After I’d enjoyed the first episode (The German Wife), I decided to watch the included interview with the show’s creator, Anthony Horowitz.  I was plased to hear him spend quite a bit of time talking about two of my own specialties, title development and character naming. Here’s the relevant bits (from an unoffical transcript I found on the Web):

Interviewer: So how did you come up with the name Christopher Foyle?

Anthony Horowitz: Ahh, well, that was of course, … that was, … that’s always a difficult thing to do: to get the title right! When we pitched it, it was called “The Blitz Detective”. I’m very glad we dropped that although I knew at the time it was only a working title, ahh, … and I knew it was going to be “somebody’s War” because you talked about “How was your war?”, you know, something one says about the 40’s, you know, “How was your war?”, and it seemed to me that there was a sort of a slight double play there, that Foyle’s war, this person’s war, was his own personal war which in this case is the war against crime as much as anything else. As to the name Foyle himself: I was doing a lot of research, always buying books, and I nearly always buy my books at Foyle’s, the famous book shop in London and it sort of hit me one day that that was the perfect name for the detective as I was getting the job, there it was in front of me! If you’ve ever been to Foyle’s, what’s delightful about the shop, it is a very 1940’s shop and of course it was owned by Christina Foyle (hence Christopher) who is one feels a sort of a Lady of Letters of the 40’s particularly, and it is still. I mean, they’ve now modernized the bottom floor but if you go through and up the stairs you suddenly find yourself back in time, and so it was just a sort of an obvious thing. And then of course there is a little added extra which is that he foils crime. I mean, that’s very subconsciously…, … I mean, it’s not intentional, but that to me was quite a nice little added thing to it, and so Foyle’s War it was!

Interviewer: That’s nice! Are names very important to your characters? I mean, are they an integral part of the character when you’re working out what they’re going to be?

Anthony Horowitz: Yes, I mean, I’ve always belonged to the sort of Charles Dickens school of names which is that the first thing a character …, … first thing that you know about a character is the character’s name. And therefore, giving the character a certain sort of name will tell you something about that character. And you have to be careful about what not to go into like a Dickensian sort of Wackford Squizz (?) type names which wouldn’t work in a modern drama. But even so, yes, names are very important, and in this one, you know, for Christian names obviously one is using a lot of 1940’s names. You’re into sort of, … into sort of Howards and Alans and Stanleys and Arthurs. Those sort of names which are sort of redolent for 1940 immediately. And then you know, I … , …for the curator, … the art curator who was in there, I always quite liked, in the fourth episode, “Austin Carmichael”. Somehow you just know that a guy called Austin Carmichael is going to be a creepy antique dealer! And it’s rather nice that the actor, Anton Lesser doesn’t actually play it too Austin Carmichael-ish, you know? He pulls back and makes the guy real.

You know, Guy Spencer, in the second episode, I think that’s a good name for a fascist character. I don’t quite know why …, …Guy is …, … Guy and Spencer are so English, both of them. And yet somehow both together …! I just know I’m not going to like this guy. So, yes, names are important and I spent a lot of time thinking about them.

When I have a chance, I’ll share my own thoughts on the subject.

Like many in the theme park industry, Six Flags is breaking the cardinal rule of positioning — don’t try to be all things to all people.  The newly-rebranded park already faces stiff competition from its equally generic cross-town rival, Paramount’s Great America, and it will never “own” the words “discovery” or ”kingdom” in the minds of theme park-goers (SeaWorld and Disney got there first).

What should they do now? My blue sky thinking is to divide the park in two. 

The first park (which would keep the “Discovery Kingdom” name until it can be gracefully changed) should focus on the natural and prehistory of California, including the conservation of our many endangered species and habitats, a ride-based exploration of California’s wonderful Ice Age past (lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh my!), and an authentic celebration of our rich Native American heritage.

The second park should focus on being a microcosm of the Bay Area experience, including thrill rides based upon the Barbary Coast, the Gold Rush, the redwood logging empires, Chinatown, North Beach, etc. 

Add a shopping street, a live entertainment venue, and potential partnerships with Lucasfilm and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and you’ve got yourself a three-day destination brand that should appeal to visitors and locals alike.

Easy to do? No.  But it’s better than being a perennial me-too, also-ran in an already-crowded industry.