I think the "fixing a problem "are combative in the context of this article. Well Sherlock certainly has some goofy moments, and certainly over the top points the very things that you're complaining about are all things that are absolutely grounded in the books. Sherlock in the books is an insufferable person who tends to treat everyone else as an inferior. He's either working on the case or he is drugging himself because he's bored silly. He is not recovering from that. He certainly wouldn't use the patch. Watson as played by Martin Freeman it's pretty much the best Watson I've ever seen. Modern or Victorian. He has emotional depth like no one else who has played the role. No offense to Lucy Liu. She's not bad but he's better. Actually my favorite homles was Jeremy Brett. And I am not a big fan of what they did to Watson in the 1930s films they sort of dummified him. But yeah his brilliant solving of the crimes and his incredibly nasty attitude to other people is kind of the point in the books. It cannot be fixed per se. It's part of the DNA of the stories. Biggest issue both TV shows have is updating them to the 20th century. Most of what Holmes was doing then is now standard practice. But none of it was then so he was sort of ahead of his time. Both shows responded to this in a different way. BBC responded by making him sort of autistic. CVS responded by making it a procedural. Both responses have a certain amount of validity, both also have weaknesses. The weakness of a procedural is he's doing things the same way as everybody else, so the audience might forget that he basically invented what everybody else is doing. The weakness of the autistic approach is like you said the over the top stuff. Particularly when being written by Stephen moffett. I'll see you said that Mycroft doesn't ever have his job described. That's because in the books he doesn't have his job described. In moffatt's version he sort of an unofficial government agent of some kind.