tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74311904098612244262024-03-12T20:27:47.464-07:00Points for Cross-Examinationhrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-51564198578634510612013-12-21T08:05:00.000-08:002013-12-21T08:05:46.808-08:0012/21/13 - The Moving FingerReturning to action just long enough to point out that LW3 (mum to Holly/Ivy/Gertrude) would, if the letter had been written fifteen or twenty ago, have been murdered by her husband so that he could marry the younger children's governess.<br />
<br />
LW3 is a near-perfect parallel to Mona Symmington. Her first husband, Captain Hunter, was disagreeable and disreputable. His daughter, Megan, mooches about while Mrs S wishes Megan would get out on her own (although with a case, be it one taken too far), leaving her with her younger children and their father. (And, of course, the Aphrodite-resembling - at least before she opens her mouth and reveals a competent and kind but flat personality devoid of enchantment - Elsie Holland, but that's another chapter.)<br />
<br />
TMF centred around two of my favourite crucial questions. Anonymous letters making wild and foul accusations are going around the village. Why don't the letters mention any of the real scandalous conduct being committed (as pointed out by the vicar's wife, there's plenty of adultery, but the letters never pair anyone with the actual partner involved)? And why is Elsie Holland, easily the only radiant beauty in the place and just the type of person to be meat and drink for the typical author of anonymous letters, practically the only person in the village who has not received one?hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-11879562710135643052013-08-22T07:37:00.001-07:002013-08-22T07:37:27.697-07:00Two for HA - 22 AugustI was worried that starting Bicentric July would throw off Homocentric August, and it appears I was right. At any rate, I have similar takes on two of the Prudecutor's letters, leaving out the cancer and the sex toy.<br />
<br />
Dear LW2: You have made an error of the deepest dye in this case. You are clearly dealing with one of those great many gay men who modeled their behaviour along lines recommended for young women in the middle of the previous century (if not a good deal earlier, for it is a truth that ought to be universally acknowledged that the vast majority of those ideally suited to be typecast as, say, Mary Crawford, are gay males). It may be hard to believe, but, even in these modern times, there are other gay men who adhere so strictly to outdated feminine lines of conduct that every sentence he ever came to speak to you could have been full of subtext inviting you to Take Him. Right There. Right Then. and yet the last thing he would ever have done had he lived to be nine hundred and two would have been to ask you for a date. You seem open to doing the asking yourself, although you do not state this specifically. Perhaps, in these modern times, it would never have occurred to you that people still behaved in such a manner. A pity, as you had, in many ways, the ideal co-worker. He'd have done anything for you, all the while restricting himself to nothing more than a few longing sighs and some possibly uncomfortable moments. But these moments would be far less creepy than those that originated in those who had given themselves a male line of conduct. Pardon me for a bit of heterocentricity, but it is well established that the ration of women finding men creepy to men finding women creepy is at least 9:1, if not a good deal more.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the boat has sailed. You have offended a Princess, and such a course of conduct is never forgiven. Had I been in time to advise you, I'd have advised you to take as a model the conduct of one of the best-known gay men in history (and undoubtedly the most successful female impersonator) - Elizabeth I, or, rather, the half-brother to that young Princess who was put forward to impersonate her after her untimely death as an adolescent, long before she seemed at all likely to become Queen. Our Bess managed marriage negotiations with three brothers when he never had the slightest intention of wedding any of them. Had Francois II not already been married to Mary Stuart, there might have been a go at him as well. As it was, QE1 had to make do first with Charles IX as a suitor, then Henri III when he was still le duc d'Anjou and finally poor Hercule, le duc d'Alencon who moved up to Anjou after Charles died and who had shown considerable promise as a child before a bad case of smallpox did much to insure that the majority of his early potential was never fulfilled. A study of his methods would have enabled you to keep CW2 dreaming of you at night for years, if not decades. But now, it is far too late. He will never forgive you; all you can do is either find new employment elsewhere or convince an old flame of yours to hire him away from your current company.<br />
<br />
*******************************************************************************<br />
<br />
Regarding L3, I shall first address the Prudecutor, who really ought to know better by now. Prudecutor, despite your best efforts to bring about such a state, the world is not populated entirely by happy little corporate drones. And here is a nice little piece of information for you, which you might even use if your envious disposition and your corporate overlords would permit you to do so - geniuses and corporations don't mix well. Now, it might be a bit of a stretch to call BF3 a genius, but, if he is, that's largely the answer. Geniuses tend to have interests and passions that are capable of escaping the narrow mind that is practically Requirement Number 1 in the Good Corporate Drone. Being an excellent example of the type, dear Prudecutor, you could hardly be expected to recognize that you are not the exception to the rule that your corporate overlords told you you were. But you might know by now that geniuses often don't mix well with people who cannot recite whole chapters out of great literature at apposite moments or other such accomplishments that are not only undervalued but which seem to raise resentment among the general population of Good Little Corporate Drones. As for what BF3 has been doing, you fell into LW3's trap. Never having held a full-time job = video games and unproven slurs on his character allegating bisexuality? The Prudecution has forgotten to ask the vital question, and the Defence can now claim in its Final Statement that BF3 has written an untold number of unpublished novels, work far more demanding than writing a second-rate (I know, I flatter it) advice column.<br />
<br />
Now for those commantating: Members of the Commentariat, as it is you and you alone who will be adjudicating this case, I bring to your attention the fact that many gay men have modeled their conduct on those women who, in the previous century, attended university solely for the purpose of attaining what to them was the most valuable degree of all - the MRS. BF3 could well have been molding his character into something that will make him an ideal helpmate - not that this necessarily means that the couple is a good match. Many of you have fallen into the MRA trap of double-standarding by gender. Some of you have caught on to the possibility that his non-corporate character likely comprises far more of the attraction than LW3 realizes. If LW3 dumps BF3, he may well come to regret the decision when the Good Corporate Drones he partners afterwards turn out to bore him to tears, even if they do pay half the bills.<br />
<br />
To LW3: We have one or two points to clear up. Were your opening compliments the usual blather or were they genuine? BF3 clearly does not seem so "perfect" for you if you have to be giving him ultimata about turning himself into a Good Little Corporate Drone. But I have two ways I could go here. I shall follow the path indicated by your response to the question of whether BF3 is smarter than you are. If you reply that he is, there is a chance the two of you could make quite a good couple. He might not be quite Terry Miller (although one could suspect that part of the attraction is that that the two might be similar with regard to appearance), but then you're not quite Dan Savage. And for the both of you, I'll add a hopeful <i>yet</i>. There are many happy partnerships between a practical grind and an idealistic dreamer. However, if you do not hold BF3 to be your intellectual superiour, then do him a favour and dump yourself already.<br />
<br />
Moral: "In marriage, the man is supposed to provide for the support of the woman; the woman to make the home agreeable to the man; he is to purvey, and she is to smile. But in dancing, their duties are exactly changed; the agreeableness, the compliance are expected from him, while she furnishes the fan and the lavender water."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-24261618924946176042013-08-01T06:05:00.003-07:002013-08-01T06:05:28.461-07:00Quick and Serious to Start HAThe Thursday letters are too dull, but I shall begin the month by addressing the Tuesday writer who wondered about seating same-sexers together at her wedding.<br />
<br />
First, I wish the LW had been specific. We do not know anything about these guests other than that they are same-sexers. The letter appears to read as if they are all of the same gender and there could be a little side matchmaking going on, but that's just a guess. We don't know if these are desired guests or obligatory guests. One can usually base a table assignment for one's long-time best friend, even from years ago, on knowledge a good deal more intimate than one can for a cousin one has seen three or four times and with whom the exchanges have never gone beyond a few sentences. We don't know the overall tone of the room. All we can do is guess from what the editors allowed to appear of the LW's question. As the LW did not specify an opposite-sex wedding, I am going to guess that the LW is one of those people who takes pride in being a little more completely gay-accepting than is actually the case, or at least is not quite so affirmatively same-sexer-positive as might be desired by the same-sexer guests who aren't saying so.<br />
<br />
The Prudecutor reacts in horror at the thought of gay people being allowed to sit together. Typically for someone who likes to pretend at being same-sexer-positive, she takes the LW's "gay table" as THE ONLY POSSIBLE OPTION TO CONSIDER and accordingly advises that each of the same-sexer singles and couples be carefully separated in the supposed name of orientation-blindness, which seems to be the latest fashionable accessory among people with unattractive minds (spurred on, I admit, by many of the leading Overassimilationists.<br />
<br />
While creating an Obviously Gay Table will appear to be something rather less warmhearted than it apparently is, assuming good will on the LW's part, it seems safe to provide a small rule that, unless it's someone one knows really well and can rest assured that (s)he will be happy with the placement, never to maroon a single same-sexer at a table with no other same-sexers. One can get away fairly often with marooning a couple, as they at least show up with some built-in bulwark against being at a mismatched table, and couples often have more bond-producing similarities in lifestyle with other couples than with other same-sexers. If possible, I'd advise the LW to make the most fun tables about an even mix of same-sexers and the most fun and progressive of the heterosexuals.<br />
<br />
After all, it wouldn't be Homocentric August without its going without saying that the same-sexer guests will be right at the top of the Fun Guests List.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-41185922866076531132013-04-11T08:34:00.002-07:002013-04-11T08:34:34.230-07:004/11 - The Austenian ApproachAs it is quite clear that L2 merits full attention this week, no preamble is required. I shall be content with saying that this is just the sort of letter that would work well in Homocentric August, as LW2's being a woman, while not flatly stated or incontrovertibly implied, here seems established beyond reasonable doubt, so that it would be great fun to twist the letter into male-writer status.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">My husband and I are both politically liberal, support public radio, donate to the ACLU, and both have gay and lesbian friends.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Oh, dear. We can already tell what's coming. A few thoughts:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Politically liberal = our daughters are going to be Democratic-voting virgin brides?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Support public radio/donate to ACLU - side issues</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Both have gay and lesbian friends: Now, this is a good one. It has many possible meanings. Right off the bat, one notices that LW2 says "both" instead of "each". If all the LG(BT?) friends are "their" friends, a highly plausible interpretation is that LW2 knows one or both halves of a lesbian couple or two, invites them to social functions, and H2 has no objections. Is that not just Standard Operating Procedure for many couples? That, therefore, marks the first point of cross-examination. How many LG friends are specifically <i>his </i>or at least were his originally if LW2 happens to be the sort of wife who takes on all her husband's friends. Then, too, there is the question of what actually constitutes a friend in his eyes. Perhaps the office lesbian is in the football pool, or someone's gay cousin fills in every couple of months in the neighbourhood poker game. Or he could be the sort of straight man who legitimately has a number of reasonably deep friendships with those who don't share his sexual orientation. It's not that rare. But it is worthwhile to establish the point with some exactitude, as it makes a difference whether this is just a blind spot in H2's sincere attempt at liberality or whether LW2 is reading her beliefs as theirs and covering for a bigot.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">He thinks it's funny, however, to adopt a stereotypical gay lisp from time to time when telling a story or a joke.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Gee, nobody else has ever thought of that in the history of the universe!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> I hate it and have told him so every time he does it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Not very well, apparently.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> I tell him that it sounds bigoted and I don't want our kids to grow up thinking that making fun of gay people is OK.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Sounds?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> He says that it's done in good fun, and the fact that he has gay friends proves he is not prejudiced.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Even the Prudecutor can handle this softball.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> Is there any way I can get him to stop, or do I just have to put up with it and try to counteract its effect on my kids with some well-timed lessons on respecting others?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">If your lessons are as effective as your getting him to stop, keep your breath to cool your porridge, as Elizabeth Bennet once cited.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">*****</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Unless your husband is </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0889583/" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 255, 153); color: #56818c; font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Sacha Baron Cohen</a><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">, he’s got to drop this act.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Classic Prudecutorial potential homophobia - Mr Cohen needs to drop it more than anybody. Does the Prudecutor find Mr Cohen amusing?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> From the sound of it, being flamboyantly gay is not even germane to the story he’s telling, which makes his adopting this persona all the more uncomfortable for people listening.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Actually, it sounds as if it <i>is</i> germane, because it's what's getting the laughs from the people he wants to laugh at the story.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> It used to be that imitating racial or ethnic dialects of a group you didn’t belong to was the height of humor. But the days of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amos_%27n%27_Andy" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 255, 153); color: #56818c; font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Amos 'n' Andy</a><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> are over, and comedian Bill Dana himself killed off his </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Jim%C3%A9nez_%28character%29" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgb(255, 255, 153); color: #56818c; font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Jose Jimenez</a><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">character. Given your NPR proclivities, I’m sure your husband has heard that there’s a revolution afoot in the perception of gay and lesbian people.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The last sentence smacks of Chief Justice Roberts and his declaration that same-sexers are so powerful that they don't require nondiscrimination protection.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> It doesn’t matter how many nonstraight friends your husband has, his humor is going to leave everyone cringing and wondering what subliminal message is he trying to deliver.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Not everyone is cringing, apparently. And <i>wondering</i>? <i>subliminal</i>? <i>trying</i>? It's pretty clear.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> You obviously can’t stop your husband, but you can tell him you’re not going to be able to rescue him socially when he does it, and that you hope the awkward silence gives him the feedback he needs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">That response is about as weak as a teabag that has been used to brew five cups.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> As for the kids, if he starts lisping in front of them, you can just shake your head and say, “This is something Dad does that should not be imitated.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Isn't that the nudge, nudge; wink, wink seal of unofficial approval?</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">*****</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">What is missing from the Prudecutor's response is any mention of using H2's actual gay friends in LW2's response to this situation. It is as if either the Prudecutor doesn't believe in them and doesn't want to admit it, or she desperately wants LW2 to conceal H2's bigotry so as not to cost him his same-sexer friendships. But there are so many creative solutions. One of his LGBT friends could be enlisted to explain to him exactly how belittling his conduct comes across as being to his LGBT friends, especially in the context of his doing it to score points with the non-LGBT members of his audience. Or such a friend could, on hearing one of these stories, especially in the presence of C2's children, decline to stifle a natural reaction to flee the room (in tears?) to provide the kiidies with a concrete example of just how this bad behaviour hurts people's feelings.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">I'm also inclined to wonder about the context of H2's stories. I could easily guess that, if he maintains that his LGBT friends hear these stories and don't mind them, many of them are told in a work environment in which the LGBT hearers don't want to rock the boat.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">*****</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Moving on to Miss Austen:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">In <i>Northanger Abbey</i> Henry Tilney is really the only person who seems to have much sense of humour. He provides a reasonable antidote to the idea that the world is nothing but killjoys and any remark one makes will be twisted into an assertion of prejudice by someone so motivated. He manages to tease Catherine Morland from the beginning of their acquaintance along gender lines, beginning with the "perfect" style of letter-writing among women, and perhaps reaching its peak with his line during the country-walk with Catherine, Henry and his sister Eleanor that nature has given women so much understanding that they never find it necessary to use more than half. Context, people, context. Here, unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that H2 is using his lisp voice in any form of flirtation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">In <i>Sense and Sensibility</i>, we see how Lady Middleton copes with then problematic behaviour of her husband when Sir John invites the Miss Steeles to Barton Park, to be compared to Marianne Dashwood's reactions to the vulgar attempts at humour of Mrs Jennings. Which of the pair LW2 might prefer to emulate is open to interpretation.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">In <i>Pride and Prejudice</i>, Mr Bennet might provide H2 with some useful lessons in effective humour, particularly in the example of his extricating himself from Mrs Bennet's insistence that he force Elizabeth to marry Mr Collins.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">The only real wit in <i>Mansfield Park </i>is Mary Crawford, who comes rather a cropper and occasionally goes a little far for the Edmund-Fanny inquisitory panel. Perhaps H2's LGBT friends might take a lesson or two in lemon-sucking from Fanny Price in particular, although they would want to be a bit more effective than Fanny in expressing their displeasure.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">On to <i>Emma</i>, LW2 could perhaps take lessons from Miss Woodhouse in the art of soothing over a loved one's questionable behaviour, as we so often see Emma hard at work when dear overly-concerned Mr Woodhouse would deny any of his guests the best fare of his table out of genuine concern for their health.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">As for <i>Persuasion</i>, in which Anne Elliot's sense of humour is very moderate at best, we might point out that H2's jokes would go over so much better if he were a baronet (it certainly accounts for much of the response received from Mr Shepard and Mrs Clay by Sir Walter). If, unfortunately, LW2 is not inclined to divorce H2 over this, C2 could take a lesson from Anne and Lady Russell in being able to smooth over a serious difference of opinion while remaining on such good terms.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">Moral:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">"The style of letter-writing among women is perfect, except in three particulars... ...a general deficiency of subject, a complete inattention to stops, and a very frequent ignorance of grammar."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"> "As it was no longer possible to prevent their coming, Lady Middleton resigned herself to the idea of it with all the philosophy of a well-bred woman, contenting herself with merely giving her husband a gentle reprimand on the subject five or six times every day."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">"An unhappy alternative lies before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr Collins, and I will never see you again if you do."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">"Of <i>Rears</i> and <i>Vices</i> [referring to Admirals] I saw enough. Now, do not be suspecting me of a pun, I entreat you."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">"<i>Thy ready wit the word will soon supply</i>. The man must be in love to see ready wit in Harriet."</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 17.99715805053711px;">"Mr Shepard laughed heartily at this witticism, as he knew he must."</span></span>hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-56566731842877709732013-04-04T08:25:00.002-07:002013-04-04T08:25:36.281-07:004/4 - Looking to TuesdayThe only real point of interest in the Thursday letters this week was the almost thrown-away sentence towards the end of L1. LW1 summed up that she and BF1 had discussed the matter at length, he had realized how and why he was wrong, and he had apologized. What about answering the telephone during intimacy would necessitate a lengthy discussion? Either BF1 could not get why it was so serious an infraction to LW1, in which case LW1 has potentially good grounds for dumping, or perhaps LW1 ought to make over BF1 to Gina from the Tuesday collection. Clearly BF1 can be dominated by women. He may well have a taste for it. And LW1 has a man <i>who is amenable to lengthy discussions of his infractions </i>and she still wonders if she ought to flee? She lacks the taste for dominance which would make her the best match for BF1. Gina from Tuesday ought to suit him a great deal better.<br />
<br />
But it is the main Tuesday letter, which the Prudecutor almost gets right, that is the true gem of the week. This time, we shall not go back quite so far in time as to revisit Miss Austen. L1 is a variation on a plot line from Queer as Folk.<br />
<br />
It was fortunate that, during the run of the series, the supportive parents (Michael's and Justin's mothers) appeared far more often than the non-supportive (Justin's father, Brian's and Lindsay's parents). Of the parental backgrounds, Lindsay's parents, of the country club set, have the highest in social status. They first appear when Lindsay and Melanie attend Lindsay's sister's third (all parentally financed) wedding in five years, and somehow agree to bring male escorts. Clear favouritism has been established. The Petersons' final appearance marks the most outrageous act of Lindsay's mother. During the period when Lindsay and Melanie are separated in the final season, Mama P convinces her daughter to return home, arranges a little dinner party including a divorced male contemporary of Lindsay's, and not only turns out to have tried to set the two up, but is also revealed to have informed her desired-potential-son-in-law that Lindsay had just broken up with a man.<br />
<br />
In the second season, when Lindsay and Melanie marry, they have the temerity to ask the Ps (we never meet any of Melanie's relations, who apparently aren't much or any better) for financial assistance towards the grand day. They are flatly refused; it isn't a "real" wedding, as Mrs P explains during a tension-laden restaurant meal. In a second attempt, the couple plan to throw a very WASPy brunch, so that the Ps could meet their friends and perhaps feel more at home in such a group. A harp appears. Lindsay dons a WASPy blouse that makes her breasts appear about a third of their usual size. The Ps phone to beg off on grounds of Mr P's back trouble. Melanie secretly slips away, goes to the parental home, find the Ps preparing to play mixed doubles, and gives them a more honest assessment of their conduct and character than she permits herself to do in Lindsay's company, along with an account of how much effort Lindsay had put into the party. Back at the party, Brian drugs the punch. The atmosphere lightens, the assembled company loses considerable inhibitions and clothing, and a raucous good time is in progress when the Ps finally show up after all. Mrs P sucks four dozen lemons and walks out at once; Mr P gives an almost wistful look as he follows. No aid for the wedding, alas.<br />
<br />
Presently, in another episode, another conflict arises with Mrs P on the telephone. Lindsay has all her life been promised that, when she marries, she can wear Granny Faye's wedding dress. But Mrs P thinks that the promise would only apply if it were a "real" wedding. Lindsay and Melanie then decide to go over when the Ps are out and take the dress without permission or notice. There they find a packet of letters from a woman named Vera. Vera and Faye became lovers during the war while their husbands were in the army. They planned to leave their husbands and live together, but Vera funked it when the time came. The final letter in the series, written decades later, explained that Vera had had a good enough life and marriage but had never stopped loving Faye. Strangely, that letter had arrived two year after Granny Faye's death, and been put with all the other letters from Vera. How had that happened?<br />
<br />
Now, to this LW. I was pleasantly surprised by the Prudecutor, who had in the past advised LWs uncovering controversial materials among the belongings of the dear departed to burn such articles. I certainly agree that the LW ought to take steps to prevent the destruction of the letters. Sooner or later, there is bound to be an LGBT member of the family, for whom the letters would make a grand present. Those members of the commentariat who advise keeping the secret but not destroying the letters are basically just passing on the problem to whoever happens to go through the effects left behind when the LW dies in future. (Vague hints of Sir Quentin Oliver and his plan to lock up the autobiographies of the members of his little association for seventy years.) It is true that putting the letters away for a period of time may result in their coming to life when nobody who knew Granny will be affected personally; would such a thing be good or bad?<br />
<br />
It feels a little like splitting hairs to inquire into the nature of the death, as some among the commentors have done. There's not enough that can be inferred about the wishes of the deceased. I'd advise a subcommittee drawn from the supportive members of as many branches of the family as possible. An inquiry might better be directed towards whether there is a hierarchy within the family that would give the LW and her mother more of a say about Granny's legacy than other relations. The Prudecutor's advice to share first with Mamma leaves open the possibility that Mamma may bring about a stalemate by insisting that the matter never be mentioned. Much safer for the LW if others who share the LW's viewpoint know about Granny first. There is also the question of whether to contact anyone in Maude's family. The Prudecutor and her commentariat completely miss that issue entirely; nobody considers it at all. And yet, as Granny and Maude were acknowledged as lifelong (best) friends, it would be rather odd for their families to be complete strangers each to the other.<br />
<br />
And I can't help but wonder whether the LW bears some resemblance to Senator Portman. It might have been "hurtful" to hear homophobic slurs at family gatherings, but the LW doesn't appear ever to have done or said anything about that before, and only feels inclined to speak up now because the issue has hit home. This is not exactly the stuff of a ringing endorsement.<br />
<br />
Moral: "Granny Faye was... <i>a dyke!</i>"hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-87791362803310092552013-03-21T12:09:00.002-07:002013-03-21T12:09:27.850-07:00Back to HighburyWith the Prudecutor not mangling the letters too badly this week, we shall make a quick jaunt.<br />
<br />
L1: This letter appears to be a plant. The LW must secretly be working for an adoption agency that is going to have to close due to eliminated funding. This letter is clearly an attempt to convince pregnant young women to prefer abortion to adoption. Who wouldn't, faced with the possibility of such a terrorist attack two or three decades down the road?<br />
<br />
The Prudecutor even picks up on part of this, as she imagines LW1 cackling gleefully to herself as she plans her next assault on BM1's peace of mind. One might ask LW1 why the apparent likelihood of smashing BM1's life counts so little. As far as that goes, it doesn't say much for AF1, or LW1's attitude towards them.<br />
<br />
I should advise LW1 to take a page from Harriet Martin's book. This is where we see Emma at very nearly her worst. Harriet is, of course, the natural daughter of somebody. She is informed that she cannot be acquainted with her father, and is content to take Mrs Goddard's account without further investigation. It is left to Emma to decide on no particular evidence that Harriet is a gentleman's daughter, and therefore worthy at least to become Mrs Elton (or at any rate to aspire to a higher lot in life than that of becoming Mrs Robert Martin).<br />
<br />
L2: I am going to ascribe the fast-moving nature of BF2's courtship to LW2's having taken Miss Woodhouse herself for a role model. Emma did, after all, half expect Frank Churchill to confess an attachment to herself at the end of a two weeks' visit at Randalls. And the LW seems to base all her feelings both for BF2 and XBF2 on concerns similar to those of the heroine in being rather superficial.<br />
<br />
There is also the Jewish factor. LW2 leads heavily with it, and L2 seems to justify her having done so. She leads what might well be considered quite a Jewish-toned life. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, although her using it to try to reshape all the people and relationships in her life to that effect does seem rather to be getting in the way of her future happiness. Perhapsm however, she will continue to follow Emma's example and end up with the right partner at last, although at 31 she seems to have taken more than a little from Anne Elliot as well.<br />
<br />
But I am going here to emulate Mrs Weston. I shall make a match here and now between the Prudecutor herself and Mr Plotz. They ought both to be released from their current marriages within the next few years, and they are so ideally suited - the High Priest and High Priestess of Mediocrity Incarnate. It is a match made in, as Giulia Farnese might say, wherever such matches are made.<br />
<br />
L3: LW3 has managed to expand the Bridezilla complex all the way to Birthzilla. Her nine-year-old child in the delivery room may well go beyond any of the wildest ideas of brides I've seen for a considerable period of time. Clearly LW3 has forgotten the very purpose to which her upcoming tenancy of the room in question will be undergone.<br />
<br />
The only thing to which I can compare this idea is the practice of dancing with open windows. Recall well how that scandalized poor Mr Woodhouse. He could not conceive of anyone ever doing such a thing, despite Mr Churchill's avowal of having seen it done quite often. Even if the only purpose of the relation of the story was to secure Mr Woodhouse's blessing for the Westons' ball to be held at the Crown Inn, it was the sort of idea that ought to terrify someone in LW3's circle. Let us hope it is someone with a little more sense than the dear old dodderer.<br />
<br />
L4: Let us warn off LW4 from her natural officiousness with two words: Mrs Elton. That should say it all.<br />
<br />
Moral: "Emma was obliged to fancy what she liked; but she could never believe that in the same situation <i>she</i> should not have discovered the truth."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-58597189008221239752013-02-14T04:55:00.001-08:002013-02-14T04:55:16.371-08:002/14 - Tribute to AVBMy apologies for having gone missing. It was just a matter of finding the Prudecutor too tedious to address. But today I thought of paying tribute to the recently deceased Dear Abby by providing three-word responses in the spirit of her famous reply to a San Francisco couple who didn't like the proto-LGBT goings-on around them and asked how they could improve the neighbourhood, "You could move."<br />
<br />
LW4 broke into a cheating ex-girlfriend's house to retrieve an item belonging to her (well, LW4 never specifically presented as male, and it's more fun this way, especially given the date), stealing another item of value that turned out to belong to CX4's roommate. A follower of Dr Barreca, LW4 proudly spread the tale far and wide among her acquaintance as an example of successful revenge. But now she has reunited with CX4, the woman who drove her to alcoholism once already, and fears the story will reach XCX4's ears. She asks, "What should I do?"<br />
<br />
Assume she suspected.<br />
<br />
LW3 is in the health industry. His boyfriend has Unhealthy Habits - neglected teeth, sugar overconsumption, weight gain. LW3 claims that these things are very important to him, despite the fact that a time frame of at least a year has elapsed during which which LW4 apparently has declined to address the issue. He asks, "Is this worth ending a relationship over?"<br />
<br />
<i>Now</i> you're asking?<br />
<br />
LW2 has just one seemingly small problem. His otherwise amazing boyfriend, although providing LW2 with a sex life of sufficient variety and interest to render it unnecessary to consult Mr Savage, is unusually opposed to any sign of affection outside of the bedroom. This restricts LW2's desires for gestures that, to be fair and accurate, fall far short of the PDA level. He asks, "Am I insane for letting this bother me in an otherwise perfect relationship or does it signify a serious intimacy issue?"<br />
<br />
It's just you.<br />
<br />
LW1 has convinced me to break my rule for the day and gender her as female, as even the most gender-neutral bisexual person of my acquaintance would find BF1's conduct a bit of a stretch if the paramours involved were of differing genders. But, anyway. LW1 has excellent taste in authors, but has carried it a little too far. She has chosen for her model on how to conduct personal relationships that most dogged of investigators, She Who Must Be Obeyed. In a round of cross-examination that proves her qualified to practise at the Old Bailey, LW1 got BF1 to commit to a lie in his testimony only to uncover his perjury, thanks no doubt to the engagement of Ferdinand Isaac Gerald (or Ian Gilmour in later works) Newton, known as "Fig" in the trade, and flourish her proof of his perfidy in open Court. The prisoner at the Bar was sentenced to relinquish his social media passwords, and has lived under LW1's watchful eye ever since. After LW1, again taking She Who Must for her model, managed to convince BF1 that the two of them were somehow engaged (I only hope for his sake that LW1's father was at least the head of his Chambers and able to offer him accommodation), LW1 then deicded to look through F1's emails from before their meeting. (I could have warned her that this was about as wise as asking a client on trial for murder if s/he'd actually done the deed; an affirmative answer greatly restricts one's course of action in the case, as it is then imperative to plead guilty.) Her perusal of his old emails has landed her with the knowledge that F1 has not altered any of the loving terminology he used in a previous romance. LW1 now feels rather less special. She asks, "Am I just a replacement for an old flame he can't forget?"<br />
<br />
Let's hope so.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-74632243051564210612013-01-17T07:23:00.000-08:002013-01-17T07:23:12.069-08:001/17 - For the PersonalsLast week just seemed far too technical. Today we start out in the spirit of just having watched the 2-6,6-3,11-9 win for Laura Robson over Petra Kvitova.<br />
<br />
L1: As this letter will probably bring comparisons to Borgias into people's minds, I must admit to finding Lucrezia and Cesare almost tedious. The Medicis will do better when that series eventually is made, even without incest to keep the siblings interesting. I much prefer the marriage of Gioffre and Sancia, with her extramarital entanglements.<br />
<br />
LW1 really ought to go after the inept original counselor and see that buffoon fried. Afterwards, I propose a potential practical solution to the situation. Should IC1 find themselves unwilling or unable to part with success, why not find their own kind? It worked well enough for a number of same-sex couples of complementary genders. Not an ideal solution for those couples, but potentially a bit better for emotionally involved opposite-sex siblings.<br />
<br />
L2: We really do not need to hear about the Prudecutor and her daughter (or is it her stepdaughter? There really is nothing wrong with the status of stepparent, and the insistence on dropping the designation of step merely strikes me as an historically irritating affectation) and their visits to massage parlours of dubious provenance. Let them take their pleasures where they find them. Anyone so willing to erase an inconvenient woman from history while pretending to revere her is bound to lead a young woman into temptations about which I choose not to speculate.<br />
<br />
LW2 has that irritating sort of consciousness that seems almost to deserve what it gets. W2 might deserve better, but it is highly tempting to tell LW2 that he must keep this little occurrence a secret throughout all eternity. It would serve the sort of annoying person he is right. If he had a better frame of mind about this, he and W2 could use the personals to advantage, indulging in the sort of public role play that would be highly obnoxious if people knew about it.<br />
<br />
L3: What is with the Prudecutor in her insistence on whether EB3 is or isn't valid? M3 sounds like quite a piece of work. That is without doubt. But LW3 provides a refreshing lack of background here. Are we seriously supposed to believe that LW3 and W3 married without any discussion of religion among the members of F3? It was never a point, if not of concern then at least of clarification, that LW2 was dating, becoming serious about and then marrying someone rather removed from the Episcopalian strain? This is the stuff that could provide even Claude Erskine Brown or George Frobisher (who would need the daily refreshers rather more, not being married to a High Court Judge) with ample material for at least a week. Possibly even more promising is the line of questioning about why LW3 didn't convert <i>before conception</i>. It will only count for being about half so good if he converts now. And what W3 and WF3 had to say about the mixed marriage remaining mixed can be thrown in as well. Are they among those Jews who regard conversion as a nice gesture but irrelevant because no convert can ever be as good as the real thing? Or, the matriarchal line being sufficient for heritage, do they regard paternity and its provider as insignificant? With any luck, a good cross-examiner would be bound to hit on a line of questioning that would inevitably lead to a new case of divorce being sent to the Family Division, however much one might quake at the thought of appearing before Mrs Justice Appleby.<br />
<br />
LW3 is to be commended partially for at least wanting this settled before the actual birth. Treating the issue as a gross violation, presumably to FS3 rather than as a vile insult to W3 and himself, however, not only fuels the wonder about his not converting but also gives back almost all that credit, if not more. And as for the question of the validity of such baptisms, the Prudecutor really missed the best opportunity to strike a blow against bullies and bullying. If such baptisms were valid, then all over the red states, high school football players would be busy calling Baptism on all the owners of those heads they keep dunking into school toilets. Far be it from me to quarrel with anyone denying a rampaging religious zealot of a grandparent access to a grandchild, but LW3 is doing it in about the most ridiculous manner possible.<br />
<br />
L4: While the Prudecutor's use of offensive and oppressive language in her choice of puns is fully indicative of how she deserves to be locked in a room with Martina Navratilova (except that one would not want to inflict such a fate upon poor Martina), LW4 apparently thinks that her forcibly-switched daughter will grow up to be Maria Sharapova. A mother might want better for her child. But she could certainly do worse. Perhaps a more likely case, which ought to serve as a warning, is personified in Margaret Court. Changing hands worked well enough for her in winning her Grand Slam and more major titles than anyone else, if one counts before the Open Era. But just look what has become of her since.<br />
<br />
And there are such good cases in point in the opposite direction. Defence Exhibit A: Phil Mickelson. While not matching Mr Woods in talent, he has far surpassed him in hearts captured and fan loyalty. It will be interesting to see whether Mr McIlroy will be able to supplant both TW and PM, one or the other, or neither. Defence Exhibit B: Rafael Nadal. Not only will he go down as the Absolute Monarch of clay and the great blot in Roger Federer's GOAT Exhibit, but he is surely the greatest defender of tennis history records, having three times won the match that would have given his opponent the distinction of holding all four major titles concurrently. On top of which, there has been a great deal more said against his main rivals on the subject of character, the primary knock against Rafa being his propensity for underwear yanking.<br />
<br />
Moral: "That is all pages, unless you wish to join us... but, no. That would be too much, even for the Duke and Duchessa of Squillace."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-13450578762808586132013-01-03T05:25:00.003-08:002013-01-03T05:25:30.045-08:001/3 - What Will Likely HappenWe skipped last week as a protest. It was impossible to accept the hearsay evidence of LW1 for either side of the case. About the only thing possible to say is that it is quite plausible that DGF was strung along by someone not quite so out of it as he appeared, though my favoured take on this angle might best be summarized by the episode of <i>Absolutely Fabulous</i> in which the two protagonists plot to get one of them impregnated by Crispin Bonham Carter, the last survivor of a titled family, who, at the end, reveals that his predecessors went through all the money.<br />
<br />
So, what will happen this week?<br />
<br />
L3: In a just world, the dog survives the marriage. This is not a just world.<br />
<br />
L2: I am quite appalled that the Prudecutor should go out of her way to install avarice into the head of a LW who had no intention of profiting from Doing the Right Thing. It's difficult to gauge here whether LW2 is consulting the Prudecutor out of a sense of disappointment in F2 for not taking action himself or out of a sense of wanting to do whatever version of the right thing least harms F2. I am not at all surprised that the only thing the Prudecutor can conceive of doing is to consult a solicitor, which rather reminds me of Oswald Martin's response when Major Armstrong took exception to Martin's publishing a booklet advising farmers on the tax code in <i>Dandelion Dead</i>. I shall leave alone the question of how uncorrupted government funds remain as they make their way through the bowels of "non-profit" organizations, and suspect that a case could be made that, for all LW2 or F2 know, the level of fraudulence in this case is perhaps even below normal.<br />
<br />
What perhaps ought to happen would be for LW2 to conduct a great deal of research before presenting F2 with a fair array of options for how to proceed, properly assisted by LW2. As for what will happen, I am torn between LW2 straining the friendship and accomplishing nothing if the motive is preservation, and dumping F2 in a grand manner only to be rewarded in a way similar to Mary Crawford after she overspends in buying William Price's knave.<br />
<br />
L1: Well, at least the Prudecutor has reinforced her anti-racist credentials. I shall base my response entirely on what happened when, earlier in the relationship, LW1 and BF1 had a deep and meaningful conversation in which LW1 made it clear that use of the word in question was an absolute dealbreaker. Of course, there probably was no such conversation, in which case the time has come for a good deal of introspection on the part of BF1 to examine just how racist he really is and just how much LW1 will accept. If the relationship is to survive and thrive, it would be as well for BF1 to be at least inclined to one of those philosophies given to excruciating parsing of motives.<br />
<br />
What will almost certainly happen is that LW1 will "forgive" BF1 and maintain the moral upper hand throughout the course of the relationship, which will end in a way best suited to fit LW1's scripts about how unknown or subconscious point X always happens to turn out to be true.<br />
<br />
L4: This is the most important of the letters. We have established (and it was handled with great skill, far greater than usual) that the Prudecutor has never been among those so humiliated by such means as a non-invitation to a wedding.<br />
<br />
Moral: "The game was hers, and only did not repay her for what she had given to secure it."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-23428770342874907922012-12-20T09:26:00.002-08:002012-12-20T09:26:24.949-08:0012/20: P-Q6Two Brownie Points to anybody who immediately got the point of the title and can guess to which letter it refers.<br />
<br />
L2: The obvious solution to any impending situation in which one knows that a particular set of Privileged People will be Practising Privilege (here what might be called Dotage Privilege) is simply Not to Go. One might give the Prudecutor the tiniest bit of Wiggle Room on the question of it being both harmless and gracious to give the old dears permission to ride their fantasy for a bit. She has laid no foundation for the supposition that OD2s actually are imagining any sort of heat radiating from themselves. After all, one might say that she is presumably well past her prime - but there is no good purpose in speculating as to the nature of her private reading matter.<br />
<br />
But there is a far better and more important question. There are people bound to ask whether the situation would merit the same response if the readers of some ghastly pornographic book were LW2's father and uncles instead of her mother and aunts. Of course it wouldn't, and there's an excellent reason. Old Women are Officially Past It. Old Men often are not deemed to have lost viability. When, to pull a hypothetical out of thin air, Betty White dating the winner of the Heisman Trophy were to generate no greater scandal than Hugh Hefner marrying a Playboy Bunny of the Year, come back and we'll talk.<br />
<br />
L3: I thought the no-brainers were usually saved for L4. When in doubt, contact the recipients and ask. Some might be delighted; some might prefer not; some might opt for vetting. But whatever LW3 does, the worst thing to do would be to add the ridiculously obvious bits of smarm suggested by the Prudecutor, who has demonstrated on many occasions that she is convinced that her faked sentiment will fool the reader as surely as Imperial Margarine will convince Mother Nature it's butter. And we all know it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.<br />
<br />
L1: Whether XBF1 is a jerk, an abuser, both or neither, some of us will be concerned with the fact that we are, after all, dealing with hearsay evidence. It is one thing to know and understand what might or might not incline one to accept or doubt something told one by a friend, but here we are forced to trust both LW1 and LW1's account of F1. Who wants to be certain on such grounds? How often does one get a detail wrong? I can recall three occasions on which I posted a comment in one forum or another in some detail about something that happened on a television programme, with a majority of the details and the whole spirit right, but with an inaccuracy (for instance, saying that action X took place after both A and B when it was really after A and before B, though the timing was inconsequential to the point). Of course, when the welfare of a child is at stake, Mizz Lizz Probert will be the first to inform any Court in the land that we are not bound by legal quibbles about hearsay - even if that one comes back to bite her in the end.<br />
<br />
In defence of F1 (if this really is a Degree of Separation letter, which I'll believe by default), at least she is not duplicating the conduct of Dr Schwyzer's potential partner in procreation, who simply decided (with excellent reason) which of two possible candidates she preferred for the role of Daddy, never informing her preference that she'd had any other encounters and convincing the future doctor to keep the secret. While I understand the temptation to arrange a relationship in such a way, giving oneself all the power to ruin one's partner's life in a moment of anger, it seems almost impossible that being in that relationship with such a lopsided power dynamic must surely have done the relationship harm.<br />
<br />
Mainly, though, I wonder how long it will take, given the rush to the declaration that F1 should do all that is humanly possible to make sure that her secret is kept perfectly guarded in perpetuity, for straight men who want nothing to do with potential progeny to start wishing cancer and dead puppies all around. Not to knock the capacity of women to determine veracity, but it seems a plausible consequence.<br />
<br />
L4: This was the title reference. Gentle readers may recall that Alice met Humpty Dumpty when she passed into the Sixth Square on her chessboard journey. One might recall that it was Mr Dumpty who persuaded Alice (or made a gallant attempt so to do) of the superiourity to birthday presents of unbirthday presents, due to the extreme superiourity of frequency of days on which they might be received.<br />
<br />
As might readily be deduced, H4 has an entire year in which to manifest his delight in providing some less fortunate relation with The Perfect Present. I suppose it is encouraging that some men are as susceptible to the socialization of the obligation of such fanaticism. Some feminists may be pleased with this letter on that account. But his insistence on producing the goods only at Christmas in front of a Full Family Audience guaranteed to be amazed by the spectacle is behaviour to which a great many people would assign an adjective rhyming with, but with the prefix of an extra syllable than, <i>flattery</i>.<br />
<br />
And H4's insistence (or the LW's; it's hard to say which) that he just wants to have the freedom to express his love of Christmas has a <i style="font-weight: bold;">HUGE</i> smack of the Christianist crowd that just wants to have the freedom to express their love of their version of Christ Jesus by indulging in what they view as his favourite pastime and stoning (or some socially-acceptable-in-Western-civilized-society equivalent, although I suspect most of them would go for stoning if they could) sodomites.<br />
<br />
Moral: "When I pay a word, it means what I tell it to mean."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-62888357606646202082012-12-13T10:00:00.000-08:002012-12-13T10:00:31.681-08:0012/13 - Pru World Disorder?With the run-up to Christmas producing its usual quantity of difficulty in ducking the relentless assault of heterocentrism, a brief moment of congratulations to all those newly married this week in Seattle, Mr Savage prominent among them.<br />
<br />
This is a brief What is the World Coming to? sort of post.<br />
<br />
As far as L1 goes, if the world is the sort of place where the relations of a perpetrator have to take legal advice before making a sanitized expression of sympathy with anything of any real feeling or meaning sucked out of it, the world has already lost. And it might have behooved the Prudecutor to pay some attention to the difference between the LW's loss of an illusion and the bereaved family's loss of someone who, whatever his faults, at least is not known to have committed an active forfeiture of a large portion of merit. Additionally, the obvious solution is to find one of the numerous friends in common to serve as, if not exactly an intermediary, then at least as a sort of sounder out.<br />
<br />
L2 is disqualified on technical grounds. The information is insufficient to judge whether OF2 is being swamped on home or neutral ground by BF2. Besides, First World Problems, Inc.<br />
<br />
L3 makes me wonder how conservatives get anything done when they don't have blackmail-worthy evidence to hold over people's heads. But I am more saddened by the Prudecutor's more than acquiescence in this horrific system in which one must from the youngest of ages compose a presence that will satisfy the Great Corporate Behemoth about matters which absolutely concern it not.<br />
<br />
As for L4, it could be quite possible that a donation would be just the thing to be the ideal present all around, but, not only was the peremptory manner of the Prudecutor's recommendation (more of a command) well off key, the timing is wrong. Just as one does not make the funeral of an uncle the time to make one's polyamourous orientation the main focus, introducing such a style of gift suddenly and as a surprise with such short time for preparation is not the best receipt for success and happiness all around. LW4 would be best advised to pick a low-key time for an introductory donation and all the attendant activities.<br />
<br />
I think I'll pass on the moral.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-54841864380673023182012-11-30T05:17:00.002-08:002012-11-30T05:17:35.152-08:00Prize show?Was this week the Thick Awards?<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
LW1 is about as self-aware as Sir Walter Elliot. At least, that was the first thought to spring to mind. It might be quite apt, as one wonders exactly how much indulgence one might have to extend to AW1. We recall well how Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable, whose judgment and conduct, <i>if they might be pardoned the youthful indiscretion that made her Lady Elliot, </i>had never required indulgence thereafter.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
LW2 and LW4 apparently appear to be competing for the same award. LW2 is in slightly the more sympathetic position. While LW4's concern for the elderly might be exaggerated into something almost touching, it might be a truth universally acknowledged that the difficulty in informing one's partner of an unpleasant aspect of an Otherwise Highly Desirable Body Part decidedly lies in the challenge of making the communication without being consequently denied access to the Otherwise </div>
<div>
Highly Desirable Body Part in question. But LW2's selection of the Prudecutor by way of consultant is the less explicable. They both could use a touch of Miss Bates, who could not keep anything to herself for five minutes, or perhaps Mrs Allen, who could never remain entirely silent.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
LW3 makes one wonder how OC3 was in any position to be able to make any confidences at all. We do, do we not, have freedom of association. One might think that LW3 could have been capable of choosing whether to have any conversation with OC3 or not, and one might wonder why a LW of any number whatsoever should consent to continual conversation with OC3 or anybody like her. Now granted, as is the case of Emma with Mrs Elton, there are some social menaces who cannot be avoided entirely. However, if one recalls such customers as Mrs Bambi Etheridge, it seems reasonable to suggest that LW3 might have done a better job of ducking contact. Having been the recipient of the dangerous confidence, it's a little late to be out of it now, but things ought not to have reached such a state; LW3 should learn for the future.</div>
hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-580797196979404252012-11-22T12:41:00.001-08:002012-11-22T12:41:51.507-08:0011/22 - For the Reluctant CardplayerSome of my favourite Austensplaining:<br />
<br />
In the evening it was found, according to the predetermination of Mrs Grant and her sister, that after making up the whist table there would remain sufficient for a round game, and everybody being as perfectly complying and without a choice as on such occasions they always are, speculation was decided on almost as soon as whist; and Lady Bertram soon found herself in the critical situation of being applied to for her own choice between the games, and being required either to draw a card for whist or not. Luckily Sir Thomas was at hand.<br />
<br />
"What shall I do, Sir Thomas? Whist and speculation; which will amuse me most?"<br />
<br />
Sir Thomas, after a moment's thought, recommended speculation. He was a whist player himself, and perhaps might feel that it would not much amuse him to have her for a partner.<br />
<br />
Moral: Bring the relation in question a copy of <i>Mansfield Park</i>.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-6501474641721795982012-11-15T08:54:00.001-08:002012-11-15T08:54:55.104-08:0011/15 - Quickie on the RecapWell, to give the Prudecutor her due, at least she didn't pack the court with fawning follow-ups designed to attribute to her an infinite wit and wisdom which she possesses not. It certainly would have been easy to stack the deck; who could have proved it different? So the Unwanted House Guest turned out to be not quite so sinister as she thought.<br />
<br />
But one glaring thing sticks out from the Twincest Follow-Up. Our LW mentions in the follow-up how his brother read the column at breakfast and flipped out when he caught on to the personal nature of the subject matter. One must wonder, therefore, why the flying flip the Prudecutor and her editorial council ran the letter without looking into the situation in the first place.<br />
<br />
The LW obviously was familiar with the Prudecutor's column, and it stood to reason as highly probable that the twin was as well. As their circle had a reasonable degree of familiarity with them and their lives despite not being in on The Big Secret, it ought not to come as the greatest shock in the world if some of their acquaintance might just happen to be readers of the Prudecutor's column as well. Should such be the case, how possible could it be that any such person would not add up gay twins living together as supposed bachelors and not visibly dating?<br />
<br />
As it would not take a team of rocket surgeons to work out the likelihood of discovery, the next thing is to wonder why the Prudecution would run the letter without first checking in with the LW that it would not ruin his life. Now, one could easily claim that there's no obligation to do so. And certainly the Prudecutor's conduct since the letters has been indicative of excessive salivation over the increase in traffic and revenue the letter would bring her way, given its vast superiourity to the legions of dull letters that only made this shine all the brighter. But not to check in first to make sure that both the LW and his brother were okay with the letter being run? Perhaps not necessary, but reasonably described as Heartless.<br />
<br />
As for the follow-up itself, the LW comes across as rather the tedious sort, or at least borderline so. I do not blame him for Fitting the Stereotype; some people do, and he at least does not Universalize it the way one sees happening only too often. I just detect a bit of the wrong sort of uberassimilationist strain in the bit about sexual dropping-off being Not Uncommon Among Gay Male Companions and Guess What? Some Straight Couples Too!<br />
<br />
Laissez-moi barf.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-28674346333923546602012-11-08T13:40:00.002-08:002012-11-08T13:40:44.917-08:0011/8 Donning the Deerstalkers AgainNow that things are operational again after the storm...<br />
<br />
Well, colour me dizzy from trying to make sense of Tuesday. Why now, of all times? In part, I suppose we can be thankful that the Forces of Evil miscalculated after 2008 and thought they'd be better off rebuilding in 2010, when their incursion into blue states probably could have succeeded. But I have concluded that the answer could well be Spain, the one blatant exception to the glittering example of Scandinavia and near-Scandinavia in the Euro-equality catalogue. If RC Spain can out-equal France (a little like Sonny outscoring Cher on the Awesome Parent Test), then I suppose it isn't surprising that the increased Hispanic vote could have been enough to tip the scale this time around, even if the Grand Declaration of Support didn't move the African-American vote all that materially. Perhaps the truly weird thing is that Minnesota undecideds didn't break in the traditional direction (almost everyone was being at best guarded about Minnesota), but that speculation must wait for another time.<br />
<br />
Once again, we have to wonder why a LW chose to consult the Prudecutor this week. And this letter is perhaps even more of a puzzle. The Prudecutor has proved many times over that she knows virtually nothing about gay social circles. Much of her commentariat is in the same boat. This is a vastly less assimilated LW than the BF of the Deeply Closeted Actor of recent past, which raises a number of ideas. If he is deliberately consulting someone who is not the most knowledgeable of the known likely choices to tackle the question, then I shall diagnose an ideological difference with Mr Savage, especially as this doesn't really seem to be one of those questions where a LW's choice of adviser seems designed to result in that LW receiving permission to do what (s)he wanted to do all along. I shall diagnose the LW as a likely Log Cabin Republican rather than a full-on GoProud type. GoProuders are more assimilationist than LCRs.If the LW has less disagreement with Mr Savage over politics than I'm guessing, then their circle is likely to be more singles-oriented or singles-accepting than that of his counselor of choice. Mr Savage appears to socialize in a highly couple-centric environment, where a single person such as the PWA was would perhaps stick out badly. The LW's social circle appears to be flexible, perhaps of the sort with a core group of people who pair and unpair from time to time without materially changing the overall constitution and tenor of the group.<br />
<br />
The group dynamic can be vital with certain types of gay men. This is one main reason why I might marvel to such an extent over the choice of someone so out of the loop to consult. It is, perhaps oddly, rather more <i>Sex and the City</i> than <i>Tales of the City</i>. But, even so, there are still things one wonders. Why, for instance, did the subject go so long unraised with the friend? It would seem the sort of thing that a support circle would be quite likely to raise rather early on in the dating cycle. Another point largely missed by the Prudecutor is that everybody else in the group is backing the silent route, which, if this were a straight circle, would definitely suggest that there may well be something of which only LW1 is unaware. But this is less the usual pattern for gay circles than it is for straight ones. It certainly makes one wonder whether the group as a whole is so cavalier in general in the matter of the health of a member's partner. Is this standard operating procedure for the group as a whole? Is PWA1 a first for the assembled company?<br />
<br />
Of the possible approaches, LW1 could just up and tell ARBF1 directly, could mention it in passing as if taking it as a given that the Revelation had been made, could hold Standard Blackmailing Conversation #42 with PWA1, could hold a non-confrational conversation with PWA1, could ask individual friends about their chosen course of action or could even call a group meeting. It would really be advisable to know more about the particular dynamics of this particular group before trying to select one from a number of paths. As far as the legal issue is concerned, well, the less LW1 appears to know about that, probably the better all around.<br />
<br />
Moral: "Knowledge of the law is generally a bit of a handicap to a barrister."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-76854310276412032892012-10-25T08:37:00.000-07:002012-10-25T08:37:03.811-07:0010/25 - More Careful PloddingThings are getting a little strange when the Prudecutor's main column is more same-sexer-related than Mr Savage's.This week, LW1 chooses to consult an outsider. Why? Is it because the problem involves (at least on the fringes) the question of assimilation? Does he want to avoid being given the standard line he might fear receiving from Mr Savage, to DTMFA? Did he read Mr Savage's response to the woman with the pro-life boyfriend advising her to lie and tell him she was pregnant, and immediately lose all faith in non-breeders?<br />
<br />
The matter seems to merit inquiry because his choice of the Prudecutor could well hint at his cast of mind, which could have more than the usual influence on how one might want to deal with his question. This could be something to do with the situation. Or it could help fill in the noticeable gaps in the information presented.<br />
<br />
[My boyfriend and I have been together just under three years. It was a whirlwind romance and we have a strong, honest, and loving relationship.]<br />
<br />
The operative word is "honest". I am really rather sad here that this was L1, as that meant necessarily that one could not read the letter without having seen the headline and knowing the nature of the problem. It would have been interesting to have been able to read the letter without knowing it would necessarily end up concerning the closet, to see what would have seemed the best guess. Whastever difficulty a couple might have, there are at least a dozen problems that coincide better with the relationship in general being described as "honest", even if, as I presume, LW1 merely means that they are honest with each other - which is actually possible.<br />
<br />
[We both have fulfilling careers with hectic schedules—I do a lot of traveling overseas. He is now an actor working in Hollywood]<br />
<br />
In other words, the couple has spent relatively little time together and must rely a great deal more on trust on a regular basis than those couples who do not spend lengthy periods apart. And what was BF1 doing prior to acting in Hollywood? Was this career turn a bit of a blindsider?<br />
<br />
[and he is paranoid about anyone finding out he is gay, even though most people who meet him suspect he is.]<br />
<br />
What the flip does that mean, and why on earth does the Prudecutor miss such a nasty remark - or, at least, nasty way of phrasing it? One suspects that Colonel Mustard did it in the billiard room with the lead pipe, or that one's spouse has been having an affair for the past decade.<br />
<br />
He's in his mid-20s and still struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. I'm a few years older, and much more comfortable with who I am.]<br />
<br />
Okay, so LW1 bagged a hottie. But one might wonder how strong a relationship is likely to be if one of the participants is still struggling to come to terms with his sexuality. In conjunction with his selection of the Prudecutor, this suggests that LW1 may be what we can call by the almost neutral term "discreet". It does raise the question, though, of exactly how open LW1 is in general, and wants to be, which the Prudecutor misses his never really addressing.<br />
<br />
[He worries about the amount of hate that can be directed at an openly gay public figure in America, despite all the recent high-profile coming-outs, and I understand his dilemma. He’s concerned that his parts will dry up once directors and producers think of him as a “gay” actor.]<br />
<br />
BF1 seems the sort of person who Acts Now and Plans for the Consequences Later. And he seems mighty assured that the parts are going to keep rolling in if he toes the appropriate line, which raises a curious comparison to the religious debate over works-based salvation.<br />
<br />
[When we met, he was not working in the entertainment industry and we were not burdened with this.]<br />
<br />
Okay, a little hint, but we still don't know how he got started and if he was heading in that particular direction or if Hollywood, as it were, found him. Was LW1 or the editor responsible for this lack of clarity?<br />
<br />
[The situation is causing huge friction, as I never meet his friends or anyone he has worked with.]<br />
<br />
The Prudecutor omitted to point out that surrounding oneself with entirely straight associates is likely to be considered a significant tell. And this does not seem entirely to gel with LW1's seeming discreet. I begin to suspect (word choice deliberate) a little game going on here of Who's the Man? - and am not in the least surprised that this one would sail so completely over the Prudecutor's head that she wouldn't even notice anything in the vicinity. One can almost give her half a pass, given that she has never been half of an MM couple, but then, given how much Mr Savage has learned to tolerable effect about Women Parts, perhaps not today.<br />
<br />
[I stay home or make my own plans when he socializes. I’m not even allowed to friend him on Facebook or any other social media.]<br />
<br />
Although not a Facebooker, I'll still ask why anyone would "friend" his spouse. I can give LW1 and BF1 half a pass given the amount of time they spend away from each other. And it's an interesting twist on the Martyred Wife theme.<br />
<br />
[We had discussed marriage; but that’s now on hold and I'm doubting whether I should base myself permanently in LA with him as we had planned. I have no desire to play the role of a McCarthy-era secret lover. What should I do?]<br />
<br />
Who the flip discusses <strong>marriage</strong> with somebody who is still <em>coming to terms with his sexuality??? </em>And the Prudecutor missing that one is about as bad as Serena Williams missing a 50-mph serve from Chris Evert.<br />
<br />
Now for general points. One remarkable thing about this letter is that it illustrates the difference between seekers asking How Do I... (X) and those asking What Do I Do; LW1 manages to give away remarkably little in the nature of how he has acted and what he wants to do. In this case, it seems almost plausible that LW1 has just gone along with BF1's restrictions without ever having had any sort of conversation about them with the other person involved. There's a radical idea. And instead, here he is asking the Prudecutor, as if, should she have chosen to lecture him about the dangers of open homosexuality and the benefits accruing to those in the closet, he'd have taken her advice to adjust his own attitude with the same application with which he'd have been prepared to DTMFA or Issue an Ultimatum per her recommendation.<br />
<br />
And, of course, the Prudecutor completely misses (as does LW1) something quite likely to be pertinent to the discussion. From her response:<br />
<br />
[Maybe he’s partying with straight friends and pretending to pick up girls. Maybe he’s on the town cheating on you.]<br />
<br />
While the Prudecutor did not finish the second sentence with the phrase, "...with other men," nowhere in her response to a LW <em>whose BF is struggling to come to terms with his sexuality</em> does she explore or even mention the dreaded B word? Being given the large number of people who round their sexual orientation presentation for convenience or some other purpose alone ought to have been sufficient grounds for her to inquire whether BF1 might have a stripe or at least a hint of actual or at least desired bisexuality. That could keep a cross-examiner with a perilous overdraft in refreshers for a few weeks. <br />
<br />
There's so little LW there in the letter beyond the not wanting to be a Throwback Guilty Secret that there really doesn't seem to be much more to say at present. Of course LW1 has a legitimate dealbreaker, but one has so little idea of how inclined he is or isn't to use it. Possibly some of the earlier questions would help in that line.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-57317755606936015402012-10-18T19:30:00.002-07:002012-10-18T19:30:34.880-07:0010/18 - Short, Still ProtestingI thank the Prudecutor for making my case that heterosexuals should abstain from the discussion of gay rights in the same way that men should abstain from the discussion of abortion.<br />
<br />
I shall point out quickly that it is interesting that the conversation would be beginning at the pregnancy. If the dear friends and family LW1 does not want to offend were not close enough for the conversation to begin when LW1 and W1 were about to start or had started "trying" for a baby, then it seems a little pushy to expect to be provided with details at this point.<br />
<br />
Also, it's one thing to want to keep particular information private. It's another to withhold general information from "dear friends" for whom it might prove useful. If anyone out of the loop gets a partial pass, it is the lesbian friend who is contemplating starting a family, who might find a little general advice to be of great help, such as being warned not to go to X, who's homophobic. But then we don't know if LW1 has an Inner Circle who are in on the details or not.<br />
<br />
I also got a bit of a heteronormative vibe from L1. It may well be that she is feeling atgawked, in which case I am quite sympathetic.<br />
<br />
That is all of my attention I feel the Prudecutor deserves this week.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-32674977454947566362012-10-11T19:21:00.002-07:002012-10-11T19:21:25.136-07:0010/11 - Breaking ProtocolAs much fun as it might be to compare L1, in which LW1 does better going for an immediate divorce than signing a postnup, and H1 is pushing LW1 into divorce by threatening it as a consequence of failing to sign, to Mr Savage's advice to a LW, who wasn't sure she could continue a relationship with an otherwise progressive boyfriend who didn't think abortion should be banned but believes that life begins at conception, that she should tell him she's pregnant, thus insuring the end of the relationship one way or the other, I am going to break tradition and concentrate entirely on a letter from earlier in the week. I present a copy of the printed version:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.984848022460938px;">David and I have been best friends since we met in undergrad. When we were accepted to grad programs at the same university, we got an apartment together. Two days ago, David was killed in a car accident. I have been devastated ever since. When I looked up David's online obituary, I was shocked to see myself listed as his fiancée. As close as we were, there was never anything romantic between us. David was gay. The only person I really know in David's family is his brother, and I called him to ask him why I was listed as his fiancée in the obituary. His brother explained that his parents are ultraconservative and very religious and, even though they knew David was gay, they never quite accepted it. I guess people in his hometown town knew he was living with a girl, and his parents explained away this "sin" by saying we were engaged, rather than saying we were just friends or even just roommates. The funeral is Tuesday, and I don't know if I can go or not. I know David would have hated the lie his parents told, but I also know he loved them very much and wouldn't want them to be hurt. I'm not sure what people would say if his "fiancée" didn't show up for the service. But I am also not comfortable accepting condolences from people for something that is a lie. I know how much David struggled with coming out to his parents and how he fought for acceptance. There is a part of me that would like to demand a retraction and correction of the obituary. Another part of me says to let it go because David is beyond hurting now. What should I do?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 11.818181991577148px; line-height: 17.984848022460938px;"><br /></span>
And away we go. I shall start with a look at Things We Don't Know:<br />
<br />
* Was David dating? If so, how seriously? It seems reasonable to presume that he was not engaged (although who wouldn't want to see the follow-up letter, "An hour after I proposed to my boyfriend and he accepted, he died in a car accident. His homophobic family called his female roommate his fiancee in the obituary. What should I do?"). The LW would likely know if he were dating, and it does change the equation a little by adding a party directly being hurt by the deception. Certainly his feelings and wishes ought to carry considerable weight with the LW.<br />
<br />
* How gay (though that's badly phrased) was David? He could have been bisexual-rounded-to-gay, as happens to many people, some of whom round themselves for convenience or to avoid anti-bi attitudes, some of whom are rounded by others, either taking a lengthy run of same-sexer expression for exclusive homosexuality, or for reasons of their own; even the LW herself could have a personal motive for wanting to bump up his Kinsey score to a perfect 6.0. This is largely a side issue, but it could affect the credibility of the lie. If it will be only too painfully obvious at the funeral that the family's presenting any woman as David's fiancee is clearly wishful thinking on their part, the less the LW might have to do by way of clarification.<br />
<br />
* This is potentially a tough one for the LW, but what, in an ideal world, would have been her relationship with David? There are many such pairs that are just genuine best friends with no interest on either side. In others, she would date him in an instant and there's a serious power dynamic in play. There could probably be a complete sliding scale set out. I bring this out as a sort of variation on the Lucy Angkatell Theory (applied to her kitchenmaid's volunteering testimony to the police in a murder case) of how confusing it can be when the right thing to do is pleasant in a not necessarily good-for-one way. Although the LW appears to have her head screwed on properly, making David's wishes her top priority, it could be trickier if there were a glimmer of attraction that she only half-acknowledges to herself.<br />
<br />
* Who exactly was responsible for the obituary being printed as it was, with the lie? Even if everything David's brother told the LW were true, the obituary might have been drafted by the parents jointly, one of them acting more decisively than the other, or by the brother himself without consulting them. It is entirely conceivable that the brother could be presenting the parents as unapproachable because of their being really more accepting than he'd want them to be. For all the LW knows, it's possible that the brother had even been filtering communications between David and their parents to keep up the estrangement.<br />
<br />
* Had the fiancee lie been spread before David's death, or was it a sudden inspiration? The LW's guess is plausible. If it were so, and people in David's hometown had been fed that line about her for some time, it would make the assumption stronger. But it is not confirmed that it was general knowledge David had a female roommate. Then again, it is a general rule of Evangelica that heterosex or the possibility thereof trumps homosex.<br />
<br />
* What exactly is the familial expectation of the LW's role at the funeral? She seems to think that sparing David's parents pain as she thinks David could have wished is pushing her into going, but for all she knows the family could want her to behave exactly as the Prudecutor has advised - being "too distraught" to confirm or deny the engagement. As a side to this question, how unanimous are the parents and brother in what they want her to do? The brother presumably hasn't requested that she confirm the lie, but he might be assuming that she will do so. He might even think she will be happy to do so - for all we know, David might have told his family that she was attracted to him, or said something that they interpreted that way.<br />
<br />
* How much of a gay social circle did David have, and was the LW a part of it? He might have had a mostly straight-appearing life with few gay friends (which would make the funeral look a good deal more straight than it might), he might have had two circles, in which case she might have been part of either or both, or his social life apart from visits home might have been predominantly in gay or mixed company.<br />
<br />
* The main question, presented by a surprisingly small number of posters in the comments, is how David reacted to/would have reacted to the lie. If it was in circulation before the accident, did he know about it? Did he disagree or agree with it? How would he have reacted to finding out, if it were something that would have been new to him? Sadly, the LW probably can only guess about this one, which ought to be what has the most influence with her. It sounds as if everyone were in the process of something that might have ended somewhere on the scale of general acceptance (probably not very far along from the sound of the letter). How does the LW think David would have reacted had he been at home visiting and his parents/brother mentioned her as his fiancee? to company? Would he have left? corrected the statement (with how much force?)? gone along with it to keep the peace? suffered while doing so?<br />
<br />
*******************************************************************************<br />
<br />
With that out of the way, the Prudecutor's original advice, to attend the funeral, accept the condolences of others in attendance and be too distraught to discuss the situation, was widely condemned as a bit of a stinker. Later, the Prudecutor apparently modified her response (on Facebook instead of Slate) to include correcting that there was no engagement without outing David. One interesting aspect of the letter is how many possible shades of meaning can be attained through slight variation of exactly how the LW might do such a thing at the funeral:<br />
<br />
The LW's statement to anyone offering condolences for the loss of her fiance can reflect how they felt, living arrangements and their standing. One has various components:<br />
<br />
We loved each other<br />
I loved him dearly<br />
We were best friends<br />
He was my closest friend<br />
We were very close<br />
<br />
We lived together<br />
We shared an apartment<br />
We were roommates<br />
We were platonic roommates<br />
<br />
We were not engaged<br />
We were never engaged<br />
There was never any idea of marriage<br />
We were not dating<br />
We never dated<br />
Neither of us ever had any romantic interest in the other<br />
<br />
with other variations can produce quite a range of possible inferences for those who didn't know David that well to draw. These suggestions from posters could be combined in ways that could make it quite clear that there was never any desire for romance on either side, or leave things so loose that strangers might think the engagement had been only a matter of time with a large number of possibilities in between suggesting partial and/or one-sided attraction on either side. If the LW decided that David would want her to go along with his parents as far as she could, she could easily be technically accurate while coming across as if the two of them had been keeping the contraceptive industry in business almost single-handedly. Or, should she wish just to stay on this side of the line of outing David, she could be quite explicit about that road being closed. One thing I can say in the LW's favour is that she definitely seems to be above the temptation to imply that David wanted her but that she could not return his romantic affection.<br />
<br />
*******************************************************************************<br />
<br />
Now, as to what to do. The LW is faced with an erroneous obituary as well as the funeral. One possible aspect of the case that I don't think any poster mentioned is that the LW not correcting the obituary could be interpreted as some sort of homophobic gesture on her part. How David's gay friends/boyfriends/exes might take this libel (a strong word, but David's family have put in writing something they know to be false with the intent of getting people to believe an untruth about him that he would clearly have found unpleasant and distasteful; if the truth of a statement is sufficient defence in a libel action, then the untruth of a statement that would have pained the object greatly surely qualifies this lie for libelous status) is not hard to guess. Especially if she had relatively little to do with them, she could come off as implicit in the closeting. Then again, if she knows them all well, while in a way it would make the whole thing sadder, there could be an added dimension that would make the family's deception appear as much a hoot as anything else. It does seem the least the LW can do for David's memory to correct the obituary; if she prefers to do that after the funeral in order to give the family something of a respite, that seems acceptable.<br />
<br />
If she doesn't want to go to the funeral because she can't see herself getting through it without outing David and she knows she doesn't want to out David, that seems fair enough. She does appear to feel pressured into attending by the fake announcement because her absence might raise difficult questions. Even if she attends the funeral, a memorial with David's chosen family, even if he had not quite yet gotten to considering them to be such, is a must. It might make things easier for her if she decides to opt for graciousness over loyalty.<br />
<br />
I should go so far as to have her contact the brother, who may well turn out to be the source of all the misery in the piece, to warn him that the family had better not mention her as David's fiancee or introduce her to anyone while hanging that label on her. Even if she has no intention of outing David, I think she is fully justified in threatening to do so.<br />
<br />
Oof. I get all this way and what we don't know makes it really impossible for me to feel comfortable advocating any particular course. I just hope for David's sake that the idea to call them betrothed was something pulled out of the hat after the death; it is a colossal betrayal as well as a libel.<br />
<br />
One of the interesting things about the comments is that many posters, if we give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they don't want the LW's correction of the libel to be sufficiently flimsy that the deluded will find it easy to interpret the libel as a mere stretch of truth, reveal a considerable lack of familiarity with coming out, from the vantage point of catching on to how people desperate to believe X will grab at any shred of support for their desired belief. Not that there's any reason people ought to be familiar with coming out and its associated ramifications. But it gives me a feeling of validation for complaining about straightsplaining and for thinking that it might be quite becoming for straight people to be just a shade less ready and eager to rush in with all kinds of pronouncements when they'd benefit considerably from letting less privileged voices be heard. And a special thumbs down to the woman who wrote a long post not devoid of eloquence about how she went along with the whitewashing of her late husband's family in presenting the couple as happy and the deceased as only the best parts of his character when he'd been abusive and they'd separated. We've all seen variations on that disgusting comparison before.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-21225516480883273082012-10-04T14:15:00.001-07:002012-10-04T14:15:14.236-07:0010/4 - Out of PatienceI begin to suspect that the selector of these letters is the same person selecting the 101-style rerun letters for Mr Savage.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
L1: LW1 bears a remarkable resemblance to Claude Erskine-Brown. From early days, when he was always on the prowl to discover whether our clerk Albert fiddled a few checks or bought drinks at Pommeroy's Wine Bar with marked pound notes from the Chambers petty cash, to later times when he investigated how much our next senior clerk Henry was trying to overcharge all the members of Chambers for weekly coffee money, nobody has outdone Claude Erskine Brown on the count of attention to minutiae. And he has shown a propensity to expand this into exploration of people's sex lives, such as the time when Guthrie Featherstone had a brief fling with a communist typist named Angela until I managed to arrange for her to overhear his final speech to the jury when he was prosecuting for possession of cannabis. LW1 could not be giving us a more effective impersonation of Claude if he had a direct line through which to channel.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If history has taught us three things, at least one of them is that there is no cure for Claude Erskine Brown. LW1 should do his wife the biggest favour in his power and divorce her yesterday.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
L2: LW2 has fallen into the common trap of taking hearsay evidence as proved. She does not know that her grandfather abused more even one of his daughters, although the additional hearsay evidence makes it a good deal more likely. But hearsay is always much more satisfactory to the defence than it ever is to the Prosecution or the Prudecution. The answer for LW2 lies, as is so often the case, is the conducting of a proper cross-examination. There are a variety of witnesses who can offer evidence that is not hearsay.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately, LW2 is not so circumstanced as to be able to conduct her cross-examination in Court, with all the witnesses sworn to tell the truth. Given these circumstances that are so far from ideal, the greater the quantity of expertise with which LW2 conducts the fact-finding mission, the better. I advise LW2 to find and employ the most expert cross-examiner available for a crash course in the finer points of the art. Modesty would make the naming of the most suitable candidate somewhat unseemly, but another point of recommendation is that the cross-examiner could demonstrate the art by digging into why LW2 has so much invested in the rehabilitation of G2. A mere paucity of grandparents seems a bit skimpy - as skimpy as the portions of food on offer at La Maison Jean-Pierre, run by that larger-than-life cook and character, Jean-Pierre O'Higgins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
L3: As painful as it is, I fear that I may have to recuse myself from this case. LW3 and CW3 have created such a feud out of so little actual grounds for the same (and in so doing provided an excellent example of the value of strong cross-examination skills, as a good cross-examiner could have gotten to the bottom of the problem in five minutes) that it is impossible for the two of them to be any other than members of those great feuding families, the Timsons and the Molloys. As LW3 is clearly asking for directions on how to grass on CW3 without appearing in the unsympathetic character that usually accompanies the role of a snitch, it is clear that the odds favour LW3 being a member of the clan Molloy, for the Timsons, in general, do not grass. There are exceptions - Cyril was led into being willing to point the finger at Dennis in a cutthroat defence before Judge Bullingham, but happily it turned out that neither of the pair was guilty of the malicious wounding of the bank guard, and both were guilty only of robbery. But I have never appeared for a Molloy, not even the generally inoffensive Chirpy Molloy, known for taking luxurious baths in the middle of the robberies he committed, although I did at least bring together the eyewitness and the perpetrator who framed Chirpy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
L4: As this was turned by the Prudecutor into a technical question, here's a better solution. LW4 should get the N4s booked onto either a talk show or a court show, the former for preference. Sob stories about people in the N4s' plight are all the rage, and hosts are falling over themselves to be the most helpful. Even after the Golden Age of Oprah, there should be enough left to go around.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Moral: "It wasn't a couple of shirts; three, to be exact."</div>
hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-53609332922546409972012-09-27T09:35:00.001-07:002012-09-27T09:35:30.115-07:009/27 - Guest AdvisorThis week's letters seem extremely well suited to someone capable of managing irate or difficult parents, problematic gifts and tricky social situations regarding invitations. Who is better suited to handle such situations than the ever-so-tactful Mrs Clay from <i>Persuasion</i>?<br />
<br />
L1: I wonder - has your father, for his own amusement, ever taken up any book but the <i>Baronetage</i>? He sounds just like Sir Walter Elliot - the poor dear. And it is very easy to get the knack of managing fathers of this sort, your own or anybody else's. I quite recall how, when Sir Walter had been persuaded by my pappa (with the assistance of his neighbour Lady Russell and the cleverest of his daughters, Anne, who is a little more clever than I could wish, but no matter) to quit Kellynch Hall and settle in Bath, he was about to undo most of the good work by refusing to let the Hall to an Admiral of the Navy - and all because the navy, in addition to the nonsense of providing social elevation to those of inferiour rank - really, where would society <i>be</i> if each of us were content with her place and never determined to rise? - undoes a man's good looks, however much of the same he might have. The old silly - how would <i>he</i> look if he had to go out into the world and earn money, especially as he wouldn't be any good at it? But I was quite able to point out to him that it is the lot of the few, the favoured, the fortunate to be able to select their own hours and form their own habits of sustaining health and beauty, and Sir Walter was soon quite as ready to accept Admiral Croft as tenant as my father could have wished.<br />
<br />
Now here, LW1 has an excellent opportunity to use her father's nature to her advantage. As children are so unpredictable and inclined to rebel against attitudes suggested to them, as LW1 doubtless wants her children to become pro-choice and as her father almost certainly isn't entirely on board with that plan, she should get him to take her daughters to a pro-choice event. This will doubtless prove too much for him, and he will jump at the opportunity to fill the girls' heads with pro-life dogma, including the history of their origin, and then LW1 will have both her father and the girls right where she wants all of them. They will rebel against him and take her side - a nice piece of work. As a side note to the columnist, LW1 asked what to do, not how to phrase it; the syrupy cliches were entirely unnecessary. The columnist should go work for Hallmark - or has perhaps tried and failed.<br />
<br />
L2: I wish LW2 had consulted me some time ago, as I'd have advised her to murder husband. After all, that's what I di... would do. And, even though the relationship was broken off, one must be very careful to ascertain that there are no lingering feelings for the other party. Why, just look at what happened with Anne Elliot. She broke her engagement to Captain Wentworth, and then was not only not content with refusing to marry the very well off Charles Musgrove, but she actually carried a torch for the Captain for eight years until he asked her again. Eight years! What man is worth such devotion?<br />
<br />
As for the Other Woman being a mother, good grief. Mrs Charles Musgrove has two small boys, and nobody has ever thought it would be anything but beneficial for them if she were to be knocked on the head. Both the little dears did so much better when left to the care of their aunt. I advise LW2 to murder her mother as well. If she requires assistance, I have heard of a young lady who has been a perjured witness at every public trial for the last twelve years, murdered both her parents and forged her own Will.<br />
<br />
L3: Sometimes there are things to which one just has to submit. I well recall the day when it began to rain in Bath when the two Miss Elliots and I were with Mr Elliot trying marzipan. I was nearly sure of being able to wheedle Mr Elliot out of marrying Anne, but I desperately needed to get him alone, which was never easy given Miss Elliot's determination to monopolize him, even if she did gullibly always include me in the party. When the rain came, I thought I should have my chance, as Lady Dalrymple's carriage could accommodate the two sisters and take them back to Camden Place. But dear Miss Elliot had to insist that I had a little cold coming on, and Mr Elliot swore that Miss Anne's boots were thicker than mine, and thus better suited to a walk home through the rain. But I did prevail in the end, which should serve as an encouraging example for LW3. Otherwise, this is a technical question, and I shall refer it to my pappa the attorney.<br />
<br />
L4: Again, the LW left things far too late. I well recall how poor Sir Walter went into quite a tizzy when the Dalrymples arrived in Bath, and Lady Dalrymple an actual viscountess. As bad luck would have had it, Sir Walter, who had been in company once with his cousin, Lord Dalrymple, had, owing to a dangerous illness of Lady Elliot at the time, neglected to send the obligatory letter of condolence at his lordship's passing. Clearly this was not to be borne, and the Dalrymples sent no letter on the eventual death of Lady Elliot. But then Lady Dalrymple and Miss Carteret, her daughter, came to Bath. Sir Walter was naturally eager to renew the connection. Fortunately, I was able to guide him in the composition of the letter he eventually sent the Dalrymples designed to explain, if not excuse, his conduct and beg their forgiveness. Neither Lady Russell nor Miss Anneat all approved the letter, but we were on my home field, so to speak. I carried the day, and of course we all know that Lady Dalrymple did choose ere long to renew the acquaintance.<br />
<br />
The lesson in the situation is that, while Sir Walter was renewing his acquaintance with the great lady in Laura Place, Miss Anne was renewing her friendship with an old schoolfellow, a sickly widow whose acquaintance could be of no advantage to her. I marvel at her taste, which is apparently shared by LW4. Surely there are more profitable people he could cultivate.<br />
<br />
Moral: "We are not all born to be handsome."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-63385927460777854362012-09-20T09:32:00.001-07:002012-09-20T09:32:29.810-07:009/20 - Seven letters; no T, S, N or L...How I wish that the Supportive Shower-Throwing Sister had made the cut for Thursday instead of the earlier-in-the-week jumble. That letter was much more satisfactory than any of these, raising a nice point of how not to punish the baby without condoning or dismissing the bad conduct of the parents. What strikes me most of all is that the LW herself, so eager to throw the shower, suffers from the same obsessive lack of guilt as Miss Brodie. It might be interesting to know which of the sister's friends are among the group of eager shower-throwers. As seems to be the case with the LW, they could well be saying a good deal more about their own condoning of the affair than anything else. The sister's guilt reflects on them. There might also be much to be gained by delving into the mother's excessive shaming, starting with the determination of whether or not it's excessive. Here again it's tricky because the bulk of any disapproval ought to be directed towards the adulterous fiance, who was the vow-breaker while the sister was the accessory, but the sister is probably going to end up being the one taking most of it. All in all, a highly more satisfactory letter than any of these four.<br />
<br />
Happily, they all merit quick disposal of the same sort.<br />
<br />
Dear LW1: How fortunate that your intended has revealed her true colours before any actual exchange of vows. You could reasonably pre-empt her ultimatum by issuing one of her own; either she accepts DW1 as a person who existed and has a right to a spot in memory and IL1s as members of your family whom she will be making members of her family if she wishes the relationship to progress, or she is entirely free to leave. She could be given a period of time in which to adjust her ideas and expectations. But odds are that this course would prove to be time wasted. If you don't think more time a worthwhile investment, you'd be perfectly justified in imagining that you'd written to Mr Savage instead, in which case you'd surely have received the reply that you ought to - all together now to the tune of the theme for the Mickey Mouse Club - DTMFA.<br />
<br />
Dear LW2: Why on earth did you consult the Prudecutor? Surely Dr Westheimer would have been a much better choice. Mr Savage has enough on his plate at the moment, and he is not always the best authority possible to select for consultation on questions concerning woman parts. As the only sensible reason for consulting the Prudecutor instead of someone who knows about and has probably practised the enjoyment of the parts in question can be that you want the Prudecutor to give you an excuse to cut your husband off (but you frame it sufficiently cleverly to avoid being called naughty things by the commentariat), I shall go one step beyond that and give you permission to divorce on grounds of sexual incompatibility. If not now, it will happen soon enough. Why waste time?<br />
<br />
Dear LW3: Divorce at once. What has taken you so long? You married into a family that made it plain that would always choose coddling and accommodating a member with an abusive personality, whether or not his tendency to abuse ever turned sexual or not. You learned this quite early on in your marriage. Instead of scorning their ridiculous intrusion into your conduct, you even joined in the accommodation. Bad LW3! There might have been some interest in examining the reform had it not been for the disturbing new development. And you are quite right to be disturbed. People who are coddled and accommodated so long, like Sir Walter Elliot, get worse and worse. H3 showed early on that he would not cut off his family for intolerable conduct. In reality, he ought to have murdered his brother several decades ago. Fear of imprisonment ought not to have deterred him, as there would have been available to him the services of at least one barrister with a lifetime's experience in getting murderers acquitted.<br />
<br />
Should you choose to remain married, however, there is always entrapment if H3 does not feel up to murder. Correspondence is possible if U3 is not particularly wary and discerning. Or there could well be some way to catch MIL3 and U3 doing something that, while not yet of an endangering nature to D3, is clearly Out of Bounds. H3 should be active in devising such a scenario.<br />
<br />
Dear LW4: Divorce your husband on grounds of insufficient intelligence. Anyone with any sense would have long ago imported a dead bed bug or several into the home in question and presented them to F4s to demonstrate the need for new bedding NOW!<br />
<br />
Moral: "A baronet must be seen to live like a baronet."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-83083133448396385272012-09-13T09:18:00.004-07:002012-09-13T09:18:37.512-07:009/13 - The Austenian ApproachDear LW1: Your mother has obviously taken for her role model that anti-paragon of parenthood, Mrs Bennet. We are told frequently that it takes a great effort on the part of Mr Bennet to be able to keep the household expenditure down to a level that is just barely within his income. I recall reading a spot-on critique once of Mrs Bennet in which her attitude towards Jane's beauty was called that of a <i>procurateuse </i>- the fond mamma viewed her eldest daughter not as someone possessing a sweet and virtuous character but more as a piece of stock that could fetch four or five thousand a year on the marriage market.<br />
<br />
In part, how to handle this feels like a technical question. One wants to call foul on the Prudecutor (well, one wants to do that anyway, if one must be completely honest, about seventeen times every week) for inserting a question that is so much about various legal steps to take. Surely this sort of question ought to be sent to someone more specialized. But it does allow the Prudecutor completely to duck the question of the ongoing relationship with M1. Thankfully, LW1, you have the potential example of an assortment of daughters. Jane would respond that of course it was very wrong of her mother to act so, but would forgive her and probably pay off more of her mother's debts. Elizabeth would have less patience and would probably take appropriate legal steps to restrain her mother's conduct. Mary would spout platitudes about identity theft and then, on a good day, realize that she had no clue what to do about it. Kitty would have a coughing fit. Lydia would adopt her mother's tactic.<br />
<br />
So there you are, LW1 - five separate courses of action. Pick your favourite Miss Bennet, and your dilemma is solved.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear LW2: Do you admire Miss Woodhouse?<br />
<br />
This letter has <i>Emma</i> written all over it. Sarah's genetic disposition could be a complete rewrite of the question of the Dubious Parentage of Harriet Smith. We all recall how Harriet is the Natural Daughter of Somebody. Harriet herself is content with not being able to know her father; Emma, almost immediately after befriending Harriet, is quite sure that, in such a position, she herself would have been both unwilling to settle for such ignorance and successful in discovering her true origins. At least in one respect, LW2, you have the advantage over Emma in that her elaborate suppositions leading to her eventual confidence in Harriet's father being a gentleman are entirely the product of her own fancy, whereas you at least have done research into facts, rather as Mr Knightley might have done.<br />
<br />
The story then takes a turn into one of the few chapters in the book in which Emma does not appear - the conversation between Mr Knightley and Mrs Weston during the course of which Mrs Weston advises that it would be unwise for Mr Knightley to follow his inclination to canvass John and Isabella for their opinions during their upcoming holiday visit. You and Mr Knightley both yielded.<br />
<br />
I would place where the story is now at about the point at which Emma and Mr Knightley have a major difference of opinion. Emma dominates Harriet into refusing the marriage proposal of Robert Martin, shortly after Mr Knightley heard out Robert's plans and advised him that he was proceeding in a sound manner.<br />
<br />
Therein lies your choice, LW2. You doubtless know how your friend will react to various possibilities. You can be Emma, or you can be Mr Knightley. The choice is yours.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear LW3: The Austenian component is a bit thin here. It would certainly be possible to go back to <i>Pride and Prejudice</i> and think of Mr Collins assiduously courting the patronage of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, but I shall move on to <i>Persuasion</i>, where this can be framed as a tricky comparison to the relationship between Sir Walter Elliot and Mrs Clay, especially as the Prudecutor seems to be presuming to side with or feel like Anne Elliot in opining that LW3's male colleagues are jockeying to see exactly which of them gets to be her Sir Walter.<br />
<br />
But this leads me directly to a feminist thread of mentoring that I read from a while back. LW3, you have the idea of a mentor in the back of your mind, but the concept completely sails right over the head of the Prudecutor. Indeed, her attitude is exactly the sort of claptrap that is preventing the expansion of mentoring into the model needed to assist the advancement of women in many fields. The question the Prudecutor completely fails to ask is whether this is how the men are mentoring other men. A personal response would be that one has no idea, but it seems plausible enough. Now one might expand in due course into what necessary differences there may be for cross-gender mentoring, but it would be a bit disappointing for this all to devolve into men, on being told that they must mentor women, as they've been mentoring men, attempting to do exactly that, only to be told that they're Doing It Wrong.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, given this particular situation, your instinct is not to be comfortable with the invitations you've been issued. There ought to be some way to work your way into mentoring situations that is as comfortable to you as the current system is to the younger men these elders mentor. The Prudecutor's road doesn't go there.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear LW4: While I can hear Mrs Elton proclaim that their coachman and horses are so extremely expeditious, and that she believes they drive faster than anybody, I'll pop over to <i>Northanger Abbey</i> instead. Although John and Isabella Thorpe are brother and sister instead of husband and wife, they fit neatly into the same sort of blustery exaggeration as that perpetrated by your friends. Happily, I doubt that they are slated to remain friends much longer.<br />
<br />
Moral: "It is very good advice, and it shall have a better fate than your advice has often found; for it shall be attended to."hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-24324141028638577972012-09-06T05:58:00.000-07:002012-09-06T05:58:00.746-07:004 x 100 againShort on time; here we go.<br />
<br />
L1: Interesting that this sort of issue would arise after forty years of marriage. In one respect, this could be as innocent as Richard Sackbutt's mother inviting a homeless woman home for the night, only this has turned into an extended stay, which is a number of steps too far. Perhaps decades of ministering have not had a good effect on H1, who has taken it on himself to assume more authority than is good for him. Perhaps, too, LW1 and H1 have let spousal communication fall into such a state of disrepair that this problem is more symptom than cause.<br />
<br />
L3: This could be a technical question. To what extent does the Jewish faith play a central role in this question? It could be a great deal. Odd that all the tales of the Old Bailey contain no open Jews, when there are many lawyers and judges as openly Christian as Soapy Sam Ballard. My main question here is why LW3 would assume that she couldn't ask BF3 about the non-invitation. Under what kind of code are these families operating that everything done must proceed under such a veil of secrecy and second-guessing of motivations rather than open discussion? How Venetian.<br />
<br />
L4: The answer is secondarily about the dog and primarily about the human relationship. As far as the dog is concerned, if stepparent were more accurate than co-parent, then a significant but unequal contribution would be quite in order. Co-parent could go either way, but the human relationship is probably more to the point. What is the couple's overall financial style? How does money affect their general decision-making process and influence? What does this request tell LW4 about BF4's conduct and character? Where is the relationship going? Do both parties agree? There is much too little information provided by LW4 here.<br />
<br />
L2: I call a foul on the Prudecutor here. Nobody who suggested Operation Brokeback Ambush in deadly seriousness can make any sort of claim about being all twisted up inside over military witch hunts. At most, the Prudecutor did what Mr Knightley suggests Emma did during the four years when she was supposedly labouring to bring about the match between Mr Weston and Miss Taylor, that she just had a stray thought to that effect one day and repeated it to herself every so often. A case can be made for staying, but on balance leaving wins. My sympathies to LW2.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-27764969237725351672012-08-30T11:08:00.001-07:002012-08-30T11:08:15.124-07:008/30 - One Letter OnlyAs the Prudecutor finally addressed the main point of Homocentric August directly (while both revealingly and badly), it seems fitting to close off the month by looking exclusive at L3, in her response to which the Prudecutor cannot make herself more clear. The opening sentence shimmers with unPrudecutorlike brevity and lack of equivocation - "Invite him." Now, perhaps this may surprise some readers, but my response is not going to be an instantaneous, "Don't invite him." A kneejerk call in either direction is automatically wrong in approach, even if it turns out to be the stopped clock in this particular direction.<br />
<br />
I shall begin by parsing the Prudecutor's reply. I don't know where she gets the idea that she is agreeing with LW3 about the world changing, as LW3 never said any such thing. Conflating living openly and entering marriages suggests a simultaneity that does not exist, probably for some nefarious purpose. The article to which she linked was quite weak. At the very least, President Obama ended up, deliberately or otherwise, hiding behind the most politically palatable reason for his change of heart, his daughters. Actual gay people entering actual social institutions had nothing to do with it; his daughters have friends with same-sex-couple parents. It is possible to view his support as indirectly insulting. I do not share such a view, but can see how some people conclude much similar support to be based on the idea that, because Queers Are Raising Kids (clutch pearls!), they had better be made as assimilated and normal-looking as possible - a sort of twist on Miss Barrett in <em>Up the Down Staircase</em> summing up her student Linda Rosen for the school psychologist with, "Marry her off quick." <br />
<br />
Saving the Prudecutor's speculation on motive for another paragraph, and her assumption about the meaning of BU3's accepting such an invitation for another, I shall jump ahead. There is something missing from the Prudecutor's response. If I were in true Conspiracy Theorist Mode, I might speculate both that this was indicative of something sinister in the Prudecutor's mentality and something that (almost) none of the straight commenters would catch. But I am not in such mode. I shall even go so far as to pay my readers the compliment that doubtless they all caught the glaring omission of the Standard Meaningless Prudecutorial Congratulations And Best Wishes bestowed upon any couple on the point of marrying or family-expanding.<br />
<br />
Moving on to motive, the Prudecutor is quite right to point out that there could have been various reasons for BU3's vote. True, some votes against marriage equality are based on genuine opposition, while others are based on political expediency. The Prudecutor appears to feel that a vote based on political expediency means that said voter should get a free pardon in such matters as social invitations, but is a bit too much of a weasel to state such a thing explicitly. Here she lines up squarely in the same camp as Karl Rove (according to Andrew Sullivan). Circa late 2004, Mr Rove patronized a barbershop with a predominantly gay clientele. Apparently, relations were at least reasonably civil all round. Then Mr Bush was re-elected, largely due to Mr Rove's pushing for much of the re-election campaign to be tied to the backs of anti-gay ballot measures. When Mr Rove next appeared to have his hair cut, he was reportedly stunned by the unfriendly treatment he encountered. Why should anyone have taken offence when there was nothing personal about anything he'd done?<br />
<br />
I take similar interest in the Prudecutor's presumption about the meaning of BU3's possible acceptance of the putative invitation. It would show that he's open to admitting he was wrong? That might coincide, but A would not necessarily imply B. And this leads me to an interesting view of Who Really Benefits from the system the Prudecutor recommends. I do think, by the way, that BU3 could have voted for the ban in a way that made his personal dissent clear, although in such a case think it highly unlikely that LW3 would at present be experiencing such angst.<br />
<br />
LW3 mentions a fear of offending other family members if BU3 is not invited. Presumably, then, EF3 have brought pressure to bear on LW3 not to make waves or not to have any visceral reaction to BU3's objectionable vote in company. Flipping the coin, one deduces similar pressure on BU3 not to make too great a display of prejudice in public. And the same familial forces that would be offended if LW3 were to withhold the invitation would presumably be equally offended if BU3 were to decline it. What, then, becomes the picture? LW3 grits teeth and invites; BU3 grits teeth and accepts. Neither wants to be in company with the other and it spoils the day, but both capitulate to keep the Tyrannous Middle happy. It's quite reminiscent of Tom's account in <em>Daria</em> of how the Sloanes always handle problems by pretending they don't exist, which is inconvenient when there are odours involved.<br />
<br />
Now for some points about which L3 is unclear. BU3 served as an elected official. Presumably he is out of office at present. When, oh, when, did the vote occur? What were the political consequences and follow-up? How has BU3 addressed the matter within the family, if at all? I suspect that he has not had to address the issue within the family, and that perhaps there has been considerable pressure exerted on him to avoid doing so. Or perhaps he has been able to skate along in the presumption that of course his entire family agrees with him. Oh, dear. Has LW3 had any contact with BU3 about the nauseating vote? Has BU3 met LW3 and F3 as a couple? Perhaps most importantly, has BU3 <em>apologized</em> in any way, shape or form?<br />
<br />
I shall now jump ahead a bit and propose a solution. I suggest that LW3 contact BU3 privately - assuming, of course, that the date retains some wiggle room. LW3's tone should be one of presuming and completely accepting that BU3 doesn't want to attend the wedding any more than LW3 wants to invite him. The contact should be an offer to conspire to hold the wedding on a date on which BU3 could not possibly attend. Then nobody has to confront the Tyrannous Middle.<br />
<br />
In one respect, the Tyrannous Middle subconsciously play into the hands of the Bigots. It is not often stated, but I am convinced that the TM, as does the Prudecutor herself, is quite attached to the Gay Doormat, who will always Be the Bigger Person, Turn the Other Cheek, and Accept Hateful Behaviour in exchange for the few Crumbs of Approval the TM deign to provide. If BU3 has not apologized, then one of the main signals sent by Just Inviting Him thoughtlessly because it's the Thing to Do is that Bigots Can Mistreat Queers as badly as they like and <em>still</em> be invited to their weddings. For a prime example of this, Mr Savage was recently so foolish as to invite one of the main bigots, Mr Brown, <em>into his own home</em> for dinner and a Biblical debate that 95 people out of a hundred could have predicted would come to no gain for either side. Mr Savage was sufficiently deluded to think that such a gesture would force Mr Brown to acknowledge his humanity. Mr Brown has not done so. Huge net loss for us across the board, as now our homophobic relatives will feel entitled to similar treatment. After all, if the Head F***** can do it...<br />
<br />
I can almost feel wave after wave of commentator glaring at me for daring to think that issuing the invitation might not necessarily automatically be Best. Let me guess. Almost all of the Just Invite Him crowd are straight, straight, straightstraightSTRAIGHT. Well, isn't that special, as Church Lady would say, without a question mark. The Prudecutor did, to her credit, manage to avoid the common pitfall of making a comparison between BU3 and that irritating relative that opposite-sex couples only invite out of obligation. While there is much that L3 did not include, we do know in part from such a system of omission that LW3 feels deeply wounded by BU3's vote. And I sincerely doubt anyone in the Just Invite Him crowd has experienced anything like what LW3 has experienced in the form of a potential guest <em>actually casting a vote on record in opposition to the very possibility of the marriage</em>. Even if the invitations to the wedding took on a remarkable similarity to everybody in the class giving a Valentine to everyone else except Charlie Brown, LW3 would be entirely justified in taking that vote as a complete dealbreaker.<br />
<br />
I shall close with disappointment that certain family members will be offended if the invitation is not issued. Offended? Offended is what LW3 has every right to be by that disgusting Amendment, in addition to the conduct of BU3 in voting for it. If that's the dealbreaker, so be it; there shall be no reproach from me. If not, and LW3 can invite BU3 with peace and joy at heart, then fine, though I still hope something prevents BU3's actual attendance.<br />
<br />
The Prudecutor should be ashamed of herself.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7431190409861224426.post-13514395035522230832012-08-23T06:30:00.001-07:002012-08-23T06:30:33.475-07:008/23 - Would That Be Phobic?Dear LW4: W4 presumably has some sort of phobia, but it would not be phobic of you to divorce her. People might find such tricks charming or cute or harmless. Really, it manifests a mental attitude that is little short of the mindset of the Queen of Hearts when one thinks about it. If you don't divorce W4, who has shown such a demonstrable phobia for accuracy, at least be sure that you negotiate a similar concession (though likely you already have one and just don't recognize it).<br />
<br />
Dear LW1: We are all capable of loving things which ought not to form part of our daily surroundings, be those things children or ice cream or maddeningly attractive serial cheaters. You are to be commended for appreciating that your style of life would not create a suitable atmosphere for a child. Accepting this is not demonstrating a phobia of disorders, but rather humane attitudes about acceptable home environments. But this is not necessarily all bad. It gives you one of the best of goals to motivate your desire to change. Change is difficult, often unpleasant, and generally not really something towards which those who may know they must change without feeling it are able to work with an undivided will. You may well find out the full extent of how capable you are of abandoning your routine, which could be information of great use to you.<br />
<br />
Oh - and don't foster, either. I could add, be thankful that you aren't a heterosexual couple, as they just tend to get pregnant often when they are actively trying to avoid doing so, but some people would consider that heterophobic, and therefore I won't.<br />
<br />
Dear LW2: Welcome to dealbreakers 101! The odds are that whatever D2 has done might not rise to standards sufficient for declining the stipend. But these are matters which each must decide for himself. There are those who might accept (however cringingly) a Trump Fellowship who might draw the line at some other public figure considered more reprehensible, and others who would decline an offer from a less nauseating source.<br />
<br />
But I am almost inclined to emulate Antony Blanche in speculating about the crimes D2 has committed, as you seem to be reacting the same way most of fashionable Venice did when Lady Marchmain's presence led to the shunning of Lord Marchmain and all those connected to him. Visions of murder, rape or heterosexuality might arise. (I shall resist the temptation to cite the stereotype that heterosexuals never fund fellowships because they waste all their cash on abortions or the upbringing of the results of all their unplanned pregnancies, as that would be rather heterophobic.) Now heterophobia might likely cause your declining the offer, but would not necessarily coincide with it. But it is just as legitimate for you to claim to have accepted for Macchiavellian reasons.<br />
<br />
To be practical, there ought to be a Moral Fellowship Swap, where people who have been offered fellowships from objectionable sources can swap the moral intentions of their donors.<br />
<br />
Dear LW3: Here we have another case for Lucy Angkatell. If T3 were male, you would have no compunction about reporting to the appropriate authorities that he'd indulged in predatory conduct towards F3, and quite right and proper. But T3 is female. No doubt you consider yourself a young person of character, imbued with the noble ideal of being heteroaccepting. Good for you. But you clearly fear that it would be heterophobic of you to report T3. Perhaps there would be a little pleasure in the reporting on that account, which is where Lady A comes in. As she rightly points out, it is much trickier when the right thing to do is pleasant. But, as people as well-regarded as Mr Savage tell us so often, not all heterosexuals are good people. Equality means that they are capable of beimg just as villainous as anybody else. It is not heterophobic to dish out equal punishment when they are.hrumpolehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07222741183212487472noreply@blogger.com0