solving cases and rather prefer emotional stuff to happen around him (which is OK in itself), but this - while an emotional twist - would be too much, IMHO. The integrity of the characters as we knew them would be sacrificed on the altar of a shocking, but cheap twist - and this twist would irreparably change our understanding of S1 and S2 and destroy it... I don´t know. I´d like Sherlock to remain the hero who actually can hold his own against Mycroft in detective skills, rather than a childish liability who has his life pre-manipulated by Mycroft. I would loose any respect for such Sherlock, TBH.

SusiGo · October 25, 2016 11:05 am

Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment and ask this question: What has Mycroft ever done for Sherlock? I will stick strictly to the facts.

- He tries to find people who are spying on his brother for money (John) or because he is their superior (Lestrade). I know that this is explained with brotherly love and worry but honestly - cameras, spies, flat searchs, using people like Anderson?
- He provides him with cases that prove ultimately disastrous to Sherlock and himself (Irene).
- He lets Moriarty go free (true, according to TEH they are working together on this). But the idea of Mycroft letting go a crazed, obsessed killer never sat right with me. And at that point Moriarty has already blown up a house full of people.
- He saves Sherlock in Serbia. But is this really necessary? We can see the key in Sherlock's hand after his torturer left the prison.
- And then there is the whole laptop/Magnussen disaster which after three year still makes no sense to me.

As I said, these are the facts. The interesting thing is that we as a fandom build whole headcanons around things we wish to see but for which there is hardly any proof. Now let's look at the two scenes that are used to support the traditional reading of Mycroft:

- "Your loss would break my heart" - this is either a drugged Mycroft speaking or not real (EMP theory). But either way these are not the words of a sober Mycroft as beautiful as they may sound.
- the first plane scene in TAB. But: this is either not real , i.e. the whole list thing is in Sherlock's head, or it is true but then Mycroft would be connected to Mary.

One last point: the scenes with young Sherlock IMO show that this is not a relationship on an equal footing. Both view Sherlock still as a boy and Mycroft as either the loving older brother or a dominant, intimidating, judge-like presence. This is not what you would call a healthy sibling relationship. There may be love on both sides but rather a destructive love. And I am very sue that this is what we are going to see more about in S4. Have you ever thought about "And this is a childhood in a nutshell" after Mycroft's "I'll be mother"? Why does Sherlock feel like this when his mother gave up for job for children? Why did Mycroft have to play this part at all?

Last edited by SusiGo (October 25, 2016 11:11 am)

Ariane DeVere · October 25, 2016 1:02 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment and ask this question: What has Mycroft ever done for Sherlock? I will stick strictly to the facts.

- He tries to find people who are spying on his brother for money (John)

Does he? I was under the impression that if John had agreed to take the money, Mycroft would have ensured that John and Sherlock never met again. It's not said in the episode, just my interpretation, but I feel that Mycroft was ensuring that John was honest and would be loyal to Sherlock, not sneak around behind his back for money.

SusiGo wrote:
- He lets Moriarty go free (true, according to TEH they are working together on this). But the idea of Mycroft letting go a crazed, obsessed killer never sat right with me. And at that point Moriarty has already blown up a house full of people.

Again, it's not said in the episode but I'm convinced that "Let him go" didn't mean release him back into the world, just let him go from this violent interrogation, because it was pointless and they weren't going to get anything from him that way. Whether they then put him back into a more normal prison and he promptly escaped, or whether - as has frequently been posited - the interrogation took place after he'd been captured in the White Tower, is beyond me. (And yes, it doesn't seem to make sense that the interrogation scene was originally shown before the White Tower, but smarter people than me have argued that it was either an arty flash-forward, or other clever timey-wimey stuff.)

SusiGo wrote:
- He saves Sherlock in Serbia. But is this really necessary? We can see the key in Sherlock's hand after his torturer left the prison.

Well, Mycroft couldn't know in advance that Sherlock would definitely find his own way out. Presumably Mycroft's spies told him that Sherlock had been captured in Serbia. What I'm more puzzled about is why Mycroft went out there himself. Doesn't he have an SAS to do rescue missions like this?!

Sorry, I've gone a bit off topic. I'm trying to ignore the actual topic because it just makes me angry - not at the person who suggested it, just at the concept. I will never be willing to believe that Mycroft - such an important and powerful person with a huge responsibility to Queen and country - has spent his time and the country's resources setting up games just to amuse his junkie brother. Not only that, but games which have resulted in the deaths of many people, not all of whom could have been well-paid enough to be willing to risk their lives.

If it turns out in Season 4 that Mycroft has been doing this, you may never get complete episode transcripts because I'll be too busy ranting all around the internet!

SusiGo wrote:
One last point: the scenes with young Sherlock IMO show that this is not a relationship on an equal footing. Both view Sherlock still as a boy and Mycroft as either the loving older brother or a dominant, intimidating, judge-like presence. This is not what you would call a healthy sibling relationship. There may be love on both sides but rather a destructive love. And I am very sue that this is what we are going to see more about in S4. Have you ever thought about "And this is a childhood in a nutshell" after Mycroft's "I'll be mother"? Why does Sherlock feel like this when his mother gave up for job for children? Why did Mycroft have to play this part at all?

Yeah, I’ll be interested to see if there’s some back-story in Season 4.

SusiGo · October 25, 2016 1:57 pm

Well, for me there are only two things that I would never accept in the show: Sherlock or John revealed to be a villain and/or a permanent separation of both.
Everything else for me is negotiable. We had one rug pull with Mary but she was quite a new character and not as dear to people's hearts as some of the others. Therefore I am quite sure that in S4 we will get a rug pull that really, really hurts and IMO there are mainly two candidates for that: Mycroft and Molly. Both are loved by much of the fandom and quite untouchable. And this is exactly what many writers would go for if they wanted to devastate an audience.

nakahara · October 25, 2016 2:41 pm

It is one thing to have a devastating plot twist, it is quite another to negate much of your established storyline with that.

For example: Making Molly a villain quite suddenly would eliminate her sweet scene from ASIB (where she gently rebuked Sherlock for being rude to her), her heartfelt speech to Sherlock in TRF (You look sad when he can´t see you), her unconditional help in Sherlock´s fake death, their awkwards but sweet cooperation in TEH... all these scenes would absolutely loose their emotional resonance because of that.

Why write the story at all if the authors then sacrifice the world built in their narrative for the sake of plot twist? To me it seems as if you tried to build a second storey of the house using the blocks you pulled out from the basement wall - your building would collapse.

But I wouldn´t put it past Mofftiss that they use such technique in S4, unfortunately. Still, I wouldn´t like it one bit if that happens.

SusiGo · October 25, 2016 3:20 pm

We have to agree to disagree on that. Not that I expressly want Mycroft or Molly to be dark, not at all. But IMO there are hints, especially where Mycroft is concerned. We know that we are going back, that we will get a backstory for Sherlock. They have cast child actors. Since I do not believe that everything bad comes from without the Holmes family, there must be something dark inside. Could be one of the parents, could be Mycroft, could be Sherlock himself. But I am very sure that they will go down that road.

They made Mycroft into a very big character compared to Canon where he is absent most of the time. But I do not believe that the image of the loving but overbearing older brother has to be static. All characters are prone to change and revelations and so is Mycroft. I do not think of him as a villain but I think we will see sides of him we have not seen before. Maybe he will feel guilt. Maybe he will sacrifice himself for Sherlock or John. But I do not believe that all the darkness we have been promised will come from outside the family.

What matters in the end is Sherlock's development, we have been told this more than once. And what I have seen so far in the show is proof of that. And I think that Sherlock has to grow away from Mycroft, to emancipate himself from his brother. The MP scenes in TSoT and HLV show that deep inside he is still feels to be the belittled younger brother, threatened, laughed at, humiliated. I know Mycroft fans do not like that but this is a side of him that we have been shown quite explicitly. And whether he really was like that or not does not matter as long as Sherlock remembers his brother that way. As long as this inner Mycroft resides within his mind.

nakahara · October 25, 2016 3:30 pm

I agree that Sherlock has to eventually free himself from an overbearing Mycroft´s influence.

But concerning "the darkness coming from Sherlock´s own family" - I think that the darkness will come from the third brother, "Sherrinford". Sherrinford was one of the three code words this season, wasn´t it?

SusiGo · October 25, 2016 3:45 pm

nakahara wrote:
I agree that Sherlock has to eventually free himself from an overbearing Mycroft´s influence.

But concerning "the darkness coming from Sherlock´s own family" - I think that the darkness will come from the third brother, "Sherrinford". Sherrinford was one of the three code words this season, wasn´t it?

Well, so far we do not know if "the Other One" is a brother, a sister, or a family member at all. This is pure speculation and a lot of fun but personally I think that "Sherrinford" is not a third brother but Sherlock himself. Because canonically it was an older name ACD wanted to give SH (like Ormond Sacker who became John Watson). Therefore I am leaning more towards Sherrinford being a code word for Sherlock/a clue to his past or something like that.

Therefore I think that the darkness is something from the past, something suppressed or forgotten or hidden but not necessarily a third sibling.

nakahara · October 25, 2016 6:27 pm

That´s a possibility too, yes, can´t deny that.

But in that case, who is "the other one"? I think when Mycroft mentions him/her at the end of HLV, the dialogue makes it clear he isn´t speaking about Sherlock there. If Sherlock equals Sherrinford, who is the other one and what role does this person play in the narrative?