Apple might want to consider changing this

Let me be clear, this is not a complaint – the iPhone is the single most beautiful object I have ever had the pleasure to feel the sleek, streamlined weight of against my leg. Yes, I find it a bit erotic.

So maybe it’s no coincidence that when I sign a text message “xx” (as I am prone to doing to indicate anything from extreme fondness to lust to indifference), the predictive text messaging predicter automatically changes it to read “fx”.

A number of people have already leapt to the wrong conclusion.

The threatening man in the sky

For what possible reason does the BBC’s latest update on the Somali pirates-and-Saudi tanker situation have the title ‘Experts’ lead Saudi tanker talks? Why not Experts lead Saudi tanker talks? Is there anything in the article that suggests they aren’t experts, that they are (in one of the more hideous and over-used expressions in modern parlance) ‘so-called experts’? Not that I can see, although I do note that there’s almost no actual news in the story, just rumour being peddled by ‘correspondents’ (that means other journalists), and a lot of weasely sentences that are true no matter what the reality of the situation is.

Of course there’s no way of knowing, but this feels like authority figure fear (or “threatening man in the sky effect”, which is what I’d like everyone to call it from now on). Ben Goldacre, both in his excellent book ‘Bad Science’ (I couldn’t bring myself to read his blog, because it updates all the bloody time: I waited for the novelisation, on the basis that a film probably isn’t forthcoming) and elsewhere (I can’t bring myself to subscribe to Guardian feeds either), has been talking about this in the context of science: scientists are seen as authority figures, unfathomable beings issuing pronouncements from on high. I’m sure this view would have shocked Richard Feynman, who would work through important theories himself rather than rely on the authority of other scientists (the story is The 7 Percent Solution, in “Surely You’re Joking Mr Feynman!”), but it does seem to be the way many people – or at least much of the media – think.

Right now, for instance, a Google News search for ‘scientists’ turns up the following headlines:

  • Scientists take a step closer to an elixir of youth
  • Scientists find way to calculate people’s real age
  • Scientists test effects of high heels on the body
  • Scientists find ‘cure’ for ‘werewolf boy’

I’m sure at least some of them rail against these authority figures for bothering to look at trivia such as high heels and absolute age, or will in editorials once they’ve had a chance to think about it. But I don’t think it’s just scientists, and I’m not entirely convinced that the media is responsible for replacing science in the public consciousness with a parody of itself. I think people are simultaneously comforted by the idea that there are experts out there – in whatever field, be it politics or science or entertainment or whatever – and threatened by the same thing.

The thing is, most people are venal, suspicious, selfish and foolish, just like everyone on 24, which I was watching last night and hoping represents in no way whatsoever the reality of the Department of Homeland Security. Or, for that matter, everyone on Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, including the robots, which I’m watching as I write this and hoping represents in no way whatsoever the reality of what happens when we accidentally invent a conscious computing network and discover time travel. I don’t want to live in those worlds – but maybe a lot of other people do.

Which is a problem, frankly, because although people may be blind to logic and science, current evidence suggests that the universe isn’t. This means that people are deliberately putting themselves at a disadvantage by denying themselves the tools to better understand and think about what they have to deal with out in the real world. Of course, they don’t think of it like that – maybe they think they can delegate all that ‘hard stuff’ to authority figures, or maybe they suspect that really it’s all smoke and mirrors, and the scientific method can’t tell them anything. Or maybe they think that invisible dinosaurs rule the earth, or that physics is just like in JJ Abrams‘ head, or that actually all our actions are ruled by evil thoughts from before time began. In which case there’s probably not much we can do for them.

But, seriously. Even the robots are stupid. Who wants to live in a world like that?

The Sitcom Room

Anyone watching our latest offering is probably sitting there wondering: are sitcom writing rooms really like that? Do people sit around all day and fling insults at each other while the producer gradually goes out of her mind? Can interns really not open jars of coffee? Is photocopying quite such a dangerous activity?

To be honest, we were never entirely sure while writing it. Sure, we had plenty of experience of uncomfortable writing rooms for stage shows; we’d heard tales from deep within the bowels of the BBC, incidents that were spoken of in hushed tones, with furtive glances to see who was looking. And I once injured myself on a Xerox machine back in 1993.

But that’s the UK. Thanks to the wonder of the Internet, people as far away as Australia have been watching. People in Canada. People in America. And that got us thinking: America has sitcoms too, and they have sitcom writing rooms as well – they’re famous for it, in fact, as the principal way that TV comedy gets written in Hollywood. Surely their rooms aren’t nearly as dysfunctional as we’d made ours to be. But how could we ever know?

Enter Ken Levine, blogger, Talkradio 790 KABC host, oh and Emmy-winning sitcom writer. Some time last year, he got together with Day O’Day, blogger and expert on Personality Radio (seriously: check his website), and between them they run this thing called The Sitcom Room.

Now I’m not suggesting I flew all the way to Los Angeles, camped out in a hotel for nearly 36 hours, ate reasonable Chinese food (it was advertised as bad Chinese food, but frankly I was disappointed), met some great writers, and stayed up afterwards talking American politics until gone midnight – I’m not suggesting I did all that just to find out whether Hollywood writing rooms involve protracted discussions of pheasants. But since we had to do that research, I sure as hell wasn’t going to put the other James through all that crap. I mean, come on: he’s got delicate skin. It’s entirely possible that California would kill him.

The format was pretty simple. At the start, we spent half an hour chatting and vaguely getting to know people. During this time, Ken and Dan were watching carefully to ensure that we’d later be paired up with precisely the people we talked to the least; to facilitate this piece of admin, Ken talked for two or three hours ahead of lunch, giving us some useful background and tips, punctuated by anecdotes and his hatred of a certain scumbag talent agency. Up till then it was pretty much like any other writing seminar you might imagine, only without air conditioning. Then some actors came in and did a fairly bad scene, with the 20 of us trying to keep up putting crosses through the jokes that didn’t work in the script.

Then off we went in our teams to rewrite the scene in twelve hours, with a list of studio and network notes (some of which contradicted each other, and some of which made no sense and bore no obvious relation to the scene at all; Ken made a point of being very polite about studio and network execs, but if these notes were at all representative I suspect that’s down to tact more than anything).

DSC00238

In the room: I was clearly being passionate about something, although I can’t remember what. Actually, one of the most interesting things that happened, which a lot of people commented on, was that you quickly lost sight of who came up with different jokes, different ideas. Despite this, people would get incredibly worked up over particular things: this joke, that story beat, whether we were going to like a character if it appeared he might be fleeing the country to avoid being implicated in the death of an innocent dance teacher. (I was guilty of worrying about the last… and I was wrong.)

DSC00267

The following day, our four totally different takes on the scene were performed for us, letting us see real actors tackle what we’d come up with. I guess for many people, particularly people starting out writing, this would be incredibly helpful; I’ve at least had that experience before, but it’s still the only way to test whether something works. And they did work, all four of them, much to everyone’s relief.

You can read Ken’s own write-up. We had the mirror. We also had the Hitler joke.

Was it worth it? Absolutely. Besides the fun of meeting new people, writing, and seeing your work performed (because let’s face it: I can get all that without travelling five thousand miles), it gave me conviction that I want to keep doing this, and do it more; and the confidence that I’m good enough to. Getting started in writing involves a fair amount of sitting on your own waiting for the words to come, and it’s not always clear during those YouTube breaks if you’re heading in quite the right direction, or if there’s going to be anything there when you arrive.

If I could have got more out of it in any way, I think it would have been that during the writing my group could have asked Ken more questions, and maybe got his input on what we were doing. As it was, whenever he turned up we just acted a bit like naughty school children. “Everything going okay?” “Yes, it’s all fine.” “Nothing you want to tell me about? No petty larceny, or dead bodies, or lengthy discussions about the relative merits of the sexual organs of different animals?” Admittedly part of that was because of an early visit where a small bombshell was dropped on us (the details of which are sealed under a vow of secrecy) and we had to throw away some of the work we’d done – so every time either Ken or Dan came in after that we were worried they’d announce that the network wanted to replace the entire thing with a musical.

Right at the end, after the read-throughs, and after we’d all had a chance to have another go over our scripts, a few other show-runners came in and talked about their experiences over the years. Despite the impression given by Ken’s post, and one or two of the comments from people who weren’t actually there, this wasn’t a big part of the weekend, but it was useful in its own way (although, I suspect, the sort of thing you could get in some form or another at other seminars and industry courses), and of course contained a load more stories about the sorts of things that go on in a Hollywood writing room.

Although I’m still not sure how much they talk about pheasants.

Spoiler aler… oops, too late

After the embarrassing farrago which was the BBC’s adaptation of Oliver Twist last year, it is a relief and a delight to see that the Beeb can still do Dickens properly. Though not quite as perfectly crafted as Christine Edzard’s Little Dorrit, the BBC’s current offering is a masterclass in TV adaptation, and has the Dickensian balance between comedy and tragedy just right. Plus some really good performances, not just from reliable stalwarts like Tom Courtenay (who is mesmirising), but also from surprising areas – who knew Russell Tovey could act? That absurd Welsh one off Torchwood is really rather good! As is token ethnic Doctor Who girl Freema Catalogue!

But a gripe (and you knew I’d have one): what is it with TV serials having so little confidence in the actual content of the episode that they have to show you what’s going to happen in the next one to entice you back? The now-obligatory “coming soon” segment, which used to be more the kind of thing you got on Richard and Judy, now sits as a huge great spoiler at the end of every episode of everything.

Okay, I understand that series using the 45-minute single episode format can no longer rely on a juicy cliffhanger to woo viewers back for the next instalment, which is why the likes of Merlin and Doctor Who give you a taster as a matter of course. The downside to this is that they tend to show you the best bits to make the next week’s episode look much better than it really is, so every episode is invariably a big disappointment (invariably a great big mammoth disappointment in the case of Merlin).

But that’s not what I’m complaining about. I’m complaining about being shown the content of the next episode when you have been given a juicy cliffhanger, when you are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. It’s a bit rubbish when a little teaser gives it all to you before you’ve had a chance to enjoy the anticipation.

When the revived Doctor Who first gave us a two-parter it fell right into this trap: Aliens of London gave us a suitably thrilling climax in which we saw the Doctor being killed – yes, killed! – then on rolled the caption “coming up” and we saw the Doctor running around chasing aliens in the next episode. So, oh, he wasn’t dead after all.

Since then the production team have got wise to that problem and started showing what’s coming up after the credits – and I believe in the last series they removed that bit altogether from some two-parters, which at least shows some confidence in the strength of their cliffhangers (even if, typically, the resolution was often a great big mammoth disappointment).

So why on earth can’t Little Dorrit do the same? It’s a grand adaptation which sets up huge Dickensian cliffhangers and there have been no disappointments so far – so I wish they’d stop telling me what’s coming up and let me watch the credits. As it is I feel the need to hastily switch off to avoid spoilers, which means that I don’t know what the theme music sounds like. These things bother me.

Coming up in the next blog entry: a rant about something and the word “mansuetude”!