Lola Red wrote:

still don't know who is behind the conveniently-timed Moriarty GIF and Mycroft has straight out told the shadow government that they will always need Sherlock.

I think you've made some valid point and my theory so far on the Moriarty thing is that he trained an apprentice I feel like Moriarty always has a back up plan, so in the event that Sherlock did survive and he didn't he trained someone to continue his work.
 

We now know that Eurus and Jim colluded.

That's an interesting idea!  His incredible mind is probably wasted on "running the government" - he must have had some motivation for the particular line of work!  And possibly the biggest driver that we see is protecting his siblings.   It's even how he gets introduced to us.  I think you may have hit on something!

I'm having problems posting, but just editing to add: another motivator we see is a longing for approval, from his parents, but also from Sherlock.  So that may have been a factor too.

Last edited by Liberty (November 19, 2020 9:28 pm)

That is a lovely moment, indeed!  I was also thinking about when he says he always wondered what Sherlock thought of his performance in The Importance Of Being Earnest.

I still think "You were always the grown-up" (Mrs Holmes to Sherlock) is a bit unfair on Mycroft!  But I suppose she has probably never known the full story of how Mycroft has tried to protect Sherlock, or seen Sherlock acting childishly, etc.

It ends up being all about family, doesn't it!  (And friendship, but John and Rosie become kind of part of the family too).

Liberty wrote:

That's an interesting idea!  His incredible mind is probably wasted on "running the government" - he must have had some motivation for the particular line of work!  And possibly the biggest driver that we see is protecting his siblings.   It's even how he gets introduced to us.  I think you may have hit on something!

I'm having problems posting, but just editing to add: another motivator we see is a longing for approval, from his parents, but also from Sherlock.  So that may have been a factor too.

I think you're probably right about it having to do with protecting his family. We often see him in the series trying to protect Sherlock, often using the intel he gets from being in his position, even if the advice he gives Sherlock (like telling him not to care) is not necessarily the right thing to do or even something Sherlock agrees with. But he's also perfectly ready to do what's necessary to help Sherlock when he's imprisoned in a foreign country.
It could also suggest a desire for control, too, I suppose, since he seems to swoop at certain moments and tries to get John to help him achieve what he wants. I guess it connects back to protection, but it could also have to do with wanting control. There are ways to protect people without trying to control how they approach the people in their life.
I hope this makes sense, I'm kind of just throwing out a stream of thoughts.

Interesting thoughts, both of you.  Of course Sherlock resists that control!  Thinking of protecting Eurus - her big weak point seems to be a difficulty in forming relationships and connecting with people.  Only Sherlock eventually really gets through to her.  So it's maybe strange that Mycroft tends to warn Sherlock off caring, when in fact it's not caring (or not outwardly caring, like Eurus) which seems to cause difficulties.    I suppose it's just because what happened was so devastating and Mycroft doesn't want Sherlock hurt, but still ....

 

Yes,  Come to think of it, maybe the main occasion when Mycroft warns Sherlock off is at John and Mary's wedding.   Remind me, did Mycroft know who Mary was at the point?  I can't believe I don't remember - the truth is that it's a while since I watched, and I spent so much time thinking about it and talking about it here, and imagining Mary working for Mycroft, that I kind of assumed he did, but can't remember for sure.  She had worked for him under her previous identity, but did he know?  Can't believe I've forgotten.

Anyway, my point was that if he did know, then he's warning Sherlock off caring for somebody whom he knows is likely to get killed (something that Sherlock doesn't know about her).   That makes it quite reasonable in a way.  It's not warning him off caring in general but caring for this particular person who he will likely lose soon. 

The other time that Mycroft warns him is when talking about Irene, and at the time when she has been (supposedly) killed, so again warning about loss rather than caring itself, I suppose.  And Mycroft is very worried about Sherlock afterwards (after Irene's "death" - both of them, I suppose), which has a bit of a different context when we now know the truth about Redbeard, and that a death of somebody he cared about caused Sherlock amnesia and deeply affected his life.   I almost wonder if Mycroft was also thinking that that loss could be a trigger for Sherlock to remember the truth and be devastated by it again.   He doesn't worry about Sherlock being manipulated by Irene, and in fact misjudges the effect on Sherlock.  It's the bereavement that concerns him. 

Sorry, just thinking aloud, but thinking that in fact Mycroft's concern about Sherlock caring seems to be limited to the context of bereavement.  I don't think he worries too much about him caring for John or his other friends, does he?  Just the ones that are likely to die, or apparently dead.   So I take back what I said in the my post above! 

Yes: I just couldn't remember for certain if he knew at the time of the wedding!  But he must have done, otherwise why warn Sherlock?

It's just that Mycroft gives the impression that he almost disapproves of caring, but then by the end we discover it's his main motivator and he's spent his time trying to protect his whole family.  It's interesting to look back at what he actually says to Sherlock.

The quote I was thinking about after Irene's death is "all lives end. All hearts are broken. Caring is not an advantage".  Which doesn't actually say that caring is a disadvantage, come to think of it.  Just that it can't prevent tragedy, I suppose.   (It's Sherlock, not Mycroft, who later goes on about sentiment being a defect found in the losing side: and at that point, he's playing a part).  It's just interesting in the context of us later finding out just how caring Mycroft is, to the extent that he'll put his life on the line without thinking if needed.  Just wondering how he thinks of caring in relation to himself.   This is about Sherlock, but he is actually talking about both of them (answering Sherlock's question about whether there's something wrong with them - there's an assumption that both of them are "above" caring in the way normal people do), and it seems quite a poignant thing to say about himself now that we know the background. 
 

Hard to say if it's only one or the other, I guess. But at the same time, he seems a bit less emotionally detached in that moment on the plane where he tells John to watch out for/take care of Sherlock (I can't remember his exact wording at the moment, but it was something like that). Not overly emotional, but still seems to be legitimately worried about him.

Interesting of you to note it's often to do with loss, Liberty! 

And I agree, that Sherlock actually caring ends up being the right thing to do. In that way, the series upends what people often say about needing to not be too emotional about things, in a way. Sometimes caring can help you to do what's right, instead of always being cold, calculating, and distant. Obviously, it depends on the context and just how emotional one actually is, but I think you always can or should separate logic and emotions.