It would be if the team was writing the show that way.
But numerous interviews inform my opinion that this is not the case.

I agreed no such thing.
I am always prepared to read, listen to and watch the team.
We have dealt with their 'lies' before and for me, they amount to not very much.
I can tell that Mark means exactly what he says, in the interview in my signature.

Well, we even get the term in ASiB. 

I would like to add something to the discussion about the above quote. Actually this is Moffat talking about Doctor Who, not Sherlock. But the parallels are obvious, in his writing he is using subtext over and over again, both in DW and Sherlock.
What is more, the question he is answering is one that has come up repeatedly, about a subject that to some may seem iconoclastic (a female Doctor), which would be something that has never been done before. And what he says is this:

Moffat also made it quite clear that by making the Master into a woman that he is not so subtly suggesting that he thinks the Doctor can be played by a woman.

"Well, I think my opinion is fairly obvious from the show, isn't it?" Moffat said while not-so-gently gesturing toward Gomez. "I think about the possibility and whether it would work or not. And I think I expressed myself as clearly as I could in the context of the show. If you're not reading the subtext--and believe me some people aren't reading that subtext because it's too subtle...[then here it is]."

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/doctor-who/247556/doctor-who-season-9-trailer-and-new-details

P.S. There is some doubt to what Moffat said at the end of the quote, the most common reading being "then hell mend you". 

Thank you for the link, Susi!  It's always good to have the context.  (Not wanting to get OT, but it's also suggested the Doctor was a girl at one point - although that maybe doesn't quite fit for a couple of reasons - and we've also another character regenerate as a different sex, so he has made it very possible). 

Anyway, subtext in Sherlock ... well, one of the ongoing themes is that Sherlock has distanced himself with people, but since meeting John has connected more and more with people, and that seems to have been flagged up as something that will continue in S4.   That's a fairly obvious theme, which isn't really stated explicitly in the show.   There are other themes, and no doubt things that will become clearer in S4.

Quite so.

But relationship with Mycroft, caring is not an advantage, sociopath label - those are parts of the maintext rather that subtext, are they not? They were very obviously defined in the show, it´s not something you read "between the lines"....

One subtext example for me is Sherlock trying to keep tabs on John's many girlfriends and John later offering to walk Jeanette's non-existant dog. 

Surface reading: nice joke
Subtext: John is a serial dater who is not really interested in his girlfriends.
 

If images are subtextual one has to wonder what to make of the drunken clueing for looks scene where Sherlock is very obviously sexualised ( and shrunken into John's mouth )  in quite a flamboyant way.

J P just to remind you  Whatever the writers say about Sherlock they are just another critic in the end . As graduates they know it's either in the text or it ain't
We don't need Shakespeare to tell us why Romeo drank poison or why one man asked another into the bushes to kiss him in As you like it do we ?
To put it simply You may have heard that Perception is everything or to quote Bowie I am whatever the most number of people think I am....

Last edited by Mothonthemantel (August 25, 2016 1:18 am)

Oh, definitely.  I think one of my favourite's is John's line "Nobody could fake being such an annoying dick all the time".  On the surface it's an insult, but underneath it shows what he really feels for Sherlock. 

But the fact of them being friends is explicit.  It's main text that they're best friends and that they love each other.   So it can never by only subtext, if that's what you mean.