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!

Comments

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

I think this is a wonderfully interesting topic, but (sorry) we have someone in here installing some equipment, and someone flying out of town early tomorrow, so I shall tag the post and hopefully be back!!!!

[murphybabe]

I do hope you'll be back - I look forward to your comments :)

[constant-muse.livejournal.com]

I'm enjoying the new Three Musketeers, but the recent episode about slavery - the anachronistic disapproval! *headdesk* Not saying that there were not humane people in 18th century who disapproved of slavery - otherwise abolition of the slave trade would not have happened - especially confronted with an actual slave trader, but hmmmm.
Don't get me started on aristocratic women, including the queen, going outdoors without gloves and a big hat.

At least The Three Musketeers makes no pretence at all to historical accuracy (at least, I hope not). But it is a current example of wantonly projecting modern attitudes back to an earlier time.

You make a good point that even those of us who can remember the 70s can't be sure of our memories of attitudes of the time. And as children/teenagers we'd have had a particular and probably quite narrow and sheltered view anyway.
What sources would one use? contemporary novels, or newspapers?

I like to think Pros was quite progressive in portraying women as fellow agents and other women who are successful in their careers and acknowledged for it, at least by Cowley - Esta the Hong Kong police detective, Dr Ross also (Need to Know is another example - Manton's female solicitor), although note that the most effective female agent is in Purging, the ep written by the young fan, not the usual jaded middle-aged TV writers.
The inconsistencies you mention - the product of using different writers? Actually wondering if this is the case with George Gently too.

[alassenya]

The Three Musketeers makes no pretence at all to historical accuracy ...

Well, Dumas never paid any attention to historical accuracy himself (and T3M was not contemporary for him, he set it two hundred years previously), so I find it amusing to see people demanding it of an adaptation. It was the 19th century equivalent of an airport novel, posted in weekly chapters. Don't get me wrong, I've read it (and the sequels) several times and I love it, but I've never taken it seriously.

[murphybabe]

Yes, and you're right about different script writers. Also, the point maddalia makes below and many others have made in other posts at other times: these eps were made for fun and no one expected them to be planed, re-played, discussed, pored over, discussed again and made the subject of countless theories!

I like the idea of using contemporary sources - but can I be that bothered, I wonder? Because, after all, I am writing fiction about television episodes. Ooh, another discussion about accuracy!

I wonder if some of the things we're picking up in GG and TTM are because of the producers' and script writers' sensitivity to current preoccupations? If they don't tip the hat to them they might be accused of not caring about the subject, perhaps?

[maddalia.livejournal.com]

Thanks for sharing this - I think it's something we all go through as writers and it's great to see another writer's perspective.

I also think that we can't help but impose ourselves on what we write. It's inevitable. Even a decision to try to be more "accurate" is us making a subjective judgement, in a sense.

As someone who wasn't there and sees the Pros era purely as history, I find a dichotomy between an "official" culture that raided gay clubs, didn't allow gay people to show affection in public, didn't tolerate homosexuality in the public services, etc, and a "popular" culture that in many ways was more liberal, certainly less commercialised than today (and, more visible sex doesn't necessarily mean more liberal attitudes; look at the bigotry and conservatism that still exists). Certain sections of intellectual society were more open and tolerant than many are today. Civil rights as a broad-based popular movement was still quite new, and individuality was celebrated. Yet in so many ways we are leaps and bounds away from what we know now, and what many knew then, were the deep wrongs of that time.

But I don't get mad at history. It was what it was. Much in Pros is still relevant: the fear of terrorism, the struggles of minorities for acceptance, out-of-touch elites walking the corridors of power, police corruption, drug smuggling, Arab oil magnates throwing money at the world... We are, after all, still just as human as they were back then. We're making some different mistakes now. And doing some different bits of good.

In terms of Pros, I tend to keep in mind a couple of things. 1) it had different writers with different takes on the characters; changes were arbitrary and there was no continuity between episodes to enable the TV people to play them out of order (so, no room for in-depth side characters, which is why I think the "girl of the week" thing seems so shallow). 2) it was intended largely as a bit of fun, so we can't expect it to be too "deep". I feel I can take my own writing and characterisations seriously, and enjoy others' in-depth creations in the same light, but canon I take with a pinch of salt and a giggle, and with my eyes on Doyle's arse and Bodie's eyelashes I'd be a hypocrite to complain about the objectification of Pros women! *g*

So our raw material is really pretty scanty, however enjoyable it might be! What we can build on is the one-in-a-million chemistry between the lads that we're free to interpret as we wish - and a few things we know and/or agree upon, about the characters. And a whole lot of history that, as you say, the Internet makes very accessible to us.

For my part, I still want to know why a lot of fic authors, and some mainstream commentators, think the lads fight all the time, and - this more with the authors than the commentators - that everything is dark and miserable. I think I'm watching a different show *g* My Pros is more lighthearted, even in adversity, than the Pros of many others! But that's the beauty of it. Scanty raw material with a strong core gives us so much to work with, and with writers such as yourself who are willing to put work in to create an authentic world, there will always be something wonderful in Pros fandom.

I hope you don't mind the big reply! Thanks again for a thought-provoking post.

[murphybabe]

Brilliant discussion - thanks! I agree, life then was what it was. Some of the things are better now and some still aren't. And sometimes it's interesting to watch Pros or any other programme of that time to see how things were, from the historical perspective.

I also realise that I cannot write anything without exposing my biases, assumptions, values etc., and that's okay. Equally, with 57 episodes, none of which was intended to be analysed in detail, there's only so much raw material and that's what makes Pros fic so rich, to me, in that we can all take things in whatever direction we wish. But there are times when things grate when I read them, and it's those things that I'm trying to avoid, I suppose. Not the non-Britishisms, because I can either forgive those or choose not to read authors who didn't check for them, but the unconscious assumptions of our day imposed on the Pros era. I can't think of a good example at the moment but if I do I'll come back and edit this to illustrate what I mean. Oh - to borrow from the George Gently discussion over at the Safehouse, an example there might be the focus on Bacchus' struggle for custody of his daughter in 1969. I don't think that would have been an issue - the courts would, I think, just have assumed the daughter stayed with the mother - end of story.

So I'm not insisting that everyone must research before they write and only create authentic late-70s or early-80s fic - how dull would that be? *g* But it does interest me to look at what we choose to bring to what we write and what we bring by accident, as it were *g*

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

I also think that we can't help but impose ourselves on what we write. It's inevitable. Even a decision to try to be more "accurate" is us making a subjective judgement, in a sense.

I admit I'm obsessive, yet may miss the forest for the trees on occasion! It possibly doesn't matter what rail stock was on the Central Line in that era, but it made me feel better knowing where the doors were *g*. Another writer may have avoided the problem or gone about it in a different way.

But I don't think that "because we can't be perfect, let's not bother". I'm not saying that's what you are saying, but it can become one form of extension of the argument that everything is subjective, if you let it.

a dichotomy between an "official" culture that raided gay clubs, didn't allow gay people to show affection in public, didn't tolerate homosexuality in the public services, etc, and a "popular" culture that in many ways was more liberal, certainly less commercialised than today

Speaking as someone who was a young adult at the time, although in a different country (OK, 2 really) I agree with this! Of course there were differences: Wellington was, speaking generally, broader-minded than Dunedin, and Sydney was different suburb by suburb pretty much (still is)!

Social movements don't get much of an airing in Pros. They're portrayed for colour if at all (the GYO, the anarchists and feminist marchers in 'The Untouchables"). Real life was far more complex, filled with complicated, controversial realities, which obviously have limited place in a commercially driven TV production. Another reason why the "but it wasn't what the makers intended" anti-slash argument bores me to tears.

I've retained quite a decent library of social and political material from the 70's (although I wish I still had my collection of Spare Ribs). Actually, I find books that were published within 10 years either way of 1977 are often a good starting point for Pros-era research. Even though some of mine are stained and dust-ridden, I find primary sources are a necessary complement to websites - where the material has been filtered according to someone else's biases. I'm quite capable of forming my own, thanks!

[alassenya]

Given that TV writers care almost nothing for consistency in characterisation, backstory or plotines, and will happily sacrifice accuracy for spectacle, I think we're lucky that Pros holds up as well as it did. I was only a teen when it screened for the first time and I can't claim that I had much skill in critical analysis at the time, but I can't remember anything being particularly jarring about it. That was how life was.

Concerning the issue with homosexuality -- it was legal in England and Wales but still illegal in Scotland until 1980. While it was certainly not widely accepted within government circles, a lot of that was because of the risk of blackmail and subversion (remember, the Philby scandal was only 15 years in the past in 1978 -- so the equivalent of 1999 to us). I have read various novels and memoirs that indicate that as long as homosexuality was declared to the relevant security department it wasn't an issuel because the blackmail threat was avoided. Causing a scandal, however, was still grounds for dismissal, so they had to be be quiet about it. In Cowley's case it would have been very useful to have a couple of agents who could take advantage of foreign nationals with the same proclivities.

[murphybabe]

I agree about the TV writers, and also about the differences between writers for different episodes. And some of it still reflects how ordinary life was, I think.

Yeah, the homosexuality thing - would Cowley have sacked them or not? I think not - I agree with you and think he would have used them unless they caused a scandal, in which case they would have been out (as it were *g*).

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Actually, even now if you're gay/bi and don't declare it at your security interview then you won't be given clearance. And yes, questions about your sexuality are specifically asked at interview.

The reason is twofold, one because you could be open to blackmail if you deny something so fundamental about yourself and the other is because you're not being honest, which is essential for you to be trusted and to be given clearance.

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

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?

Exactly! And don't forget standards varied a lot across the country just as they do now (probably to a lesser extent, now) and memories are subjective.

V-e-r-y interesting discussion.

[murphybabe]

Yes, lots of variety in standards - I was watching Pros from a very comfortable white, middle-class background in Yorkshire. There were probably black 14-year-old girls in areas of London who had a rather different experience, let's say. And memories are indeed subjective, so where should one start? *g* Still, it is an interesting discussion, and I love that we can have it here :)

[unbelievable2.livejournal.com]

I think one has to disentangle a few things here, maybe. Or at least try to. Weak or formulaic female characters are not a prerequisite of 70s writing. I suspect it’s still around – I dunno, I don’t watch at lot of modern TV! - depending on the audience the show is aimed at and the quality of the writers. For instance, my other fave show, The Sentinel, was written, and set, in the late 90s, and yet a reasonably strong and fairly believable female character didn’t appear until the final series.

Moreover remarkably there is not a mention of homosexuality and no gay characters at all in any series – contrast this with Pros where references to gay people and issues are frequent and not always bar-room, macho posturing; for instance that rather touching little reference to the lesbian couple in…. (sorry I can never remember episode names) or the strong defence of the gay youth organisation. You can balance that against Bodie’s wonderful little tease of Cowley about the pink shirt and – I think it’s in First Night as well - when Cowley says that they put notices in the press everywhere and Bodie asks if it’s in Gay News, with a twinkle, earning a glare from the Boss.

So I think you can in fact see in Pros a reflection of how many people saw such things then. Not blatant, an acknowledgement of other lifestyles, but a buttoned-up response. And that’s perhaps true of other stock 70s stuff – terrible racism (you only have to remember the so-called “comedy” of the decade, and terrible sexism (comedy: ditto). The “official” line on these things was obviously more extreme - as in prohibition and criminalisation and the general social stigma of being gay. Things were definitely changing, but I don’t think the average audience in Britain at the time and the average TV exec – certainly not thinking about a gender- or ethnically-diverse nation - would be seeing it that way particularly.

So, trying to draw thoughts together here, yes I’m sure there were inconsistencies in what was basically a one episode/one story show and a diverse stable of writers. Bet they never had anything like the writer teams and conferences that exist nowadays on a show! It was just a few (mainly middle-aged) blokes, hammering stuff out on typewriters. Yet, some of those inconsistencies do lend themselves nicely to the characters being morally ambiguous (such as Cowley, as people have been pointing out here) which adds an uncertainty to what their actions might be at any one point. So not all bad, and maybe not all accidental. Moreover, humans are a pretty inconsistent bunch in reality, I think – it depends on the circumstances how we may respond to anything.

[murphybabe]

I agree - I think the references to gay people and issues in Pros set the series apart for its time. Not only that, but they have stood the test of time - there isn't any condemnation in the reference to the GYO or the lesbian couple.

And I keep coming back to the point that has been made many times by others which is that the writers would never have expected to have their work picked over in this way! Ha, yes - writer teams and conferences *g*

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

Pros where references to gay people and issues are frequent and not always bar-room, macho posturing; for instance that rather touching little reference to the lesbian couple in…. (sorry I can never remember episode names) or the strong defence of the gay youth organisation.

I did once do a post where I attempted to gather All the Mentions, whether campy or "straight". There were so many! And I think you have just given me another (the pink shirt *g*). It was 'Everest was Also Conquered', btw, with the lesbian couple.

http://kiwisue.livejournal.com/69429.html

[unbelievable2.livejournal.com]

Sorry, another bit...

Ironically, the very worst example IMHO is Bodie in Klansmen, which seems to have been written for a particular purpose in mind, giving poor Bodie an completely uncharacteristic role with a completely unconvincing epiphany – though LC does extremely well with *very*clunky material. Clunky writing is very evident also in the gay rights episode – a very young Michael Kitchen, if I recall correctly, having the deathless line “I’m not a homosexual myself, but some of my friends are…”

Like many shows, and not necessarily just of that era, Pros was less convincing when it explicitly tackled “social topics” such as these. Allusions always had much more strength.

Something people forget constantly today - and it annoys the hell out of me - is that the past really was a different country. Rampant sexism, the ridicule of and violence against other ethnicities – it was pretty much accepted practice for the majority of white (especially male) Britons; simply how the world was. So I find people’s attitudes to the Saville case, and others – I won’t mention any names here – about the shock of this having happened, almost incomprehensible. Do people forget so fast? Of course women were treated like this, and the entertainment industry would have been rife with it. But people seem to me to be doing exactly what we have been talking about here – attributing the morals of today to social norms of 40 or 50 years ago. If you do that, then you have an unrealistic expectation of how the people involved would have been behaving – leading to “well, this is clearly is unacceptable behaviour now, so it must have been then, ergo these people would clearly not have crossed that line” completely ignoring the fact that the line is in a totally different place…

Sorry, rant over, but I think it has some relevance to this interesting topic of overlaying our attitudes of today on what we watch.

So in conclusion I think Pros stands up very well as a 70s show in its own context, probably better than many (the awesomeness of the characters aside). What I find much more annoying is current writers’ (I’m really talking TV and film writers here) inability to get under the skin of past decades, not just in the attitudes expressed but how people talked and what words they used. Hats and props are not enough, but are far too often relied upon.

Sorry what was the question…?
;)

[murphybabe]

YES!!! To much of what you said there - specifically around the past being a different country. I have been particularly struck for example by the accusations against DLT (and I'm not going to go into whether they were right or wrong: a jury has pronounced and that's it) - but THINGS WERE DIFFERENT THEN. We are looking back through today's filter. So I am with you on your rant because I think it is of great relevance to this thread, even though I still can't answer my own question *g*

I suppose, if I'm asking the question, perhaps I am aware enough to examine what I'm writing and - hopefully - spot any glaring anachronisms. And I should enlist the help of a beta *g*

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Absolutely agree about Klansman. There was a radio 4 documentary about three episodes in three different shows that were never broadcast (Pros and Klansman; Dr Who and Shada; and Secret Army and... not sure, but it was a sort of follow-up to the main series). I'd love to hear it again. I wasn't terribly into Pros at the time, but I found the Pros segment fascinating. Left me wondering what you do as an actor when you really loathe the script.

Stephen Rea is the one with the deathless line. Do you have the CD? There's a great long story (30,000 words) on it called But Many Of My Friends Are, inspired by that very line. In it, Bodie goes back to the ITPI city (the author sets it in West Bromwich) to find Thomas Pellin, who has set off his gaydar 'like a fireworks display'. It's not particularly my Bodie, but it is a great light-hearted and mischievous Bodie and I enjoy the story a lot.

Agreed on past as a different country and different attitudes. Something that gets me now is people thinking that they would have been any different then. I don't think most of us would. I'm trying to think of a non-contentious example. Shall think some more about that!

[moth2fic.livejournal.com]

Some of us (*coughs*) were all grown up and working - in my case in the field of equal ops and multicultural education - when Pros first aired. Husband didn't like it but I found it a welcome bit of escapism on evenings when I was tired (plus I fancied MS). I wasn't as annoyed with the political incorrectness of some of the scripts as I was with the political incorrectness of a lot of my colleagues. *g* It was an uphill struggle! The show reflected the current realities and I'm still very aware of them because they formed such a huge element in my career. I might get the date of various chocolate bars wrong but I can usually call up what I, my friends, and 'everybody else' thought about women, violence, homosexuality, etc. So, if in doubt, ask!

[murphybabe]

That must have been interesting - did you find yourself screaming at the television on occasion? *g* And thank you for that bit of validation there: the show reflected the current realities - this is one of the things I'd always thought about Pros, in that it was quite real and of its time, but again, I am watching it through adult eyes now as compared with watching it through the eyes of a young, hormonal and politically very unaware teenager at the time.

[mab-browne.livejournal.com]

Another now and then that occurred a few years back was a fan writer enquiring about the depth of cold war fears of nuclear annihilation. Pros has a reasonable number *g* of fans who remember pre-Glasnost, and there was a lively discussion of just how pervasive that fear was. So, that wasn't an issue that was addressed in the show that much because of escapism, but how many eps with Russian baddies and Agency shenanigans were there? Quite a few.

Starsky and Hutch, another fandom that goes back a few years, is holding a Big Bang with the theme of updating the guys to current time, in the hope of encouraging writers for whom the seventies are just too damn far away....

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Oh god yes, this was a huge surprise to me as I delved through 30 years of Prosfic in as many days. Well, okay, a few more days than that. Where was the nuclear paranoia? The closest we get is the occasional 'what happened after Stakeout', and 'Christ, that was a *nuke*'.

Well, no, there is one other story: the beginning of Angelfish's 'Absolution' story involves the aftermath of a terrorist attack on Windscale/Sellafield, and it gripped me from the very first sentence. That entire story got the feel of the eighties (and nineties, it follows them through) perfectly.

I really want to write a nuclear paranoia story. More accurately, I want to read one, so that probably means I have to write one. But the bits and pieces I have won't fit together. Grr!

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

Oh goodie. I am glad you have started this, because it saves me from posting my current mess of a post - and in fact mine will follow on brilliantly, so I'll post it in a few days.

I agree with absolutely everything you said there, right down to 'oh god, did we actually say that, or am I getting confused after the fact?' And I was too young for an adult take on the period: I was about 8 to 12 when Pros was first shown, and it was past my bedtime. Okay, I was the sort of child who watched the six o'clock news, and had heard of Jeremy Thorpe and Anthony Blunt, but people seemed strangely reluctant to tell me what Jeremy Thorpe had actually *done*...

I think evidence for the strip club/call girl/girlie mag culture is abundant. Not only do we have a post all about improving reading matter (http://the-safehouse.livejournal.com/1351312.html) seen in Pros, there's a bunch of publicity shots for the show which have the actors posing against backgrounds off-set, and at least a couple of them have pin-ups and topless pictures just casually in the background. Clearly no-one thought there were a thing to worry about, or 'let's just move so that's out of the picture'.

I don't believe the law changed because of a change in public attitudes. I think public attitudes changed following the change in the law, and they were *very slow* to do so. So it might have been legal, but it wasn't something nice people discussed or got too close to (it might be catching, you know), and you were turfed out of the army and the police force for it. But that's hindsight. As I said, when Pros was on, my experience of the world was that portion not hidden from me in pubs, or the betting shops with their blanked out windows, or the films with AA and X certificates.

As to writing it - I admit it, I write fluff because I fear I don't have the capacity to write the harder stuff effectively. I like the whole range of Pros fiction (yes, I even like the rabbits AU, don't laugh at me, it's clever), and read it all. But oh, I wish I could write stories like the Madelein Lee ones where it is all dark and hidden (the Carnal Interests ones), or the Sebastian (?) one where Cowley sends one off to the sea and the other to Salisbury Plain - or is that Madelein Lee again? - or A Call Of Nature with its paranoia and secrecy and Doyle's desperate 'c'mon, sir, you must have known...' or the ones where this paranoia and secrecy has a corrupting effect on them and they have to choose between looking after themselves or completing the job. Maybe one day!

[murphybabe]

Oh, go on, post! You know you want to... *g*

And I am very confused, and many kind people up above have said it better than I can, and it's late, so I won't add much here except to say that it was very difficult to find out what was happening because my adults thought that children shouldn't know - so the Les Dawson thing with the silently-moving lips happened, or conversations stopped - or just didn't happen in the first place. And Civics at school wasn't much good in terms of current affairs either.

I bet at the time I would have totally missed any gay and lesbian references in Pros. I wouldn't have had a clue. Mind, I wouldn't have had much idea about the political stuff either, and nor would I have cared. I was totally fixated on Doyle's curly hair, long legs and *giggle, giggle* bum.

And ack, writing. I hope I haven't given the impression that it desperately matters because I want to write seriously. Believe me, I wish I could! But I want to have a stab at getting things roughly right, and I don't want to do the things I complain about in GG *g*

[margaret-r.livejournal.com]

There is so much in society during the Pros era that was evolving and changing you would need to consider every aspect of society at that time if you want to gain true accuracy in writing. And then, as has been discussed, it’s also a matter of personal perspective. I saw London and UK in the early 70’s, but came at it from the view of a travelling Australian on a working holiday, a completely different view from someone who lived the life of those times in that place. I know when I watched The Professions after leaving UK it was like seeing ‘my’ London again.

Some of the things I remember now from that time are the sexual freedom - casual acceptance of which hadn’t quite reached the little backwater town I came from – the very real threat of IRA terrorism, the openness of homosexuality – still a crime in Australia at that time - and the tabloids!

It is a fact, though, that there are a lot of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Pros, not just in how the characters were written but in some of the current and historical events around that time, obviously the result of poor or no research by the writers. But that, again, was a sign of the times. The point was to write a cracking good show, not to give viewers history or current affairs lessons;)

I think that basically it is up to the individual writer whether they want to stick to what would have been gritty reality then – the violence in police authority and the more overt racism and sexism for example - or write with the more socially acceptable mores of today. Good writing will be read in either case.

[moonlightmead.livejournal.com]

there are a lot of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Pros
Brian Clemens is on record as saying that he didn't bother with research; it got in the way of the story. (And then that if he went and read about it after, he'd usually got it right anyway... Hmm :))

[kiwisue.livejournal.com]

On "fit" - I found a discussion thread here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=410587

The sources are quoted on the second page (Cassell's Dictionary of Slang, The Observer by way of the draft additions to the OED) and both say the 80's. I suppose there's a period of time before new catch-phrases come to general attention, but don't know what that means for your memories, sorry!