Accurate vs Recognizable

[Scott Allen]

As to the issue of whether TP's representation of historical sites like
London (or Venice or NY, for that matter) are realistic and historically
accurate ....

Given TP's near obsession with popular culture--TV, radio, songs, cartoons,
etc.--and given how important a component of popular culture are various
widely disseminated images of certain historical "tableaus"--London during
the War, Venice in the teens, New York in the late 50s--is it not possible
TP could care less about "real, historical" accuracy?  In other words,
isn't what he's shooting for a recognizable "trope" of such places, that
his readers connect with not because they've been there and paced out
the streets and cafes, but because it "sounds" true?  This would be 
consistent with a theme in all his works of history as constructed from
what people need/desire it to be; and in fact the unauthenticity of
many forms of popular representation of people and places is another
frequent theme in his works.  Perhaps TP would want the London of GR not
to be that found on maps, but that found in 1940s films made in America,
the city referred to by sentimental war songs, and so on.  But of course
another component of his technique would be for him to include just
enough specific details to convince readers he had been there and knew
the place like the back of his hand.