my idea for that is that john really didn’t have that many issues from the war cause he’s kind of generally okay with whatever? i think he was less PTSD from the war and more like, fuck i’m bored, i can’t shoot anyone now which Sherlock did change.
I am not comfortable, myself, making a claim on whether or not John has PTSD because I’ve no experience with it and wouldn’t know. I do have a theory that is similar to what you said, because the experience of combat and the sort of bonds formed with the men and women you experience it with would be intense and thrilling as much as terrifying and almost an emotional high that would be very very very hard to recreate in a civilian setting (War by Sebastian Junger is a very interesting read in regards to this) and to be torn from that so suddenly (to be torn from those people so suddenly) without an adequate support system would be wrecking and definitely definitely John would attach himself to Sherlock is Sherlock was offering an alternative life that brought those bonds and feelings back.
But almost everything about John’s struggle just disappears until Sherlock “dies,” then it reappears, and I find that a bit, very not right. John is still in the civilian world, even if it is a world with a hidden war. I suppose this is ok considering the tone of show, but I have problems with the tone of Sherlock too. (I am not a fan of how cartoonish it is. I think it would benefit by addressing these sorts of issues a little more, because it brings them up. But that’s just the way I see it.)
no don’t be sorry cause i like to talk about this too and it’s overlooked a lot and like, i love the show but there’s absolutely wasted potential. and with mycroft i’d love to know if he justifies his actions to himself or if he accepts it?
Probably Mycroft is smart enough to know that what he is doing is not right and that quite a bit of his justification for it is complete utter bullshit, but he probably also believes, truly believes, in the soul way, that the world can not exist without Structure and that the Structure it needs can not exist without Evil (a word which, I am sure, he both reflexively respects but outwardly looks down upon as the rhetoric of antiquated religio types).
(And Moriarty is Anti-Structure, Chaos, and those developments in science that leave us both knowing and more confused.)
But this is delving purely in the realm of my headcanon, now, so.