One way to look at drama is as a way of exploring the differences between people. And how those differences are expressed in various ways across different contexts. This was something The Shield excelled at. Presented with a show about cops, there’s a danger of them being pretty similar in many ways. But, as anyone who’s followed politics will know, the closer people are, the greater their differences seem. Which makes for great conflict.

Consider. Two people work in the same place. For one it’s a way of getting the money they need to get by. To the other, it’s a chance to acquire social status. How are those distinctions expressed in ways that a viewer can see them? Well, let’s say there’s a Christmas party. The first character might not want to come to it at all. The second will be there, and maybe use it as an opportunity to curry favour with management.

Then there’s the business of how those two people get along on a daily basis. Which is about whether you think of the people working with you as colleagues or friends. Again, what are the distinctions? A friend will cover up for you when you have a day off to see your daughter perform in the school orchestra. A colleague would be less likely to. But the same person might be willing to stand up for you in a team meeting in recognition of your conduct, where a friend may not consider your professional qualities in the context of your relationship.

It’s subtle stuff, and that’s as it should be. People make choices based on nuances. A lover’s voice tone can compel you to do things that logically you’d never consider. The same voice tone could become an irritant that leads to an argument three months later. And you wouldn’t even consider allowing such factors to impinge on the way you interact with someone who’s a business client.

Some years ago, I attended a computing course. And one of the students, it turned out, also taught a class there. Her dual status made me realise I treated people differently according to whether they were student or staff. That was an interesting moment for me, and it’s those sort of moments in which you can see someone’s wiring exposed as they reassess the world in the light of new evidence. Finding out that your dad is a heroin user. Your boss sings in a choir. Your postman has a PhD. The seeming dualities are resolved, become part of a new whole picture.

The roles that people identify with can take a lot of shifting. To non-Christians, it seems pretty straightforward that being a priest is a job for a believer. But among the myriad perspectives available to a priest is that the Bible is largely metaphorical rather than literal. And that’s just one of the paradigms open to those who identify with the teachings of Jesus — Father Ted isn’t far off in its presentation of different takes on Catholicism.

All of this is good fodder for scriptwriters. You don’t need differences as extreme as Axis and Allies for conflict to erupt. It’s there at every turn. Every choice we make, someone else has an opinion of — and that can open up a world of possibilities. And those choices are most passionately felt among those we count as our nearest and dearest. A group of Klingon speakers translating the Bible into their alien tongue fell out over whether to do a literal word-for-word translation or concoct a religious text that would suit a warrior race. Yes singer Jon Anderson recently lost his place in the veteran group when a soundalike from a tribute band proved more popular with his bandmates than the original vocalist. And Labour politicians are currently being grilled over the smallprint of how Britain came to go to war with Iraq. Situations like these bring to mind the Borges aphorism about the Falklands conflict — “Two bald men fighting over a comb”. And that’s got to be good for dramatists.