well, i lifted that dialogue from the dvd, and mycroft *doesn't* give a knowing look to watson. i believe this is because mycroft, like holmes, has a sort of single-minded focus. there might be some reproach or surprise in his glance at holmes--ie at holmes's frivolity in choosing LAST NIGHT'S free time to get lucky. of course he can hardly miss the signs in holmes. i mean, the viewer can't miss them; he really is wonderfully dishevelled. what he says is something along the lines of 'splendid, sherlock! i always said you would have made an excellent cat-burglar.' i also like the character very well, but i didn't want to make the ending too long. was afraid of losing the momentum of the afterglow. although i'm sure you're right the story could have benefitted from more content of the actual case and less of the personal thingy. i'll try to see to that on my next attempt.
no subject
well, i lifted that dialogue from the dvd, and mycroft *doesn't* give a knowing look to watson. i believe this is because mycroft, like holmes, has a sort of single-minded focus. there might be some reproach or surprise in his glance at holmes--ie at holmes's frivolity in choosing LAST NIGHT'S free time to get lucky. of course he can hardly miss the signs in holmes. i mean, the viewer can't miss them; he really is wonderfully dishevelled. what he says is something along the lines of 'splendid, sherlock! i always said you would have made an excellent cat-burglar.' i also like the character very well, but i didn't want to make the ending too long. was afraid of losing the momentum of the afterglow. although i'm sure you're right the story could have benefitted from more content of the actual case and less of the personal thingy. i'll try to see to that on my next attempt.