Olga -
"London Churches" is closely based on real places and real experiences, but it
isn't a factual account. I did actually go to London and visit the seven
churches listed in Part 1 on the 6th April this year, and the photographs and
videos were all taken by me on that day. Furthermore the conversations recorded
in the text are at least based on the conversations which took place on that
day between myself, a friend of mine who went with me, and his son, who met us
in London and who happens to be studying for a PhD in eighteenth-century
architecture. At many points the words you read in the piece are the actual
words we spoke to each other, or as close as I can remember them. In spite of
all this, I regard the piece as fiction for a number of reasons:
1. All the names have been changed. My friend's wife isn't really called
Glynis, their daughter isn't really called Megan; and the personal details have
either been altered or obscured, to prevent anyone being recognised.
2. I have reshaped our conversations to fit my own sense of what would be
readable and artistically appropriate. I've certainly done a shitload of
pruning. I've given some bits of dialogue to the "teacher" character when they
were actually spoken by me, and vice-versa, usually to make the distinction
between the two voices more clear. I've given the "teacher" certain memories
and experiences of my own. I've put in additional material for thematic reasons.
3. The "vox pop" conversations are pretty much accurate transcriptions of
things I've really heard people saying, but not necessarily on that day or in
those locations. The speech about Britain being washed up and an unspecified
other country (actually Australia) being a much better place to live, came from
my barber. The confrontation between a lady bus-driver and two black women took
place in Maidstone, not London. And so on and so forth.
4. Some of the reactions to the churches are things which have occurred to me
since the visit, through close examination of the photographs, rather than
things which actually occurred to me on the day. A good example is the
discussion of the sulky-looking cherub above the door of St Martin, Ludgate.
Neither of us actually noticed this cherub at all on the day. So in some ways
the narrative makes us out to be much better observers of architectural detail,
and much more ready with comments about them, than was actually the case.
5. More mischievously, some of the information about the churches given in the
text is actually misinformation. In particular, the two old ladies who give us
a guided tour of St Martin, Ludgate are rather untrustworthy. Our own
speculations about the stone figures in Temple Church are untrustworthy too. I
don't want this to be a reference work: I want it to be at least as much about
ignorance as knowledge, because that's what it's really like to be an ordinary
person visiting these places. I was initially a bit reluctant to meet up with
my friend's son for exactly this reason, because he might overwhelm us with
accurate information, and stop us from seeing and reacting to the churches in
our own fairly-ignorant way; but I don't think it was too much of a problem in
the end.
Thanks for taking an interest.
- Edward
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
