I think I've figured out how I'm going to organize my posts about Mildred's diary, at least for the first year, where her writing looks like it's more organized. I'm going to post a month at a time - they're very short entries, so they don't merit individual posts. But they're so interesting you guys, just you wait!
I prefer to do this chronologically, but I wanted to share what I see on the first page because the juxtaposition is really interesting to me. January 1 only has two entries - one from 1924 and one from 1925. Here they are:
Jan. 1, 1924: Cold, but glorious day. Slept late after watch party. Played pinochle with Warners. Attended show "An Unwanted Child" with Mama and C.H. Kiddies in fine health.
Jan. 1, 1925: We are living in another year - existing rather. Plenty to eat but so much unhappiness in our family that real living, for me at least, is impossible.
The 1925 entry continues for pages so I won't include all of it here, but it's clear that her mood and her life circumstances have changed pretty drastically. The fact that she even mentions that there is plenty to eat seems to me an indication of worry that that might not always be the case.
But! We will save that for later. For now, here are some of my thoughts on the 1924 entry:
But! We will save that for later. For now, here are some of my thoughts on the 1924 entry:
- What do you suppose a New Years Eve watch party was like in the early 20s? Probably radio-oriented, right? Although maybe 1923/24 was too early for a working class family to have a radio? No idea, really.
- She mentions C.H. quite often - if I ever find out who that is, I'll let you know.
- The kiddies she mentions are Roger and Norma (Granna). Granna had just turned one year old in October.
- Before I read very much of the diary, I was excited to see that she went to a show on New Years - I thought it must have been a big special thing! So I tried to do some research about this particular show, and found a little bit of information - but it looks like she went to shows all the time, so I won't be researching most of them. Unless I get a wild hair. Anyway, here are some partial reviews I found online:
UNWANTED CHILD A PLEASING
SURPRISE - If there are any who did not have the pleasure of witnessing
"The Unwanted Child" at The Majestic yesterday on account of its
title being somewhat suggestive, they should by all means avail themselves of
the opportunity of seeing the play today. There is absolutely nothing suggestive
and it is a comedy that will b (and then it's cut off). I think this is funny - the idea of an unwanted child is so suggestive that people might avoid seeing the play and instead sit in their parlors clutching their pearls and fanning themselves.
The Unwanted Child
"Unwanted Child" a Strong Play Florence Edna May's most distinguished
success 'The Unwanted Child’ the sensational “woman's" play which set the
theatrical world to talking and theatre-goers to buying seats to see it over
and over again, comes to the Majestic theatre for two days starting Monday
matinee and with a matinee daily for ladies only. "The Unwanted Child"
Is in four acts, laid in the country and in New York and concerns persons who
meet, look and love; the man a member of society, the girl quite the other end
of the social ladder. The story of their love is told by Miss May with a force
and [garbled text] so direct, the play is produced by the Unity Play Company with
such exquisite delicacy, and the portrayal of its heroine is done with such a
depth of understanding and emotion that the performance takes rank as one of
the most notable in recent years.
UNWANTED CHILD AT THE
WALKER As the sophisticated playgoer will probably have guessed. "The Unwanted
Child” presented at the Walker theatre last evening (we cannot speak of the
"ladies only" maimed performance, as we were not present) had nothing
whatever to do with sociology. Almost any other of 100 titles would have fitted
the comedy equally as well, and we can recall 100 other plays that might with
equal justification have been named "The Unwanted Child." It is an
old-fashioned play in which city folk and country folk come together, and the
country folk give the city people [garbled text] to prove that "Pilgrim's
Progress" has not been lying on the parlor table for over 10 years for nothing.
A rich young artist, his sister, and a designing young widow spend the summer
at a farm [garbled text]. The artist falls in love with the farmer's adult daughter,
and the sister likes the farmer's simple-hearted son. The artist's mother
tries to break off the affair but eventually he marries the girl. This is a fairly long synopsis, but most of it is really garbled and I can't translate it. Really, the main thing I took away from this is that the writer described a performance he didn't see as "maimed", presumably on the basis that it was for ladies only. Unless "maimed" is not really the word he used, and it was transcribed incorrectly, as much of the rest of the review was.
I think these little hints at history are truly, truly fascinating. I could sit and read this diary for hours and hours and hours. And hours.
I think these little hints at history are truly, truly fascinating. I could sit and read this diary for hours and hours and hours. And hours.
