Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[sfmpco]

Except if it had been a woman in the fire, I think he would have gone in even faster and been screaming at the others for help.

[Arcadia]

.... But they play with our (well, my and some other people's, not necessarily all our) expectations and preconceived ideas knowingly and intentionally. Which makes the subtext deliberate in my opinion. Which brings me back to it not being fair to tell people off for noticing it and using it as the basis for their interpretation, which might be wrong in the sens that they didn't fully "get" what the author was after, but is certainly not absurd or impossible based on what we are shown (regardless of what we are told).

 

Oh, I agree that the subtext is deliberate. But I also think it doesn't always mean what some people think it means. A case in point, from above: when Sherlock says "There's always something I meant to say" but then makes a joke, I see that as subtext for "I want to tell you how much I've appreciated your friendship, but I'm too emotionally repressed to say it." You and J.P. thought the subtext was "I need to make John laugh right now to lighten this awkward atmosphere." So the subtext is clearly there; but are any of us interpreting it "correctly"? And if we aren't, is that the Moftisses fault? I'm not sure, actually; they could be a lot less vague if these things really troubled them..... 

 

So, here's the thing I keep wondering about subtext.  And I realize my training is not in sociology, nor is it in lit or film crit, so I might be missing something, but here goes.

 

The subtext is really a function of the juxtapositioning of two different socially-constructed sets of behavior.  We are playing with the difference between behavior a culture expects of two male friends (and I think "male" is important here, because the behavior would be different for two females) and what it expects of a romantic couple.  The "subtext" occurs when the characters that present themselves as one thing start taking on the behavior of the other group.

 

To take a really obvious example, in SiP, we confront the fact that current culture expects that two adult, single men would probably not take flatmates -- single adult men typically live alone.  Romantic couples live together.  So, if Sherlock and John move in together with no explanation, we get subtext that they might be romantic.  Now, they solve that straight away by telling us that it's a financial arrangement, and then they play a bit with the potential for subtext by having the Angelo's conversation. But Holmes and Watson have to live together for at least some time for a Sherlock Holmes story to work, so they had to work through the cultural potential for subtext.

 

What I wonder, is how much of the subtext that we all love to discuss is a product of Moftiss's own culture, and how is it perceived, rightly or wrongly, by other cultures, even ones that seem to share a great deal in common with the British culture in which the show is immersed?

 

Example, for those of you who've put up with this so far:  You all know I love House.  Even though Hugh Laurie is British, the show is completely American in it's writing, setting, and the acting of the leads.  The show confronted the same subtext problems as did Sherlock, but I would argue that they negated the idea of House/Wilson as a couple by taking a very American attitude to it that I think is much more muted in something British like Sherlock.  And if I think I perceive a difference in British vs. American cultural expectations and subtext, what happens when Sherlock is watched by cultures that are much further removed from the British culture?  Does the cultural difference that creates subtext still exist, is it magnified, or is it diminished?

 

OK, [/nerd off].  Discuss.   :D

 

So, are our interpretations of subtext influenced by our culture? Hmmm....

 

"The Imitation Game" came up in one of my classes awhile back, and one of the students remarked that she was glad to hear Mr. Cumberbatch had gotten married, because she had always thought he was gay. To which another student laughingly replied, to the American sensibility all Englishmen seem a little gay. To which another one said "That's what makes them so attractive!" To which the second lady said "I'll have to tell my English husband about this conversation."

 

So my first question is: which one of those attitudes is most representative of American culture?

 

Or this: I share the same culture as you, but I wasn't aware it's no longer possible for two men to share living quarters without being considered gay. (Do men no longer share college dorms? Do firestations have separate apartments for each man now? If so; wow. No wonder local taxes are so high.) To heck with subtext; if Moftiss hadn't put "you and your date" into the text, any notion of one or both men being gay would never have occurred to me. But that's because I have certain notions of how gay men who are interested in each other behave. But I honestly don't know if that's cultural, or simply based on my personal observations. Probably a combination of the two, now that I think about it.

As usual, Perceiver that I am, I don't have a real answer. God forbid I should be tied down to any one point of view! But it's a bit like nature vs. nurture: I can make a pretty good case for each, if driven to it. Or I can just do what I usually do, and not give much thought to it. :p

[jadpdr]

Personally speaking, I think the whole bonfire sequence is a 'damsel in distress' setup. If the text had not been sent to Mary, threatening John's life, Sherlock would not have gone into panic overdrive, instead, he would have telephoned the police and then gone to the scene himself. He has demonstrated that he knows the exact arrival time of a London ambulance, he must know that the police car closest to the scene will be dispatched to deal with the disturbance. Instead, that brilliant, logical mind of his gets pushed to the background BECAUSE this is John.

What annoys me, is that the creators are playing with our minds and our feelings, for them the Game is On, each one of us can play it or leave it alone, but it is a Bit Not Good for them to be hypocritical about the whole, say one thing and show us another, which is always open to multiple interpretations.

Even in Study in Pink, Mr Gatiss as Mycroft asks John when they may expect a happy announcement,

since John has just moved in and is already solving cases with Sherlock. Subtext be #⃣

[Inge l-w]

If anyone is really interested in watching Sherlock at his modern best, they had better abandon the series and watch the Lewis series,instead. The writer involved Colin Dexter, the creator of Morse, from the get-go, and they decided that Sergeant James Hathaway would have ambiguous sexual traits, Laurence Fox actually says it in the extras, but you once again have a brilliant mind at work, inside the police force this time, a person who had gone to a seminary to become a priest, so celibacy was an obligation, who is able to function around women characters, who can deduce through brilliant intuitive insights as well as Sherlock; the main difference being Hathaway is a Cambridge blue, while Sherlock, if he had ever bothered, would be an Oxford light blue! The way the conundrum is solved is really, really funny, since Hathaway strips it down to male and homosexual stereotypes; just watch Life Born of Fire, and as Donovan would say "no mucking around", posh accent notwithstanding in both characters!

Not to mention a life-threatening fire at the end or that the villain of the story is another Irishman! La Gazza Ladra all over again?

[Boton]

 

Or this: I share the same culture as you, but I wasn't aware it's no longer possible for two men to share living quarters without being considered gay. (Do men no longer share college dorms? Do firestations have separate apartments for each man now? If so; wow. No wonder local taxes are so high.) To heck with subtext; if Moftiss hadn't put "you and your date" into the text, any notion of one or both men being gay would never have occurred to me. But that's because I have certain notions of how gay men who are interested in each other behave. But I honestly don't know if that's cultural, or simply based on my personal observations. Probably a combination of the two, now that I think about it.

 

As usual, Perceiver that I am, I don't have a real answer. God forbid I should be tied down to any one point of view! But it's a bit like nature vs. nurture: I can make a pretty good case for each, if driven to it. Or I can just do what I usually do, and not give much thought to it. :P

 

 

Yeah, I agree it's nature vs. nurture in it's feel -- subtext is both cultural and absolute, depending on perspective.  I can see that.

 

I think single men can live together in American cultural expectation.  The examples you gave, such as college dorms, and military/paramilitary service are both very valid.  I also think it's more common in youth -- two recent college grads may well room together.

 

I think that, in the case of Sherlock and John, a man in his early 30s and a man in his late 30s, both with established careers, would typically not live together without a reason.  If I accept the events in Sherlock as fact (that is, I discount explanations that have to do with the creators' desires to either reflect culture or stir the pot), then the set-up that both men were looking for a flatmate, IMHO, requires an explanation.  The explanation, as given, is that both of them need a flatmate to afford Central London, which is plausible and culturally acceptable.

 

Of course, then Moftiss wanted to play with us a bit, so we get the Angelo's scene.  I think it was a good scene to have, because I do believe that at least one of the pair of potential flatmates would want the information on whether he was rooming with someone straight or gay, if only to avoid having to formulate awkward, open-ended sentences all the time.  We know Sherlock doesn't really care, but I can see John wanting to know whether to refer to girlfriends or boyfriends for Sherlock, and I think that's a logical question for a flatmate to ask.  But that's an in-universe explanation for something that the creators actually just wanted to play with. 

[J.P.]

 

 We know Sherlock doesn't really care, but I can see John wanting to know whether to refer to girlfriends or boyfriends for Sherlock, and I think that's a logical question for a flatmate to ask.  But that's an in-universe explanation for something that the creators actually just wanted to play with.

 

Okay, here comes my interpretation: John wants to smalltalk and takes the eating as a point of departure. He just wants to know more about Sherlock and asks questions that might be seen as somehow invasive, but, well, Sherlock was deducting John's relation to his sister, so what the hell... IMO for John it's just factual questions.

 

It is actually funny that it's Sherlock who gets the subtext that's actually not in the question (especially funny to observe his face - in both versions of SiP), and he is usually not very good at this. What makes me wonder though is WHY? Plus - why Angelo is thinking John is his date? Of course we could use the usual Plothole Filler and say Sherlock might act gay for a case in the past, but you can assume that Angelo is gay himself and maybe projecting his POV on everyone around him (have seen this in RL).

[Boton]

 

 

 

Okay, here comes my interpretation: John wants to smalltalk and takes the eating as a point of departure. He just wants to know more about Sherlock and asks questions that might be seen as somehow invasive, but, well, Sherlock was deducting John's relation to his sister, so what the hell... IMO for John it's just factual questions.

 

It is actually funny that it's Sherlock who gets the subtext that's actually not in the question (especially funny to observe his face - in both versions of SiP), and he is usually not very good at this. What makes me wonder though is WHY? Plus - why Angelo is thinking John is his date? Of course we could use the usual Plothole Filler and say Sherlock might act gay for a case in the past, but you can assume that Angelo is gay himself and maybe projecting his POV on everyone around him (have seen this in RL).

 

 

I can buy that John is just trying to small talk initially.  However, I think I read Sherlock's facial expressions as initially being very truthful ("Girlfriends? Not really my area.") and then realizing that he himself inadvertently created subtext, and he was trying to back out of it gracefully.  ("John, you should know I consider myself married to my work...")  I think Sherlock has been mis-identified as gay before this by people who confuse celibate and gay (which is profoundly annoying if so, and offensive to both groups), and he doesn't want this relationship off on the wrong foot.

 

I don't know if I think Angelo is gay; I don't see any evidence one way or another.  I suppose, in my own head canon, Angelo knows that he has a very romantic restaurant where people typically come for dates, and here his friend Sherlock comes with another guy.  And, like so many of the people over the course of the show, Angelo wants to see his friend in a relationship so badly that he will construe anything like this as a date and try to facilitate it.  

[J.P.]

Actually it would be a wonderful world, if this kind of discussion were considered normal and lead in such natural manner as John does it.

 

Why I thought Angelo might be gay? Well, another subtext - his affection for Sherlock and how he shows it. But again, it might just be Angelo being Angelo, a huggy Italian, which also might be another cliché.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 I think Sherlock has been mis-identified as gay before this by people who confuse celibate and gay (which is profoundly annoying if so, and offensive to both groups), and he doesn't want this relationship off on the wrong foot.

 

:lol: It seems so... Mrs Hudson, Angelo, John (initially at least), even his own brother - they all seem to assume he's gay, at least during the first series. People just cannot imagine a man not having sex. If he isn't going out with women, they think he must be seeing men, and to be fair, there probably are a lot more gay men out there than celibate men.

 

But Sherlock isn't like most people. What I find perfectly wonderful about him is that he honestly doesn't give a F*** about other's assumptions and misconceptions. He never bothers to correct anybody, because what's the point? People are idiots and they will talk no matter what, so why waste his precious time and energy trying to convince them of something they won't believe anyway?

 

Aw Sherlock... how I do love that funny old fictional arrogant sod.

 

 

[J.P.]

I don't see Mycroft's remarks as alluding on Sherlock being gay. Mycroft is just sarcastic about any kind of close relationships. And probably the art of relationship he despise the most is marriage. I see his words on the same level as the goldfish remarks.

[sfmpco]

When Sherlock says girlfriends aren't his area and later backs it all up to say he's married to his work, to me the subtext is that relationships in general aren't his area.  John's already been told by Sally that Sherlock doesn't have any friends.  I don't think he wants to just blurt out - "I'm the most unsociable person you'll ever meet, and I don't do friendships, relationships, whatever."

[Arcadia]

Personally speaking, I think the whole bonfire sequence is a 'damsel in distress' setup. If the text had not been sent to Mary, threatening John's life, Sherlock would not have gone into panic overdrive, instead, he would have telephoned the police and then gone to the scene himself. He has demonstrated that he knows the exact arrival time of a London ambulance, he must know that the police car closest to the scene will be dispatched to deal with the disturbance. Instead, that brilliant, logical mind of his gets pushed to the background BECAUSE this is John.

What annoys me, is that the creators are playing with our minds and our feelings, for them the Game is On, each one of us can play it or leave it alone, but it is a Bit Not Good for them to be hypocritical about the whole, say one thing and show us another, which is always open to multiple interpretations.

Even in Study in Pink, Mr Gatiss as Mycroft asks John when they may expect a happy announcement,

since John has just moved in and is already solving cases with Sherlock. Subtext be #⃣

[Boton]

 

 

 

I actually don't see anything wrong with saying one thing but showing something else; I think that's a time-honored artistic technique to get the viewer engaged and thinking. I DO agree that it is a bit disingenuous for the creator to then say "oh, that's just the audience making stuff up." I don't think we're making stuff up, we're doing our best, without much concrete information, to understand what they are trying to say to us. Sometimes we're going to get it right, sometimes we're going to get it wrong, and sometimes (most of the time?) we overinterpret; that is, we give meaning to a look or a word or an action where no meaning is intended. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

 

That's the risk creators run when they are deliberately ambiguous. If they don't want us to arrive at "random" or "incorrect" conclusions, it's up to them to make themselves clearer. But it's also up to us to pay attention, and to play fair. Yes, Sherlock looking at John's empty chair is an ambiguous moment that invites interpretation. It's subtext. But just because it's subtext doesn't automatically mean the audience is supposed to believe that Sherlock is emotionally shattered by the desertion of his gay boyfriend. The subtext could mean something else; he could be looking at John's chair and reflecting on the nature of friendship, reminding himself why he agreed to be best man. (Eating! Chatting! People! Tell me again why I'm doing this? Oh yes, for my friend.)

 

All I'm saying is, I don't think it helps to get locked into just one interpretation of any particular scene. I have my preferred interpretations, but I can see the logic behind some of the others, and I've adjusted my thinking in some cases. And some interpretations make no sense to me; but that doesn't mean I'm right. But it does mean I might be tempted to point out what I consider flaws in that person's reasoning.

 

So yeah ... I agree that John in the fire is a "damsel in distress" setup. But so is Timmy in the well, or E.T. in the woods. Just because their friend comes rushing to the rescue doesn't automatically mean there is a romantic subtext.

 

(For those who aren't old enough or American enough to know; "Timmy in the well" refers to the old TV show "Lassie" -- about a collie dog who was always rescuing her master from perilous situations. Oddly enough, she never actually rescued Timmy from a well!)

 

 

Yes. What Arcadia said.   :D

[Arcadia]

When Sherlock says girlfriends aren't his area and later backs it all up to say he's married to his work, to me the subtext is that relationships in general aren't his area.  John's already been told by Sally that Sherlock doesn't have any friends.  I don't think he wants to just blurt out - "I'm the most unsociable person you'll ever meet, and I don't do friendships, relationships, whatever."

Actually, this is an instance where I personally think the subtext is quite clear; "girlfriends not my area"; "oops, he must be gay then, ha ha ha ha, isn't it funny that we all jump to that conclusion, ho ho." I'm not even sure we can call it subtext, it's such an obvious joke.

 

But the scene doesn't end there. Sherlock does, in fact, go on to clarify that he doesn't do relationships, period. Now we're into the sea of ambiguity ... wait, what? Whoever heard of someone who doesn't do relationships? Is that another joke, or something else? And since no other information is forthcoming, we are left to wonder.

 

It's at this point that I think some people do, in fact, let their imaginations go into overdrive. I've seen where people insist that John licking his lips at that point means that John is coming on to Sherlock, and therefore they must have been going at it like bunnies in Baker Street that night. To which I say, hogwash (but agree that it's suggestive, just to hedge my bets! :D Because, y'know, stranger things have happened.... )

[sfmpco]

 

When Sherlock says girlfriends aren't his area and later backs it all up to say he's married to his work, to me the subtext is that relationships in general aren't his area.  John's already been told by Sally that Sherlock doesn't have any friends.  I don't think he wants to just blurt out - "I'm the most unsociable person you'll ever meet, and I don't do friendships, relationships, whatever."

Actually, this is an instance where I personally think the subtext is quite clear; "girlfriends not my area"; "oops, he must be gay then, ha ha ha ha, isn't it funny that we all jump to that conclusion, ho ho." I'm not even sure we can call it subtext, it's such an obvious joke.

 

But the scene doesn't end there. Sherlock does, in fact, go on to clarify that he doesn't do relationships, period. Now we're into the sea of ambiguity ... wait, what? Whoever heard of someone who doesn't do relationships? Is that another joke, or something else? And since no other information is forthcoming, we are left to wonder.

 

It's at this point that I think some people do, in fact, let their imaginations go into overdrive. I've seen where people insist that John licking his lips at that point means that John is coming on to Sherlock, and therefore they must have been going at it like bunnies in Baker Street that night. To which I say, hogwash (but agree that it's suggestive, just to hedge my bets! :D Because, y'know, stranger things have happened.... )

 

 

And yet John has already tried to pick up on Anthea, and he tries again later.  Clearly girlfriends are HIS area, even if he's not terribly successful!

[J.P.]

... but only on Anthea. He has no problem picking up other girls. The problem is keeping them, having Sherlock as friend.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, could you please clarify the distinction between "hypocritical" and "disingenuous", because Merriam-webster's gives them as synonyms on its online Thesaurus.

Dr Watson, even in the stories, has a reputation as a ladies' man that spans three continents, Anthea is fair game!

If they wanted to avoid confusion, all they had to do was write the episodes differently. And since my last attempt for International Women's Day fell flat, Undead Medic has created something beautiful just for you.

[sfmpco]

I suspect Anthea doesn't get involved with anyone in Sherlock's world on the advice of Mycroft.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've seen where people insist that John licking his lips at that point means that John is coming on to Sherlock, and therefore they must have been going at it like bunnies in Baker Street that night. To which I say, hogwash (but agree that it's suggestive, just to hedge my bets! :D Because, y'know, stranger things have happened.... )

Saying that John licking his lips is suggestive is like saying that John breathing is suggestive (which -- well, yeah, it can be). But my point is, John licks his lips a lot.   I wouldn't put too much weight on it, other than he's a bit nervous or uncertain or just about anything of that general sort.  I certainly wouldn't take it as proof of sexual anticipation, or even as evidence for it -- about the most positive statement that could reasonably be made (in my opinion) it that it does not rule it out.

 

Dear Arcadia, could you please clarify the distinction between "hypocritical" and "disingenuous", because Merriam-webster's gives them as synonyms on its online Thesaurus.

Dr Watson, even in the stories, has a reputation as a ladies' man that spans three continents, Anthea is fair game!

 

I must have skimmed over Arcadia's use of those terms (you guys had gotten way ahead of me!), but I would certainly make a distinction.  Both mean paying lip service to one idea while actually subscribing to its opposite -- but I would consider "hypocritical" to be worse, implying a serious and/or willful disregard for honesty; whereas "disingenuous" generally refers to a casual or even humorous disregard.

 

As for the dear doctor, I believe that his "reputation" has been vastly overstated (perhaps mostly by former teenage fanboys -- no names will be mentioned!).  That statement appears to derive from this comment of Watson's:

 

Her face had neither regularity of feature nor beauty of complexion, but her expression was sweet and amiable, and her large blue eyes were singularly spiritual and sympathetic.  In an experience of women which extends over many nations and three separate continents, I have never looked upon a face which gave a clearer promise of a refined and sensitive nature.

 

That describes Watson's first impression of Mary Morstan (in The Sign of the Four).  While I do not deny that Watson appreciates the company of women, I cannot understand how the above sentences would qualify him as a "ladies' man" (at least not if that term is meant to imply a "love 'em and leave 'em" type).  He seems to be far more appreciative of Miss Morstan's character than of her appearance, and yet by the end of the story, he has asked her to marry him.

 

[Arcadia]

Dear Arcadia, could you please clarify the distinction between "hypocritical" and "disingenuous", because Merriam-webster's gives them as synonyms on its online Thesaurus.

Sure! The words are indeed similar, but have different shades of meaning. I chose disingenuous because it implies pretending to be innocent of something. But as Carol pointed out, hypocritical is harsher; it implies a person pretends he is better than the rest of us, when in fact he is doing the same things as the rest of us.

 

Does that help?

 

Saying that John licking his lips is suggestive is like saying that John breathing is suggestive (which -- well, yeah, it can be).

Down girl.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think the whole bonfire sequence is a 'damsel in distress' setup. ... that brilliant, logical mind of his gets pushed to the background BECAUSE this is John.....

 

I agree that John in the fire is a "damsel in distress" setup. But so is Timmy in the well, or E.T. in the woods. Just because their friend comes rushing to the rescue doesn't automatically mean there is a romantic subtext.

I got to thinking about this while cleaning the litter boxes just now (with six cats, that gives me plenty of time to think!), and of course my mind wandered to the Lone Ranger and his frequent "damsel" in distress, Tonto. I cannot even imagine that there was anything going on around the ol' campfire. In fact, even though I can see Tonto settling down with a wife and family later on, a la Sam Gamgee, I cannot imagine the Ranger himself ever doing so. For one thing, any woman associated with him would quickly and frequently become a literal damsel in distress.  I'm wondering whether this may be one reason why Sherlock has chosen to remain single.

 

In either case, it's one thing to expose a fellow crime-fighter to danger.  Tonto and John can in general take care of themselves (despite being taken captive roughly every-other episode), whereas a "civilian" who is not armed and not physically as strong would be at far greater risk.

 

[Inge l-w]

A former army doctor 'Fifth Northumberland Fusiliers' , which is endearing, when several other historically important regiments were disbanded or merged in the latest Defense budget cuts, would hardly qualify as a "civilian", now would he?

[T.o.b.y]

 

I got to thinking about this while cleaning the litter boxes just now (with six cats, that gives me plenty of time to think!), and of course my mind wandered to the Lone Ranger and his frequent "damsel" in distress, Tonto. I cannot even imagine that there was anything going on around the ol' campfire. In fact, even though I can see Tonto settling down with a wife and family later on, a la Sam Gamgee, I cannot imagine the Ranger himself ever doing so. For one thing, any woman associated with him would quickly and frequently become a literal damsel in distress.  I'm wondering whether this may be one reason why Sherlock has chosen to remain single.

 

In either case, it's one thing to expose a fellow crime-fighter to danger.  Tonto and John can in general take care of themselves (despite being taken captive roughly every-other episode), whereas a "civilian" who is not armed and not physically as strong would be at far greater risk.

 

 

That's something I've always thought about Sherlock Holmes, that he's not only single because he considers romance a bother and a distraction, but also because, in Victorian times especially, a woman was too much of a responsibility. He as good as says in one story that he never loved because if the women he loved had come to a bad end, he wouldn't have put it past himself to murder the person responsible.

 

Sherlock's problem is not that he can't feel, but that he's prone to feel too much and too strongly. I think his whole antisocial aloof act is just protection against getting hurt, and as a sensitive and fiercely protective person myself, I can sympathize with that whole-heartedly (perhaps I have him all wrong and am just projecting my own experience onto him).

 

Even in our day, the average person, man or woman, is way too easy to hurt / maim / kill for a guy in Sherlock's position to love her / him without having to worry constantly. I think one of the reasons he ever let John into his life as far as he did was that John can really take care of himself. He can fight, he can shoot, he's seen actual warfare, and besides, his personality guarantees that he'll get himself into trouble anyway, Sherlock or no Sherlock, so that takes a lot of responsibility off Sherlock's shoulders. In fact, all of Sherlock's friends are a bit like that. Mrs Hudson may seem like a harmless sweet old lady, but we know her past says otherwise, and the experience with the CIA goons shows she's a pretty tough cookie. Lestrade is a police officer - same principles apply as with John. Irene Adler and Janine could both be classified as "adventuresses", and don't even get me started on Mary. (I think Sherlock is secretly delighted that Mary is such a bad-ass. No worrying about her. She's more likely to get him out of a tight spot than vice versa).

 

The only exception to that rule is Molly. Sure, she's brave enough, and she has a much stronger personality than we were initially led to think, but she doesn't seem to have many skills for protecting herself from the kind of people whom Sherlock tends to antagonize. No wonder he never let his affection for her show.

 

I am really worried about Molly for next series. I do hope Moriarty is dead. Because if he isn't... he has so many reasons to go after her, and while it may be cool to see Sherlock go really berserk, I am not sure it would be worth it.

[jadpdr]

If anyone tried to hurt Molly, Lestrade would have to enlist the help of several other police forces all over Britain just to collect their remains, which would be scattered over a wide area! But she is calm, cool-headed when Sherlock is not around, and she would use her cat's GPS or something similarly clever to lead the police to the abductor's lair. The problem would be who got there first: Sherlock in overdrive or the local force!

[Arcadia]

... any woman associated with him would quickly and frequently become a literal damsel in distress.  I'm wondering whether this may be one reason why Sherlock has chosen to remain single.

And why Moftiss made Mary the way she is?

 

(I think Sherlock is secretly delighted that Mary is such a bad-ass. No worrying about her. She's more likely to get him out of a tight spot than vice versa).

There, see? Great minds think alike!

 

I thought Mr. Holmes' position on women was that they were not trustworthy. :P