Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 23, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Green Revolution Trebles Human Burden on Planet




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Carla Kaplan on ‘The Mitfords’

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 28, 2007
Mitfords cover

By Carla Kaplan

(Page 2)

As we might expect from such a volatile, opinionated and stubborn group, the sisters are continually getting on and off “speakers” and “stayers” with one another (except for Jessica and Diana, whose political differences put them on “non-speakers” for life).  Despite their need for one another (no one else, after all, really got what it was like to be a Mitford sister), they were often, in Nancy’s words, “not very sisterly.”  They betrayed each other, lied to each other, deceived each other, mocked each other, complained about each other, spied on one another and often despised each other.  Their challenge—and they rose to it often nobly and always instructively—was to try to accept one another, with their differences intact.  “Nothing I can say wd changer your view of things & ditto the other way around if you see what I mean,” Deborah wrote to Jessica.  Since their identities were so mutually and collectively formed, rifts and silences between them were devastating.  “Don’t we all sound horrible. ...  Perhaps we are, but we do at least all love each other,” Diana wrote.

Throughout their lives, they continued to “long for” one another as they did for no one else.  “I long for you.  Every time I look at the bookcases I think of you. ...  I do simply so long for you sometimes, you can’t think,” Nancy would write.  “I long for ALL sister ALL the time,” Deborah noted.  The sisters lived on a very large world stage.  But it was their approval of one another that each of them usually craved.  “I always think while I’m writing you how terrifically you despise my life,” Deborah wrote to Jessica.  “For some reason I longed for, but feared, your reaction more than anyone’s, even the reviewers.  So I was most awfully glad to get your letter,” Jessica wrote to Nancy. 

It is not merely approval these women crave from one another, but correspondence itself.  One gets the sense that what these women long for when they long for one another (which is very often) is not so much an actual physical presence of their sisters (though some of the sisters did very much enjoy one another’s company, especially for brief visits) as it was the very particular experience letters provide: a shared sensibility and an intimate—but controlled—“girl talk.”  “What would one do without your letters,” Deborah writes to Diana, “it would be a grey waste.”  “Oh Debo your letters literally do make my life,” Diana writes to her.  There is a sustenance and comfort to be had from letters which is unlike anything else and, as we see across these sisters’ long lifetimes, which phone calls (which demand immediate reciprocation), e-mails and text messages can never replicate (no wonder that Jessica willed $5,000 to her postman).  In a letter from 1975, Deborah writes to Nancy about the special quality of letters and anticipates this very book and its author’s efforts.  “I usually keep Valuable Envelopes if the letters are two page affairs, like yours of yesterday with the unmasking news.  Otherwise I’d pity the monkey’s orphan (Brill person of about the year 2000 who will make a thrilling, silly book on the Last Correspondence Between People using Pen & Paper) who would have to put the thing together.”  This “thrilling, silly book” is one of the last great surviving groups of letters, and the sisters knew what an invaluable archive it was.  Nancy wrote Diana in 1963, “Throw nothing away ... a correspondance suive of a whole family, so rare nowadays, would be gold for your heirs.”

Selecting, dating, ordering, editing, cutting and annotating the more than 12,000 letters the sisters wrote to one another was truly a labor of love on Mosley’s part.  Because this collection contains only 5 percent of their correspondence and those which are included here are rarely complete (excisions, cuts and excerptions go, unfortunately, unmarked), the view we get of the sisters’ lives and relations with one another is necessarily partial.  But because the sisters are allowed to speak in their own voices, with minimal editorial intrusion, however “fragmentary” (Mosley’s term) an account this may be, it also feels authentic.  For those unfamiliar with the Mitfords, this collection provides an excellent introduction (thanks, in part, to helpful interchapter overviews, footnotes (American readers, in particular, will occasionally want footnotes to the footnotes), a family tree, many photographs, an index of nicknames, a comprehensive index but, surprisingly, no bibliography).  For the many Mitford fans who already feel they know the sisters, “The Mitfords” may offer several surprises. 

This volume offers an unusually inside look at British aristocracy, especially its often-noted aversion to both emotional expression and physical labor.  The sisters are astoundingly inept domestically and they simply revel in their own inability to do laundry, wash dishes or iron:

  “Darling, housework.  I make my bed & wash up a coffee cup & then I go to bed & sleep the sleep of utter exhaustion until dinner time.  What does it mean & how can people manage?  I never attempt the Hoover or lighting the stove or any of the moderately tough things,” Nancy writes.

  American readers, in particular, may be surprised to see the low opinion many of the sisters had of European “high culture.”  The Duchess of Devonshire, for example, dismisses opera as a bunch of “fat screamers,” hopes that she can avoid reading the classics her sister Nancy recommends to her (“Oh Proust,” she writes, “shall I try now or is it too late?  I do hope it’s too late”) but is enough of an Elvis fan to make two trips to Graceland.  “Oh Graceland,” she writes, “The excitement was intense, please picture. ...  A sweet but hopeless black girl in a woolly hat was our guide but the audios made her not necessary.  They were perfect, Priscilla Presley talking, & sometimes Elvis plus music, allowed one the right amount of time in each room.  The furniture was too lovely, white ‘custom made’ sofas all along a wall, down 3 steps & a white piano on a shag carpet so deep it went 1/2way up its legs.  The Jungle Room had outsize chairs whose arms were carved crocodiles’ heads, enormous, & a vast round one which no one could sit in because of its depth.  Green carpet 2 inches long, (thick) & the same on the ceiling.  Do admit.  Alas no upstairs. ...  Then across the (very main) road to see his aeroplane—enormous, with a huge bed in it.  By then we were whacked & only got to one shop & the idiotic Morticia never told us there were 2 more so we missed the sequin tee shirts & such like, maddening.” 


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By souljaEXVOTO, December 29, 2007 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I welcome this introduction to the Mitfords and do not begrudge anyone scanning this site the opportunity to click here or not click here; in this case a subject I’m a bit embarrassed for not having known more about sooner. And I think it’s very timely because for example, the recent Christmas family gathering: How many of us found ourselves sitting across the table from unapologetic oblivious Fox watching Republicans?  Did we talk or not talk politics? Did we wonder how it came to be that we share blood?

I applaud your choice of inclusion also for the timely reminder of the pace we expect nowadays, and the dying art of beautiful, thoughtful letters.

I just hate that big hunk of bloody red meat advertisement that always makes me skip quickly to the bottom of the page so my eye doesn’t wander back to that god awful image thus ruining an otherwise pleasant reading experience. (Even if it is about war and carnage). God lose that already!

Report this

By rangertommy, December 28, 2007 at 8:55 am Link to this comment

Sounds like an interesting book, but why is it the headliner for TruthDig?  Not seein’ the connection, folks.  Love your site otherwise, but I sure don’t visit it for this kind of stuff.

Report this

By Expat, December 28, 2007 at 4:39 am Link to this comment

I heard the original interview.  I wonder what it is doing here in Truthdig at this time in our existence.  Does truthdig want to become an English Literature or history site? 

I find levity as I need it in my everyday life.  I follow this site, somewhat dubiously at times, because of the issues, not because I want to know about a family, unless it is relevant to these critical times: Clearly, this is not relevant to anything concerning this most important time in American History.  WTF?

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.