Writing 'now' about 'then'!

[murphybabe]

A discussion about last night's George Gently episode over at the Safehouse reminded me of a discussion moonlightmead and I started (but never finished) about the difficulties of writing about a different era, and how easy it is to impose our current morals, standards etc. on characters who were probably brought up differently.  I guess if you're writing about a long-gone historical period it may be slightly easier (I don't know:  I don't do it), but in Pros, we are reading and writing about things that many of us lived through and just occasionally I find something that makes me blink or doesn't fit with my recollections.

It seems to me that you can split it down into easier stuff and harder stuff.  Let's take a look at the easier stuff first.

Canon
This is easy to check.  Watch the episodes, check the transcripts and away you go - you know what Cowley said to Bodie about his chances of marriage, or the name of Doyle's police partner who was shot.

Historical accuracy
Yep, this one's fairly easy as well, and the internet is your friend!  Need a British Leyland car for your villain, or a chocolate bar many of us have forgotten?  A quick search and you're away.  Slang is slightly trickier but still possible, as are long-gone buildings, images of Heathrow as it used to be or the time it might take to get up to Leeds by car.

Standards and expectations
I wasn't even quite sure what to call this bit, and this is where my difficulties start.  There are a couple of problems:  one is that it's all quite a long time ago so I have forgotten; another is that I was a child when Pros first aired so didn't see the political similarities (or differences) as perhaps I might now. I just thought it was a fantastic programme with two really fit blokes *g*  And there's a minor example - I've chosen the word 'fit' because I think it was a word I and my friends at school used the next morning, but that's *ahem* about 35 years ago so am I remembering correctly?  I dunno.

My main areas of concern are about the attitudes to homosexuality in the government and to the use of violence to get information.  Current (official) attitudes are different now, plus there's accountability and records and oversight and loads of stuff that there wasn't then, and if I write what I believe to be the case in the Pros era it may well be unpalatable for many to read.  I think that homosexuality would not have been tolerated and would have been grounds for dismissal - and, at the same time, I can well believe that Cowley would have used this to his advantage to protect Queen and country, possibly pimping his men out to gain information.  I also think that none of them would have stopped at violence against criminals or suspects to get information.  Yet is this what I want to write now?  (Actually, I think it may be, and I accept that that may put some people off reading what I write.)

Also, if we consider attitudes to women in the Pros episodes, we see quite a mish-mash of evidence.  There are strong characters, like Susan and Ruth - capable of becoming agents and not always just left to make tea.  There are characters like Elizabeth Walsh and Geraldine Mather, professional women who have made a successful career.  And then there are the lads' girlfriends and other incidental women - rarely treated well, casually dumped and often given a raw deal in life.  The strip club and the call girls - yes, it continues nowadays, but I get the impression that it was almost more mainstream, then - something businessmen might legitimately write down on their expenses.  I don't know - perhaps I'm wrong there.

Butbutbut - how do I know when I am imposing my morals and standards on the Pros era, given that I don't really know what the morals and standards were then?  We see quite a bit of Doyle's mental struggles with what he does, in the Rack, for example, or the Madness of Mickey Hamilton.  We also see him being casually violent to several witnesses/criminals and apparently being prepared to assist Cowley in the torture of Eric Sutton.  So there's some inconsistency to start with.  Cowley seems to me to be at the same time a very upright, moral man with strict standards - and a devious, sneaky, triple-thinking, untrustworthy, Operation-Susie planner who would abandon his men if it seemed the strategic thing to do.

I think you can see how attitudes have changed in Pros-fic written in different decades, and that's not surprising because we can't help being who we are.  Oh, dear, this is getting quite philosophical on only two cups of coffee - perhaps I should just post it and see what you all think.  Do you see my difficulty, though?  Help!

Edited to add:  the word I was desperately searching for during the writing of this post, and the word some of you have used:  anachronistic.  Thank you!