Willow wrote:

Swanpride wrote:

If Mycroft really were all-knowing and all-powerful, Sherlock wouldn't be in danger all the time. He would monitor his website and knew that Sherlock send Moriarty a message to meet him at the pool, for example.

 
I'm not suggesting that Mycroft is all knowing and all-powerful; he isn't God. He has excellent information sources, and a lot of agents at his disposal; he is also working at least 12 hours a day, every day of the week, because people that high up the chain do work those sorts of hours since they really do have massive amounts of work to get through. As I've previously suggested, albeit tongue in cheek, his pA might be a suspect for shooting Sherlock because he keeps messing up Mycroft's schedule.

Mycroft must be a difficult character to write, how much can he realistically know or not know while his function doesn't actually exist? And who really knows what intelligence services are up to anyway? It's not like the Moftiss can ring them up for some research or something. I just want to give him limitations, avoid the deus ex machina thing etc. There must be some kind of in-universe logic that he's limited by. Not just the 'too busy with more important things', there must be things even Mycroft cannot do. 

Willow wrote:

Actually, Sherlock walks into the trap because Sherlock's ego is the size of a small planet; there is nothing that Mycroft could have done or said that would have changed it. Mycroft was gravely at fault, as he admits, because he set Sherlock running in the first place; he should never have asked for his help. It is difficult to see what he could have said to Sherlock about Irene Adler that would have changed the way that Sherlock acted. People keep saying that if Mycroft had just talked to Sherlock everything would have been different, but they never specify what it is which would have made a difference.

Sherlock's ego may be the thing that makes him walk into the trap, but that's because he is given no reason to set it aside. In both TRF and HLV Sherlock takes several blows to his ego, particularly in the first of these, yet does nothing to stop it because it is for a "greater" purpose. Heck even in TSoT Sherlock is willing to tell about a failed case, something he has otherwise not been willing to allow, because it is one that makes John look good.
But when Mycroft tells him to stand down in SiB he's basically behaving as if he's calling off a dog. I don't really have that big an ego but if anyone ever behaved towards me like that, it wouldn't encourage me to behave. Would Mycroft behaving differently have changed the way things played out? Maybe, maybe not, we can never know that but basically Mycroft is behaving like an arrogant twat.

Willow wrote:

As for the England thing I think you need to bear in mind that there is a difference between the stereotypical John Bull and the real deal; one can agree that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels whilst simultaneously being prepared to die in the service of your country. That is, after all, what Sherlock agreed to do; is it so difficult to believe that Sherlock would murder in the service of his country? I'm fairly sure that Sherlock regarded CAM as a global threat to a genuinely free society; that is what he says to John at the beginning, and I think he meant it.

I would say that the ending of ASiP and TGG indicates that he is the opposite of a patriot.
And yes I find it quite incredulous to believe that Sherlock would murder for a shared delusion about common past or culture, which is basically what a country is. Besides when he spouts all that about how dangerous Magnussen is to Britain and the world he is talking to John and still tryihng to recruit him, he is using the arguments he think is most likely to persuade John to come along. And John is a patriot.
Personally I believe that what he says to Mycroft during their smoking break is closer to the truth, there's no need to try and deceive Mycroft, who is likely to see straight through him anyway. He hates CAM because steps on people Sherlock identifies with, the different. He repels him the same way Kitty Riley did, there was just never any reason to shoot her. That is, I believe, another difference between the brothers, Mycroft operates on national and international levels, Sherlock operates on a personal one.

Willow wrote:

I do agree entirely that Sherlock loves his brother, and disagree that Mycroft is always dispassionate; he seemed to be quite proactive in the helicopter shouting that they mustn't shoot his brother. But for Sherlock his brother does in some way embody his country; Mycroft in turn plays the game in responding to Sherlock's 'who needs me this time?' with the single word 'England'.

Bad example. For all we know Mycroft's merely worried about what Mummy will do if she ever learns that her little boy got shot and Mycroft did nothing. Also Mycroft seems supremely disinterested in whether or not John gets shot.
As for the 'who needs me this time', 'England' I see it more as a running joke between them, that Mycroft is the one who runs the country and does not necessarily translate into how Sherlock feels about Britain.
As an aside I would like to point out that Mycroft apparently gives sod all about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Willow wrote:

Both brothers recognise, however, that murder is murder; Sherlock acts when he realises that CAM really can 'destroy the lives of everyone he loves and everything he holds dear'. But he never claims that it is not murder, and he never tries to weasel out of the consequences. Nor does Mycroft...

Sherlock seems to recognise the fact, Mycroft on the other hand appears to be manoeuvring to get Sherlock off. He knows that he isn't going to get Sherlock off completely here and now, so he manipulates to send him on the “suicide” mission. I also think he fully intends to get Sherlock back before the mission proves fatal. As he says: “Will there ever come a time where we will not need Sherlock Holmes?” i.e. we can't afford to take actions that would leave us bereft of his talents permanently.


One more thing, am I the only one who's noticed that the treason charge has gone poof? Does this mean that the computer Sherlock brought Magnussen didn't contain state secrets?

Willow wrote:

By this point you may have deduced that I used to be a Civil Servant myself, and I used to have an investigative role, though I hasten to add that I was most definitely not a spy.

I was wondering about that, thought it impolite to ask. But I was confused, you have a medical background too, and you're a mother and a costume designer. How many lives do you have, are you actually a cat? 
(So if your background is somehow related to forensics, can you still watch procedurals without the need to throw something at the television?) 

Willow wrote:

For me, a part time nurse living in an expensive part of the country with no other apparent source of income is a red flag jumping up and down and screaming 'look at me', which is why, even without Sherlock's warning signs which he ignored, I was not exactly surprised to discover that Mary wasn't the sweet, loveable person devoting her life to the frail and infirm which she appeared to be on the surface.

Me neither but that's because I know Moftiss and I know the Milverton plot. Not exactly hard to work out who would be shooting Magnussen here. I do wonder about the nurse thing, I know how expensive London is but surely London needs nurses and they have to live somewhere. Suburbs seems a logical place. And they probably split the costs for the rent. You really think it's impossible?

Willow wrote:

 So, Mycroft has limitations and he doesn't do magic either. Quite a lot of the criticisms of his character are because people seem to think he can do magic, and complain when he doesn't, and a few more are because people don't distinguish between him and the ruler of a totalitarian state. This of course leaves plenty of room for his genuine faults, and Mycroft undoubtedly has plenty of those; I look forward to many happy hours discussing them

You might have worked out by now that I absolutely adore Mycroft (faults included) and I hate it if people attribute too much power to him. In my view, that really takes away from the character. I don't really thing that Moftiss would be stupid enough to make him into a deus ex machina, they're no hacks in that way, but I think people are used to characters that are like that and expect Mycroft to be the same. However, I think Mycroft may have to pay a price at some point for all his bureaucratic ballet. 
 

A.  Would never own a gun.
B.  Would never been anywhere to bump into Bin Laden
C.  Isn't he dead?!

(Democracy and Queen in the same sentence?!)...sorry, I'll get my coat!

Swanpride wrote:

Magnusson was not about truths - he was about reinventing the facts to his own means. Like he did with the husband of Lady Smallwood, who was apparently innocent, but he nevertheless used what he had to destroy him. (It's, btw, an interesting parallel to Mycroft threatening Anderson and company to put questionable pictures on their PC if they dare to repeat what they happened to overhear).

 
Yes he was. True. So what? Death for free speach?
That primative idea that might is right? ( king Georges speach, world war II)


Is that not a shoot the messenger argument...and forget the message.

Understanding a murder and accepting the circumstances and the consequences is different from condoning it and promoting it as acceptable.

And I was right! My attempted quotes didn't work

Edit: I fixed them for you Wholocked

Last edited by Wholocked (February 5, 2014 5:23 am)

Ormond Sacker wrote:

Willow wrote:

Actually, Sherlock walks into the trap because Sherlock's ego is the size of a small planet; there is nothing that Mycroft could have done or said that would have changed it. Mycroft was gravely at fault, as he admits, because he set Sherlock running in the first place; he should never have asked for his help. It is difficult to see what he could have said to Sherlock about Irene Adler that would have changed the way that Sherlock acted. People keep saying that if Mycroft had just talked to Sherlock everything would have been different, but they never specify what it is which would have made a difference.

Sherlock's ego may be the thing that makes him walk into the trap, but that's because he is given no reason to set it aside. In both TRF and HLV Sherlock takes several blows to his ego, particularly in the first of these, yet does nothing to stop it because it is for a "greater" purpose. Heck even in TSoT Sherlock is willing to tell about a failed case, something he has otherwise not been willing to allow, because it is one that makes John look good.
But when Mycroft tells him to stand down in SiB he's basically behaving as if he's calling off a dog. I don't really have that big an ego but if anyone ever behaved towards me like that, it wouldn't encourage me to behave. Would Mycroft behaving differently have changed the way things played out? Maybe, maybe not, we can never know that but basically Mycroft is behaving like an arrogant twat.

Willow wrote:

As for the England thing I think you need to bear in mind that there is a difference between the stereotypical John Bull and the real deal; one can agree that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels whilst simultaneously being prepared to die in the service of your country. That is, after all, what Sherlock agreed to do; is it so difficult to believe that Sherlock would murder in the service of his country? I'm fairly sure that Sherlock regarded CAM as a global threat to a genuinely free society; that is what he says to John at the beginning, and I think he meant it.

I would say that the ending of ASiP and TGG indicates that he is the opposite of a patriot.
And yes I find it quite incredulous to believe that Sherlock would murder for a shared delusion about common past or culture, which is basically what a country is. Besides when he spouts all that about how dangerous Magnussen is to Britain and the world he is talking to John and still tryihng to recruit him, he is using the arguments he think is most likely to persuade John to come along. And John is a patriot.
Personally I believe that what he says to Mycroft during their smoking break is closer to the truth, there's no need to try and deceive Mycroft, who is likely to see straight through him anyway. He hates CAM because steps on people Sherlock identifies with, the different. He repels him the same way Kitty Riley did, there was just never any reason to shoot her. That is, I believe, another difference between the brothers, Mycroft operates on national and international levels, Sherlock operates on a personal one.

Willow wrote:

I do agree entirely that Sherlock loves his brother, and disagree that Mycroft is always dispassionate; he seemed to be quite proactive in the helicopter shouting that they mustn't shoot his brother. But for Sherlock his brother does in some way embody his country; Mycroft in turn plays the game in responding to Sherlock's 'who needs me this time?' with the single word 'England'.

Bad example. For all we know Mycroft's merely worried about what Mummy will do if she ever learns that her little boy got shot and Mycroft did nothing. Also Mycroft seems supremely disinterested in whether or not John gets shot.
As for the 'who needs me this time', 'England' I see it more as a running joke between them, that Mycroft is the one who runs the country and does not necessarily translate into how Sherlock feels about Britain.
As an aside I would like to point out that Mycroft apparently gives sod all about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Willow wrote:

Both brothers recognise, however, that murder is murder; Sherlock acts when he realises that CAM really can 'destroy the lives of everyone he loves and everything he holds dear'. But he never claims that it is not murder, and he never tries to weasel out of the consequences. Nor does Mycroft...

Sherlock seems to recognise the fact, Mycroft on the other hand appears to be manoeuvring to get Sherlock off. He knows that he isn't going to get Sherlock off completely here and now, so he manipulates to send him on the “suicide” mission. I also think he fully intends to get Sherlock back before the mission proves fatal. As he says: “Will there ever come a time where we will not need Sherlock Holmes?” i.e. we can't afford to take actions that would leave us bereft of his talents permanently.


One more thing, am I the only one who's noticed that the treason charge has gone poof? Does this mean that the computer Sherlock brought Magnussen didn't contain state secrets?

 
Well, it's 3.33am so I will respond in full tomorrow. I will say one thing: you are riding a hobby horse as opposed to considering evidence and developing a hypothesis based on that evidence. Your beliefs about what a country is, or, to be more precise, what a country is not, is totally irrelevant to what Sherlock thinks a country is; your conviction that Sherlock must agree with your beliefs, notwithstanding the fact that you have no evidence to substantiate that belief, is a rather twisted attempt to argue from an authority which does not, in fact, exist.

I commend to you Logic 101; give it a whirl and you may understand why neither Sherlock, nor I, would pay much attention to someone who thinks that an emotional conviction = fact.

Fair enough. My point was more that patriotism is not the same as feeling responsible for the fate of the people that you share a country with. 

@Willow. Could you please explain what you think, or rather what you think that Sherlock think a country is? Since you keep saying he is a patriot and that he loves his country you obivously know.