Decca, p.61
Decca, page 61
This is the first letter I’ve typed with my wretched thumb. So shall close with love,
Decca
To Deborah Rogers137 Oakland
April 1, 1970
Dear Deborah,
I seem to choose unfortunate days to answer yr. letters—Friday the Thirteenth, and here we are at April Fools Day. Natherless, here goes:
… Famous Writers: The piece is now taken by Atlantic Monthly, which will publish it in either July or August.138 They have cancelled all adverts. for Famous Schools (two full page ones were scheduled for July!!)139 and Bob Manning, the editor, is speculating that Harpers may well follow suit. Of course what I long for now is to topple their whole house of cards. Shana Alexander,140 while chickening out on the article, tells me she has also recommended discontinuing their adverts. So, financial hint: sell short their wretched stock (listed as FAS on NY stock exchange). I don’t know how this works, but what it means is you gamble on the stock going down. All sorts of people are now longing to get in on the act, such as Wall St. Journal wants the galleys of the piece when available so they can do a story on it, also several TV shows in NY wanted me to come on and tell all about those Famous brutes. As you can see, it’s all rather enjoyable, mainly because they’re such super-respectable right wing asses.
Thanks for all,
Best, Decca
To Aranka Treuhaft
Oakland
April 20, 1970
Dearest Aranka,
… Life here is chugging along quite quietly on the whole. We did have one dinner party (can’t remember if I told you about it?) of Lillian Hellman,141 who was out here briefly, and an Irish authoress called Edna O’Brien (wrote Girl with Green Eyes, which was made into a film).142
My advice: don’t ever invite two lady authoresses to the same dinner party. Miss Hellman is smashing-looking, in her late 60’s I think, with a marvellously ravaged, wrinkled face, all her life shows on it, one feels. Miss O’Brien is a v. sexy Irish lady (Benj was a bit in love with her once, I think), and she arrived in full fig with silver stockings & shoes and diaphanous long skirt. There were quite a lot of other people here, such as the Kahns, Eleanor Furman who was out visiting, and some men for all these ladies, one of them my friend Billy Abrahams who is West Coast ed. of Atlantic. Well! We got a letter next day from Edna O’Brien. She had liked everyone except Lillian Hellman. She wrote, “It’s sad to see somebody who has completely lost all interest in everyone except herself.” Later, I heard from Billy that Miss Hellman had said, “That Miss O’Brien is the most completely self-centered woman I’ve ever met, takes absolutely no interest in any conversation that’s not about her.”
… Much love, Decca
To Robert Manning
Oakland
July 8, 1970
Dear Bob,
My inclination would be not to answer that silly letter from the Pres. of Famous Schools.143 I think he hangs himself in it, don’t you? Saying there were 23 errors “at last count” (I wonder how many counts they plan on having?) and then not mentioning any of them.144 Anyone who has read the article can see it is not based upon a 1965 Fact mag. piece, nor does it center round two former students.
I think space that would be taken by my answer is far better used to publish other people’s letters….
Perhaps you could say something in the letters column about the very large number of letters received and then give the percentage for-and-against, like Nixon does on his Cambodian policy? (Only more truthful.)
Thanks so much for forwarding everything. To all those people who write saying “I long to stop payments but don’t dare,” I am answering: “Stop paying! Tell the school I advised you to! If they sue, I’ll come and testify as a witness.” Hoping, actually, to sting the school into suing me, which would be most diverting….
Best, Decca
To Barbara Kahn
London
August 30, 1970
Dearest Barb,
Chatsworth has come & gone—that is, we’ve been & went….
Next thing in the offing is D. Pryce-Jones’s interview with Nancy, due to appear on Thursday 3rd Sept in the Telegraph.145 The story is going around that Nancy told him Hitler wanted to marry Bobo, & only didn’t because she was so fearfully promiscuous, slept with all the S.S. men. So the question is, will this be in the article? Terror in the family (or at least Debo’s section of it).146 …
What news from home? Have only had one letter from you so far, sounding rather sad….
Much love, Decca
To [recipient unknown]147 Oakland
October 15, 1970
Dear Barbara,
Here’s the plot, in outline:
Last summer, I attended an extraordinary 8-day conference sponsored by the National College of State Trial Judges, an org. devoted to continuing education of judges (and boy do they need it). Conferees were all D.C. Corrections people: judges, prosecutors, policemen, prison administrators, defense lawyers, criminologists etc. 18 convicts attended for the full time: 6 men from the rough-tough men’s prison (Lorton … for long term offenders), 6 juveniles, 6 women. We called them the con-sultants. As part of the conference, all free-world people were required to spend 24 hours in a penal institution: the judges all went to Lorton (and emerged shaken), the younger men to Juvy, 9 women to Women’s Detention in Washington.
We were handcuffed, booked, mugged, stripped, the works. All play-acting, of course, as the guards and our fellow-prisoners all knew we were visitors. The prison is about 90% black, including personnel, director is a black woman. We were assigned cells (I was in with a frightfully nice murderess), had our 4:30 dinner with the others. Our corridor reminded me of a mix between a college dorm (a certain amount of jokes, chatter) and a lunatic asylum (underlying sense of ineffable sadness & futility).
The director had arranged for our group to sample all aspects of prison life: two women were sent to the sick-bay for the night, others went to “recreation” etc. I was called down for a disciplinary hearing and there accused of homosexual acts with another prisoner (the girl from the Washington Post). I fought back: demanded to see the statute under which this was a crime, to call my lawyer, to confront and cross-examine my accuser. “Remember, you’re an inmate now,” I was told. And given 10 days in the hole (which luckily was up in 1¼ hours, as my cell was needed for another trouble-maker). That’s where I heard the screaming: 17-year old, shouting to be let out, and another woman, ditto. That’s when it all became real instead of jolly fun.
The advantage of being a VIP was that I was able to quiz the director at length about a number of things.
i) the 17-year old. She was in there because of a mistake made by a juvenile court judge. Considered incorrigible in the children’s lock-up, he remanded her to the Women’s Detention. But by law, she can’t mix with the adult population (crazy—the reason, of course, is she might get “corrupted.” She was in for prostitution). So they chuck her in solitary. “When will she get out?”; “When she turns 18, in 3 months from now.” “Aren’t you afraid she’ll go completely mad by then?”; “That’s a risk we have to take.” The other screamer: Viola, the guards said she was in “for her nerves.” I remarked to the director it didn’t seem to be doing her nerves much good; the director then admitted Viola is a diagnosed schizophrenic; but because of recent court rulings, she can’t be sent to a mental institution without a sanity hearing, and the courts are too clogged at the moment. “When will she get out?”; “I don’t know.” Note: Both these measures (not letting youngsters mix with older offenders and requiring a sanity hearing) are for the benefit of the inmates. Such are the contradictions that constantly bop you in the face in the arcane world of prisons.148
2) I asked what sorts of crimes they are mostly in for. Answer: prostitution and drug addiction. “Do you consider drug addiction a crime?”; “Not really, in the circumstances these women are in.” Contradiction: the heads of institutions don’t really believe in what they are doing.
3) What about rehabilitation? “It doesn’t exist” (much more on that would be in the article). Same contradiction as above.
There’s quite a bit more to it, but that’s the general idea.
Prisons are fast becoming Topic A in the media. One reason: Black militancy and New Left ideas are seeping into the prisons. Another: a new type of offender: civil-disobedients, Panthers,149 collegiate narc. users etc. are coming into the prisons. Hence, new and more sophisticated demands by prisoners….
Back to my terrible task—I’ve never had so much difficulty with a piece as I’m having with this ACLU thing.
Best regards, Decca
To Robert Gottlieb and Maria Tucci
Oakland
October 23, 1970
Dear Bob, Maria, and Unknown,150
Here’s this monster.151 I Do write soon as poss. and say what you think. … The detente of finishing it is unbelievable, so here are a couple of cheery tales:
A friend of my sisters’, young and beautiful, committed suicide the other day because of an unhappy love affair. She fetched up in Harrods Funeral Parlour, made up to the nines, head showing out of the coffin for the Viewing! So I got letters from Nancy & Debo relating this odd circumstance, in which the char- acter of each can be noted. Debo: “In spite of all you did, it is coming to En- gland.” Nancy: “All your fault. Harrods would never have known about all that if it wasn’t for you. What would Muv have said?”; (Harrods152 was my mother’s home-from-home, she used to go there every day.) Last time I was in Harrods, I noted on the board where they list departments: Funeral Arrangements, 4th Floor. So I scrammed up to the 4th fl, but Funeral Arrangements was locked; there was a note on the door saying, “If shut, please apply to Adjustments Dept.” So their friend was Adjusted. Am amending my will to be shipped to Harrods for final adjustments, & have told the sisters they’ll jolly well have to come & view
Just now somebody rang up from NY to say the State of Iowa has enjoined the Famous Writers School from circulating mail in that state, on ground that it’s a fraudulent use of the mails!!! It wasn’t in our paper—she heard about it on the radio. Also, yesterday, a v. diverting phone call: from the admin. assistant to Congressman Weicker,153 Republican, Connecticut, who’s running for Senate … Background: the other day the NY Times ran a story about the Internal Security Comm. announcing that 65 subversives are lecturing at colleges all over the country including moi. So Mr. Frey, pres. of FWS, had sent this clipping to Cong. Weicker asking him to read my horrid record into the Cong. Record. Because, what I hadn’t known before, another Cong, Lawrence Burton of Utah, had read out my whole Famous Writers article in the Record. Frey’s letter said he wanted to discuss “the nature and depths of the damage done to our reputation,” and “the matter has reached urgent proportions.” Don’t you think that’s all terribly jolly stuff? In the course of me quizzing him about Frey’s letter, the admin. asst. almost forgot what he had called about—but then he remembered. “Are you a member of the CPUSA?”; “Aha,” said I. “That’s a long story, if you ever come to Oakland I’ll tell all. But meanwhile, loathing loyalty oaths as I do, I’m not about to take one at the request of mobsters like Bennett Cerf and his gang.” Also, I said if I’ve ruined their reputation why don’t they sue? They wouldn’t even have to send a subpoena, I’d meet them any time, any place … So you see there have been some rather decent things happening, despite general gloom at the news here. Do write by return of post.
Much love, Decca
To Bill Outsi154 Oakland
November 30, 1970
Dear Bill,
Thanks very much for your letter. This, too, will be rambling—because I found yours immensely interesting, and if I don’t answer at once, off the cuff (I’m no good at drafts) I risk losing the train of thought. Shall try to have a stab at least at some of the thoughts yours provoked. Will preface it by explaining that (as you already know) I knew nothing whatsoever about this gloomy subject until last February. Have been more or less immersed in it ever since in an amateurish sort of way. So, advance apologies for obvious gaps in knowledge & understanding. Here goes …
“Corr. system now is responsible for some very, very dangerous people.” I’m sure that is true. You say the tendency of those on the outside is to underestimate dangerosity of said people. I should have said the opposite—that is, it depends who on the outside we’re talking about. Does not the average law-abiding citizen, as he drives by San Quentin or Sing-Sing etc. experience a frisson of self-congratulation that all these violent wretches who would harm himself & family are safely locked away? Yet, is he right? Statistics in the thing I quoted from the Calif. legislative committee say: 1) most criminals are at large, in the street. 2) 97% of prisoners are eventually released on parole. … [D]oesn’t that mean that lots of very very dangerous ones are released, as a matter of policy? Also, the committee says that longer confinement makes them more dangerous, not less so. (You indicate the same, in parenthesis … [in] your letter.) …
What are these dangerous people? To the ordinary newspaper reader (me) they would be people like Kaplanjy or whatever his name was, that Hungarian freedom-fighter who tortured his wife to death with acid. Where does he belong? Most would agree he should be locked up (and no conjugal visits in his case, please), forever. But where? San Quentin? A lunatic asylum? From his viewpoint, both might be equally unpleasant. Likewise, the chap who killed all those nurses, the one who shot a lot of people in a Texas college etc. etc. Nobody knows what to do with the likes of these, except to keep them away from the rest of society for the rest of their lives. And to further befuddle the brain, one is told by authorities up and down the line (from progressive crimi-nologist to conservative prison warden) that murderers, as a class, are the best risk of all—least likely to repeat, most likely to repent, 80% of murders are committed in homes, victims are lovers, family members, friends. What are the other 20%? I should surmise they are I) psychotics, 2) people who kill in course of a robbery or other crime. The former don’t really belong in prison. The latter? Who knows?
So we are back full circle: somebody has to decide who is very very dangerous. I asked Bernard Diamond155 about this. He’s at war with the Behaviourists, in fact I think he thinks they are very very dangerous. He said that if given the task of identifying the 100 most dangerously inclined (potentially dangerous, I think was his expression) of, say, the 28,000 students at UC, Berkeley, he would have to choose 1,000 to net 100, or overpredict by 10 to I. I said, but even then how could he be sure? Suppose he had that job somewhere in the mid-west a few years ago, could he have picked from the fresh-faced young gasoline station attendants etc. the young men who would commit the My Lai massacre?156 Isn’t it the circumstance that usually makes one commit a crime? Well, that was different … and so it goes. You can’t really get a straight answer, mainly because (as you pointed out in the publications you sent me) there isn’t any straight answer
I’m not… too stuck on “due process,” having seen results of same over the years. That is, I do not believe that the presumption of innocence and other aspects of due process are working for the poor and black, & I don’t think they get justice in the courts. Nevertheless due process is now a slogan of the prisoners themselves. Without it, they are totally at the mercy of the individual warden (in prison), parole officer (when released). As you say in your letter, “many humane people get broken, embittered” in the system…. I read an interesting study about parole by Christopher Nuttall, an Englishman. He found an immense range in Calif. parole officers, all the way from splendid types who really try to help the parolee to one who kept a 6 foot whip and picture of Q.157 gas chamber in his office. That’s why I think a spot of due process is needed, as a curb on the latter type.
Have you read Soledad Brother, by George Jackson?158 … It’s quite an extraordinary book. Is George Jackson one of the dangerous? I should think so, by most people’s standards. So what should be done with him? Do read the book, & tell me what you think….
I guess it’s really the common-sense-defying irrationality of the prison system that gets me more than anything. The incredible paradoxes….
Again, many thanks for the extremely interesting correspondence…
With best regards, Jessica
To George Jackson
Oakland
January-February, 1971
From: Jessica Mitford
The New York Times Book Review has asked me to prepare an interview with you to be entitled “The Literary Life of George Jackson.” If you are agreeable to this, it appears the only way we can do it is through a list of written questions—an awkward way to conduct an interview, but the only one open to us, as the prison authorities have refused to let me come and see you.159 After I get your replies, I will prepare the final article, editing as I should if taking notes. Thus you should be as discursive as you want. But if there is anything you particularly don’t want edited out, please so indicate….
I am hopeful that if it comes off well it will stimulate a lot of interest in Soledad Brother, on the part of readers of the NYT Book Review as well as librarians, bookshops etc.
The fee for the finished article is $350. At first I thought I should contribute this to the Soledad Brothers Defense Committee; but then I wondered if (in view of the thrust of the interview) a more dramatic use of it might be to order from publishers books that you think should be in prison libraries, and have these books sent to San Quentin and Soledad. What do you think of this idea?160
The main difficulty, of course, is the lack of the ordinary give-and-take one usually has in an interview, where the answer to one question may suggest another that has not previously occurred to the interviewer. Therefore, it would be very good if you could yourself expand (that is, anticipate any unasked question that you feel should be asked), and write in anything you think is pertinent to the inquiry. Conversely, if you feel any of the questions I have submitted are dull or irrelevant etc., please so indicate, and in this way we’ll drop it, just as we would in a real interview.
