beekeeper wrote:

I really do like the idea that the problem really was an escalating rivalry over incredibly petty things.

This is the first thing I thought about their relationship after I watched Sherlock for the first time.

 I'm not up on my royals but I'm pretty sure we also have Williams and Henrys and James and Peters. Whats unusual is to give a boy an outlandish name. Sherlock and Mycroft are more in the Beckham style I think. I can totally see Sherlock and Mycroft as celebrity baby names. They are not old money names. 

 Perhaps they are the children of someone along the lines of Paul Daniels and Debbie McGee and spent a highly resentful childhood touring the seaside resorts of Britain?

Actually I like this theory. It would explain a lot, for example why they are both so freaking good at cold reading and don't really talk about their parents. Mycroft angling at some level of normality. And also-its a small thing, but the phrase "I'll be mother" is not really an uber-rich Harrow-and-Eton phrase.

Last edited by beekeeper (March 30, 2013 8:04 pm)

yeah but we need an explaination of why they are called this in the 21st c.

And I think there is a rich seam here to be mined. I am really liking this idea of the Holmes tribe piling into a Morris Minor and touring the seaside resorts with a stack of suitcases on the roofrack.

yy Davina I know why ACD chose those names. I seem to remember Sherlock was a slightly more common name back then and that it was then name of a cricketer ACD admired.

The thing with the show though is that they always try to provide an internal consistency that works in the 21st century. They work with things that we find unusual as viewers now and usually lampshade them. So the Diogenes club is explained as a diplomatic necessity, the fact that Mycroft isn't corpulent is explained with diet pills. Meaning that the discrepancy between their names and what seems to be their class is open to interpretation. And I'm interested in how they explain it, if they ever do, because I think there might be something really interesting there.

Last edited by beekeeper (March 31, 2013 9:05 am)

I have begun to feel like, whatever Mycroft's intentions toward Sherlock - whatever his feelings underneath - a lot of Sherlock's personality issues seem to have their roots in his relationship with Mycroft. The whole "caring is not advantage" and "better not to have emotions" thing seems to have been taught by Mycroft, and Sherlock also seems to feel insecure about his intelligence because he's had Mycroft to compare himself to.

I thought Mycroft had "raised" him...but then we met the seemingly normal and decent Mr. and Mrs. Holmes.

And finally, in canon, Mycroft did bring Sherlock a few cases on behalf of the British government, but that wasn't the bulk of Sherlock's work. Here, Mycroft is directing Sherlock a lot more than in canon, or sometimes he's not directing, but much of Sherlock's work is more "James Bond" than detective, and relates to Mycroft's work.

And one thing I don't like about that: it means that somebody is "onstage" much of the time who is as smart as Sherlock. Sherlock's uniqueness is diminished because there are two "Holmes brothers" much alike, and Sherlock becomes the secondary one.

Again, I am very late to the party here and I'm sure I am rehashing old ground, so ignore me unless I say something interesting.

Mycroft is set up in the first episode as a possible villain, and then revealed as the protective big brother at the end.  He is treated as more and more of a "good guy" throughout the series, although his protection of CAM (and sending Sherlock to his death rather than putting him on trial for murder) is a striking example of when he's not.  Mycroft, who "*is* the British government, when he isn't busy being the British Intelligence Service or the CIA on a freelance basis," comes across as pretty scary.  He shows John his control over surveillance cameras, abducts John off the street, and tries to bribe him to spy on Sherlock, while *quoting John's therapist's notes.*  John is not a criminal.  He has done absolutely nothing to justify this level of surveillance.  

So Mycroft, using his power in the British government, has already gotten copies of John's therapist's notes--within 48 hours--apparently without her knowledge, as John never confronts her on it and she never mentions it as far as we know.  That right there should have landed Mycroft in jail for a very, very long time.  Talk about abuse of power and lack of respect for privacy.  I don't think I have many illusions about the good behavior of governments, and I know the British put up with far more surveillance than Americans would (when we know about it), but really?  This kind of attitude of "I'm the good guy, so anything I do is OK" is one very good reason for Sherlock to dislike his brother, aside from a difficult childhood.  No, they are not always "on the same side," and that's fine with me.

Raiding a psychiatrist's office was what got President Nixon impeached (eventually).

Yeah, it's an action show.  I wouldn't have complained about the scene at all except for that, but I thought that was over the top.  On the other hand, we got the really good line about John's hand tremor, so OK--but I also think it makes clear that Mycroft is not necessarily trustworthy.

He's definitely not trustworthy IMO, I totally agree with you there! I think they're pulling a triple-bluff with regards to him being a villain. M-Theory and all that.

But I think his motivations are ultimately out of love. He just has a Not Good way of going about it.

Here's an article that wellingtongoose wrote about Mycroft's job that I find very informative:

http://wellingtongoose.tumblr.com/post/32412162614/enigma1

According to her article, Mycroft is a civil servant who specializes in disaster management.  Read the article and you'll see what I'm talking about.
 

Last edited by kgreen20 (October 20, 2016 11:05 pm)