Sammy wrote:

I can totally picture him from the ACD stories although in the canon he is supposed to be quite corpulent. But it's much nicer that way anyway, isn't it? ;)
I'm also very interested in his character, in so many points he's very alike to Sherlock and then again so different. Would love to know what their childhood looked like.

Yes in the canon Mycroft is corpulent, that is because he did not like Legwork ;) and he was evan more intelligent than Sherlock. I think he nearly never got out of his flat or the Diogenes Club.

For the childhood of these two, there is a reason for looking at people like that, I think it was a violent childhood. It is self-protection if you want to find out what people think or do next. And than they discovered that they can use it to earn money.

Or their parents did not function and they had to do all the stuff to survive and so they start to read the adults to get around. They also needed it to not stick out of the mass of people.

Violet Hunter wrote:

Yes in the canon Mycroft is corpulent, that is because he did not like Legwork ;) and he was evan more intelligent than Sherlock. I think he nearly never got out of his flat or the Diogenes Club.

For the childhood of these two, there is a reason for looking at people like that, I think it was a violent childhood. It is self-protection if you want to find out what people think or do next. And than they discovered that they can use it to earn money.

Or their parents did not function and they had to do all the stuff to survive and so they start to read the adults to get around. They also needed it to not stick out of the mass of people.

Remember the BBC series is an updated adaptation of the original. Look at all the things that have been updates: writing a journal now becomes writing a blog. Sending a telegram now becomes sending a text, etc etc.
I've referenced these 'updating techniques' a few times but I am not sure people understand what I mean.
When we look at the BBC series, we should be looking at updates from the canon for the main part
* So, Mycroft was corpulent/chubby/overweight /etc in the original. How does that translate into modern day terms? Because these days it is very easy (if we choose) to understand weight & weight loss & keeping fit etc. So it is quite easy for Mycroft to be 'trim'.
So what could translate into modern terms from the original versions 'corpulent'?
Back in that time period, being 'corpulent' wasn't so much a 'bad' thing. It showed more that the person 'ate well & hearty'. He wasn't on the poverty line, was in good health, etc etc.
Which is how we see Mycroft today anyway. He's a 'well to do' type guy. No obvious signs of sickness, etc etc.
So while there may be some 'jokes' between our latest Holmes brothers, they are simply that: jokes as a nod to the canon. I read somewhere that someone thought Mycroft must be constantly dieting or something for those jokes to be relevant. I don't think 'our' Mycroft has that problem at all really.


As for their childhood, where do you get the idea from that it was violent???
Many children are naturally inquisitive about their surroundings & other people without there being any violence in their upbringing. They went to good schools & Universities, so I'd hardly think they needed to find something they could do to earn money.
I'd tend to think they had a rather privileged upbringing.

I know he said it & I know it's in the scripts etc.

What I was saying was someone in a forum, or something started theorising that Mycroft may have been in bad health etc etc.
They were starting to do a 'what if this happened or that happened' thing; speculating past the evidence in front of us.
The yo-yoing weight thing was a bit of a laugh; I doubt we will see a 'beefed up' Mycroft at any stage.

I recall reading Gatiss (I think) saying that he thought it is more fun NOT to reveal too much of the Holmes' early family life in one big 'lump' & that the mystery/wondering was a far more exciting way to handle it for now.

Little snippets every now & then could be fun.

Mark plays him so brilliantly! You totally forget that Mycroft and Mark are actually the same person. And that is what good acting should do.

I was a Sherlock Holmes virgin before. Never read a book, I guess I must have seen one of the old films as a child, because my father was/ is a big fan, has all the books and the Jeremy Brett DVDs.
So all I knew about Sherlock Holmes was there is a Doctor Watson. Therefore I know just one version of Mycroft.

That's Baskerville, isn't it?