Skip to main content

The writer who doesn't understand authors

I've mostly been enjoying the BBC series Undercover (Sunday at 9pm). However, there did seem to be a bit of a gaping plot hole. In it, the character Nicholas Johnson, played by the brilliant Adrian Lester, has a secret life that is gradually getting out of control. 'Nicholas Johnson' is a made up person (within the drama), adopted by Lester's character 20 years ago when he was an undercover cop. He falls in love in character and ends up living the lie. Only now his old life is intruding on him.

So far, so good (if a little unlikely). When Lester's character originally devised the Nicholas Johnson cover, which we see happening in the second episode, he had to think of an occupation that didn't involve regular hours so he could turn up anywhere any time. So he plumped for 'writer'. We learn that he writes crime novels. And that it's just as well that he came up with a detailed cover story, as the people he is infiltrating run a background check on him.

I have two problems with this. There's the minor one that he would probably call himself an author, not a writer. But the big one is the matter of the background check. We are shown that Nicholas Johnson really existed with that birthdate, but died. But here's the thing. Lester's character is clearly relatively affluent. So he must be a success writer. But where are his books? Surely the background check would turn up the reality that there were no books by Nicholas Johnson? Even with a good undercover backstory, you can't suddenly produce existing books that have been in print for several years. Anyone would think that the writer of the drama didn't understand, erm, being a writer.

Comments

  1. Haha I was thinking the same thing, fine people may not be interested but you would think his wife would perhaps after 20yrs be slightly curious as to what he has written. I guess he could be a copywriter for generic copy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. That would be cunning, though if he was, you’d think he’d choose a more likely genre than crime fiction.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense