Rainbow’s End. Martha Grimes. 1995
“But the way you describe Fanny Hamilton, she strikes me as flighty. A bit like meringue. Tasty but lightweight. You didn’t take her very seriously.”
Lady Cray looked sad. “If that’s the way I talked of her, I’m sorry. One has a way of speaking slightingly, sometimes, of a thing or a person who means more than one cares to admit. And, yes, Fanny was, as you put it — “ Lady Cray smiled — “a meringue. But believe me, at my age, I take everyone seriously, that is, everyone I have any liking for. When you’re young, you can afford to discard or ignore or even abuse your friends and your family. We’re very careless when we’re young. It’s not that we become kinder when we grow old, we simply become more careful. Fanny is the sort of person I would probably have bene careless of when I was young. At nearly eighty, I place more importance on holding on to people. I miss her, honestly.” (p. 54)
He smiled at the expression, fleeting, on her face before she’d dropped it; at the look of bewilderment, apparently that something so tiny might just cancel out the persona she had gone to such trouble to create, like tossing a pebble in a pool and watching the surface break, the circles of water ruffling. What she had so painstakingly assembled now had to be as painstakingly reassembled: it was rather like that montage of pictures she had earlier held out. The sable, the hairdo, the horse, the title — all the bits of her life scissored up and waiting to be pinned and pasted in place. . . . And Jury wondered if he didn’t now se something of what Andrew might see: a guilelessness that over the years had been just about trained out of her, but that yet could be resurrected; a painful insecurity, rather than a brittle self-interest, that generated all sorts of effort on her part to get the paper doll properly dressed and spotless. There was, beneath the long fur coats and designer clothes, something uniquely charming about Adrienne Armitage. (p. 80-81)
Melrose felt abashed, embarrassed by what he now realized had been a rather patronizing attitude towards the sergeant. . . . It was just that Wiggins, for all of his virtues, had never displayed much deductive prowess. Wiggins’s value lay in his loyalty, his methodical note taking and attention to detail, and especially in his being able to mirror the fallibilities of witnesses. They were able to identify with Wiggins. No one in the sergeant’s presence felt the need to be infallible — to be brave or strong or healthy. Kleenexes could be brought out, snifflings and snufflings begin, heads and joints ache, tears fall like rain. Jury (Melrose thought) was good at this sort of thing himself. But Wiggins was better; Wiggins was Everyman. Those were his virtues, not deductive brilliance. (p. 142)
Melrose drew the dark gray material through his fingers. It did not feel like silk; it felt like air. “Mr. Beaton, this is ethereal. How can wool be so light?”
The question was rhetorical; the tailor smiled and shrugged — an infinitesimal movement of movement of the upper body. All of Mr. Beaton’s movements were like that, graceful but parsimonious, as if, being so small, he were intent upon husbanding his energy for the task at hand.
For Mr. Beaton, it was not enough simply to be exquisitely dressed. It was also de rigueur that no one should know you were doing it — a man wore his clothes as he wore his sainthood: without advertisement.
. . . . Mr. Beaton always stood. He seemed to think sitting down was necessary only to see how cloth strained over the knee or rode up the calf. And when one stood, well, one stood. He always instructed his gentlemen to assume the same posture they would normally do — not to stand stiff as starch, not as they had been forced to stand in dancing class with books on their heads. Clothes were meant to fit facts, not fantasies. (p. 146-147)
“Honest. He was honest. I was struck by that. . . . You know, if you’re like that, you mightn’t have many friends. People find you disturbing, and you find other people, well, shallow. Because people who are not honest will talk about anything in the world except what they truly think and feel. We don’t do enough of that, I think. Most of us waste most of ourselves most of the time.” (p. 153)
She was fighting hard to project an image; she wasn’t winning. She was not attractive — raw-boned, thin, possibly in her late fifties, but still wearing blue barrettes to clasp and hold back her shoulder-length hair. It was mouse-brown and blunt-cut. But the color had been highlighted so that wispy little strands gave the impression of silver dust. Too many visits to the local hairdresser had resulted in hair the texture of straw.
Sukie Bartholomew was waging a war with herself over her looks. No lipstick, but there was that glimmery brown eye shadow; an uncompromising haircut, but carefully highlighted; an outfit that fairly screamed “I won’t bow to fashion,” but one that belonged on a girl of fifteen, not a woman of fifty-plus. Jury noted these contradictions because he inferred they spelled trouble. A difficult woman, uneasy with herself, dissatisfied, and therefore dissatisfied with the rest of the world. It was as if she eschewed the trap of femininity, the little embellishments that made women attractive to men. Jury had not really thought of it before, but the women he admired were not ones to do pitched battle with themselves over a bit of nail varnish or a dab of lipstick. (p. 198)