Life on Mars -- the ending

In some ways they bottled the ending. I was still left with questions. And therefore it felt vaguely unsettled.

My big question was who caused Sam's accident? It happens exactly at the same time and in the same manner as the 1973's Sam. Coincidence is fine but there has to be a strict law of probability, and near the end every action must have been foreshadowed/comes as direct result of action taken by a main character.

Equally did Sam actually change the past/ Specifically with regards to the death of Annie Cartwright at the end of series one? What were the consequences of this? Is this why suddenly he is dead in the future? In other words why has 1973 become more real than 2006? Did he chose to live with the love of his life?-

Also did Gene Hunt et al really exist? Should this have been left in doubt?

Could the 1973 Frank Morgan have a son who was studying to be a doctor also named Frank Morgan? All it would have taken was the throw away line of my father was a copper...in Hyde.

Anyway, there were choices the writer of Life on Mars made, and me being me -- I would not necessarily have made them. However, the Life on Mars writer did make them, and generally the series worked me. In every case, the writer of Life on Mars made the correct choices for his story. But part of me is always asking why did he do such and such, and would a little tweak have helped?
If I can understand why the choices are made, I might be better able to understand why I make choices in my writing.

The Creative Habit book that Anne McAllister has been raving about arrived today. She was right. It does look excellent. Interestingly I have never really thought of myself as creative. Yes, I write, but that is just part of me. Anyway, I look forward to reading it.

I also went to Beamish Museum. Absolutely excellent. They have a railway carriage there from 1846. The whole set of manor gave me food for thought. And I have done a little on my new wip.

Life on Mars

Tonight is the final of the Life on Mars. It has been a wonderful show. There are many reasons why I should not like Gene Hunt, but I do. He has a core integrity, and he is very loyal with a code of honour. Okay, it might not be your code of honour but it is his. He also has some of the best one liners in recent television. Philip Glenister was born to play Gene Hunt.

I also love how the secondary characters like Phyllis, the desk sargant are drawn. You can see them as 3-d.

It is a show that has kept me coming back for more. I am interested in finding out about why Sam Tyler is there and why he went there. Was the accident an accident? I reminded of a time travel book I read once where a woman and her g grandmother switched places. I suspect if I tried to explain it logically it wouldn't work. and there would an ick factor. Suffice it to say that the woman was never able to get back to her own time and crippled by a stroke had to watch helplessly as her younger self tumbled into the mirror. And I can't remember the name of the novel,but it was partly set in the goldfields of California. I used love time travel books. But there is a paradox in time travel that makes them difficult to write.

Was an *older* Sam driving that car? Did he send himself back into time because he knew that was where he would findthe love of his life -- Annie? Was Annie driving the car?

I hope they don't bottle it and that the ending is satisfying. I am looking forward to Ashes to Ashes. gene Hunt is too good a character for the BBC to get rid of him. BTW the show which is the one of the most popular in BBC for a decade nearly was not shown. It is what they call a sleeper. Whatever it is, I shall be watching the final tonight.

Oh and I have started writing my next wip. Early Victorian. I know what my hero looks like, but I don't havea photo of him. Philip Glenister served as a model for my latest one. See above. Can't you imagine him as a Viking?