Decca, p.89
Decca, page 89
In the Good Old Days, one cld have anything analyzed by the ordinary sort of chemist who had a shop. When we were teenagers, we took some Eliz. Arden face cream to Burford chemist—it cost 4/6 a jar, 4 shillings sixpence, a huge chunk out of one’s allowance. So he did it (turned out it was mostly pig’s lard! How disgusting) and then made it up for us at about sixpence a jar. Perhaps I’ll try when we go to England in spring….
Best regards, Decca
To Virginia Durr
Oakland
April 3, 1986
Dearest Va,
After we talked yesterday, I re-read the Nation review,107 & have the following comments:
On the whole, it’s what many writers would like—what’s known as a “selling review.” The first 3 paragraphs are, I think, extremely good in setting the scene. Ditto, the last sentence: “Her triumph is that despite the ambivalence, she made the commitment and chose to pay the price.”
The trouble with reviews—in general—is that they seldom fully satisfy the author. (Philip Toynbee once said that there is only ONE review worth having, the one that says “This is the best book I ever read.”)
In this case, the reviewer picked up on the alleged “aristocratic past” which I agree is annoying. But that’s how reviewers are, as I have discovered through a long life—they tend to fasten on just what you might rather they’d ignore. But the point is—the writer is ultimately responsible for feeding them these lines, or for making these ideas available to them.
The reviewer then puts his own interpretation on the author’s work—in your case, your account of your life & development from “longing for aristocratic past” to “genteel poverty” to Washington/New Deal scene, rejection of racism etc.
The emphasis of the review is, I agree, most tiresome. Yet the overall tone of it is positive and friendly. The reviewer is obviously without a sense of humor or irony—as when she quotes you, deadpan, as saying that in the South you’re nobody unless you can be “placed”—which I’m sure you meant to be taken as an ironic comment.
If I were you, I’d rejoice in the good things she said, & ignore the annoying ones. As I told you, I think it’s a mistake to reply to reviews unless you’ve been deliberately misquoted; in which case one should, of course, fire off a furious letter!
I’d love to know what further thoughts you have about the Nation review, & to have yr comments on the above thoughts of mine. So do write back.108 I’m away for a few days next week … in dread Texas—lecture, which is how I make my drab living! But long for a letter re above. RSVP,
Much love, Decca
ps… If you don’t want to be quoted as saying “common as pig tracks,” you shouldn’t have put it in yr book.109 I do rather remember you saying that about—Alma? Was that her name? Anyway, a sis-in-law, who I thought was rather jolly. I used to chat with her in the kitchen when you & Cliff were out to dinner. Can’t remember, though, why she was COMMON.110 Do remind.
To Ann Simonton Oakland
May 2i, 1986
Dear Ann,
Thanks so much for bringing round the copies of HUSTLER & other material.111 I didn’t look at the slides, because a) I couldn’t work them—too small, and b) they didn’t seem to carry identification as to what/where they were, so I gave up on those.
Hustler was much as I expected: incredibly boring, bad and in all ways rotten. Those centerfolds are so repetitive—at least in the two copies you lent to me; one after another stroking her genitals, followed by several all doing same at once. Dullsville, I thought. As for the joke columns! And the rest of the editorial material! ghastly. The only editorial bit that I found semi-enlightening was the one in the issue of last April that quoted various newspapers/magazines saying that yes, Flynt112 is indeed a disgusting specimen and so is Hustler, but you don’t ban them 1st Amendment-wise. Which is, I gather, also your position.
Far more interesting, to me, was the article in San Jose Merc. News of June 24, 1985, about your own background, & your development from fashion model to counter-model, demonstrating against those obscene Miss America pageants & the like.113 I thought that was a very good idea & well worth doing for the publicity it generated about the awfulness of said pageants.
According to the Merc. News story you forsook the glamorous and well-paid life of model after 13 years of it, and became a political activist. So that was a terrific, important decision & step forward.
But reading further in the Merc. News article, I came across all sorts of really peculiar things. (I should quickly add that I know the newspapers often get things wrong, they misquote you or garble the meaning of what you said—it happens to me constantly, & perhaps to you, too). Just one example. The article quotes you as saying: “For every woman who shaves her legs and denies her maturity, and for every man who responds to that—the immature childlike innocent qualities—they are collaborating with child molesters.”
Is that really your view? I find it quite extraordinary—almost over the brink in terms of any sort of logic.
Another point: at the meeting, you said that over 80%—83%? 89%? I can’t remember the exact figure—of rapists/murderers had been readers of pornography. Could you furnish me with the source for this information? It sounds awfully like the sort of thing that Ed Meese’s114 Commission is putting out; but perhaps you have a more authoritative source.
Again—many thanks for lending me all that interesting material,
Best regards, Decca
To Marge Frantz
Oakland
May 25, 1986
Old Thing:
I’m in a blissful lull at the moment—3 chapters of GD to typist, Bob & Dobby gone to see the tide-pools, naught to do except to think about next ch. of GD, & write to you….
Dobby came to dinner & spent the night here, as they had to leave at 5 a.m. for thrilling tide pools. So she told how you’d said “Dec hasn’t a feminist bone in her body” perhaps true, but I do have splashes of—cartilege? But forward to the interesting part:
I told about Ann,115 near-hysteric, & showed my letter (copy enclosed) re leg-shaving leads to child molestation.
This led to a v. interesting discussion about a) leg-shavers, b) purpose of same.
To my amazement, Dobby ended up rather on Ann’s side—and so, to my further amazement, did that MCP116 (as you think him) Bob. Dobby thought back to her teenage days, and how her mother made her shave legs—to attract men. So I thought back to my teenage days when we were forbidden to shave legs (we did it anyway)—why? Fads of the moment? We weren’t allowed to use lipstick—then all the rage with girls our age. Why? I suppose that my parents, Edwardian by chronology but Victorian in ideology, disliked the idea of trying to attract men by these artificial means. Needless to say we shaved legs like mad, & got all sorts of lipsticks, thus attracting the wrong sort of men, such as Hamish St. Clair Erskine in Nancy’s case & Esmond in mine. Although—thinking back, I doubt if E. noted shaven-ness of legs, and I lost my one lipstick in Bilbao in flurry of packing. Perhaps he just liked my personality? Who knows? Too long ago to recapitulate. Anyway I’m sure I got another lipstick in Bayonne.
Bob & Dobby got quite deep about women’s subservient role, necessity of a man to support them—not just financially, of course the prime reason historically, but also in all other ways leading to things like leg-shaves & lipsticks….
All very consciousness-raising, you’ll be glad to know. Although I took it all with large bits of salt…. I must be off to shave my legs, a forest of horrid hair at the moment—although I’ve nobody to ATTRACT in London. Pity.
Much love, Decca
ps Have you thought about peacocks, magnificent tails & display, whereas peahens are drab old creatures? There must be a MORAL somewhere. Over to you to elucidate same…. Oh DO write to me in London—you’ve no idea how one craves letters when in foreign parts.
To Constancia Romilly and family
Oakland
November 15, 1986
Darling Dink & Co.,
In our a.m. chat, I forgot to go into something of interest about which I’d love yr opinion: CHILD ABUSE. I don’t mean beating the poor things to death (understandable, but v. regrettable speaking as a Mother & Granny of two naughty boys), but sexual molestation.
Item: We tuned in to 6O Minutes the other day—didn’t catch the whole program, but got the gist of it. Subject was a nigh-incredible case in L.A. in which the entire staff of a nursery-school, for children 2 to 6, were indicted for said awful crime. Head & founder of the school was herself a grandmother; her son, plus staff members hired by them, all accused of raping—or fiddling with—these children. Eventually charges were dropped against all but two. Strong implication in 60 Mins. program was that there’d been a huge frame-up, overzealous DA and coaching of the child witnesses by prosecution-minded social workers etc. Implication was that children turned into little witches, as ‘twere the Salem case.
Item: This got me thinking back to when Bob came out, 1943, & we were all living in Mrs. Betts’s downstairs apt. Bob, who had had no experience with children, one day came to me in a sort of Bob-like twinkling embarrassment, & said “When I go to the bathroom, Dinky often comes in with me and she likes to hold my penis and direct the flow, spraying the walls etc. Is that OK?”; Of course I roared & said absolutely OK. NOW, as Bob & I were saying after the 60 Mins. show, if that had happened today—Bob the stepfather of a 2-yr-old—and I’d told it as a joke to the neighbours, he’d be hauled off for his own protection as convicts don’t like chaps who bugger little children….
Item: You & the lily-waver,117 when you were 7. You know all that, so no need to repeat.
Item: I was discussing this with Renée Golden118 when we stayed with her in LA. She told the following, about a friend of hers who is a young, happily married free-lance writer with 2 children, girl 4, boy 2. He took pix of the kids, cavorting about naked, to send to their grandparents, & brought the films to the local Thrifty Developers or whatever. Imagine his surprise when the following morning two squads of police came with flashing sirens & a warrant to search his house—which they did, tore the place apart looking for further evidence of his involvement in child porn. He talked his way out of it—after being brought in & booked. Oh dear.
So, to come to the point: what’s your view of all this? Is sexual child-abuse just a new fashion in crime (like drugs, for example) or is it really a huge & horrid problem? Nurses may have some sort of fix on this, prevalence, etc. Mulling it over, I’ve discussed the subject with Katie Edwards, my smashing assistant & former social worker, & Marge Frantz.
Both thought it really is a true & awful fact. Katie says that literally hundreds of cases of the sort came to her attention when she was working as social wkr. Marge says that MANY students at UC Santa Cruz have confided hideous tales of incest/rape etc. that blighted their lives….
Dink—Terry—Oys—I must say, I find this subject of horrible fascination & wld v. much like yr views. How on earth cld anyone, male or female, get enjoyment out of raping 2-yr olds? (Making love with ii-yr olds, yes, but quite different. See Lolita, a marvelous book.) Is it a sort of spreading hysteria, analogous to the politician-engineered drug hysteria—that is, with some foundation in fact, but built out of all proportion?
As you can see, I’d far rather spin out a letter to you than get on with WORK. But do admit it’s rather an interesting thing….
Much love, Decca
Specifically, do emergency ward nurses see much evidence of above horrortales?
To James Forman Jr.
Oakland
February 9, 1987
Dearest Oy #1,
Dink rang & had just had a long winter’s chat with you, so she told some of yr main news—VERY pleasing. However she says that letters take 15 days so by the time this reaches you119 all will be totally out of date from her phone call. I mean—what cld happen in 15 days. Lots. You could be married. Or in jail. Or run over by a slow-moving vehicle such as a mule or camel—do they have those in Brazil? My ignorance of said country is vast. Anyway, as of her phone call all was VERY serene—non-stop social life, great beaches & so on. (She didn’t mention any actual studying, so perhaps that will come later if at all???)
News this end: we went to Atlanta for the March,120 my account enclosed. The funniest thing cannot, for obvious reasons, be told in an article, so here goes for Oy’s Eyes Only: Having failed to find the Calif. delegation in that huge milling crowd, we began to fear that we’d never get on a bus. All the buses were filling up fast. Dinky spotted one marked VIP’S ONLY, so she barged up to it and said in tones of positively MAJESTIC authority, “This is Jessica Mitford from California,” and shoved me forward. The driver (who certainly had nary a clue as to who JM was) let me on, upon which Dink, Terry, Benjamin,Chelsea121 and Bob all piled in. I said to Dink later, “how on earth did you pull that off—nobody here has ever heard of me.” “It’s not what you say, but how you say it,” she answered in her firm fashion. Can’t you visualize the scene? So that’s how we came to be on the same bus with Rev. Lowery122 & assorted city & county bigwigs. Isn’t yr mum a marvel; but you know that already.
We did have a lovely time with the Dink mob, too short, we were jet-setting for the march, so only spent 2 nights.
You know how Chaka is to come & stay with us in London in June? Dink said that she’d suddenly realized that his manners are atrocious (actually I cld have told her that, but mothers don’t like hearing that sort of news from GRANDMOTHERS) and that she plans a crash course, as follows: Weeks 1 and 2: No elbows on dining table, no shoveling food as ‘twere a horse with feeding bag. Weeks 3 & 4: “Proper manipulation of utensils” (her words), i.e. what to do with one’s knife, fork, spoon. Weeks 5 & 6: Conversational English. Oh POOR Chaklington! Perhaps he’ll decide not to come. But if he does come, we’ll have to shape up to his new manners & not embarrass him with our bad ones. Isn’t life difficult. Anyway I’ve already done a certain amount of advance work (you know what that means, from political campaigns—arranging contacts in far-off places) and have spotted out people who can lead him to soccer games & other dubious activities suited to his age & interests. My main idea is not to bore him with things like museums etc. but to let him roam free. Agree? Any thoughts you have on the care & treatment of Chaka v. welcome, so jot some things when you’ve got time between now & June.
Your loving Grandec
To James Forman Jr.
Oakland
February 28, 1987
Dearest OY #1,
Dink sent me your MARVELOUS & fascinating letter all about the family where you are living, social life—films, to neck or not to neck??? etc.123
But she also said you’ve gone off by train into the interior, & she’d read about a dread TRAIN WRECK in Brazil, 40 killed, so you are probably dead by now. If so, what a drag, & waste of all these stamps which cost the earth. If, by chance, you have survived, do drop a line.
Anything needed your end? Just say the word …
Dink said she’s going to have a peek in March, lucky her. Wish I cld go.
Fondest love, & from Grandbob, Grandec
To Dr. Arlan Cohn
Oakland
May 5, 1987
Dear Oscar/Arlan,124
Thanks SO much for KILL AS FEW PATIENTS, just arrived. I’ve been browsing through it, & it’s delightful—as I expected it would be. Full of WIT & WISDOM, & a great treat to read.
Did I ever tell you about Uncle Alec’s leg? If so, please forgive repeat of same.
Uncle Alec was such a sweet person—NOT a Mitford, an uncle by marriage. One of one’s childhood favourites. In 1955, my first visit back to London after 16 years, I inquired about him & my mother said he was in the Seamen’s Hospital, so thither I repaired—a good 2 hours by bus from West End, and a regular horror scene straight out of Dickens. There was Uncle A. with his foot up in a filthy bandage. So we chatted, & he said he thought it was GAN-GRENOUS—awfully painful AND smelly. Oh dear. So I said if I were you I’d have it off.
I told my mother about the visit, & poor Uncle Alec’s beastly leg. After I got home, some months later, she wrote & said “You will be glad to hear that Uncle Alec had his leg off as you suggested.” People like Eph Kahn (who was our Dr. at that time) near fainted at the thought of ignorant nieces DARING to make such a suggestion…. But on the other hand, it was a good thing, I think. Except that the next time I saw him, a few yrs later, long out of hospital & getting round v. spryly on his peg leg, he did complain that “I told them to take it off at the knee, but they went & took it off at the thigh. People are so unreliable these days.” Oh well, can’t win ‘em all. But I think he had a jolly nice old age, living in a decent old gents’ home in Gloucester Place….
Thanks very much for curing my stupid ankle; at least I think it’s almost cured, & I’m taking all the pills you suggested. (Any other ideas? If so, do give a ring.)…
Decca
To Carrie Longton125 London July I, 1987
Dear Ms. Longton,
Re SERVANTS programme. …
Here are a few thoughts about my own relationship to servants….
When I was 15 I decided to become a Communist. My mother’s annoying reaction: “Well, Little D” (which is what she called me) “If you’re a Communist, I should think you’d be much tidier and try not to make work for the servants.” Being tidy wasn’t my idea of being a good Communist. Anyway I soon left home for good and there weren’t any servants. My first husband, Esmond Romilly, and I lived mainly in bed-sitters where the landlady did what tidying was done (not much, actually).
More to the point would be mid-war & post-war years, approx. 1943 on. I was married to Bob Treuhaft, a lawyer, & we lived in San Francisco. We had 2 children; & worked things out on a sort of barter system, being quite poor (not enough money to pay decent wages to somebody to look after house & children) & were jolly hardworking, so didn’t have time to be all that tidy. Let alone mind the kids.
