I think they should have quit at Series Five and stuck to writing books at that point, although I don’t think series 7 was anywhere near as bad as people made out.

I quite liked the early shows when they had no budget and had to really focus on the dialogue, although Series 3 was probably the best IMHO.

You’re so right about series six. I gave up watching halfway through - Rimmer was the lynchpin of the show and without him it just wasn’t funny. You could have got rid of Kryten, Cat or even Lister and replaced them with Kochanski and it would have probably worked because Rimmer is such a brilliantly written character.

Anybody remember the Brittas Empire?

Boff!

Absolutely: it’s more natural. That’s how real people discover each other’s character traits - might as well let a reader do the same thing with fictional personalities.

I guess your points (b) and (d) are kind of linked. You don’t get much less logically consistent than a GI on a pirate ship in the wrong period of history.

As for (b) I guess for me it would depend on the precise nature of the not fitting-in: a straight character in an odd world (Benjamin in League of Gentlemen, por ejemplo) would perhaps be easier than a bizarre character in a straight world (eg Mork of Mork and Mindy). But that’s just me. And I’ve not even tried writing anything fictional since GCSE English.

This is where I’d imagine RD fell down. Identity is typically THE sci-fi theme, and when you’re Craig Charles and don’t seem to have much of one, it leaves the poor scriptwriters gasping for inventive ways to invert what the audience already knows about a … well, crap character.

However, I now know that it’s much much harder to write a character that:

a) has a sincere depth - not just some perceived history or overbearing backstory (hence why I’d never EVER write one of those ‘WHAT IS MY CHARACTER LIKE’ lists before writing one - they should remain organic and therefore pliable and furthermore, enigmatic. Dialogue says much more about a character than THE MAN WITH THE BIG BOOBIES WAS BORN ON, AND HAD AFFAIRS WITH, AND LOST HIS PARENTS WHEN, AND DOESN’T LIKE SEAWEED AT ALL type thing.

b) Isn’t logically consistent with the world they inhabit; that is that they are the cultural/social outsider. (It’s easier to have a character confused instead of mystified too.)

c) doesn’t conflict with another character.

d) is American. Writing an American character is the hardest thing I’ve ever tried to do. Not least an American GI time-holed onto a pirate ship with a megaphone, shouting ‘AVAST, ye Cantonese spy,’ at my heroine.

e) is on their own. A character bumbling about on their own is the hardest thing to write ever. The amount of times a lonesome character has to look in a mirror to show an audience just how unbelievably SEETHING they are is beyond me. Which is possibly why I was faintly relieved when a new character turned up; gave me the opportunity to pit two personalities against eachother.

Is that even relevant? I don’t know.