10/7 - MUCH Shorter than Usual

I hardly know what to say, finding the Prudecutor's response to L1 so offensive that it may make me consider whether, as has been the case with the series Bones and the writer Regina Barreca, I ought not just to give up DP. At any rate, it has made me determined not to spend all day cross-examining and analogizing everyone to death. Accordingly, today we get a Quickie Version.

L1: I am inclined to take a Biblical tack with this one. Is there not some saying about casting forth the mote from thine own eye before attending to that of one's neighbour? Whatever LW1's husband may or may not be doing obviously has some relevance, but a good and thorough examination of her own state of affairs is in order if she wants to make a confrontation out of this or even just take on the situation in a reasonable manner. What of her own friendships? Can she state with confidence that none of her friends might be regarded by her husband the way she views her kids' unrelated Uncle? There are a great many more Aunts of this nature.

It is unfortunate that this couple has not developed the mechanics for being able to have the I'm Jealous Conversation without it degenerating into Are You Making Me Drop X? That is a concern, the main one in my view. But of course that has to be able to go both ways.

If I were in long-winded vein I might start in on my theory about Social Orientation and how most people are homosocial as well as heterosexual, and how some people might have a more delicate balance of those opposing orientations than others. We don't know that LW1 has a friendship that her husband finds similarly irksome. If she doesn't, she's on more solid ground. But it might be harder for the couple to find an amiable resolution if one of them has a much stronger social orientation than the other.

If I had to make a wild guess, I'd suppose that LW1's husband might well have been socially starved for a period of time - that's common enough, and not necessarily a biggie to resolve. There could be more there, but this is one of those areas where I've seen such inequity the other way that I can't raise much outrage if it's true. But I won't object to Ms Mermaid's giving H1 what he might deserve.

L2: What possible difference does it make whether LW2 is wrong or not? Naturally given the circumstances (s)he is focusing on a point of theoretical rather than practical importance. Maybe later there will be time to address the issue with the granddaughters. At the moment, there are other things rather higher up on the priority list.

L3: Well, why were these people LW3's friends in the first place? Actually, the Prudecutor struck me as being more offensive in this reply than she was on the first letter, but the Prudecution has supplied a useful way to frame the answer. Are these friends genuinely the sort of people who would make hypocritical critical comments while cadging rides (as the Prudecutor apparently thinks is a 100% probability)? If so, then just thank them for convincing you that Rush Limbaugh is right about them and drive off. Problem solved.

Then again, while I would readily accept that the Prudecutor might well have lived all her life without meeting any such people, there are those for whom the moral choices of self and friends form regular topics of conversation. [Reference omitted.] One might establish with LW3 whether the questions and remarks, if not crass and hypocritcal, were only reflections of a genuine and reasonable concern just gone too far or badly phrased (potentially fixable) or if there might be a bit of defensiveness in play as well, perhaps for good reason.

I am having a mental coin flip on this one. Perhaps LW3 just needs to drop the environazis/death penalty uberprotestors. Or perhaps LW3 has found something admirable about them, and has closeted his/her opulent tendencies in order to win their approval. I'm almost sorry to be omitting references this week, because this letter has a flavour to it of the closeted person who has passed for something with great success and feels resentment when he wants to be himself but finds that his friends took his posturing seriously. Perhaps LW3 has convinced them that his/her social conscience is as big as theirs (at least more or less) - maybe there have been misestimations on both sides.

The one example I'll give is of the musical theatre director who made a $1,000 donation to the campaign in favour of Proposition 8, and whose name was listed among the donors. It seems to be a case of his not having realized the full implications. Many people who'd worked with him were upset, and some called overhastily for reprisals. Sadly, he ended up resigning from the theatre in order not to cause it any harm. He made a public statement of support for domestic partnership while reaffirming love and support for his lesbian sister and her [other] rights, and donated another thousand dollars to a gay rights organization. One would hope LW3, if his friends are basically worth keeping, will have a happier resolution.

L4: There are those who really cannot be at peace with the universe unless they are entirely (or nearly so) pleased and delighted with their own appearance. There are those who don't care much in general, and will gladly aim their choices towards the objective of pleasing a partner. There are those who don't care much about a particular point in principle, but would feel that yielding to a partner's preference would equate to being controlled - perhaps a feeling towards which the partner's attitude and reactions in attempting to push a desired choice has contributed.

I have known a number of men over the years who don't particular care about their hair at all as long as it has not reached a certain length. When it does, they get it cut very short for economy. (Personally, I always cut my own hair because I would rather have it look less than optimal than have to cope with the nasty comments I'd be sure to get at the very least about the colour if I ever took it to be cut by anybody else.) My guess would be that LW4 has come off or been interpreted as controlling in her attempts to keep H4's hair from being cut too short. If not, then let LW4 pay for more regular hair care, one way or another.

Well, I still don't know whether this will be my final DP post or not. Sorry for the poor quality.

9/30 - Happy Families, Agatha-Style

The more I read of people jumping down the throat of the "Grammar Police" LW from Monday, the more surprised I am that the commercial showing Mrs McMahon kicking a man in the privates was authorized by her primary opponent's campaign and not her own. Has it really become such a horrid thing to want to sound educated or at all refined? I wonder what would happen if someone were to update Eliza Doolittle. Would Enry Iggins have to learn to talk like a chimneysweep?

I don't recall seeing anyone mention that it seems highly probable that someone consistently saying, "I seen," would be committing assorted assaults upon standard grammar on a regular basis. This was just the only one sufficiently grating to annoy the LW in question. It does seem that there ought to be a way for him to ask about her idiosyncracy/cies without coming across as correcting her or appearing to assume she doesn't know standard grammar.

Personally, I know a handful of people who consistently say, "He don't." One of them was my last employer. Beyond perhaps responding, "Doesnt he?" once, I never felt inclined to correct anyone, but it might put me off dating someone. But in some situations it can be fun to play with grammar. It reminds me of a couple of role playing scenarios I've done in which a character started out sounding fairly erudite only for the grammar to disintegrate as the situation progressed. There's an interesting sort of allure in that when it's done well.

On to the Thursday lot, which for some reason all made me think of various Christie works.

L1: This is one of those situations in which I'm not entirely sure whom to cross-examine first. The obvious line is to discover how much proof if any Bob and Helen have of the swinging ever having actually occurred. Their behaviour has been so odd, I'm not sure I want to hazard a guess about anything they say, but it certainly suggests that the reason for the couples' falling out would not reflect credit upon them. What exactly they might have wanted now (assuming that there were more to the situation than just the tapes, if they existed) would probably be too much for my poor digestion if I were to hazard a guess, but it seems that LW1 and brother ought to be able to deal with anything that might be revealed.

But I can lob a question or two at LW1 as well. It is interesting that LW1 simply presents the revelation without any commentary. There are hints that LW1 took the revelation to be true, and that it seems to constitute a point of some sort of shame or other, but it would be nice to get things nailed down. And it is particularly interesting that it seems to be more the lifestyle than the (if true) choice of partners that is the problem, but we need not require that LW1 be completely fair or high-minded to feel for the situation.

I have a double comparison here. I might remind LW1 of Virginia Revel in *The Secret of Chimneys*. A young widow who returns home to find a caller asking for money in exchange for returning a packet of love letters signed with her name but which she never wrote (and inadvertently revealing that he presumed her husband still to be alive), she gives the blackmailer forty pounds on account in part because she'd wondered what it was like to be blackmailed and in part because she wants, if possible, to shield whoever the other Virginia Revel is and perhaps buy some time for the other woman. After all, the blackmailer won't go looking for the real writer once he thinks he's found his mark, and she can give him a nasty surprise at their subsequent interview. That the blackmailer turns up dead in her house shortly afterwards complicates the proceedings somewhat.

As for Bob and Helen, I am not nearly as convinced of the truth of their story as LW1 appears to be;. Could there be any motive for them to make it all up - say, the way Nick Buckley in *Peril at End House* admits that she is secretly engaged to a missing aviator? Of course, Nick, whose real name is Magdala, has an excellent motive - Michael's rich uncle had died shortly before. Nick appears to have had several escapes from death. Most dramatically, her cousin Maggie, wearing Nick's distinctive shawl, is shot and killed. We don't find out for some time that Maggie's real name was also Magdala, and that Nick shot Maggie and stole Michael's love letters because Michael and Nick had been friendly enough in the eyes of the world that his will, leaving everything to Magdala Buckley, would naturally be assumed to refer to her.

There may be some points of LW1's parents' conduct that conflict with this revelation or show them in a considerably more unflattering light than the mere selection of partners would suggest. In such a case, one can only advise LW1 to be as charitable as possible, and let as much as possible remain unspoiled of parental memories. The intruders can be dealt with by legal means and restrained from further contact. There doesn't seem much point in attempting a line of appeasement to prevent any spreading of rumours. Let us just hope that they don't claim parentage.

L2: Gracious - more blackmail. LW2's sister wno't attend her father's retirement party (merged into the company holiday party) unless there's an insertion of acknowledgment of her boyfriend's birthday when the vast majority of party guests will have no idea who he is and when there is a counter-offer of an event intended exclusively in his honour? These sisters must have been at it for decades. They are certainly a well-oiled machine. How important is the family business, one wonders? It can't hurt to get out of both of them whether this particular boyfriend or one of his predecessors has been a prominent accessory before now in their little power play. But I am most interested in the boyfriend. Is he fully participating in the silly demand and threat? If not, how aware is he of what is going on and being demanded on his behalf? While it's unlikely that he can succeed in telling the sister to behave herself, does he have any influence? And how does he take the sister's dealings with the family - with indifference? active support? muted opposition?

It would be nice if the boyfriend could be part of the solution, as otherwise there really isn't much of a satisfactory solution. In order to avoid hurting the feelings of the honouree of the day, the little blackmailing jerk gets her way. LW2 could perhaps put the case to her father, but I suspect that Daddy might have been a point of contention between the sisters on multiple occasions, and that his likely thinking appeasement not to be a big deal won't make LW2 feel any better. If there is anything LW2 might do, it might be to unearth any employee birthday(s) that might be sufficiently close to the party and just have a little Birthday Moment that naturally can include the sister's boyfriend. Alternatively, she can just wash her hands of it and let the sister do as she pleases if she really wants to cram in the extra bit, but I suspect things might have gone too far for that by now.

I am reminded of *Hercule Poirot's Christmas* in which Poirot goes to stay with Simeon Lee, an old man who has gathered all his surviving children round him for the holiday, much to their own discomfort, which he intends to make even more uncomfortable. That his granddaughter turns out to be an impostor and that a couple of his unacknowledged children turn up as well add considerably to the flavour of the holiday and his murder.

L3: Now here we have a letter very similar to one or two other letters we have had recently. There was the Jewish-agnostic LW whose fiancee's relations regularly made remarks that he knew would offend the more religious members of his family. There was the Grammar Cop mentioned earlier. And now we have LW3. Three men who suffer embarrassment in one way or another that can be traced back to the women of their choice.

There is one significant point of interest here. Both of the first two LWs described their own backgrounds in complimentary terms as liberal and well-educated, and their loved ones as having had upbringings that were backward in nature. LW3 does not, as they did, imply his own Better-than-Hers circumstances which some colleagues who go in for rewrites of What LWs are Really Saying might translate to snooty. LW3 actually comes out and calls his place of employment snooty. Very interesting.

In fact, LW3 seems, in this day and age of wild partisanship, one of the last of the Vanishing Moderates. He does not gush on about what a wonderful wife he has only to insert a BUT of gigantic proportions. He seems rather moderate about her choice of employment - not understanding but supportive. There might even be an outside possibility that this is a straightforward etiquette question about what to do when there is an embarrassing pause in the conversation because his snooty co-workers expect all the spouses of co-workers to be more or less prestigiously employed. Not that one really thinks that, but it's a possible interpretation.

One must have a bit of a go with LW3. How right is his assessment of his wife's employment history being due to her difficulties with authority figures? Why does he not understand her current choice of employer? Is it simply that, as a number of posters have observed, the food service industry might not exactly be all that low-stress, or does he rank with those annoying posters and the Prudecutor herself in thinking that She Ought to Be Doing Better and Should Be in Counseling? What exactly is snooty about the agency? And where does the awkwardness come in? Are his coworkers really so incapable of wrapping their heads around the concept that not every spouse will be a Credit to the Firm (ugh!), or is LW3's own shame about his wife rearing its head?

Of course, the practical thing would be to tell LW3 that he probably won't have this problem much longer. Once she finds food service less low-stress than she expects, she may well be on to something else, and then it will be Problem Solved. Perhaps he can persuade her to find employment that will be less controversial for him. It's a bit of a shame that Exotic Dancer is probably out of the question at her age. Or is it? (I know so little about women, at least in such areas.) But telling co-workers his wife is an exotic dancer seems to carry more of hint of ducking the question than saying she's in fast food. People may think it equally non-serious, but take it as a polite-but-humourous brush-off.

Then, of course, one might ask whether he should even give a truthful answer at all to such a question. If there's little chance of his wife ever meeting any of his co-workers, he doesn't seem particularly obligated to provide truthful answers. After all, he is not being cross-examined in a court of law. And by the time anyone might find out, chances are that his wife won't be employed at the same place anyway.

The weird thing about this letter is that there may well be a conflict within LW3 - he might genuinely be happier if he were to quit his job and take employment that matches hers. Perhaps they can't afford it. He doesn't seem enthusiastic about his line of work. He might be the sort of negative example his wife considered when she decided to opt out of the Rat Race.

I would commend to LW3's attention Aristide Leonides in *Crooked House*. A Greek from Smyrna, who always found ways to make tons of money by going around the law, he managed to make two successful marriages to vastly different women who never went over well with his business associates. The first was a woman definitely fitting the adjective County (they had eight children) and the second a waitress about as old as his granddaughter.

I'm not sure how long it will take me to get over the nasty comments from the Prudecutor and others about the wife doing better and needing therapy. Why on earth does everyone have to have challenging work or a career that utilizes as close to the full range of capacity as possible? What of those who put their real passion and energy into non-profitable pursuits and simply work enough to enable them to do what they find meaningful? Or what of those who would take something that fell into their laps but don't care for the dehumanizing and degrading process of playing the Corporate Game to get it? Oof.

L4: We finish with a case of impersonation. I'd ask LW4 if (s)he is at least getting a Vermeer out of the deal, as Miss Gilchrist did when she impersonated Cora Lansquenet at Cora's rich brother's funeral in *After the Funeral* and dropped the possibility of his having been murdered into the conversation to create a diversion from her subsequent murder of the real Cora - or ten thousand dollars, the fee agreed upon for Carlotta Adams to impersonate Jane Wilkinson at a dinner party in *Lord Edgware Dies*, although sadly, Jane's poisoning of Carlotta later that evening prevented Carlotta from enjoying the fee. As impersonation always leads to disaster, I'd advise LW4 to decline, the wise course even if the incentive involved is highly tempting.

9/23 - With a Special Guest Columnist

As we continue to get up to full speed after the recent change of internet, and as She Who Must Be Obeyed took exception to one of the letters, I have lined up a special guest this week who, I must admit, possesses considerable expertise on the subjects of being bullied at school, feminine attributes, daddies finding time to be at home and coping with difficult houseguests. As his wife, the Portia of our Chambers, has been away trying a long firm fraud in Hong Kong and has therefore been unable to approve this week's substitution, I shall introduce him by his initials, and ask you all to welcome to the column the inimitable C.E.B.:

Dear Readers,

I thank you all for your kind attention and crave your indulgence as one unaccustomed to column writing. Phylly, my wife, has always discouraged me from writing, but if Rumpole does it it really can't be all that difficult, can it? After all, he never took silk. And I must admit that Phylly has a tendency to underestimate my capacities, strange as it may seem. It would be rather nice being married to a judge if she weren't so inclined to be - well, judgemental. But enough of domestic bliss in Islington. I understand that the purpose of this column is to provide much needed guidance to four seriously lost letter writers, so let me begin:

L1: Dear LW1, so you were bullied at school by a teacher? It takes me right back to Bogshead, where we had to run three times around Tug's Patch before breakfast on saints' days and get up at 6:00 for early school on Saturdays. And it was a teacher who always had it in for me who gave me that nickname Collie that has stuck with me for the rest of my life. I completely sympathize with you. But you are looking at the situation the wrong way around. Naturally it's one thing as a child to hate school and all the teachers who aren't kind to us, but now you are on the other side. Seek out your former teacher, and see if she can recommend any particular students who occupy the same position you did, and now it's your turn to perform the same kind service that was done for you. After all, if it hadn't been for going to Bogshead and Winchester, I'm sure I'd never be where I am today, a successful Queen's Counsel. And if being bullied at school were really all that bad, we shouldn't keep sending our children to those schools - well, at least, our sons (but I'd rather not dwell on Phylly's adverse reaction to Tristan being sent to a boys' school where Isolde couldn't go with him).

L2: Dear LW2, I must admit that your letter interests me most of all. And it was this letter which induced my dear friend Rumpole to recruit me to substitute for him this week. Now, this is an area where I happen to have acquired considerable expertise. You may remember my picture appearing in the Daily Beacon when I was photographed in the Kitten-a-Go-Go Club at the very moment when, it just so happened, the young lady dancing had just removed her brassiere. Of course, I would never have entered such premises had it not been that I'd been sent a brief in a case of Actual Bodily Harm that had resulted from an affray that had occurred in the club. Rumpole, who takes cases of common assault far more often than I, had advised me to visit the locus in quo in order to cross-examine witnesses on the geography. While perhaps not in the class of an evening of Wagner at Covent Garden, the entertainment on offer was lively, and I did receive substantial damages when the Beacon was forced to admit that I visited the club solely in my legal capacity.

Now, as for your coworker's attributes, I shall take a page from Rumpole's book and cross-examine you about them. Are they firm? Are they large? Are they perky, like Liz Probert's? discreet, like Fiona Allways'? Exactly what size is the brassiere she isn't wearing? Perhaps it might be of an unusual size that makes it difficult for her to find appropriate undergarments. If your business failed, would she be able to support herself by dancing at the Kitten-a-Go-Go Club?

In fact, the more I consider the situation, the more inclined I am to cross-examine your friend in person - as long as she's not... well, fat, as my former pupil Wendy Crump was. Rumpole always called her a brilliant cross-examiner, but then, of course, Rumpole is so portly himself that he can't see clearly the advantages of having a slim pupil. If your concern is because your friend is overweight and your clients will find the view unappealing, I am entirely on your side. But otherwise, I think you might be missing an opportunity here. Doubtless your friend has been bringing in more business than the other two of you combined - you should all (provided, of course, that none of you are fat) follow her excellent example and watch business skyrocket.

L3: Dear LW3, I am entirely on your side. It is vitally important that a father spend as much time home with his child as possible. In fact, I don't think, after she got pregnant, that Phylly and I would even have gotten married at all if I hadn't been so determined to arrange my schedule so that I spent rather less time in court or Chambers and much more time at home with the baby. A father's influence cannot be overstated.

It strikes me as possible that the problem might be on your end. After all, while I was spending every afternoon and evening at home with Tristan, Phylly was always in court doing important cases. What you need is to have your clerk get you a few civil cases - perhaps even in the Chancery Division, if you're lucky, and then your husband will have to stay home more than he does. However, as it may take time to build up your practice, in the meantime you might call upon your husband's employers in person and see if you can convince them to see reason about making his hours more suitable. Phylly has always been a tremendous advocate, and I believe she even convinced our Head of Chambers, Sam Ballard, to tell the Lord Chancellor's office that I had been showing a great deal of gravitas and bottom the year I finally took silk. And Rumpole's wife Hilda has always been formidable in argument. Take the appropriate wifely role, LW3, and things should sort themselves.

L4: Dear LW4, I can relate to your situation as well. Tristan and Isolde do on occasion have friends over for meals during the holidays. Phylly and I have always been most generous in our offers to share our meusli, but quite a lot of our houseguests don't want to deprive us of our supply. They kindly insist on preparing their own meals, as Rumpole did when he put up with us after he and Hilda had a disagreement about an off-colour joke he told at the Scales of Justice Dinner at the Savoy. At any rate, we are quite at ease with our guests declining to share in our particular delectables.

Rumpole would doubtless enjoy himself cross-examining you on why your daughter has only one friend and such an unpleasant one at that, but I shall offer rather more practical counsel. Your problem is what to do when your visitor complains about the repast on offer. The solution is simple. Do as I do and simply stuff the buds of your Walkman into your ears and listen to a bit of Wagner. I find the Love Duet particularly enjoyable, especially when I can imagine Liz Probert or Luci Gribble... well, I'd better leave it there and, on that note, conclude my column. I have enjoyed filling in for Rumpole, and hope to do so again the next time any of the questions cause dissatisfaction to Hilda.

What I Did During My Enforced Holiday

In preparation for the resumption of regular service, I thought I might as well provide an account of the project I undertook during the lengthy period of internet overhaul. Wanting something useful to do, I thought I might compile a list of all the costumes in which the Daria characters appear during the running of the closing credits and select a group of the best of the approximately 300 overall. After unsuccessful attempts to narrow it down to a Top Ten, I have selected a Top Twenty and added five for duo/group selections.

Duo/Group:

5 - BRITTANY and KEVIN in ROLE REVERSAL with Brittany as QB and Kevin cheerleading.

4 - MS BARCH and MR O'NEIL playing TWISTER

3 - JOEY/JEFFY/JAMIE as THE THREE MUSKETEERS

2 - DARIA and TOM as Grant Wood's AMERICAN GOTHIC

1 - The FASHION CLUB as a BOYBAND

Individual:

20 - Exemplary African-American student JODY as JOAN CRAWFORD - a chance to be the perfectionist parent she suffers under

19 - Jody's boyfriend/Kevin's longsuffering teammate MAC as JAMES BOND - he gets to propel himself far away from Kevin

18 - Fashion Club doormat STACY as ALICE plying croquet - could go with her Baby Jane, Carrie or Coppertone Girl

17 - Sensitive English teacher MR O'NEIL as BRAVEHEART - as inappropriate for this as he is for the Incredible Hulk and a better costume

16 - Goth ANDREA as THAT GIRL - painful hair change for her

15 - One of Quinn's suitors JAMIE as the DUTCH BOY PAINT BOY - not really a stretch

14 - Hypervigiliant principal MS LI as EVA PERON - decent typecasting

13 - Trent's bandmate JESSE as a GAME SHOW HOST - it required a shirt

12 - Fashion Club's vacuous TIFFANY as CHER - just beating out her Pokemon

11 - Daria's sister QUINN as PIPPI LONGSTOCKING - the one look Quinn would never undertake

10 - Dim bulb QB KEVIN as the MAD HATTER - could have gone with his George Washington, Gilligan or Boy George, but bonus points for the Hatter's disproportionate head

9 - Aggressive feminist MS BARCH as MONICA LEWINSKI - complete with a back view of Bill Clinton

8 - Flirtatious but repulsive UPCHUCK as AUSTIN POWERS - excellent typecasting

7 - Dim cheerleader BRITTANY as Rodin's THE THINKER - too classic

6 - Irate history teacher MR DeMARTINO as LIBERACE - the smile is terrifying

5 - DARIA as MOTHER GOOSE - could have gone with her Scarlett O'Hara, Elmo, Sinead O'Connor or Aphrodite, but bonus points for the goose and her get-me-out-of-here expression.

4 - Jane's brother TRENT as DARIA - again, many alternatives, such as his figure skater, mime, PeeWee Herman or Peter Pan

3 - Daria's mother HELEN as LADY GODIVA - bonus points because the horse is carrying her briefcase in its mouth

2 - One of Quinn's suitors JEFFY as MARILYN MONROE with the skirt blowing up - suits his expression really well

1 - Daria's best friend JANE dancing the CAN-CAN - Jane probably deserves a Top Ten of her own with her geisha, Snow White, Rapunzel, Emma Peel, Shirley Temple, Frida Kahlo, Whistler's Mother, manyhanded goddess and David Bowie in some order or other.

That should give people a good idea of what I did on my enforced holiday when I was not watching the tennis or writing a very long poem. Speaking of the tennis, it was interesting that Rafael Nadal made the first unsolicited comment about 9/11 (after his semifinal) I've heard since Elena Dementieva made similar remarks six years ago, the last time the 11th was the second Saturday of the tournament.

8/26 - The Misery Chick

My impression of Monday is that a number of people seemed to be ranting about the process of college admissions - one of the things that can make judging figure skating look sane, rational and objective. Inequities are inevitable, and the best one can do is try to learn from them and take reasonable steps to reduce them. I for one am not sure that the world would be a better place if all inequities in college admissions were suddenly eradicated - not that I can see that as at all possible.

The situation in general does remind me a little of figure skating. One of the major criteria for a jump being ratified as clean and scoring the full base value is the matter of rotation. A jump is ratified as fully rotated if the last revolution goes 3/4 of the final turn. And a lot of the people complaining make me think of a skater whose quadruple toe loop goes 3.88 revolutions complaining that someone whose jump went 3.82 revolutions (but likely had a cleaner landing edge and better runout) was given a higher score once the Grade of Execution adjustment was factored in.

I don't know how admissions people manage to stand it. Maybe it's one of those professions that attracts those with sadistic natures, like Mrs Boynton in *Appointment with Death* becoming a prison wardress because she had that sort of temperament rather than coming to act like a jailer because she'd been a wardress in a prison. Even if there's strict policy about how to weigh various factors, it's not as if there's a lot that can be proved in black and white. And how would one want to judge an outside factor such as an Olympic gold medal? (If anyone has heard the story, apparently it's quite true - Sarah Hughes went to an Ivy League school, where one of her professors commented that she seemed familiar and she replied, "I used to skate a bit.")

This week I shall make a brief beginning with *Daria*.

L1: I am tempted to recuse myself. It took my parents more than seven years to divorce after she broke a platter by smashing it on his head, but then they both gave each other ample grounds in numerous other respects along the way before and after that incident. In some respects, I think it's a technical question. People like Ms Mermaid will know the crustimony proseedcake (if one may be Milnian for a moment, although AAM did not make a favourable impression on Mrs Parker) for such a sad situation in the form of the Xs and Os of what LW1 might do the next time his wife hits him.

There is also the question of possible post-partum depression. What has made me wonder for the last hour or so is how great a difference that ought to make. It may make a difference to whether LW1 wants to continue in the marriage if the accurate assessment is that she hits when she wants to but she presumably only wants to hit because of a medical condition that will go away. If that is not the case, then one might want to get a lot of answers about her calm acceptance of the situation. Or then again, it might be irrelevant why she can be so calm about the whole thing. Is he willing to live with this sort of attitude, whether she thinks love only expresses itself through anger verbally and/or physically or whether she saw this sort of conduct every day for her first eighteen years or whether she just feels now that she owns him?

Whatever the specifics of the situation, LW1 is clearly on the Jake Morgendorfer track. He's lost his way while his wife seems firmly on the path she intends to follow. And by the time baby Daria is in high school, LW1 can just look at where Jake and Helen are to see how he's heading towards frustration at practically every turn while Helen, despite the occasionally honest longing to put the spice back in her marriage, basically has the life she wants.

And while it's not as though Helen doesn't come through on occasion, I'd still tell LW1 to end the marriage as soon as possible, with the possible exception of the trouble being comprehensively linked to a firm medical diagnosis that should result in effective treatment. I'd go a bit farther and even consider having the child raised by a different family member; it doesn't deserve this. Now that he's become the husband she wants and that he never wanted to be, it really seems all downhill for him from this point.

Moral: "You took my daughter's poster, altered its content, entered it without her permission, and now you're threatening disciplinary action because she defaced her own poster which you admit to stealing? Ms Li, are you familiar with the phrase, Violation of Civil Liberties? and the phrase, Big Fat Lawsuit?"

L2: What is it with these technical questions? At least it could be a good deal more technical than it is. We could be more mired down in a consideration of whether L2 can claim ownership of a particular diagnosis and the attendant treatment. Instead the question is divided between how to find out, whether to tell the parents and how to cope with the parents as well as the potential diagnosis.

As far as the parents are concerned, the most technical part of the question would seem to be whether or how LW2 might be able to get diagnosed without their finding out. It seems unlikely. One can go all the way back to *Up the Down Staircase* and the school nurse with her list of regulations about what she can't do, so that all she can do for Linda Rosen, who's been hit by her father and come to school with a bruise, is to give her a cup of tea. I shall leave it up to the Expert Witnesses what services might be available to LW2 if the parents prove impossible.

I can see a cross split into two parts - asking LW2 why the diagnosis is so important, and coping separately with the parents. LW2 does seem rather invested in having a specific condition. In a way, this makes sense, as it will lead to a particular course of treatment, but how will LW2 cope if the diagnosis doesn't oblige? Will it then be a case of, Oh, No, It's Really All My Own Fault? Or will LW2 be able to relax, erase the possibility of it all going away through however Asperger's is properly treated, and then do whatever might have to be done to make life better?

As for the parents, while it's easy to say LW2 might be Daria herself, I prefer to make a comparison for the parents to the Langdons, whose daughter Jody suffers from the stress of being The Perfect African-American Teenager, although she doesn't have any of Daria's social awkwardness. Her typical summer plans, despite her own inclination for a bit of leisure, include two internships, volunteering at a soup kitchen and golf lessons in her spare time because her parents are up for membership at a prestigious country club. Given the Asian stereotype of major emphasis on academic achievement (it would be interesting to know how the parents have reacted to LW2's math marks), there could be something there.

As for what LW2 ought to do, much depends on whether the diagnosis comes through as expected, and how tractable the parents are either way. Again, this one is more of a technical question than I really like.

Moral: "I don't have low self-esteem. I just have low esteem for everybody else."

L3: Now here we have a good one. There are many ways in which people divide the world into halves. Some use such all-important questions as, Jeannie or Samantha? or Mary Ann or Ginger? or perhaps Roger or Rafa? or Venus or Serena? While it might be possible to attempt to look at L3 as a case of someone who either Does or Doesn't Do Funerals, I shall go a bit beyond that. One is either a Family Person or not. Interestingly, the *Daria* first season finale was the Misery Chick episode, in which Daria was the only person at the high school not upset by the former football hero's sudden death just when they were going to name a goalpost after him.

We all know what Family People are like. They have 50 or 70 or 90 close relatives and claim to love each and every one of them dearly as an individual. One might question whether that is entirely a good thing, but I completely accept those who are sincere and respect any one person's right to be that way.

The difficulty with Family People at least from the outside is that Family Trumps All. One cannot really rely upon such a person unless one happens to be a member of the magic circle. The best example that springs to mind of the Family Person mindset might be a call made perhaps 8-10 years ago to the notorious Dr Schlessinger. (It might be interesting to cross-examine a good many of her callers about their selection of advisor, but then one can do much the same on occasion with the Prudecutor.) The caller in question had agreed to be a participant in the same-sex commitment ceremony of a pair of friends. Shortly after that, he'd been contacted by one of his siblings preparatory to planning their father's 75th birthday party. He'd asked that the party not conflict with the commitment ceremony. (As for background, I seem to recall that the siblings were not very nice about his lifestyle, that he just didn't discuss his personal life with his father, there was no medical urgency in the case, I think the number was 75th but at any rate it was the sort of number likely to generate extra fuss, the party might have been a surprise [which would rule out talking about it in advance to the guest of honour] and I cannot be completely certain whether it was made clear to the sibling that the previous commitment was "lifestyle-related".) Shortly afterwards, the sibling called back, and of course the party directly conflicted with the ceremony, as naturally there was no possible alternative to the date of the birthday party. It was definitely the sort of thing the siblings would have done deliberately.

Astute readers will not be stunned to discover that Dr S gave the caller a decided and emphatic answer. Although the caller had hoped that he could visit his father afterwards and take him to dinner, he got nowhere. His father would want him at the party, and he had a moral obligation to attend it. Not to do so would be breaking the Commandment about honouring thy father and thy mother (either the fourth or the fifth depending on which list one uses, if memory serves).

That is the Family Uber Alles mindset, although perhaps it is allowed to be applied somewhat less strictly. Another take on that sort of thinking would be to insist that a good parent always automatically would be obliged to attend every child's game or organized activity, or at least, in the case of conflicts, as much of each as would be humanly possible.

Now, to cope with LW3; is LW3 a Family Person or not? Now, there are, I suppose, Family People who for one reason or another Just Don't Do Funerals, but in general a family funeral trumps pretty much anything, and certainly a mere getaway. My guess is that LW3 might or might not claim to be, but has been more or less happy to take more credit than deserved along the way, and finally the chickens came home to roost with a vengeance given the double deaths. Perhaps LW3 has just been willing to go along with letting that Family Uber Alles creed be recited by various and sundry relations without challenge or correction; perhaps LW3 has voiced pretty-sounding sentiments that went a bit beyond the truth - at least when it came down to a real inconvenience.

I shall not quite rank LW3 with Sir Walter Elliot, who, after one or two very unreasonable applications, prided himself on remaining single for his daughters' sake and, for his eldest daughter would actually have sacrificed almost anything he had not been greatly tempted to do. But I shall rank LW3 with Sandy Griffin, President of the Fashion Club, whose fondness for Quinn quickly becomes quite competitive. While Sandy maintains a consistent disdain for such a display of geekdom as being able to answer a question on manifest destiny in history class, she can't resist the opportunity, when Stacy reveals a PSAT score of 940, Tiffany 902 and Quinn 955, to inflate her own 920 to 956.

As for what LW3 ought to do or have done, the funerals aren't especially relevant. There are those who just don't attend funerals, but LW3 has confessed to the clear intent to do so had it not been for the comflict with the vacation. An attempt to reschedule would have been seemly, if only because LW3 wants the credit for having been deeply devoted to the deceased uncles. (If time permitted, it might be interesting to go into the matter of the surviving spouses.) I'm not entirely sure why the Prudecutor assumes that it's so automatic that all people on the face of the planet have at least one favourite charity. It is admirable, but the Elizabeth Elliots of the world will always regard the cutting off of superfluous charities as the first and sometimes the only step when a retrenchment is necessary. But an expression of sincere regret to the survivors instead of the canned remarks suggested by members of the Prudecution team cannot be out of order. As for coping with immediately family of the immediate complaints, a little sucking up may be the easy path, and that does seem to be what LW3 seeks. A negligible sort.

Moral: "...because, why own the country if Hollywood wasn't included?"

L4: Yet another technical question, apparently, as LW4 could set the old man up with some sort of delivery service. Let us hope for the sake of the old man that there is nothing creepy behind the requests. It is kind of LW4 not just to dismiss the whole situation out of hand or take some easy way out such as buying inferiour bread and fruit until being deemed insufficiently up to the task. But such an arrangement might create sad consequences if it goes off. LW4 and another temporary employee being responsible for the man's adequate supply of food, if such is the case, is rickety at best.

L4 may have a golden opportunity here to emulate the egregious Upchuck, but with rather better motivation than when Daria, Jody and Upchuck were three of a hundred finalists for a $10,000 scholarship prize. When they are all interviewed at the same time, Jody gives the canned and rehearsed-sounding answers that she thinks the prize committee will want, the sort that have clearly come from an interview coach. Daria gets fed up right away and gives truthful but sarcastic answers implying that only someone who could emulate the perfect corporate drone would ever have a chance at winning. Upchuck, who has at least done his research, offers the interviewer wasabi-flavoured gummi bears.

Moral: "I call it Ride, Chucky, Ride... it's more of a personal mission statement."

8/19 - Why Now?

From the Monday group, I wish "I Married Bridezilla" had told us she was pregnant. That is the only sensible way to conclude that the two of them don't both deserve each other in perpetuity. I could not, after numerous scourings, come up with any reason in what he told us for his going through with the wedding. There is some comfort in thinking that at least he deserves what he gets, and that it probably won't last long enough to leave permanent scars.

This week's group just does not merit any fleshed out and fully formed comparisons, though a stray idea might pop up here and there. *Daria* will have to wait, as wasting it on this little group would be like Jane trying to start a relationship with Tiffany.

L1: My main thought in response to this LW's dilemma is, Why Now? Did LW1 have an Angela Warren moment, not piecing together everything about an event until something happened years later (the way in which Angela as a teenager saw her sister coming out of a guest's bedroom and didn't realize what it meant until she saw a woman she knew coming out of a hotel bedroom clearly not her own ten years later)? How old is LW1 in the first place? It probably means different things if LW1 has just come to adulthood than if LW1 is middle-aged. And the whole story does have a little element of possible self-dramatization. LW1 really took no further part in whatever happened and yet the man's life was "most likely" ruined? How would a 6-year-old know with any certainty that the case had gone to court? Are there more facts LW1 just hasn't recalled yet, or is this almost entirely just part of what's really an issue with the alcoholic father? The whole thing sounds like a big mess. Is there something in LW1's life that seems so awful that this issue is just an attempt to duck out of a different situation, given the stretch to look for legal ramifications? What is going on between LW1 and Pappa today, if anything?

The only concrete thing I can say with any confidence is that there probably doesn't have to be any contact with the father - assuming that they are still in a state of variance. A little digging into possible cases, given that LW1 can provide the right place and the right time, ought to yield information as to what (if anything) actually happened to the man in question. Perhaps LW1 might benefit one way or another from reading accounts of those whose eyewitness testimony resulted in a wrongful conviction, which is about as close as I can come to thinking of something in the same line. But there's just this sense that I can't shake that there's some poking around in quest of major drama here, and it just keeps coming back to - why now?

Moral: Too many possibilities depending on what we don't know.

L2: This is another weird situation. Even assuming all the competitiveness in the relationship to be on the one side (and I don't care enough either way to give any serious thought to the matter) as presented, there is much to ask. How exactly has LW2 "received news" that Connie Competitive is applying for a job at her own company? Exactly how would CC put LW2's career in jeopardy? Is CC given to sabotaging projects and taking down an entire team with her? Why does LW2 feel such lack on confidence in the company's ability to recognize long and valuable service and all the hard work that has supposedly secured the career to this point? And exactly how absolute is it that the two would work together? Cannot there be a bit of shuffling to avoid this? If Lw2's observation that CC would not be an asset to the team is so objective, then just why is there such concern she's so likely to be hired? (If LW2's account is even half objective, it sounds as if any hiring person worth the salt won't be taken in by the facade of reasonableness that is likely to be presented.)

At least one can believe with certainty that LW2 doesn't want to work with CC, and that LW2 acknowledges some selfish concern in that sentiment. And we can also accept with reasonable certainty that LW2 is not the most articulate fish to come bicycling down the turnpike. "I am in a senior enough position that I could say a quiet word to ensure that she doesn't get hired. Does this make me a horrible person?" Nice way to reveal a rather muddled brain.

I suspect that this is another of those technical questions. What exactly LW2 can or perhaps ought or perhaps ought not or perhaps cannot tell the employer might well be a question for Ms Messy's husband, or possibly Ms Libby, as they appear to be the experts on this sort of situation. But I take great exception, as so often, to the Prudecutor. Why insist on LW2 adding the hypocritical comment of wishing the best for this family member? If it's true, okay, but it doesn't seem so, and will likely just make LW2 look worse in the company's eye. Some sort of partial recusal, or statement made with an admission of some degree of prejudice, may be in order, but I shall leave the full legalities to the Expert Witnesses, who have the time and inclination to learn and memorize the legal course that might be most advised. And again, there's a little sense of yet another LW looking for drama, though at least in this case LW2 has an active and co-operative corresponding agent.

Moral: When working for people who are such fools as to be taken in by such a cousin, don't worry about the small stuff such as whether she'll work there - take over the company. And if LW2 hasn't the intellect to do so, then perhaps it's equitable karma all round.

L3: Now here we have almost the same letter as L1, for some reason. And again - the main question that comes to mind is, Why Now? And there are tons of other questions. Is he really wonderufl now, or is that just the usual Yadda Yadda Yadda that seems required of LWs these days as Obligatory Preface? How sure is LW3 that he actually was a virgin? What were the circumstances of the sorts of fights they were having? How were LW3's past hookups popping up in their lives? (It feels as if this were some sort of collegiate setting and that at least a small handful of LW3's circle of regularly seen acquaintances or friends were numbered on the Hookup List. Does LW3 automatically respond or want to respond to any difficulty by doing the easiest thing? And how did the STD screening come about? Has it been LW3's habit to be screened before each hookup? (seems unlikely) before plausible relationships? (somewhat better) was the boyfriend involved at all in the decision to screen? (no real sense either way) does LW3 just get screened on a regular basis? (commendable for someone sexually active but somehow seeming a bit more responsible than the sense of LW3 that emanates) How can LW3 be so certain that the boyfriend would be devasted NOW by the details of a lie from nearly two years ago? What change has come about in the relationship (my guess is that it has suddenly seemed much more viably long-term than LW3 had assumed) to make LW3 become so suddenly wracked with guilt NOW, when it is vastly less likely than ever that the exact number will materialize like manna from heaven? Who besides LW3 can even attest to the accuracy of the number that was originally provided? Was the undercount so blatant that the boyfriend happening to attend the right fraternity party would be enough to make the lie obvious? (In other words, is it like Blanche Devereux, when her husband turns out to have faked his own death, telling him that she'd been with other men since then... lots of men... two?) How regularly does LW3 act out of fear?

Of the first three letters, in which we are not given proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the gender of the LW, this strikes me as the one in which we could make the best case for the LW being male. The boyfriend appears to have reacted rather more straight than gay, but the possibility of regular screening might be more common among those whose sexual practices are restricted to entirely male participants. I might be wrong about this, not knowing what has become the norm among young sexually active women these days, and I'd be quite happy, like Toni Collette's Harriet Smith (the Gwyneth Paltrow *Emma* tried to solve the problem of the backwards-appearing casting by giving Harriet the lines to Mr Weston, "How fortunate to be twice blessed in mariage! It has been my belief that one loves but once; I am happy to be wrong."), to be shown to be in error.

I suppose a good many people will come down on the boyfriend. I am already getting a preemptive headache from all the capital letters one might expect from some of the more forceful on the commentariat. But I am inclined to give a virgin of either sex at least a sort of partial amnesty. LW3 testifies to participating in a hookup culture, which (s)he had every right to do, certainly as much as the boyfriend did to decline. But with a virgin it is not, as is so often the case, a matter of both people doing the same thing and one just having rather better luck at it (although I admit that he might just have been totally unsuccessful). Fixating on a number of past partners is a bit misguided, but I could see something along the line of a scale:

* I saved myself for the right person.

* I hooked up once or twice, but didn't like it.

* I did a few times, but decided I'd rather be in a relationship first.

* I did it once in a while when I was unattached.

* I did regularly, and preferred hooking up because the time wasn't right for a relationship.

* I did all the time, and never wanted a relationship until now.

There's a rough draft of a scale with various points where people might be. One can tinker with it, but that's a basic frame. While I can see the point of those who say that, particularly when neither partner is a virgin, Both partners have had experience and details are none of the other's business, I wouldn't call it a beheadable offense for someone to have a preference for a partner to fall more or less at a certain point along the scale or thereabouts, and I'd give latitude in both directions. It would probably mean, if I Unretired from Romance, that I'd be rejected for insufficient experience, but I'd give someone that right. And a virgin, who by definition has not had the benefit of any experience in the area in question, is entitled to a little extra leeway.

Now, LW3 could reasonably have responded to the Number Inquiry that it was None of His Business, although one might hope that it would have been done with whatever patience and/or understanding that might be only fair to an inexperienced partner. But LW3 took the easy way out, gambled that a lie would pave the way to a smoother future, won the gamble, and now so long after the lie is feeling strong guilt about it. Why now? LW3 could reasonably have dumped the boyfriend over his vicious jealousy at the time, and I doubt many of the commentariat would have withheld support. The gamble should have become irrelevant by now, and yet instead we have feelings of guilt.

I have two guesses and not much confidence in either. One is that LW3 wants specifically to be dumped rather than just for the relationship to end by mutual consent or to be the dumper. Another is that LW3 never really expected the relationship to last and suddenly the couple have taken a great leap forward. I could see someone deciding that the relationship had been built on a false foundation, even if it has by now become a great deal less relevant than it was at the start.

There is also what has happened with the boyfriend and his attitudes during the two years. On the evidence provided, one could at least assume that he has not been viciously jealous during the recent past. This is the sort of thing that is often outgrown over time - what X did with Y two months ago (and plausibly to better effect than what X has done with Z early in a relationship) might naturally be a much bigger deal than what X did with Y two years ago, by which time X and Z have developed what one would hope would be rather more satisfying.

As for what to do now, I can make out a case either for telling him or for not telling him. Telling can be framed along the line of both LW3 and the boyfriend coming out with a secret or lie or exaggeration put forth at the start of the relationship that no longer would carry anywhere near the importance they might have done at the time. Of course, LW3 would have to be willing to let something of the boyfriend's drop in the same spirit. And there is a risk that something which might seem potentially entertaining will blow up. I am reminded of the late David Rees' story "Watsonville". Alan and Stephen, lovers for some thirty years since their school days, had an Australian classmate, Eric Watson, who not only set up as a whore during the lunch hour, but kept meticulous records of his customers, their accoutrements, a brief review of the experience and the fee charged. Sadly for poor Eric, when he was caught updating his little book during French class, it was confiscated by the teacher. Although the teacher could not make out the meaning of the entries, he noticed that the class would instantly silent itself whenever he read out a random extract. One week, when Stephen had had flu, Alan (the narrator) had availed himself of Eric's services several days running. Desperate to avoid Stephen hearing of his sordid escapades, Alan resorted to desperate measures to steal the book, only to discover that, during the week he'd been home with flu, Stephen had indulged as well, one time more often than Alan, and without receiving a discounted price. Deciding there was no point to telling Stephen and risking the relationship, Alan swallowed the hard pellet of his anger, jealousy and hurt, lived with its bitter taste for a while, and gradually it dissolved. Thirty years later, having seen the book every so often when moving without opening it, Alan happened on the book during a week Stephen was away, reread it, and put it out to show Stephen as a piece of entertaining nostalgia. The result was a big blow-up, their worst ever, before a reconciliation.

The case for not telling is similar to the case of a cheating partner who has an affair, gets away with it and decides not to stray again. The philosophy is summed up in *A Caribbean Mystery*. It is one thing for Edward Hillingdon to fall for Lucky Dyson and get involved with her. His wife Evelyn explains to Molly Kendall that the two of them have barely said a word in private to each other for ages, ever since Edward felt he had to tell her about it. Evelyn supposes that it made him feel better. It didn't occur to him that it wouldn't make her feel better. LW3 can regard not telling in the light of carrying whatever burden lying might occasionally impose as a small price to pay for not disrupting the boyfriend's peace of mind.

Moral: Perhaps everyone should be taught to lie early, if not often, so that, when necessary, one can lie well.

L4: This is the most substantive L4 we've had in quite some time. And it is interesting, after seeing letters from others with such obsessive guilt, to see a letter with such an aggressive lack of guilt. It's quite Brodiean. But I don't like LW4 enough to compare her to Miss Brodie.

A divorced mother of a minor son. Can we assume safely that, if he were of an age at which most people would consider it not inappropriate to be sharing the bed, a number would have been supplied? I feel inclined to predict a Poll on the subject of the boy's age. If there were only Mamma to consider, I'd have little trouble with 12, but, as Pappa seems to be taking an interest in the proceedings, it might be rather closer to the blurry line. If this were the Range Game on the Price is Right, I suppose I'd stop it to cover ages 6-9, or pehaps 8-11, depending on where the range started. As for the restm there might perhaps be another Poll on the subject of how the poor kid turns out with whichever relationship difficulties. Sigh. Another one for the Waiting List to be raised by Ms Mermaid and the Submariner. People might be asking, What Is LW4 Thinking; I shall take out the What in memory of a parody magazine I once saw entitled Is Martha Stewart Living, from the other direction, of course.

I can't bring myself to say anything about what LW4 ought to do, as it is only too clear that she's only looking to back up her own position.

Moral: Pearls. Swine. Blanks. Fill In.

8/12 - Holy Belinda Carlisle, Batman!

My winter cold, which usually runs from November through March, has decided to get an early start this year. On the plus side, I suppose we can consider it a good sign that the commercial showing Ms McMahon kicking a man in the groin was run by an opposing campaign and not her own. But it made me ill when Ms Rodham was elected to the august body that had been graced by the presence of the late Mr Moynihan, one of the few politicians (perhaps the only one) whom I always deemed too good for the Presidency. Of course, that was accentuated by Ms Rodham taking Mr Moynihan's actual seat. Are we on a slippery slope? Was this inevitable after Mr Reagan and Mr Franken? Is it a moral failing not to be more concerned with the impact of billionaires buying themselves into the government?

My title this week is actually in response to Monday. I officially dock the Prudecutor 23 points for using that ghastly nonword (or ought-to-be-nonword) "staycation". It would be more, except that I have the glimmer of a hope that those otherwise horrific commercials advertising this practice might be contributing royalties to Ms Carlisle and her friends. They certainly ought to do so if they are going to use an altered version of someone's song that closely imitates the original. (It is tempting to wander slightly off and raise the question of Messrs Dole and Springstein, but I shall actually pass on that.)

Now to tie together the last two paragraphs, I remember reading during the run-up to the vote that Ms Carlisle was the only celebrity to contribute a PSA to what eventually became the unsuccessful campaign against Maine's recent constitutional DOMA. I did actually see her PSA; it bordered on the underwhelming, but that wasn't her fault, and at least she did it. I have not actually seen her recent autobiography (although I may, in the weekly hour-hour and a half I spend at a library, look for it after I finish a biography of Mrs Parker), but believe that she eventually married someone who had a White House social position in either the Reagan or Bush (elder) administration and had a son who is of college age and gay.

Staying with Monday, I suppose I should not be surprised that the only subject which aroused much passion amongst the commentariat was the issue of wedding food. I shall relate a parable (I may have mentioned this before) that happens to be true, although I shall change the names of the people involved to Jane and Greta. One of the weekly rituals I witness is a discussion of Where to Go for Lunch, concerning somewhere between three and nine people as a rule. My all-time favourite dates back about five years. Jane had been absent for a couple of months due to illness, and it was her first time back. Greta was just beginning the Discussion when I had the inspiration to suggest that, instead of the eternal quest for consensus, people should let Jane choose where to eat. Greta immediately said that that would be perfect, and mentioned the idea to one or two of the others. Jane seemed considerably cheered up by being given the choice, and, mentioning that she had not eaten there for six months, said she'd really like to go to a particular restaurant for Chinese. Immediately, without any pause for thought, Greta blurted out, "I don't like Chinese." Not - My doctor told me to avoid Chinese, or - I can't eat there for religious/spiritual reasons, but simply - I don't like Chinese. Jane was instantly deflated, but coped as well as she could. I told Greta that she should write an essay about Chapter 10 in Pride and Prejudice, but she never did. Sometimes she seems to have learned something from the experience.

The one thing that irked me most from Monday was the Prudecutor's pat response to the concerned Mr Thought-the-Newborns-were-Finished. Does she NEVER utter sentiments that haven't been soaked in third-tier greeting cards? And that sort of reply totally failed to address the situation. There were good things about the decision to limit the number of children to what the couple had planned. There will be losses, maybe major, maybe minor. They won't go away if they're just ignored. Fortunately, there is time to work through some concerns before the birth. And there will be unexpected compensations. But it will not be necessary to decide and/or feel all the time that the way things turned out is superiour to all possible alternatives. And it will not invalidate his life and selfhood to have the occasional twinge of regret for That Which Was Lost.

Today's letters all reminded me, in one way or another, of Mr Woodhouse.

L1: Now, as the page was coming up, having seen the headline, I was visualizing a divorce. It appeared that there was some sort of version of the Newt Gingrich situation going on with Daddy just claiming that he shouldn't have to contribute anything to his ex-wife's care during her dying months instead of having her served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital. It seemed the obvious comparison. And it turns out that the pair stayed married through the whole death, and that basically Daddy just went on with his life as uninterruptedly as possible, and after the death decided to enforce a loan. Well, that raised a blink.

While everyone else jumps down Daddy's throat, I shall be a little severe with LW1. Do you ALWAYS call things a loan when that's not really what you mean? How much better did you feel about yourself because you "didn't take any money" for taking care of your mother? That was an admirable thing to do, but what sticks out a mile is that you were oh so pleased with yourself for NOT making a sensible financial arrangement for the time period. This is not to say that Daddy doesn't deserve to have his picture in the dictionary as the new definition of "chutzpah". But do not BORROW things you don't intend to give back - except perhaps a toothbrush. That might be all right. But I would not apply this policy to money, spouses, croquet equipment or other important things in life. Now, perhaps it was the right thing not to bother Mamma during her illness with financial details - although one might have to be very ill indeed not to have a stray thought during the entire two and a half years about one's child's financial situation.

Come to think of it, I am coming around to the idea that Mamma is the worst of the bunch. She had a state job with a pension (we shall see how much longer that lasts), and she was being cared for by a child and not a team of hospital nurses for her last two and a half years AND DURING ALL THAT TIME SHE COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO MAKE A WILL AND LEAVE HER CARETAKING CHILD ANYTHING??? This may explain why the couple stayed married all those years - common selfishness over dollars and cents.

A widower with extremely unreasonable expectations about the future conduct of his children will always remind one of Mr Woodhouse. Perhaps LW1 should read *Emma*, and then report whether it is worse to be expected to repay this "loan" than it would be to be expected never to marry and leave home. Mr Woodhouse has never been able to reconcile himself to his daughter Isabella's marrying and moving to London, a whole sixteen miles away, and thinks it tragic that his grown daughter's former governess should prefer marriage and a husband and home of her own to remaining a spinster at Hartfield for the rest of her life. He is at least able to reconcile to Emma's eventual marriage, but more on that in L2.

As for what LW1 ought to do, why does the Prudecutor think that a reconciliation is such a wonderful idea? I'd think that $4,500 is a relatively small price to pay to get such a person OUT of one's LIFE. However, there is a much better way to reconcile if that is what LW1 really desires. The $4,500 seems like an ideal amount for a TV judge case. Have Daddy file a suit and then appear together before Jeanine Pirro or one of her peers. Get a free mini-holiday out of the experience, and I suspect the case will be resolved in LW1's favour.

Moral: "Fortunately, Mr Woodhouse was as far from foreseeing matrimony as he was from approving it. It was as though he could not think so meanly of the intelligence of any two people as to suppose them capable of the intent to marry."

L2: In all fairness to Queen Elizabeth II (who has become a great pal of Jelena Jankovic, among others, since her first visit to Wimbledon in 33 years), one might reasonably suggest that a blonde brood mare would be far more disturbed by her husband's uninterrupted attachment to an old frump than by the mere presence of her mother-in-law somewhere in another wing of the palace. A multigenerational living arrangement worked out quite well for Sr Nadal, despite the brief blip caused to his career by his parents' divorce in conjunction with knee injuries. [ASIDE: I was never aware of the original controversy, but, in case anyone has seen anti-Israel remarks attributed to Rafa anywhere, the Nadal managers and Rafa himself have made it quite clear that he makes it a point not to make political remarks of any stripe. I offer this just in case anyone has seen such comments anywhere, or commentary about them.]

The gift of most of the cost of the house is not necessarily a huge problem in and of itself. As for the living arrangement, there's a gout for every chacun, I suppose. But a husband who agrees to these things without consultation? Oh, dear.

LW2, do you want to live in 1810? If so, more power to you. If not, get out yesterday. And NEXT time, pay ATTENTION to the various CLUES that might have told you this would happen. They were almost surely screaming out at you and you just didn't listen.

If you still insist on trying to save the marriage, at least read *Emma*. The only way in which Mr Woodhouse can be reconciled to Emma's marrying Mr Knightley is for Mr Knightley to leave his estate at Donwell and move in with his father-in-law at Hartfield. Perhaps it would help if LW2 were sixteen years older than her husband - sadly, not the case. But she can still use the good example of Mr Knightley, and perhaps take encouragement if her relationship with her husband is similar to that of Mr Knightley with Emma.

Moral: "How very few of those men in a rank of life to address Emma would have renounced their own home for Hartfield! And who but Mr Knightley could know and bear with Mr wWoodhouse, as so to make such an arrangement desirable!"

L3: Intentionally or otherwise, LW3 is making Quinn Morgendorfer look deep. LW3, is the most terrible problem in your life truly that you might be asked by a neighbour with an unappealing back to apply his sun tan lotion? Shock! Horror! How dare he break all the rules of the Fashion Club by making such a vile request? And how dare he deliberately abuse and torture her by refusing to ask her out so that she could deliver a kind but crushingly humiliating rejection and send him scurrying away with his tail between his legs any time he catches sight of her, yet at the same time opening up a college fund for her daughter to compensate her for the indignities he inflicted upon her time after time by simply wanting to go out with her?

To be slightly more serious, it is entirely possible that he simply might be one of those people who does not pick up clues. Some don't. And to LW3's credit, she does call him a wonderful person and agree to his being good with her daughter without suggesting anything creepy. But that is about as much credit as she deserves. I am quite prepared to accept from LW3 that he is clearly interested in a romantic involvement, but require a good deal of evidence about the "very obvious" line he crossed. Not to say that his request would not be highly unpleasant to many people, but LW3 has only provided any evidence that she felt she had cause to be squeamish about his back.

The Prudecutor has gone completely off the rails - the kind thing would be to assume that she was molested by someone with such a back and has taken all people with similar backs to be automatic criminals ever since. Of course, the obvious reply LW3 might have made to the original request, which can still be offered on any future occasion, is that she only does sun tan lotion for actual or potential boyfriends. Still, if she made her squeamishness as clear as it's likely she did, maybe she'll be spared any further embarrassment. But I find myself completely puzzled by the Prudecutor's statement that, as he is obviously interested her, that entailed some obligation for him to have asked her out some time ago. Out of whose derriere did the Prudecutor pull that one? Sine when did an interest in someone equate to such an obligation? And does it apply equally to both sexes? Or, perhaps, does it apply only to repulsive people who make people worthy of belonging to the Fashion Club so uncomfortable that the only fair way to redress the balance is to make an unreasonable application to date so that the discomfort in meeting can lie where it belongs with the repulsive one? In fact, the more I consider this point, the more disgusted I become.

LW3's potential would-be gentleman friend, having so many otherwise amiable qualities, would be fortunate if he could get away with as much as Mr Woodhouse, who is always forgiven by all his neighbours and friends for his failures to observe commonly acknowledged conventions of social behaviour. If anything, people are eager to make excuses for his being remiss. But those devoted to him can manage him, as even Mr Weston does when Mr Woodhouse originally tries to tell Emma that she will want to leave the Coles' dinner party rather earlier than might be considered polite, or as Emma does when Mr Woodhouse reproaches himself for not paying a wedding-visit at the Vicarage.

Moral: "Yes; but a young lady - a bride - I ought to have paid my respects to her if possible. It was being very deficient." "But, my dear papa, you are no friend to matrimony; and therefore why should you be so anxious to pay your respects to a *bride*? It ought to be no recommendation to *you*. It is encouraging people to marry if you make so much of them." No, my dear, I never encouraged anybody to marry, but I would always wish to pay every proper attention to a lady - and a bride especially is never to be neglected. More is avowedly due to *her*. A bride, you know, my dear, is always the first in company, let the others be who they may."

L4: This is largely a technical question, and I dislike technical questions. I shall content myself with expressing mild surprise that, given such a vast number of friends, acquaintances and colleagues, LW4 has time to read and reply to every single mass email each of those friends, acquaintances and colleagues happens to send. And it seems only reasonable to point out that, if a donation were to be the equivalent of a favour that LW4 did for someone, or at least something in the form of reasonable compensation (ugh!), then LW4 might have made a personal request to the people involved.

LW4 reminds me of one or two of Mr Woodhouse's less admirable qualities. His concern for the health of all his friends mixes with a determination to take as much care of them as he would of himself. The one point on which Emma is always unpersuadable is in not allowing her father to persuade her to join him in taking a bowl of gruel.

Moral: "His own stomach could bear nothing rich, and he could never believe other people to be different from himself. What was unwholesome to him he regarded as unfit for anybody; and he had, therefore, earnestly tried to dissuade them from having any wedding-cake at all, and when that proved vain, as earnestly tried to prevent anybody's eating it."