ESTHER MENELL'S BLOG

Month: February 2017

IN MEMORIAM: DoublePrint

For something like twenty years, I have been sending films to a cheery outfit (their garish envelopes used to greet you at every airport) called DoublePrint, and they have always come back to me, regular as clockwork, with prints in two sizes: one to fit a regular album, and the other half the size, for sending to friends, thus making those tiresome negatives, which I always throw away, unnecessary.

Completely unnecessary, it turned out when, out of the blue, someone saw some of the snapshots I had been taking to pass the time while my husband was photographing bench ends and architraves, and decided they were worth exhibiting, which is what happened next thanks to that wonderful photographer and friend, Jonathan Lovekin, who scanned them for me, and the friends in both London and Rome who helped to pin them up.

But it will never happen again. The last two films that I sent to DoublePrint have just been returned. The firm has gone out of business.   Like handkerchiefs, now a luxury item, and typewriter ribbons, which it takes detective work to locate, non-digital cameras are a thing of the past.  The firm which served those of us who still prefer ‘film cameras’, so long and so faithfully, couldn’t keep up with the times. So, before I plod up the high street to Happy Snaps or down it to Boots, here are a few of the photos they printed which didn’t find a place either in the Holloway Road or in the via Flaminia.

BACK ROOM OF A PUB

 

GOLDFISH

 

COUNTER IN A WELSH BAKERY

 

ON THE BEACH

 

IN OUR GARDEN

Sic transit DoublePrint . . .

FIT TO DIE

A recent issue of the Camden New Journal, our crusading local paper, was enough to make one forget, at least for a while, about Trump who – a doctor friend thinks – could have a major cocaine habit as he (the Commander in Chief) apparently displays all the standard symptoms: the sniffles, the wakefulness, the paranoia . . .

Be that as it may (or may not), we have problems enough on our own doorstep.

A few weeks ago, a man dropped dead in the street. He had just left the local Job Centre where, since July – when he had been deemed Fit to Work and his benefits had ceased – he had been going each week to ‘sign on’.

It was as if I, Daniel Blake was being given a live performance.

Anyone in their senses would have recognised that 56-year-old Lawrence Bond was not Fit to Work and had no hope whatsoever of being offered a job. Just as it must have been obvious that P*** (see previous post On Being a Landlord) was also unemployable. Not only did he weigh 20 stone but he had major health problems, a prison record and was barely literate.

On one occasion, by which time, with the help of a wonderful social worker, I had managed to get him re-housed, I returned from a summer away to find he was starving. His travel card had been cancelled and he couldn’t walk as far as the nearest Food Bank.

This kind of thing must be happening all the time. And we can’t blame the people who work in the Job Centres. They have to sanction a certain number of applicants every week, or they will lose their jobs.

But we can blame the government and the U.S. firm employed by them to carry out ‘work ability assessments’. It seems that in ‘assessing’ a woman so disabled by depression that she was barely able to walk, they asked ‘How come, if she was so depressed, she hadn’t killed herself?’

And passed her Fit to Work.

 

You can read the original Camden New Journal report here: http://camdennewjournal.com/article/man-ruled-fit-for-work-dies-from-heart-attack-on-way-home-from-job-centre?sp=1&sq=LAWRENCE%2520BOND

ON BEING A LANDLORD

Forty years ago when Camden Council decided to pull down the street I still live in, I cobbled together a Residents Association and proudly proclaimed it was there to protect the interests of everyone threatened by the Council plans, except those who owned a house but didn’t live in it – that nefarious group, the Absentee Landlords.

Thirty years later I became one myself.

To get my son off the housing list, I bought a flat from a Right to Buy family who were selling to move out of London.  Two years later, my son moved out of London too.  I now had to sell or to let. I chose to let, and so became the old enemy.  But, curiously enough, it is still Camden Council that I am fighting.

Camden hates leaseholders the way we hated absentee landlords, who deserved to be hated, as I found when I did a house by house survey in our street. In the early ‘70s, there were still a lot of mini-Rachmans about.

But things have changed and at least some of us who, for one reason or another, own and rent out what was once a council flat, expiate our guilt by doing our best to be good landlords.

In my own case, I took the Council on to get them to pay the rent direct to me and not to my indigent tenant during an imbecilic government initiative to teach the penniless how to handle their own affairs.    P***, whose last address had been a doorway, asked me to do this.   I pretended not to notice what I suspected was a marijuana jungle another of my council tenants was growing in the bedroom, and helped yet another (but all the credit is due to her) start a vegetable garden in the back area, the produce of which she shared with the other flats in our entrance.

Which brings me to the entrance.

Five years ago – they must have time to waste or, perhaps, a friendly manufacturer they want to support – Camden notified leaseholders that they intended to install a new ‘entry system’. This meant replacing a perfectly good front door and set of ‘loud-speaker bells’, with the door you see below.  And we now have fobs instead of keys.

The cost of this door to me – the bill arrived the other day, five years after the estimate – is £1,290.  Multiply this by six and, Behold, a door which cost £7,740!

At the moment a numerate friend is looking over the figures for me: not because I can’t afford to pay, but because there are now many families throughout the borough who have bought their flats in good faith and been driven to sell their homes by these lunatic and inexplicable costs.

Something is wrong.   And it needs to be put right.

THE WRITING MUMMY AND THE WRITING DADDY

Two years ago, at the age of eighty, I published my first book, thus inverting the work of a lifetime in which — as an editor — I had nursed other people’s books into existence. It was, and remains, quite an experience.

The actual writing of my memoir is hard to describe, but what it most felt like was pulling a thread: no effort was needed, just a few uninterrupted hours — surprisingly hard to come by even though I was by now long retired.

My husband (also a writer, but a serious writer, whose many subjects do not include himself) manages to get time for himself every day, but it seems that a woman’s work is never done, even if it is only answering the door bell, scrabbling through the freezer for tonight’s supper or getting a late birthday card into the post.

But the days on which I was able to pin ‘GONE FISHING’ on the door of my room mounted up and, at the end of three years, this record of my life — three decades of which were spent working alongside the legendary Diana Athill at André Deutsch Limited — was complete.

It was only then, reading what I myself had written, that I realized how indignant I felt on behalf of women, both at home and in the work place: a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, without even knowing it!

Here follows just one example from my book which, in recalling all those years as a literary midwife, contains many others.

‘A parental “Where’s the novel then?” or words to that effect were, apparently, what finally spurred Howard Jacobson to get down to his first book, but the havoc that writers create in the lives of their nearest and dearest spreads in all directions: not just the worried parents, but the partner who may never know the luxury of a regular income and the children whose childhood is one long admonition to keep quiet: the thud of the football against the back door, the beat of rock music, intolerable to the writing Daddy who expects to have a decent stretch of quiet every day. The writing Mummy, of course, doesn’t expect to have stretches of time, let alone quiet time, when there are children at home and finds different ways around this.

One Deutsch author who began writing when her four children were not yet at school, would snatch time before anyone else in the house was up. (It was her youngest son who told everyone that his mother had written six books after helping her to open the parcel of six complimentary copies . . .) Another, her third child on the way, had, in two years of Monday mornings, completed her third novel and handed it in just days before the baby’s birth. Then there was the twice-divorced father who wrote four entire books (typed on the back of Council minutes) on the train to and from work, returning home to cook the supper and put his four children to bed. For this is to do with mothering, not gender. But most mothering is done by mothers and many, like Shena Mackay, put their careers on hold while their children grow up or, like one of my oldest friends, don’t really get started until their children leave home, getting their first royalty statement at much the same time as their Freedom Pass . . .’

I must, in all fairness, add that not all male writers have an easy time of it. There are men with nine-to-five jobs who find themselves in much the same boat. But one can’t help noticing that it is still almost always the women who have to be the most accomplished jugglers of domestic priorities.