I’m not sure you need to know this but I need to tell you. I realised recently, and instantly mentioned to you, that writing is an illness. But if it is, then you’re supposed to catch the bug from Shakespeare or Larkin or Dickinson or Dickens.

I got it from Gene Reynolds, Leon Tokatyan, April Smith, Robert Schlitt, Michelle Gallery, Seth Freeman, Allan Burns and James L Brooks. You may not know the names but not one of them knows mine either.

Not true.

April Smith is now a crime novelist and we exchanged emails a few years ago. So at one point, yes, one of those names had heard of me but by now she’ll have forgotten. So it stands: not one of those people knows a pixel about me and yet, in combination, they got me writing.

Because they made Lou Grant. They wrote and produced my favourite show.

Lou Grant aired from 1977 to 1982; I don’t want to work out how young I was then but I was pretty young.

It’s a funny thing but today the show isn’t well known at all yet when it was cancelled, there was controversy. I mean, controversy. There was a march. People marched on the studio demanding its return. I’ve seen photos.

Its cancellation was so controversial that its star Ed Asner was blamed – he’d become a political and union figure in real life – and its star Ed Asner paid the price of not working for years afterwards. How much of that was politics, how much of it was that he was so well known in this one role that it was hard to see him in another, I don’t know.

Lou Grant was a journalism drama and I became a journalist, but that’s not how it worked. I didn’t become a journalist because of this show, I became a writer. Because it was the first time I’d watched a TV show and become conscious that it was a crafted piece of work. That effort and skill and talent had gone into it. That it mattered. It wasn’t just an hour’s entertainment to half-watch at the end of the day, it was an hour’s drama that took work to make.

From that moment on, the one-hour TV drama became to me what the three-minute pop song is to so many others. I love the form and its constraints and what can be done, what is done, in that time. That shrinking time: Lou Grant’s ‘one-hour’ episodes run 50 or even 52 minutes where something like today’s Leverage ‘one-hour’ is 43.

I also got into the history of this dramatic form and Lou Grant is special there too: it was the first and to this day remains the only hour drama to have come out of a half-hour sitcom. If that doesn’t sound like a big deal, think about it again: a supporting character in the comedy The Mary Tyler Moore Show became the lead in a drama. Look at how the character of Lewis changed when he was promoted to the lead of his own show after Morse changed and he was staying in drama. Look at how Frasier Crane changed when he went from Cheers to his own show Frasier – and he was staying in comedy.

Lou Grant and the actor Ed Asner had to change and to bring us along from a four-camera brightly-lit sitcom which, as very good as it was, had its chief aim of being to make you laugh at least twice a minute for half an hour. And we had to be brought to the same character now in a very naturalistic, single-camera one-hour drama that intended – and succeeded – in exploring serious areas. Very serious areas. They seemed easier to me because I’m in the UK and they were primarily American issues so I didn’t have the context and the grounding that its main intended audience had, but they had it.

As a writer looking back at it now, I can see that I was fascinated by how little happens. It’s a bit Alan Plater-like in that respect because despite being a 1970s/80s primetime US hit, every episode really boils down to people in rooms talking. It was a technically very clever show in how it managed to keep finding new and seemingly fresh ways to have a reporter interview someone in a room but more than that, it made you forget that this is all you were getting.

I love the Before trilogy (Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, Before Midnight) and actor/writer Julie Delpy has said in interviews that the hardest thing about the talky scenes in that is to make them be dramatic enough to not be boring yet not so dramatic that they are unrealistic. Lou Grant did this all the time.

It was also an ensemble piece with many major characters all able to lead an episode. It did that before Hill Street Blues – which was made by the same company – and it even did Hill Street’s trademark handheld camerawork. It only did that for one episode but it was deeply more effective, I think, for that: we were so used to the smooth and fluid dolly-track-driven camerawork of most episodes that to see one done handheld was jolting.

So I began being aware of the technical side of television too. Lou Grant got me because of its writing, then it got me seeing television as an industry, then it got me appreciating the technical craft of production done well and finally it got me appreciating actors who were able to handle long, involved scenes without the aid of car chases and explosions.

It got me into technology, too, as video had just come out and I was watching those episodes on VHS over and over. Lou Grant was supremely fortunate to be about the newspaper industry just as it was going through what then seemed its big change. It’s gone through the internet since but in the 1970s and 1980s, we would see scenes in Compositing: a huge room where strips of paper were physically cut and pasted together. No Cmd-C, Cmd-V, actual scissors and actual glue. And then we’d see how quickly and radically that changed as the fictional Los Angeles Tribune newspaper switched to computers.

Oh, and the show got me into soundtrack music too because Patrick Williams’s theme was re-recorded each season and I noticed it because I’d know the previous run’s tune so well.

So maybe it’s no wonder when I first went to Los Angeles, about ten years ago now, I got to see the Gene Reynolds Collection at UCLA. The scripts for that show I loved so much, the production memoes, the day to day makings of it. Heaven. I also went down the road to the real-life Los Angeles Times and got a smidgeon’s worth of work out of them. The Times wasn’t the inspiration for the more rundown Trib but it was a huge resource and it was a big presence in the show because the real paper was presented as the fictional one’s rival.

I tell you this now because I’ve just been back to Los Angeles. I didn’t get any work, I didn’t look for any work – I brought work with me, let’s not be daft – but this was a holiday. And still I had to go to Pershing Square.

Lou Grant was filmed over at CBS Studios, that’s where people marched in the early 1980s, but the exterior of the Trib was filmed at Pershing Square. It’s actually an ordinary office block and they popped a Trib sign over one for a pharmacy on the corner, but that’s the building that sticks in my mind all these years.

And it’s the building I had to go to. I said so many people have their three-minute pop song obsession and I have my one-hour television one. They have their Abbey Road, I have my Pershing Square.

And here I am, pointing at the real place and its fifth floor, where the Trib’s City Room was supposedly set and where I spent my formative television-viewing years.

There. Had to tell you all that. How have you been?

William

Writer: Doctor Who audios, British Film Institute: The Beiderbecke Affair, The Blank Screen
www.williamgallagher.com

It’s 9pm on Alcatraz. My head hasn’t adjusted to the time zone yet so in my mind it’s 5am and I should be getting to work. But I always slack off on Fridays to have a natter with you. And, besides, they’ve just clanged shut door after door.

“Are there any of you left in here?” said a guard – sorry, presumably a tour guide but he deliberately sounds like a guard just now. Especially as we’re outside in the cold and have that silly but palpable worry that the boat has gone.

I have to touch things before they’re real. Are you like that? I had to hold a cell door before I knew what it was like, before I knew I was here. A few years ago I had to break the rules, lean over the ropes and touch the hull of the Titanic. Had to.

It’s surely why I like meeting you and shaking your hand. It’s certainly why I like typing: it’s me touching the words I write.

Earlier today I was on a helicopter tour – a sad aside: I’ve now spent longer in helicopters as a tourist than as an impoverished would-be pilot – and we flew under the Golden Gate Bridge. It was a marvellous moment but I swear it wouldn’t have been so rich if I hadn’t walked the bridge yesterday. Touched it yesterday.

Which may be why I have problems with holidays. Can’t touch them. I want to quote MC Hammer and say can’t touch this but I can’t remember who that is and can’t look up Wikipedia because there is no wifi on Alcatraz. Hard labour, harsh cells, screaming winds and no wifi. The poor bastards.

Whoever MC Hammer is, I bet he or she is better with holidays than I am.

I have managed to get two jobs to do while I’m away, so that helps.

And I have turned to theft: I’ve stolen this whole ‘Postcard from…’ blog format from a pal, Katharine D’Souza, who regularly writes such things here.

Back to Alcatraz where I’ve just met a fella who can’t understand why anyone would come to the West Coast and another Cliff Clavin type who wanted to tell me more about Birmingham than I already knew.

Neither of them had any work for me. But both of them got us onto the last boat. Somebody really should organise overnight stays at Alcatraz but I’ve done my time.

A producer once told me that the most important thing in drama is the setting. I lied my agreement, as I wanted to work with her, but I knew the truth: drama is character. I happen to believe that dialogue is character, but we’re talking people, not places.

Only…

Well, I’m still not persuaded. And while she was talking about television drama in general, the conversation was dipping mostly into soaps. It’s funny that I can remember this part of the conversation so well yet I can’t fathom how we got onto it, but the topic included how a soap needs to provide a setting that very many characters can thrive in. And specifically a setting that can outlast its characters. I can see that. I can see that more than this maxim that setting is always more important than character or anything else.

Yet I’m pondering it. This is like sales: if you can get the customer to consider the product, you’re halfway there. If you can just get them to say yes or engage in the conversation, you’ve got them. It’s why all those tedious cold calls begin with “Hello, how are you today?” (I’m okay with that. I tend to say that I’m good, thank you, and then ask them how they are. Nine times out of ten, that throws them completely. One in the ten will reply and I’ll carry on listening. The rest will lurch on to the next line of the script, and I won’t. Actually, just to carry this aside way off, I’ve had a right spate of cold callers coming to my door lately. These ones always begin with “Don’t worry, I’m not selling anything.” To which the only reply is: “Goodbye, then.”)

Where were we?

I’m pondering. Thanks.

The reason I should really ponder is because it happens to be true that each time I’ve found a particular setting for a Doctor Who story, the idea, the pitch, the treatment and then even eventually the script have flown far and fast and I think quite high.

But I’m actually pondering because of Deep Space Nine.

I’m going away on holiday shortly and intend to stock up my iPad with some reading so I checked out the Kindle and iBooks stores. (If you don’t know, you can read Kindle books on iPad. And the Kindle Store has more books than Apple’s own iBooks Store. But the iBooks application on iPad is sufficiently more pleasant to read that I buy more from there than I do Amazon. The differences are small and decreasing over time, but they’re still there. The iBooks application has better typography, to my mind, and it matters.)

Deep Space Nine.

This was a Star Trek television series many years ago and now it is a long, unending series of Star Trek novels. I like Star Trek novels: I think they work better than the TV shows and over the years I have particularly enjoyed many linked DS9 novels. Not enough that I read all of them, but plenty enough that I look out for ones I fancy.

And it turns out that there is a new Star Trek book whose description begins:

WELCOME TO THE NEW DEEP SPACE 9

After the destruction of the original space station by a rogue faction of the Typhon Pact –

– what? Destruction of what?

The fictional station Deep Space Nine has been destroyed and my first thought was that they can’t do that, I lived there.

And then just to make certain I pondered setting, this week saw the opening of the new Library of Birmingham. I was already excited by this: I gabbled at you about it not long ago. But now going there, it was… overwhelming. Everybody had cameras and was photographing this rather extraordinarily marvellous new building yet I couldn’t. Needed to see it without a lens in front of me. Needed to absorb it, somehow.

You know and I know that sometime quite soon, we’re going to be used to the new library. I do want to know my way around it, I do want to work there, but I love how just at the moment, just at this moment, it is a barrage, a torrent of options and possibilities.

And it is so exciting to see people being so excited about a library.

I bubbled at one of the staff who bubbled right back: she’s been working on the library project for five years. Can you imagine how she must feel now it’s done?

Well, okay, yes, you’re a cynic. She feels unemployed. But apart from that.

She showed me the room I’m going to be doing a workshop in. (And that reminds me, I am delighted to say that tickets are selling briskly but now I’ve seen the room I also have to tell you to get a move on as it’s going to be a quite contained small event. A workshop on The Blank Screen or rather how to fill it, how to get on with writing. Have a look at the official brochure listing for the Birmingham Literature Festival. But, unofficially, a colleague just described it as being “about getting off your arse and writing”. I like that. That’s a poster quote, that is. I’m not 100% sure he’d like having that used or I’d tell you his name, but he’s a smart guy. We’ll leave it at that.)

I went back a day later to explore more, to finally take some photographs – and to join Angela at the newly reopened Birmingham Rep to see a play. The Rep’s been closed for years while all of this has been going on so it is fantastic to be able to go back inside.

Into that gorgeous setting.

For many years I used to have this gig I particularly relished. I wrote a thing called On This Day in Radio Times magazine: in with the listings for each morning in the week, I’d have a little spot to write about broadcasting history. It was filler – literally. The pages had to have a spot where regional differences in TV schedules would be listed and only some Radio Times regions had those. Everyone else got On This Day.

It was bliss.

I can’t remember what I was paid now but, always the professional, I worked out how long it meant I should spend on the job each week – and then completely ignored that. Always and forever, I’d spend vastly too much time on it and sometimes I would just go off on one having a blast researching old issues of Radio Times for the fun of it.

But I used to do this in Birmingham Central Library. It was for a few years, too, so while I knew the library before then, I really do now. I can close my eyes and take a little trip through every nook and cranny.

One day around March 2007, though, I was deep into the job and was reading features published in Radio Times on this day decades before. Actually, precisely 49 years before. I was writing copy that would be published in April 2007 and I devoted the entry to a show called My Word! which was airing in April 1958. It was a quiz show, very popular in its day but not especially remembered now. Yet it gave me a shiver and I quoted the start of the feature in On This Day:

“Drop in at Birmingham Reference Library almost any Friday and you will see a thick-set, bearded man poring over dictionaries and volumes of poetry.”

Flash forward fifty years, substitute Radio Times for the poetry, shed the beard and a few pounds please, and some traditions continue: Birmingham Central Library’s cherished collection of RT is pored over by me for On This Day.

In 1958, though, the man was Edward J Mason, who devised the radio show My Word!, “a cross between a quiz and a riot” which began a new series tonight on the BBC Home service.

I wrote that in RT and I blogged about it here at the time because it gave me a good shiver. A nice one.The kind of shiver when you realise what you’ve just done. Because as I sat there on the fourth floor of Birmingham Central Library, I registered those words and I actually looked up. I looked up from my desk over to where Edward J Mason said he was sitting.

Not only wasn’t he there but nor was the seat. Or the desk. Or, in fact, the library. Because the whole library had moved in the 1970s and that’s why I’m telling you about this again today. Because the whole library is moving once more.

As of next week, the new Library of Birmingham opens and as much as I will miss the old one, there is a real thrill in the city. I have a meeting on Monday night and a colleague just sent his apologies: he’s going to the opening event. I am green.

When I had this shiver back in 2007, it was to do with my being part of a long tradition. The idea that, sure, my work that matters so much to me won’t matter a pixel to anyone when I’m gone but maybe there’ll be someone else researching in the Library of Birmingham and coming across something I’d written. It’d be a message just between the two of us and I’d like to think that if it can’t be useful or interesting, at least it’ll say hello.

But the shiver I get today in 2013 is anticipation.

For not only is the new Library of Birmingham finally opening, but the Birmingham Rep is being recalled to life after years tucked away in various venues. The two are bonded together now and I expect to spend a considerable amount of time in these twin, bonded buildings in the very near future.

The really near future. Really near.

Because I’m booked to present at an event there.

On October 10, 2013, I will be presenting The Blank Screen: a workshop on productivity for creative writers. It’s 18:00-20:30 in Room 103, Library of Birmingham and is part of the Birmingham Literary Festival. (Have a look here for details. It’s presented in association with the Writers’ Guild, it’s £28 or £23 concessions. Bring pen and paper, okay? Not for notes. I’ve written a book just to save you needing to take notes. But you’re going to work.)

We have a new library. And as much as I deeply loved the old one, that was where I used to do research for other people and by chance of when it’s come, the new library is when I’ve moved on to doing more work for myself. My own research, my own books, my own yapping with you. I’m ready for the new place.

Yet I will miss the old one and I hope that I’ll continue to imagine the long history of Birmingham writers all somehow breathing anew in the space.

But Room 103, eh? I don’t know the room yet. Haven’t a clue about it. I don’t know the building yet. But I will.

Damn right I will.

Fantastic.

I’m trying to remember the last time a character died in a drama and didn’t come back to life. This isn’t a new thing – nuts, nuts, nuts, I’ve got the name of the first time it happened. It’s on the tip of my tongue but, Jesus Christ, I can’t recall.

But anyway, I think it’s happening in dramas more now. Certainly I’m loathing it more.

It’s not as if I like a good bloodbath. If something is more violent than my regular benchmark movie, The Muppets Take Manhattan, then I’m not automatically drawn to it. I’m not automatically against it, I’m not recoiling in fear the way I am with even the mildest horror story, but I don’t think cor, I must see that.

It’s not even as if I’m against a happy ending necessarily or that there isn’t a part of my head that knows Captain Kirk will always survive whatever the latest life-or-death crisis is.

But now I don’t just know in my heart of hearts that Kirk will survive, I know in my fact of facts that he can’t die. Cannot. Nobody can ever be killed again in Star Trek because that was all fixed in the latest film. No more dying.

Therefore no jeopardy.

The only interesting thing now for me is seeing how they cope when one of the cast doesn’t want to come back for another sequel.

Writers tell other writers that they must kill their darlings: you must be willing to delete your absolute favourite bits of the book or the script if that will be better for the whole. But we don’t listen any more. Or maybe it’s producers who think that’s a stupid idea: you’ve got this character who everyone loves, everyone is riveted to, why wouldn’t you bring him or her back to life so we can keep on enjoying them?

Because sooner or later, we stop enjoying them and it’s over. Forever. We stop enjoying them and we stop watching the show.

Example. A bit of an odd example, but here goes. One of the few times I’ve watched Coronation Street was when there was a big court case legal story and the kick was that we knew the person on trial was innocent. The nation watched. I watched.

And today I can’t tell you which character or what the story was because I switched off and have never gone back.

Because in the week of the big reveal, the big climax to the story, the producers were quoted in newspapers as saying that they would never let an injustice happen in the show. They would never allow an innocent to be convicted.

I do think it was the absolutely most stupid time to tell us that. But, more, it erased Corrie for me. Not just this particular story that I’d been enjoying, but all stories. Ever. I want to say that phrase from Down the Line: “What is point Corrie?”

There is now no story in Corrie that won’t work out happily. True, it was never very likely but now it’s official. I get very tense in romcoms even though they always end well because there is always a pixel of a possibility that they won’t. I give you Lost in Translation. Er. That’s about it.

So it’s not much of a pixel of a chance of a sad ending. Oh! One Day. There you go.

I will watch and enjoy a series where I know everyone will at least scrape by to next week. I’ve written Doctor Who and there’s not a moment’s doubt that’s the Doctor will prevail. But I don’t kill him and bring him back.

Actually, I did one where a character survives. Originally I had planned for her to die but it was honestly too upsetting. Not for me. But it wasn’t going to get made if it were that bleak. And I like the compromise we made, I like where we went instead of her dying. I liked very much what new possibilities it have us in the characters if she didn’t die.

But if she had died, she’d have stayed dead. I promise.

I’m fine with: have they died or haven’t they? I’m not fine with dying and then coming back. Not even when I’m glad about it. Not even when I loved the character and it is bliss to see them sitting up, coming through the door or stepping out of a shower.

Because all they had and all they were died with them. A reborn character is a new character and we’re starting again. We’re starting again with a character who has had the most almightily improbable beginning. When you care enough about a character, it’s as if they are real. If they come back from the dead, there is now zero reality to them.

I didn’t want them to go yet now they have to prove their worth to me anew and they have to get me back to seeing them as real. And it doesn’t happen.

It’s not like you have to kill characters off. But if you want us engaged, if you want us caring at all, let them die.

Okay, here’s a thing. It’s 5am and I’m at my desk. I know that I will spend at least the next twelve hours here, possibly fifteen. I will make myself take a lunch break, but the odds are that I’ll spend it eating right where I am, watching or reading something on this Mac. There will also be many, many and indeed yes thrice many tea breaks. But I’ll bet money that while I’m boiling the kettle, I’ll be reading a book or looking up news on my phone.

So every moment of the day will look ridiculously identical. I told my mother yesterday that I’d passed a certain significant word count on a project and she asked if I’d had to press the buttons on my keyboard all that number of times. Yes, I said. “And the rest,” I thought, as I decided not to tell her that I’d written and thrown away about as much again. It was rather a lot of words and she was thinking about RSI, but there was also this element that from her perspective, the job was sitting on this chair, pressing these buttons and that’s all.

That is about all. And saying this to you now, I can see why she didn’t exactly rush to start writing herself. I can see why this work might not appeal to you if you long to spend your days outside in the sun.

But from here, from this perspective, from my perspective, I’m not going to be looking at a screen at all. I’m not going to be typing all day. I’m certainly not going to be using a computer. Instead, I’m going to be writing a really difficult section of a book: my head will be in facts and sources and interviews and transcribing and describing and keeping an eye on whether any of it is libellous. I’m going to be designing a different book this afternoon. Then I’m preparing for a teleseminar I’m giving tomorrow.

And I’m going to be talking to you.

Here I am, there you are, what’s not to enjoy about that?

I just worked this out because I’m curious and it was starting to bug me: today I only have to work on three projects but I will almost certainly use 26 software applications to do it. I’ve already used 9. Each one needed these keys, this screen, but it all feels so different. I didn’t sit down at 5am thinking that I must switch on a computer. I sat down thinking I can’t remember who I am or why I get up this early. Lit up by this rather huge screen, I just spent some time wondering where you were and what my name is.

Tea helped with that.

But even when I was fully caffeined-up and you had finally got out of bed so I didn’t have to keep tiptoeing around, I didn’t think the word ‘computer’. Didn’t consciously think that I must now open Evernote, Safari, Mail, Word, iTunes, InDesign, Muse, Photoshop, 1Password, Transcription, OmniFocus, OmniOutliner, iBooks Author, TextEdit, Pages, Preview, Reeder, Numbers and Excel. I just reached for that note I made yesterday, that thing I was going to tell you. I reached for a Suzanne Vega album. I did also grab for my headphones when I remembered that it’s a bit early and I’ve got neighbours. That may be the fastest I move all day.

But while I don’t think of this as using a computer and I sure as all certain hellfire do not think of anything I do as work, I do think a lot about the way my life goes through these 102 keys. I think about their cute QWERTY layout and why we have that, why French writers have AZERTY instead. I think about how Windows has a keyboard shortcut that lets you switch from QWERTY to AZERTY by accident and would then let you switch right back except the new layout means the bloody keys are not where they were and you cannot find the shortcut.

It fascinates me that while I’m looking at this blank screen, my fingers are typing away and all these words appear. It deeply, deeply fascinates me that the moving finger writes and occasionally holds down shift. I love that we have shift keys that no longer shift anything, they don’t physically move the whole keyboard assembly up an inch so that it’s a capital letter that strikes the page. I love that I’m kneading the keys, needing the keys, and in the moment that I pause, I’m unthinkingly pressing Apple-S. How the same key that put the letter S on the screen is, when pressed at the same time as one other key, the way that I save what I’m doing. Maybe I wouldn’t feel all this if I had to hunt-and-peck at the keys to write but I touch-type so it’s like there isn’t a keyboard here at all, there’s just the writing.

Bear with me a sec, I think I might actually be reaching for a philosophical point here.

Life is a keyboard with 102 keys. Cor. Everything we breathe goes through this small, simple life and everything we do looks physically exactly the same from moment to moment. Yet what we do with what we’ve got is infinitely different. And we can do anything we like, so.

As I say, I think about this a lot. I don’t often think about the 12 or 15 hours ahead of me, at least I don’t think of it as 12 or 15 hours and was a bit surprised when I worked it out to tell you. Instead, I think it is a thrill that I’ll get to work on these projects today. I admit that I do also think it’s going to be a bit of a chore doing some other bits like tax returns later, but then it’s terrific that I’ll get back to all this. Today’s a straight writing day, up to about 2pm when I’m going to be using InDesign. But other days I’ll be writing one minute, editing video or audio the next, then reading or watching something. Given that I do little but express how much I enjoy this lark, I’m going to tell you that it is inexpressibly great.

And that life is 102 keys. Official.

Wait.

Call it 103. Because, freakily, that Suzanne Vega album – Songs in Red and Gray – has this very moment finished and I think that means it’s time to go press the key on my kettle. And read some news, obviously.

I’ve been using a thing called OmniOutliner to work out a book project that was just so stupidly unwieldy that I couldn’t see the words for the trees. With immense regret, I have to tell you that it worked. I’ve previously been an extremely reluctant outliner, only doing it when mandatory for a contract, and my heart is still not in outlining at all, but my head might be. I realised this yesterday when I needed to figure out something else that I’d ordinarily have just got on with writing and exploring. And instead, I unthinkingly turned to this OmniOutliner.

Here’s the thing. Some writers plan out in immense detail, some don’t. I fixed Alan Plater’s email once when he was having trouble sending attachments and the example document that we batted back and forth happened to be an outline. I didn’t need to read it to fix the email, I couldn’t read it because it was confidential, but I had to ask him. Why had he written an outline? He told me to read it.

It was a remarkably boring document. About as un-Plater-like as conceivable. But the very last line went something like this: “Now can I just go write the bloody thing?”

Outlines don’t kill writers, outlining does. We get the fun and worth of the story sucked out of us. Alan put it better in a memo to a producer – which I’ve got verbatim because it’s in my own book about his show The Beiderbecke Affair – where he explained:

“This kind of story is in part a process of discovery and deduction for the writer as much as for anybody else. I know the A and the Z and have a reasonable knowledge of B to about K… after that it gets complicated and misty.”

As I say, some outline and plan while others don’t. My natural inclination is to explore on the page and I think I’ve been helped or encouraged in that as much by how well it’s worked out and because I’ve written so much in magazines. Once I had the form in my head, once I knew how to write articles, I never planned again. Start at the top, write to the end, deliver. It’s rarely quite like that but it can be and the number of changes I make are fairly few. Or they tend to be nuances and key points, they are never gigantic structural chunks being shuffled around.

Some drama writers call some outlines these beat sheets: you’re listing the key moments in the piece like the beats in music and you end up with the overall shape of the work.

But I could always see the shape of the piece in my head when it was a 5,000-word computer feature or especially a 70-word Ceefax one. Books have proved to be somewhat harder: Beiderbecke was only 30,000 words or so but it was immensely hard to get everything in to that short limit. One of the books I’m doing now is 150,000 and that defeated me: I could not hold that in my head. Especially not when circumstances of when I could get certain research material, when I could speak to certain people, meant that I wrote about 100,000 of it completely out of sequence. I’ve asked the copy editor to please watch out for when I may have introduced someone twice because I first wrote them in chapter 6 and only later got them in to chapter 1. I think I’ve caught all that, but I have lain away at night worrying about it.

That worry was from the sheer weight of words, the sheer volume of the volume. Drama is different. I have a big stage play on the go now and I can smell it, you know? I know the opening pages because I explored them, testing out the idea. And I know the very last line because, I promise, it will choke you up. I even know about eleventy-billion things that will happen, right down to whole exchanges of dialogue between these characters in my head, but the whole eludes me. That’s partly because if it works, if I do this right, it will be the most delicate, gauzy writing I’ve ever done and the faintest breeze will wreck where I’m trying to take you.

That’s why drama is different. I was taught that you should write to express, not to impress. That’s right and great and useless. Because drama needs to express and move and feel and share and transport. Off you go.

I find I’m noodling around this particular stage idea a lot on the bus. I used to do all my best thinking while I took long drives so I am least a tiny bit greener now. The other week I was thinking about the idea as I rode past the Birmingham Rep so I counted the windows: they sometimes put the title of plays up with one letter in each window across the front. It turns out they have just enough for this one, so. Probably not a deal breaker, but.

I’m going to outline it. I just know I am. Desperately broad strokes, please no more than that. Maybe I can do A and K rather than A to Z. I need to explore it too.

But there is a cost to exploring drama on the page, there is a price. I’d heard a thousand writers say and extol and evangelise outlines and they were rubbish at it. All of them. Until one television writer said something like “You can’t have a blank screen on Tuesday night”. It’s true. You can fight about what makes better drama, structured planning or freeform exploration, but you can’t argue that you have to write and produce something. A stunning work of piercing Tuesday night drama is no use if the script is delivered on Wednesday morning. Even if outlining guaranteed you a boring story, at least you’d never type “the end” on a full one-hour drama script and realise you had to throw it away and start a different one.

It wasn’t always like this. It wasn’t always that you’re hired and we’re airing it Tuesday, get writing.

John Hopkins was commissioned over a pint at the BBC once in the 1960s and didn’t deliver. Not on time. Not anywhere near on time. The story goes that he delivered the next year. He wasn’t especially pressed about it, though I understand the BBC did occasionally say, you know, how’s it going? And then he turned in Talking to a Stranger, also known as the Hopkins Quartet. Four television plays set over the same weekend and all from the perspective of a different member of a family. I tell you, I read the scripts and when I reached the last one and realised why it was all done like this, why it wasn’t just a gimmick, I cried.

If you want to tell me that Hopkins could do that from an outline, fine. If you even want to tell me that he did do it from an outline, fine. I have no idea either way. And that’s the way it should be: whether outlines help or throttle a writer, it’s the end result that matters, it’s the audience that matters.

Oh, stop looking at me like that. You’re not an audience, you’re you. We’re just talking. We could’ve phoned each other up first and devised the beat sheet for today. We could’ve decided that our chat should logically go thisaway: “1. What outlines are. 2. Outlines are bad. 3. Except when they’re good.”

But if we were that boringly efficient, we could’ve just left it with that and gone to the pub. And then where would we be? Exactly. I’ll make us some tea.

1. Find kettle
2. Fill kettle with water
3. Switch on kettle…

Human beings are basically good and kind and honourable people – until they get on Twitter. I like tweeting, I’ve had such good times on there, but I don’t know what else to take away from the foul abuse of Caroline Criado-Perez.

The day I heard that the Bank of England was dropping women from its new currency design was the same day that I heard someone was lobbying to get Jane Austen on there. And then when she did it, I cheered.

The thing with writers is that we’re supposed to be able to get into the heads of other people. More than just understanding their point of view, we’re supposed to really get it. It’s necessary in drama, it’s terribly handy in negotiations. I’m just finding it completely impossible today: I can’t conceive how anyone would object to a woman’s face on a bank note. If you can summon up an actual reason against it, I then can’t conceive why you would care enough to object.

And then there’s the abuse.

The shortest, least asterisk-requiring one I’ve seen was a tweet to Criado-Perez that said exactly this: “Stop breathing”.

The mind of someone who would think that.

The mind of someone who would type it.

And send it to her. To anyone.

It makes me shake. Now, I can see that the bile and rage and fury I feel over this is pretty much the bile and rage and fury that these people appear to feel over the issue. I’m going to rise above all this, I am going to be the sophisticated, mature man that I aspire to be, and I am going to say that they started it.

I did want to be mature about it. I don’t like that the fact I am shaking and that I could spit is actually a very male response: I am male but so what? I recoil from issues where I’m expected to respond less because of what I think and more because of my testosterone levels. I think the differences between people as individuals is fantastic and fascinating, but the difference between the genders, not so much. I feel a bit as if when I take a particularly male position, it’s not entirely me.

Similarly, a friend once went through some horrible times striving to use IVF to get a kid and I remember it seeming so unfair: how much of the drive and the misery was biologically induced, how much was her gender and how much was her very self? (She had a child through IVF and then had another one without it. I cheered both times. Actually, the first time, I swerved in the car when she texted me. I don’t use my phone in the car any more now, I promise. Partly because she made me swerve.)

We are all such a gorgeous chaotic mess and our sex is part of it, I just loathe when it’s expected to be all of it or it appears to be the only factor in something. I don’t know for certain that it is solely men who have abused Criado-Perez over twitter but it looks like it and you think it is. Perhaps because I cannot see an actual reason why one would object to a woman on a banknote, the fact that men do object focuses me on the issue that they are men.

If I loathe people assuming that I will think one way or be one way because of my gender, I so much more despise being in the same sex as people who think and say and do these things. People assume that because I’m a man, I like football. Doesn’t matter. They assume that because I’m a man, I won’t admit when I’m wrong. I actually enjoy that one because it isn’t half fun when I do admit it and they everyone blinks at me.

This is so much more. I hope I am never in the company of men who write these horrendous tweets about death and rape but even the concept that I share a gender with them and that I cannot do anything to stop them makes me shake and twitch and spit.

I looked up Criado-Perez’s name online to check how to spell it and – I am not going to give you a link to this – I found a major British newspaper saying that Austen should not be on a banknote because she’s so boring. Jane Austen! Boring!

I’m having a bad week with this. Another thing that has been assumed about me and that is generally assumed about men is that I and they would never read Austen. I’ve heard women say that they have never met a man who has read her work.

Hello.

I’m William, it’s nice to meet you.

By sort-of coincidence, I’m re-reading Sense & Sensibility at the moment. It’s a sort-of coincidence because I’m not doing it as a result of all this, I’m doing it because I just reviewed a radio dramatisation of it for Radio Times and so enjoyed it that I wanted to read the book again.

I came late to Jane Austen and I’ve not read all her work yet. That first bit narks me because I could’ve been enjoying her stuff so much sooner and the second bit irritates me no end because it’s my fault. I so enjoyed Pride & Prejudice that I raced on to Emma and then made myself stop. Made myself.

Follow. Some years ago, I had a job that meant a walk and a train ride to the office. For some weeks during it, I would start reading a Simon Brett novel on the way in the morning and then I would finish that book in bed at night. The same night. Start the next one, finish the next one. He writes funny, interesting but ultimately a bit forgettable novels where I got hooked chiefly because of his great titles. He does murder mysteries, it was his series of books with an actor detective named Charles Paris that I was reading, and the titles are all things like “Cast in Order of Disappearance”. Loved that.

Thoroughly enjoyed the books. But he’d been writing them a long time before I got to any and so I think there were eighteen novels when I started. I read all eighteen, I expect it took me about three or maybe four weeks. And I can never read another one because I have no idea whether I already have or not. I’ve stood there in a bookshop thinking about it: have I already read this one?

They’ve all blurred together and while that is doubtlessly my fault for reading them so fast and so contiguously, because it is my fault, I didn’t want to ever do that again. And especially not with Jane Austen.

And especially since she hasn’t got eighteen novels. I so enjoyed P&P and Emma that I wanted to savour them.

And I admit I’ve gone too far the other way. I’m a bit confused now over which ones I’ve got left to love. So part of the reason for re-reading Sense & Sensibility is that I’ll enjoy it again but part of it is that I give up. I’m not going to try being clever, I’m not going to try eking her work out to make it last, I’m just going to reread the ones I have and relish as I get to the ones I haven’t yet.

If I cannot speak to the issue of why anyone objects to having a woman’s face on a banknote, I can so incredibly easily speak to the point of why Austen deserves the slot and why she isn’t boring. Here’s my entire argument:

Read the bloody books.

She’s fantastic. She wrote this stuff 200 years ago – no, that just doesn’t look enough, let me spell it out: she wrote this two hundred years ago. Seven thousand days after she died, she’s made me laugh aloud.

Everybody quotes her P&P opener about a single man in want of a wife and all that, but the line that sums her up for me is from her letters where she said “pictures of perfection make me sick and wicked”.  I want that on a teeshirt.

If you know her work through films and TV, and you surely must, then I can see that they look pretty perfect. Costume designers and set dressers and lighting and makeup have a very good time. But I see a lot of similarity with Terry Pratchett’s work. His strengths, it seems to me, are in how he tells his tales rather than the tales per se. On the page he is smart and funny and writes with a verve that I admit I tend to forget once I’ve finished a book, but it’s all very much alive and engaging while you read. On TV, it’s people in silly hats.

I’ve met and very much liked some of the people who’ve dramatised Pratchett’s work for Sky and I think they did a great job, I think they did the very best that was possible. But it’s ultimately still David Jason in a hat.

Similarly, while I think Austen’s plots are very good, if a film just does that, it doesn’t serve either us or her terribly well. This is why, I think, you get so many dramatisations of her work and yet suddenly there’ll be one that rises above them all. The BBC’s 1995 dramatisation of Pride and Prejudice is a terrific piece of work by Andrew Davies because he got it. Yes, it’s sumptuous, at least for the BBC. And yes, there’s that bit with Colin Firth all sopping wet that makes women – conforming to their gender expectations – go weak and makes men – conforming to their gender expectations – think it’s soppy and wet. Seriously, don’t we lose out by sticking to expectations?

Davies argued that Pride & Prejudice is really about sex. He would say that. I think it’s really about people and I think that’s so stunningly obvious that I approach being fatuously irritating. Read her books and see how sharp and clear and witty and brilliant she is.

The line of hers that made me laugh aloud earlier this week is a description of the man Willoughby who has swooped in and now “departed, to make himself still more interesting, in the midst of a heavy rain”. Austen does this constantly and yet so delicately. She is mocking and celebrating and framing moments and characters but so much as a part of the novel that you don’t think of her as a narrator, you don’t think of her as the author’s voice.

You just like her.

It’s easy to say that if you don’t get Jane Austen, you’re missing out.

So let’s say it.

If you don’t get Jane Austen, you are missing out.

I wrote a script once called Wasps. It did very well for me: opened lots of doors, got me some of the attention you need and it was also very validating. I wrote that, it was received so well, I thought yes, maybe I can do this.

But one thing that kept being said of it was that it showed so clearly that I had done my research. On a Doctor Who once I was told I shouldn’t be afraid of showing my library card. You’ve learnt all this stuff, use it and show us. Wasps was a police drama in a new setting (yes, there really is one) and was quite apparent that I had spent months with this unit.

In truth, I hadn’t gone farther than my kitchen. It was a spec script, I’m always more interested in characters than anything else, I wrote real people in a setting that I’d research if we ever went to series.

But it did read as if it were true and I’m not saying this to boast to you. Well, I suppose I am, but it’s a pretty feeble boast and if I came in thinking I was great for fooling producers then I’m now uncomfortably embarrassed that I didn’t put the work in and even pick up the phone to the police.

What I think I got right was authenticity. The characters were people. There was also a lot of jargon and I don’t mind jargon, I think having a short techy word for something long and complex is essential in certain conversations and really handy in drama. It’s rare that as a viewer or reader you actually need to know what a spindizzy is and how it physically works. It is the opposite of rare, it is mandatory that you know the character knows. And that it means something, both literally in the sense of the definition of the jargon term and more importantly in that it matters to them.

I’m good with dialogue and I’ve been around enough jargon that I can hear it both as the rhythms of someone’s speech and as the technical words. So for a placeholder, I made up some terms for these police characters. It was a helicopter unit and I’ve flown helicopters – now, doesn’t that sound like a boast? It wouldn’t if you knew how little I’d done. Man, the cost. Rotor time is the easiest way to burn cash outside of an Apple Store.

But did you see what I did there? I admitted an interest, an effort, a failing and gave you a glimpse into my financial state – and I used the term ‘rotor time’. Odds to onions, you hadn’t heard that before. Doubtlessly you can work out what it means but you didn’t bother, you read it and accepted it. It sounded real, it sounded authentic.

It was. It is. I knew all the helicopter stuff so all my characters knew it too. Whereas I have not one possible clue where the phrase ‘odds to onions’ just came from but I accepted it, didn’t you?

(Quick aside? Jargon’s jargon, fine, but sometimes it is gorgeous. The rotors on a helicopter spin 600 times per minute and they are attached to what’s called a mast. You can imagine the forces going on there as that machinery spins. It’s as likely to wrench the whole helicopter around one way as it is to spin the blades the other. That’s why you have tail rotors: they fight the machine being spun. And two-rotor choppers like Chinooks don’t need tail rotors because their two main rotors are spun in opposite directions.

Still, imagine that torture on the helicopter. Pounding, pounding stresses.

And there is a nut and bolt that keep the rotors attached to the mast. Pilots and engineers call it the Jesus Nut – because if it ever fails on you, the next person you’ll see is Jesus Christ in heaven.

Isn’t that wonderful? That’s what you get from real research. So I’m not knocking real research at all and therefore I really am not boasting that I fooled a few people by making up onions.)

What I am saying is that Wasps was authentic.

Authenticity: if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

This is all on my mind and I wanted to talk it through with you because I was in a conversation last night with a friend who had a play on at the Rep Foundry, a night organised by the Birmingham Rep theatre. His piece is a true story and, wow, you can tell. It really takes you somewhere new – new to me anyway – and into a slice of recent history that is teeming with drama. But in chatting afterwards, he was arguing that writers have to be true.

I completely agree.

What I couldn’t quite articulate with him last night, because I don’t think I realised I thought it, was that there’s no reason you can’t lie about being true.

There’s truth and there’s reality. A key reason I prefer drama to journalism is that in journalism you try to make things simple: this person did that for this reason at that time. In drama, you embrace the fact that there are no facts. That this person or that person may or may not have done this or that. And if they did it, they may not know why. The world is an utterly delicious mess and drama gets that.

I was watching an episode of the US legal drama Suits this week and something bad happens to a key character. I don’t know if Suits is technically and legally accurate, I do know that it feels authentic, but this bad thing – I don’t want to spoil it, sorry to be vague – cut into me. Lawyers in New York, it cut me even though it could not be a more alien world if it were Star Trek.

Though, that’s a thought. There was a gimmicky Star Trek once where Scotty came back and guest-starred in The Next Generation. Fine, whatever. Gimmick. Only, here was this starship engineer recalled to life through transporter technobabble and facing intergalactic peril yet it was moving. Nuts to all the Starfleet uniforms, all everything did in that setting was get us to where the story really was. This Scotty had been the ace engineer – “the engines canna take it, Captain!” – and here he was decades in the future where his skills have been superseded. Where he is a curiosity at best and a danger at worst.

He wants to help save the day in whatever the story of the week science fiction threat was against the USS Enterprise. That was the plot but the drama was that he couldn’t. This science fiction trope of a character was suddenly an old man burning to recapture glory days that had ended so soon and before he’d noticed. He was worker who could no longer work. Everything this character was and needed now wasn’t.

It was desperately moving. I think it had a Starfleet-happy ending and naturally the Enterprise survived whatever it was. Can’t remember. Don’t care. But twenty years since I’ve seen it, I remember the feeling.

Because it wasn’t real, but it was true.