Q&A

The feedback to Temp/Casual has been pretty amazing, and the majority of people I've spoken with have praised the emotional honesty of the piece. Last night, after the show, there was a Q&A in the theatre foyer with myself, Ben the director, and the cast. I approached this with some reluctance; having attended such events as a theatregoer in the past, I was expecting half a dozen people to turn up. Astonishingly, about 30 people hung around to listen. They seemed very interested in the themes of the play, and us as a company. Somebody asked the question how much of it was based upon personal experience, and which character was closest to myself; I replied that Martin, the sensitive poet, is the once closest to my own personality but in effect, all of these characters represent different facets of me (with the possible exception of the lap dancer, Vicky.)

One young girl asked the question whether or not this play was a fair representation of women. It was inevitable someone was going to raise the issue, given two of the women end up working in the sex industry. But this is simply one dramatic strand of several in the play; Temp/Casual acknowledges that this world exists, and that some people chose to enter it. There simply isn't the space to explore that world in more detail - though maybe I will in another play. In the debate that followed, one man said that some women work in the sex industry because they enjoy it. I am not qualified to answer that question and I wondered how he could be so sure. Actress Julie Chapman-Lavelle was rather irked by his attitude but thankfully reigned in her anger before the question hijacked the proceedings. Hopefully, from my point of view, I think there are enough positive female characters in the play to offer some sort of balance. But then I chose to see these characters as individuals first, and men and women second.

Coincidentally, the best comment I received this week came from Marilyn Chapman, Julie's mum. She is a remarkable woman, and currently in remission from breast cancer. I have never met her before but after the Q&A, she came over to give me a massive hug, and praised my emotional honesty. Marilyn said she could tell I was a deeply sensitive and emotional person - well, it takes one to know one, and she is exactly the same as me. She was very moved by the play, and loved how it had been developed from the original 24:7 production. She told me that I have to keep writing, because the world needs plays like this one. Wow! I couldn't have come up with higher praise if I had written it myself.

But artists have to take the smooth with the rough, and the What's on Stage review damned me with faint praise, labelling me a 'competent writer', questioning the structure of the piece, and wondering what the point to all of this was. I thought that was pretty clear but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be on my wavelength (though the reviewer did begrudgingly acknowledge my ear for realistic dialogue that was funny and moving.) Actually, I might even agree with some of that; structure has never been my strong point but I personally think it's overrated. I write from an emotional perspective, less an intellectual one. Why? Because I think it's more interesting. No, it feels more interesting. Besides, Marilyn's comments carry far more weight and meaning. If you're reading this Mrs Chapman, thankyou so much; I will remember your words for a long time to come.