See’s house, again

This time from Mothers, Daughters (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1977 [and what an amazing name for a publishing company]).

“A patio slanting and slanting, off to the edge of a jagged sandstone cliff. . . . The sun, every morning, coming up at a slightly different point on the ridge across the canyon from her living room. The sun, every evening, going down against an infinitesimally different wedge of green . . . . Ruth went into the kitchen, put water on for coffee, bent over the oven to light it, slammed the broiler door, shivered, ran for her robe and slippers, put on a record. The kids were asleep in the living room, where she usually slept; they had colds and the nights in their basement rooms were freezing” (1-2).

I don’t know why Ruth gets involved with the horrible Marc Mandell. She knows about him from high school, from friends of hers who went out with him. He’s handsome, and has nice clothes: “His immense, tall, shambling, rangy form was covered as it always had been by the very best. And much the same best as they had in Marshall High: soft blue shirt, soft, thick gray cashmere sweater, soft gray slacks.” (39)

But Eve Babitz clued me in about Marshall High. That place is bad news for real California girls:

Gabrielle is chewing

(Slow Days, Fast Company [New York: Knopf, 1977], 155-7).

It’s only in putting this post together that I realize the two books came out the same year. I’m pretty sure I read Babitz first, by several years (probably I first read both between 1985 and 1995). In many ways, Mothers, Daughters is the kind of “literary fiction” I categorize as “people ruining their lives by making stupid decisions” (just as much a genre as mystery or romance, if you ask me), and I don’t like it nearly as much as Golden Days. But if you focus on setting, the contrast between LA and British Columbia (where Ruth goes with Marc) is brilliantly done. The landscape, Ruth’s house, Marc’s hotel, other buildings and views, support the characters and plot. And by the end of the book, Ruth is back in the Topanga Canyon house. Her life isn’t ruined, it just took a detour for awhile.

If you belong in Topanga, beware of people who went to Marshall. As for standing in for a Midwestern high school, I’m sorry, but movie people have no clue about the midwest.

Dodie Smith, meet Mary Quant

Actually, to provide a bit of continuity with my last post, first here’s a quotation about considering what one might still do with the remainder of one’s life:

Dodie Smith, The Town in Bloom (Little, Brown, 1965), 270. Moira at Clothes in Books had a great post on this book (linked from this more recent one) and it’s available on archive.org, so I read it. Loved!

The main action of the book takes place in the 1920s, but there’s a 40-years-on frame, which gets us to the 1960s, and here’s where Mary Quant comes in, though I also like the sound of the Edwardian-style grey chiffon on the even-more-elderly lady at the start of the passage. The narrator does not describe the details of her outfit:

Dodie Smith, The Town in Bloom (Little, Brown, 1965), 270. It’s hard now to imagine black woollen tights as a “vice,” but expectations about women’s clothing were so much stricter in the past.

Still brooding on retirement

LRU is undergoing this decade’s budget crisis (see here and here for the last time I got worked up enough to blog about it, though really, we’ve been having budget problems since the late 90s; I think by now it’s more chronic than crisis). So, once again, it’s a comfort to think that I can retire if this means a lot of nonsense gets dumped on my plate. But then we have again the problem of what I’d do (besides research and reading fiction). The Grumpies just had a post that relates to this, and Delagar’s response to it also resonates with me, though we currently live somewhere I like a lot and I’m not enthusiastic about the idea of moving again, which would be necessary in order to get any sort of degree in Classics (because it’s not a degree offered very many places anymore, sadly for my inner nineteenth-century schoolboy). I read through all the answers to an AAM “Ask the Readers” about things to do in retirement, which mainly clarified for me the things I don’t want to do.

I do not want to do volunteer work. If I work, I want to be paid for it. Better women than I am worked hard for the right to be paid for their labor, and while I respect the achievements of volunteers, the idea of joining them does not sit well with me. In the first place, having spent my career teaching, I feel no need to “give back”: I gave at the office. In the second, I respect money. Even a part-time job that didn’t pay much would make me feel that I needed to show up for it, because they paid me. If I were volunteering and had to deal with someone annoying or incompetent, I’d just say, “You know what, you do not pay me enough to deal with this! In fact, you don’t pay me at all, so screw you guys, I’m going home.” I think I should save us all the trouble and not even start. I liked Doodlebug’s comment: “I have volunteered but being a type A personality and being involved with no power to change anything, improve inefficiencies, etc., was hard. I do not volunteer anymore.”

Oh, and I don’t want to serve on the board of an organization: that is committee work, which is one of the things I will gladly leave behind when I retire.

Further, or maybe this is back to “in the first place,” I don’t care about helping people. I like teaching, but it supports a research habit. I like to teach the topics that interest me. I don’t want to teach for the love of the process, and certainly not because I want to influence young minds. If anything, I want the young minds to influence me, to keep me from succumbing to “kids-these-days”-itis. I’d be happy to do something that put me around young people, but I don’t want the young people to be the focus. Regarder ensemble dans la même direction.

When I read comments like CM’s (“This is also a great opportunity to make connections within a specific local community — so if you’d like to meet local politicians, or artists, or activists, or families with young children, you can choose an organization that serves and/or is run by those people”), I just say nope! I do not want to meet any of those people. I don’t want to hold babies or work with children. If I worked at an animal shelter I’d just want to take all the cats home. Cleaning up parks . . . worthwhile and within my capabilities, but see above about wanting to be paid for my time; I’d rather work on my own garden, and I don’t think I’d have the energy to do both.

The suggestions to study something had me looking at various tolerably-local “lifelong learner” programs. Some of them have attractive topics, and some of these options are led by respected scholars. But they make a point of no exams, no papers, no degree, just the “fun parts” of learning. Well, call me weird (I’ll embrace it), but I like exams and papers. I want to be able to show that I have attained a certain level of mastery. So, like Delagar, I’d want to get the degree, not just dabble in “fun courses.” I do not want to be a dilettante.

I can see that the people who have lots of crafty hobbies (not me!), and/or are a lot more extroverted than I am, probably are much better off when it comes to retirement. I’m a bit of a misanthrope. I recognize that I need some interaction with other people to keep from getting weird. But I really don’t want to do all the extroverted do-stuff-with-people group things. If I lived in Santa Cruz or somewhere similar (looking at you) hiking would be a great activity for me, but my mostly-flat section of the Midwest just isn’t that interesting for outdoor activities, not to mention being too hot or too cold for about 2/3 of the year.

So I may have to just deal with whatever nonsense is coming down the pike this time, so that I can keep on keeping on at LRU.

Paper and Kindle

I frequently have two fun books going at the same time*, one electronic for reading at the gym, or during the day, one paper, for bath** or bedtime reading.***

Lately I’ve been getting curious overlaps between the two, such as shared character names or family constellations. One example: Lucy Pym of Tey’s Miss Pym Disposes shuffling around my brain alongside Lucy Eversley Kahn of Jo Walton’s Farthing. They are both involved in murder mysteries, after all, and there is a certain similarity of tone between Tey’s narration of her Lucy’s adventures and the first-person narration of Walton’s Lucy.****

Then we have the families of the hero of A Civil Contract (Heyer) and Brat Farrar (Tey again).***** They’re not precisely similar, but I kept thinking, “Wait, wasn’t there another brother who died while he was at Oxford?” during Brat, and “Wait, where’s the identical twin?” when reading the Heyer.

I suppose this is one route to fan fiction.

*Don’t hate me because I’m a reading addict.+

**I have been known to put the i-pad mini in a ziplock bag when I can’t put down the electronic book and want to continue reading in the tub.

***Not that avoiding blue light in the evening does nearly as much to prevent insomnia as it is popularly supposed to, but if I do so I can at least tell people who want to give me the standard advice about sleep hygiene that yes, I am already doing all those things and the root of the problem lies elsewhere.

****One of the things that drew me to Farthing was precisely the tone of Lucy’s opening chapter, in which I thought Walton did an excellent job of imitating the Mitfordian upper-crust airhead who isn’t nearly as silly as she appears.++

*****I seem to be on a Tey kick lately, partly because Jo Walton seems to have found her inspirational, and also because some of her books are available cheaply for Kindle.

+ It’s true that I used to read research-related material at the gym. I’m not sure what happened to that. It’s partly that the machines I use for cardio no longer have stands suitable for resting physical books on (my i-pad mini is hard enough to situate), but is it that I coax myself to the gym with the bribe of fun reading, or that it’s difficult to get PDFs and electronic books as they appear from LRU’s library to display at a reasonable size for reading on the previously-mentioned device while also exercising?

++ I did notice occasional failures of idiom, as for example “knocked up” to mean “pregnant” rather than “tired out” or “put together roughly and hurriedly.” I imagine traveled Britons were aware of the American meaning, but in a world in which the US never entered WWII, it seems even less likely that an English aristocrat’s daughter would use the term in that sense, than it does in our world where American troops did, er, knock up British women from time to time.

Quant and McCardell

Or, capsule wardrobes in the 1950s and 1960s, according to Mary and Claire.

Quant writes, “I came back to London bewitched by the American co-ordinates . . . . I would suggest a wardrobe in miniature like this. Take a pinafore dress, a jacket, skirt, sweater, pants and shirt that all go happily together and you have umpteen outfits. You have a sleeveless dress, a dress and jacket, a suit, separate skirt and sweater or skirt and shirt or shirt worn over the sweater with the skirt and trouser suit. A girl would need only a topcoat to complete a host of different-looking all-occasion clothes. And there need be positively no colour problems. Everything should be checked or plain or spotted in colours that go together.” Quant by Quant (New York: Putman’s Sons, 1965), 109.

One of her inspirations for this American notion of coordinating clothing was no doubt Claire McCardell, a generation older than Quant, who designed for American suburban and city women, mainly wives to professional men, the sort of women who could afford to shop at high-end department stores, but who didn’t aspire to couture. Wikipedia says her five-piece separates wardrobe debuted in 1941. In 1956 she described it as follows: “The ideal piece-wardrobe for travel must have a short skirt, a long skirt, a bare top, a covered top, and a matching coat. . . . With this as a start, begin to add—a stole or a dressed-up cashmere sweater or a scarf. A packable hat—the twist of jersey or satin for instance. Extra blouses. But remember, the five-piece wardrobe sets your color scheme. Anything you add, whether shoes or gloves or jewelry, must blend with this basic color scheme.” What Shall I Wear? The What, Where, When and How Much of Fashion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956), 134.

I can see that in some ways, McCardell represents exactly what Quant’s fashion rebelled against, but for her time and place, McCardell was practical and helpful in her recommendations to her target audience. “Put a large X beside that part of your schedule that puts you on view. Consider what role you play and your audience. . . . Let’s think specifically in terms of: THE TIME, THE PLACE, THE CLOTHES” (92-94). And she starts with the Suburban Morning, dropping husband at the train and then doing “the marketing.” There are three basic “good-looking early morning outfits.” First is pants or shorts; second is “one wonderful dress (per season)”; third is “separates, for all weather, all year long.” Interestingly, she describes the first two types of outfit in detail, whereas the separates are just “skirts or pants to go with vests, shirts, jackets, varied day after day, to go to the station five days in a row, never looking the same.”

But she’s very prescriptive about the pants. “Succes of this outfit depends upon the cut of the pants, the length of the shorts, and the kind of top you choose, the shoes you wear, and what you do about your head. If slacks: real ones; not toreador, not too tight, not above ankle-length unless you are young, slim, and contemporary looking. Slacks are sensible, down-to-earth; toreador is cocktail hour. Not red, green, etc. Stick to monotones, or a conservative clan plaid. Both navy and black will show lint. [Wait, are we down to khaki or grey, if you’re not willing to wear plaid pants? I already want a pair of red toreador pants; damn the neighbors’ gossip.] Wear a tucked-in shirt or cashmere that blends, a leather or wool jacket if the weather calls for it. Shoes with no heel or low heel, but not ballet slipppers. . . . . No hat and well-groomed hair preferable. Be careful about gypsy scarf arrangements to cover curlers or confusion. I can’t honestly imagine any kind of hat for this sort of spotlight so you’d better have done your hair.” (94-95)

I think a beret or newsboy cap would be great with this kind of outfit, actually.

As to the dress, she says, “One that doesn’t remotely resemble either a Mother Hubbard [oh, this is good, coming from the woman who designed the “Monastic Dress”] or a dress that isn’t good enough for town any more. For warm weather: Classic shirtwaist, belted or sashed. A scoop-necked sheath, not too scooped. Not a sunback unless your town is very country-store casual. Fabrics: cool ones—cotton or linen. Colors: bright as you please. Shoes: little heels, pump or sandal. Head-coverings: small-brimmed hat, straw or piqué, if you like hats. For cooler weather: Suit; flannel or tweed or corduroy. Easy coat in wool or leather for really cold days. But please don’t be all matching: tweed hat, coat, bag too. Too many suburbanites are.” (95)

I wonder if there was a difference in style between the suburban suit and the city suit, particularly when the material was flannel. Having read the vast quantity of early and mid-twentieth century British novels that I have, I relegate tweed to the country and corduroy to gardening clothes.

Under “City Living,” McCardell notes that this woman “will need far more round-the-clock clothes, especially if she has a job to go to. And here the piece wardrobe serves her most strategically. A jacket covers a bare-top during the day, comes off when she goes on to a dinner date. Jewelry is switched to show that it is after five. A short skirt is exchanged for a long one” (103). The working woman appears to be single. “This year’s beau may account for changes in your wardrobe. Does he take you to lunch at the Club or at the Museum of Modern Art? The first date calls for city restaurant clothes, the smart touch of eight-button length gloves, beautiful shoes, a handsome bag, the gleam of jewelry. The second date will find you surrounded by art students, art lovers. Their clothes will be casual, often bohemian. You will feel overdressed if you look like a page from a glossy Fashion magazine” (105).

Huh. Did society ladies never visit the Museum of Modern Art? Or did they dress in their version of bohemian, when they did? Now that I would like to have pictures of!

Clara and Penelope

This morning, I was Clara Mayhem-Doome, putting in a solid morning’s work, shifting from project to project at regular intervals. In the afternoon, following a swim and late lunch, I poured a glass of wine and became Penelope (or does Penelope stick to herb tea? Maybe the wine is still Clara), pulling dried sage leaves off their stems and putting them in glass bottles, then chopping ginger to preserve in vodka. We had fun.

Quant, age, boyfriends

I remembered that Mary Quant and Alexander Plunkett got together pretty early in their lives, and I remembered some descriptions of his clothes (of course I did!). “He wore his mother’s pyjama tops as shirts, generally in that colour known as ‘old gold’ . . . in shantung. His trousers also came out of his mother’s wardrobe. Beautifully cut and very sleek fitting, the zip was at the side and they were in weird and wonderful variations of purple, prune, crimson and putty. The trouble was that they came to a stop half-way down the calf of the leg so there was always a wide gap of white flesh between the tops of the Chelsea-type boots he wore and the end of the trouser legs.” (2)

Because in the next paragraph, Quant refers to Plunkett growing six inches at ages 15-16, I had the impression that they met in high school (or UK equivalent). She also says in this area that her “old boy friends . . . . became obsolete” (3). Also, “At sixteen, both Alexander and I thought of ourselves as pretty advanced” (4). OK. And then I got to a bit I didn’t remember at all, about a pre-Alexander time when Quant was “in the middle of a mad love affair with a man at least twice my age who seemed to me then to be absolutely super and marvellous and extremely elegant and worldly. . . . I really hero-worshipped him. The trouble was that I knew he was having an affair with a woman of his own age” (20-21). Hmm. Mad love affair for her, indulgent flirtation for him? I thought maybe this was a teenage crush. But a couple of pages on, “He used to come to my home and my parents encouraged him like mad. They thought he was old enough to have a steadying influence on me” (22).

Well, that rather brought me up short. True that in the post-WWII era, girls tended to marry quite young, and true also that in the UK there is a long tradition of women marrying men substantially older than themselves (Marianne Dashwood and Colonel Brandon, for instance, and other real-life examples in the 20th century). And I’m not shocked by age differences between adult couples. But parents encouraging, what, a 15-year-old and a 30-year-old? Twenty and 40 is not much better.

But then I went to Wikipedia, which told me that Mary Quant was born in 1930. Suddenly the loops and ellipses of her timeline made a lot more sense. She was not a small child during the war, or a teenager loopily attempting to get into the fashion business in 1960. Her degree from Goldsmiths’ College (where she met Plunkett) was awarded in 1953, so she was probably around 20 when they met, not 16. In her memoir, she represents herself as younger than her real age so as to appeal to the target audience for her clothes. I began to doubt that her crush, affair, whatever, was really on a man double her age: maybe double the age she pretended to be.

The clothes are the real point. “Little high-waisted flannel dresses with white stockings, or alternatively, flannel tunics over red sweaters with red stockings to match” (83). “Knee-high cowboy boots worn with fantastically short skirts; high-waisted tweed tunic suits with tweed knickerbockers” (95). “A shiny mock-crocodile batwing top over black tights” (127). “One day I pulled on an eight-year-old boy’s sweater for fun. . . . And, in six months, all the birds were wearing the skinny-ribs that resulted” (153).

The best pictures are in the book. They’re great. But I’m not sure I wouldn’t like even better to get my hands on Plunkett’s mother’s trousers and pyjamas.

All quotations from Mary Quant, Quant by Quant (New York: Putnam’s, 1966).

Mary Quant

Sometime last semester in the university library, when I was minding my own business on the way to the Z’s*, I wandered through the T’s and my eye fell on Quant by Quant, which I last read in my mid-teens, probably in the stacks of the local public library**, though I might have checked it out and taken it home.

Well, of course I had to take the book out and get reacquainted with it. The part I remembered most vividly was about a holiday gone wrong, on which she hated Malta, traded in her return ticket for a “leapfrog ticket,” and hopped around Europe only to find that it was raining everywhere she went.*** “I cried all the time quite shamelessly.” In Rome, she checked into a hotel where she got a private bath (in the 1950s or early 1960s, whichever this was, that would have been a big deal), and “When I was not actually sleeping, I spent the next four days lying in the bath [reading]. . . . I managed to fix the taps so that I could have a trickle of hot water running all the time and adjusted the plug so that just the right amount of water ran away. I never left my room. All I had to eat was the breakfast the waiter brought in the mornings. Obviously the hot baths were a terribly good idea. I was told afterwards that even lunatics respond to this sort of treatment. one morning I woke up and I knew I was cured. Suddenly I felt on top of the world again. I was able to cope with anything. Every bit of the depression was gone.”****

I wonder if this vignette had anything to do with my love of baths, and reading in them, or if it just confirmed for me that I was on the right track.

Other parts of Quant’s memoir were much less familiar*****, or struck me very differently now than I expect they did when I was 14 or so. More on those in another post.

*In the Library of Congress system of call numbers, Z is for books about books.
**My high school had an open campus, in those days, and the public library was barely two blocks away. I spent a lot of time in its stacks, usually in the biography section.
***I had a European trip like that once.
****Mary Quant, Quant by Quant (New York: Putnam’s, 1966), 102.
*****One reason why I wonder if I just browsed the book in the stacks rather than reading it properly.

A radically different setting

It’s true that when it comes to fluff reading, I prefer British writers. Somehow the tone of most American chick lit irritates me: a little earnest, a little twee, a little . . . something. I like the drier humor, the stiffer upper lip, of the Brits. On the other hand, way out on the edge of the American continent, we find Carolyn See, whose LA is as forceful a presence in her books as Lancashire is for Trisha Ashley.

See aimed to write literary fiction, but was often categorized as a “women’s writer.” When I was much younger, I did read her hoping for ideas about how to live as an intellectual woman, how to combine love and work. But her books are not chick lit; they’re more ambiguous than that, and I agree with a review by Ursula Le Guin, of Golden Days (now where did I come across that? sorry, I will paraphrase), suggesting that Eastern critics could not appreciate the literary quality of this book because of its joyful Californian attitude towards nuclear apocalypse.

I re-read Golden Days because over the winter holidays I found myself (no, I just mean I was there, I didn’t “find myself” in some 70s sense) in Topanga Canyon, where See lived, and where she set several of her books. Apparently I have no imagination, because despite See’s descriptions, it was only after being driven up and around and over and down and up and down and up a barely-paved goat track lined with live oaks and eucalypts that I realized she was in no way exaggerating for effect when she wrote about Topanga Canyon.

“The house sat out on a wide raw crescent of cut and fill. That half-moon of dirt hung, just hung there in the air, over another one of those astonishing cliffs above nowhere. Across the chasm from what might be our ‘backyard’ were stones the size of skyscrapers. Due east, a wilderness of bougainvillea and eucalyptus, sage, rosemary, mint, and a couple of blazing yellow acacias. We might have been in Australia . . . but instead we could hear Van Morrison, the Doors, windchimes, barking dogs. We smelled marijuana with the rosemary, and the house tout said, sizing us up, ‘If this section of the canyon caught fire, the city’d be high for a week. They say.'”

Carolyn See, Golden Days (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987), 10.

I think this is probably See’s second Topanga Canyon home. She describes the first one in her family memoir, Dreaming.

The canyon “began to smell pretty good; arid, mentholated, medicinal, the air-equivalent of a margarita with plenty of salt and lemon. . . . We trudged up the switchback, past eucalyptus and prickly pear. On the last triangle of steep cliff in front of the house, calendula and Martha Washington geraniums bloomed in crevices between hot rocks. . . . The lady showed us the inside of the cabin. In places you could see air between the slats. . . . She showed us the kerosene water heater . . . . Out on the splintery balcony there were two old-fashioned metal camp beds, piled with pillows bleached gray by the sun. You could sit down on a bed, hook your feet in the balcony, and your body balanced perfectly, haltered between gravity and light, brushed by breezes. . . . the outdoor shower [was] a shed with a tank on top.”

Carolyn See, Dreaming: Hard Luck and Good Times in America (New York: Random House, 1995), 144-5.

I hadn’t read Dreaming before my recent interaction with it, and I had hoped for a bit more of Carolyn and less of her family, but it was certainly interesting to compare a few generations of her family with my own.

In her book about writing, she tells about her longing “to be published by The Atlantic Monthly. If I’d given it a moment’s rational thought, I would have realized that the last thing on earth a Boston-based, male-dominated, utterly dignified magazine would want or need would be the semi-hysterical, heartbroken howlings of a West Coast divorcée. I didn’t realize it, though. I kept sending them things—sending them and sending them—to a kind but strict man named C. Michael Curtis, who finally got fed up and write something to me like: ‘Dear Miss See, I think that by now you’ve sent us everything but your family photograph album. I should think it would be evident that we’re not interested in the kind of things you write.’

“I cried and kicked the walls, but when I calmed down I sent him a handful of photographs—of me and my then-grubby kids living a raffish life in the wilds of Topanga Canyon with our own tram line, switchback path, goat, chickens, etc. Not dead yet, thank you very much!

Carolyn See, Making a Literary Life: Advice for Writers and Other Dreamers (New York: Random House, 2002), 93.

She also describes some of the neighbors, who add to the ambience:

“For awhile, when I was in my thirties, I had a crush on a divorced guy who lived down the hill from us in Topanga Canyon. For two years of my life, I thought: Can I see Mr. Lopez? If I go out on my balcony, I might be able to see Mr. Lopez. Is that Mr. Lopez down there?” (19)

“It’s a warm Sunday morning [in the 1960s], we’re drinking coffee on the balcony, looking out over acres of chaparral, and suddenly we see a naked lady doing yoga.” (228)

I feel like there’s more in Making a Literary Life about See’s own setting than there actually is, because her voice is so strong, so amused and cheerful and self-mocking, that it creates a sense of place all by itself. One chapter in Dreaming is called “The Embarrassing Californianness of It All,” which sums up what I mean. Sure, lots of elements of See’s books sound nutty, positively embarrassing, and definitely Californian. She knows that about the affirmations, the cock-eyed craziness of insisting to yourself that you live in abundance when actually you live in squalor: yes, she acknowledges, all that is “silly,” and yet, does it hurt you to say that? Especially if you start saving even a dollar a week, trying to build a nest egg that will get you out of squalor, and encouraging yourself to do so by imagining yourself living in abundance? She knows: and she believes in affirmations anyway.

Mantel’s old Northern grannies would laugh at, not with, Carolyn See, and yet once again, I see a connection. They’re women who take up space, who believe in themselves (even if See needs affirmations to help her believe), who do the things they’re going to do, and whose daughters take over from them: Lisa See is also a writer.

Mrs Hargreaves (Yorkshire Dales)

“The imposing woman who manned the counter at the butcher’s, starched apron girdling her generous frame. As able as her husband to handle a cleaver, and one of that rare breed of women who saved her words for when they were needed. She’d never shown any overt affection for the young Samson as he traipsed into the shop once a week, grubby hands clasping coins that never were enough. He’d mumble his order, ashamed to be buying the cheapest cuts, such small amounts. And she’d tell him to speak up, saying there was no shame in an honest pound. He’d been a good age before he realised: that gruff tone, the blunt admonishment which brought laughter from the other customers — it had been a cover. While he was busy staring at the floor and wishing it would swallow him, she was slipping extra meat into his order.”

Julia Chapman, Date with Death (New York: Minotaur Books, 2017), 62-3.