Alas, the thread I predicted last week never came to be. Perhaps people have yet to recover fully from the last one. Today will be on the quick side.
L1: This does not remind me so much of the Borgias as of Agatha Christie. Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple both on occasion attempt to prevent a crime, usually without much success, although, in Wasp's Nest, Poirot does manage to prevent a suicide that would have appeared to be murder. He also manages to prevent a murder in Yellow Iris. It is rare, though, for the warning to come so directly. The closest example to that of L1 is when Poirot overhears a bit of the conversation between Raymond and Carol Boynton in which Raymond insists their stepmother has to be killed.
Warning off the perpetrator might at least be have a better chance of working than warning off a murderer, as Poirot tries to do in Triangle at Rhodes. After all, as Miss Marple explains in A Christmas Tragedy, warning the victim rarely meets with much belief, and warning off the killer only results in the plan being delayed and attempted elsewhere. At least in LW1's situation, the plot must unfold in one particular place. The difficulty with whistleblowing (besides the ramifications which make this veer into the land of a Technical Question), though, is that the timing is so critical. I prefer an attempt at sabotage. As Miss Marple explained when she related how she knew, as soon as she saw Mr and Mrs Saunders, that he intended to kill her, the key was to force him to attempt the murder in a way of her own choosing. Unfortunately, he struck before she could devise and implement her plan, although she did have better luck in A Caribbean Mystery.
L2: So, the Prudecutor would have everything undone at the end of the parents' time, which would also, in a way, punish the children for the sins of their parents? Then too, the Prudecutor's plan is redolent of a lack of charity, which, neatly enough if one takes that perspectives, manages to circumvent and offend the memory of the parents in question. Not that there is anything wrong with that per se, but can LW2 and H2 do better? One might also indulge in the typical cross-examination as to why this letter is not being written by the participant affected. But this is already well familiar.
The answer is for C2 to set aside some portion of their charitable giving (LW2 is of the oily sort who probably prides herself on her charity, however coldly in spirit it is offered, but cold charity works well in this case). After all, charity begins at home, does it not? Set aside a little fund for the benefit of H2's nieces and nephews, who will very likely need it, given their parents profligacy. Then, in the time to come so happily anticipated by the Prudecutor, who really seems highly likely to have some sort of parental issues of her own, C2 can dole out charity to their nieces and nephews while making their disdain for H2's siblings most clear.
The parallel is partially to John Gabriel Borkman, in which Gunhild attempts to drive a wedge between her son Erhart and her sister Ella (who alone emerged financially unscathed when JGB's great swindle was discovered) by reminding Erhart of how the very roof over their head was a matter of charity from the aunt who had raised him after the scandal, trying to make him subconsciously substitute charity for love. But my main thought is of Mr and Mrs Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. Not only does Darcy consent to marry into the same family as the old acquaintance who had attempted to ruin his sister, he even assists Wickham considerably in his profession and financially. Elizabeth also receives Lydia on occasion at Pemberley. The Bingleys are imposed upon to an even greater extent. If that paragon, Mr Darcy, can forgive a rather greater crime, H2 may be able to rise to the occasion. Of course, one might also ask if LW2 will permit him to do so...
L3: I am getting a vision of Helen Montressor in One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, telling Alastair Blunt that she does not want to accept invitations to the house while his American relations (who snub her) are staying with him. Of course, she is maintaining a secret identity, so that we might let that pass. But one could perhaps cross-examine all the parties involved as to why LW3 is so torn between the two of them. What was the struggle that resulted in Leah's victory over Sarah? After all, Leah is LW3's best friend, while Sarah is just close. My guess is that LW3 is really quite enjoying the situation, and only wants to make more of it than she can do decently at present. That she wants to force these two together during a time when she will be convalescing from surgery is most telling.
It might well serve LW3 right if Leah and Sarah actually ended up becoming quite chummy. Think of My So-Called Life. In the Self Respect episode commentary, Winnie Holzman and Claire Danes remark upon the moment when Angela finds Sharon and Rayanne conferring in the bathroom, Ms Holtzman remarking on the shock of discovering that two people who are in separate boxes in one's life are coming together outside of them and have an independent relationship of their own, a reasonable observation (although I can never forgive them for giggling about making out later and drowning out Mr Katimsky's best line that finally convinces Rickie to sign up for Drama Club). In the Christmas episode commentary, when Sharon grows desperate and invites Rayanne to join her at the Teen Help Line on Christmas Eve, Wilson Cruz (for whom that extraordinary episode was largely Art Imitating Life) suggested to Ms Holtzman that the Sharon-Rayanne friendship might have been a forerunner for that between Elphaba and Galinda (though he doesn't specify that Ms Holtzman was one of the driving forces in the Broadwayfication of Wicked).
L4: This is actually my favourite letter of the week. Do not blame on any account the innocent cats. In the main, though, I'd like to cross-examine LW4 about why she's writing any letter at all here. Does she really expect anyone to believe that what she asks is her real question? What difference could any possible answer to the question of how F4 could have failed to notice the wet spot make? And now, what is her difficulty? Her friend no longer stays over, which is a plus for LW4 rather than a minus. As the logical assumption is that she really wants to dun her XF4 for the $155, why doesn't she just come out and ask the real question instead of flitting about as she does?
I am reminded of the charming independent film Grief, the cast of which includes Craig Chester, Illeana Douglas, Jackie Beat and Alexis Arquette. The setting is the offices of a low-budget Divorce Court knock-off called The Love Judge, with producer Jo (JB), writers Jeremy, Paula, Bill (AA) and Mark (CC), and aspiring secretary Leslie (ID). Mark, bereaved for nearly three years after the death of Kenny, has a crush on Bill, despite Bill's having a girlfriend, Kelly. But Bill is also having a fling with Jeremy. With not many places to go and various people they don't want to hurt, Jeremy and Bill amuse themselves by trysting on the couch in Jo's office. Eventually, Jo finds a stain on the cushion, and thinks that Mark might be behind it, as their relationship has cooled since Kenny's death. Leslie, deputed to get it cleaned, eventually reveals, when Paula asks how to get out such a stain, that she has no idea, and just flipped the cushion over to the other side. But the stain comes in handy, finding its way into the centre of the plot of the Circus Lesbians episode.
Moral: "It was SEMEN, Your Honour!"
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
10/20 - Make Way for Feministes
We finally get a batch of letters that constitute a slight improvement over the usual lot recently. I predict that the first letter may well start a most interesting thread at Feministe, where there was recently a good discussion of the letter from Virgin-Seeks-Same's-Misleading-Fiancee. Some posters appeared to be the type of judge who would think decapitation a fitting punishment for a non-renewed dog license, but degree is not always the easiest think to settle. Some time before that thread, they had a long thread about adoption, in which it seemed that there might have been a plurality opinion that adoption is "worse" than abortion. (I can see easily enough how there might be a higher likelihood of regret among those who choose adoption than among those who choose abortion, but not all regrets are equal, and it is not easy to weight the positive outcomes.) That would seem to bode not-so-well for LW1's sister, but LW1 is S*-shaming, which should make for quite an interesting thread.
L3: He still has patients? This reminds me of Miss Marple in They Do It With Mirrors, in which she recounts how Edgar Lawson reminds her of a young dentist in practice with his father. When the old man's hands began to shake and patients preferred the son, he was so upset by how this hurt his father's feelings that he began to act drunk. Unfortunately, instead of their going back to the father, they went to the rival dentist. Not a very close analogy, but this is really a technical question.
L4: Some credit to the Prudecutor for recognizing that Disneyland is the root of all evil, although at least the original is vastly superiour to the Florida knockoff. If it will make LW4 feel any better, I doubt her or his immortal soul hangs in the balance of this potential lie, but I am inclined to give LW4 a few props. Advertently or otherwise, LW4 has called to mind Ring Lardner's story The Caddy, to which I believe I have referred on a previous occasion. Our narrator feels put upon when bank executive Mr Thomas calls upon him to lie in order to earn his quarter tip, as if carrying the bag with five heavy wood clubs that haven't been used in twenty years weren't enough. He doesn't mind telling Mrs Doane that winter rules are in effect so that she can take a preferred lie as she smiles at him and calls him her pal, but later feels troubled when he kicks her ball out of a rut to help her win a dress in a bet rather than have to pay $50 for it. When he wonders to his fellow caddy why Mr Thomas and other bad golfers cheat, his friend takes the view that it's more that good golfers can't; if they take two putts on a hole and make a par 4, they can hardly claim a score of 3, whereas a hacker can turn an 8 into a 7 with much greater ease. Towards the end of the story, the club champion, who was beginning a nice little career at the bank, absconds with $8,000 and a blonde secretary. Our narrator hears Mr Thomas and the other luminaries of the club regretting how Charles Crane has sold his soul. But the narrator thinks he got a good deal out of it, comparing $8,000 and a swell blonde to Mrs Doane not having to pay $50 for Miss Rennie's dress, or Mr Thomas claiming a lower score in order to finish joint first net on the back nine of a club tournament instead of second, and therefore winning nine golf balls instead of six. But his friend counters that, if he were to point this out to them, they would retort that, when he lied about Mr Thomas taking four shots to reach the green instead of five, he was selling his soul for a $.25 tip, or, when he kicked Mrs Doane's ball out of the rut, for a smile.
Unfortunately, as for LW4 wondering whether to die on this particular hill or not, (s)he loses a great deal of credit. Ar Dr Schlessinger frequently pointed out, upon which hill one happened to be willing to die was a personal and independent decision, and there is no point in LW4 expecting the Prudecutor to tell her the answer.
L2: Here I shall not bring up much of an analogy, but I shall point out the one thing that stood out for me in this letter. The two leaders went to LW2 and asked LW2 to remove his/her daughter from the troop because the daughter made an unkind remark to one of their daughters. The Prudecutor completely misses the boat on this one. Clearly the line for LW1 to have taken would have been to ascertain the strictness with which said Zero Tolerance Policy for Unkind Remarks had been enforced on previous occasions. Actually, now that I think of it, it's a bit like the recent case in Texas in which a male high school cheerleader was kicked off the squad, supposedly over a same-sex kiss which appeared on a security tape (why the tape was viewed being open to interpretation) when pregnant cheerleaders somehow have not violated the school code of conduct for the squad (and we say nothing about opposite-sex kissers). It appears that the school is now claiming that the dismissal had nothing to do with the kiss and that the parents accept this (how much if anything this might have cost again being open to interpretation).
L1: Now, the Prudecutor was actually doing rather well. She had a little fumble early on, stating with her usual prude-coloured glasses firmly in place that S1 made her decision on the basis of the life she would want to give her child. Possible. Clearly not disproveable on what we have. But certainly it is an Unwarranted Assumption, which comes perilously close to steering the reader into sympathy with LW1. But she righted the ship amazingly well and then proceeded on quite a good course. LW1's opinion is irrelevant, appropriate language, the evils of LW1 as a caretaker, and No Birth Mother Unchanged (true enough if not absolute). So far, so good. Perhaps a bit could have been added to the reference to entitlement, as LW1's definition of the same was certainly rather curious. And then, at the critical moment, the Prudecutor could not help herself:
But her choice does leave me thinking that when the time comes and she is ready, she will be a wonderful mother.
How on earth can the Prudecutor feel at all confident in such an asseriton? At least she does not say that she knows this. It would have been reasonable to say that one might feel more confident than usual, if S1 maintains her stance against such strong opposition from LW1 and F1, supported only by BF1, that the decision is more probably the correct choice for her. Far better to have ended this letter with reflections on LW1's future character as an aunt.
In Miss Austen's day, open adoptions seemed if anything rather more common than they are now, although the children in question more often went to family connections and the legal ramifications were considerably more loose. One of Miss Austen's own brothers provided a case in point. The whole of Mansfield Park begins with and concerns a sort of open adoption, when Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram, urged by Mrs Norris, agree to undertake the raising of their niece, Fanny Price. And a closer example to the modern day is provided in Emma. While we not only have the secondar example of Jane Fairfax being raised by her father's friend Colonel Campbell, there is the case of Frank Weston being so avowedly adopted by the Churchills as to take their name. The practice raises dual opinions in the bosoms of John and Isabella Knightley when, some twenty-odd years later, Frank sends his father's new wife a handsome letter on the occasion of the marriage. Isabella cannot imagine a child being taken from parent and home, and, while she is puzzled that Mr Weston could have borne to part with the little boy, she mainly cannot think well of anyone who could propose such a scheme. John counters that noone ever thought well of the Churchills, but his main opinion is that Mr Weston could not have felt what Isabella would have done in giving up one of her children.
Moral: "Mr Weston is rather an easy, cheerful-tempered man, than a man of strong feelings: he takes things as he finds them, and makes enjoyment of them somehow or other, depending, I suspect, much more upon what is called society for his comforts, that is, upon the power of eating and drinking, and playing whist with his neighbours five times a week, than upon family affection, or anything that home affords."
L3: He still has patients? This reminds me of Miss Marple in They Do It With Mirrors, in which she recounts how Edgar Lawson reminds her of a young dentist in practice with his father. When the old man's hands began to shake and patients preferred the son, he was so upset by how this hurt his father's feelings that he began to act drunk. Unfortunately, instead of their going back to the father, they went to the rival dentist. Not a very close analogy, but this is really a technical question.
L4: Some credit to the Prudecutor for recognizing that Disneyland is the root of all evil, although at least the original is vastly superiour to the Florida knockoff. If it will make LW4 feel any better, I doubt her or his immortal soul hangs in the balance of this potential lie, but I am inclined to give LW4 a few props. Advertently or otherwise, LW4 has called to mind Ring Lardner's story The Caddy, to which I believe I have referred on a previous occasion. Our narrator feels put upon when bank executive Mr Thomas calls upon him to lie in order to earn his quarter tip, as if carrying the bag with five heavy wood clubs that haven't been used in twenty years weren't enough. He doesn't mind telling Mrs Doane that winter rules are in effect so that she can take a preferred lie as she smiles at him and calls him her pal, but later feels troubled when he kicks her ball out of a rut to help her win a dress in a bet rather than have to pay $50 for it. When he wonders to his fellow caddy why Mr Thomas and other bad golfers cheat, his friend takes the view that it's more that good golfers can't; if they take two putts on a hole and make a par 4, they can hardly claim a score of 3, whereas a hacker can turn an 8 into a 7 with much greater ease. Towards the end of the story, the club champion, who was beginning a nice little career at the bank, absconds with $8,000 and a blonde secretary. Our narrator hears Mr Thomas and the other luminaries of the club regretting how Charles Crane has sold his soul. But the narrator thinks he got a good deal out of it, comparing $8,000 and a swell blonde to Mrs Doane not having to pay $50 for Miss Rennie's dress, or Mr Thomas claiming a lower score in order to finish joint first net on the back nine of a club tournament instead of second, and therefore winning nine golf balls instead of six. But his friend counters that, if he were to point this out to them, they would retort that, when he lied about Mr Thomas taking four shots to reach the green instead of five, he was selling his soul for a $.25 tip, or, when he kicked Mrs Doane's ball out of the rut, for a smile.
Unfortunately, as for LW4 wondering whether to die on this particular hill or not, (s)he loses a great deal of credit. Ar Dr Schlessinger frequently pointed out, upon which hill one happened to be willing to die was a personal and independent decision, and there is no point in LW4 expecting the Prudecutor to tell her the answer.
L2: Here I shall not bring up much of an analogy, but I shall point out the one thing that stood out for me in this letter. The two leaders went to LW2 and asked LW2 to remove his/her daughter from the troop because the daughter made an unkind remark to one of their daughters. The Prudecutor completely misses the boat on this one. Clearly the line for LW1 to have taken would have been to ascertain the strictness with which said Zero Tolerance Policy for Unkind Remarks had been enforced on previous occasions. Actually, now that I think of it, it's a bit like the recent case in Texas in which a male high school cheerleader was kicked off the squad, supposedly over a same-sex kiss which appeared on a security tape (why the tape was viewed being open to interpretation) when pregnant cheerleaders somehow have not violated the school code of conduct for the squad (and we say nothing about opposite-sex kissers). It appears that the school is now claiming that the dismissal had nothing to do with the kiss and that the parents accept this (how much if anything this might have cost again being open to interpretation).
L1: Now, the Prudecutor was actually doing rather well. She had a little fumble early on, stating with her usual prude-coloured glasses firmly in place that S1 made her decision on the basis of the life she would want to give her child. Possible. Clearly not disproveable on what we have. But certainly it is an Unwarranted Assumption, which comes perilously close to steering the reader into sympathy with LW1. But she righted the ship amazingly well and then proceeded on quite a good course. LW1's opinion is irrelevant, appropriate language, the evils of LW1 as a caretaker, and No Birth Mother Unchanged (true enough if not absolute). So far, so good. Perhaps a bit could have been added to the reference to entitlement, as LW1's definition of the same was certainly rather curious. And then, at the critical moment, the Prudecutor could not help herself:
But her choice does leave me thinking that when the time comes and she is ready, she will be a wonderful mother.
How on earth can the Prudecutor feel at all confident in such an asseriton? At least she does not say that she knows this. It would have been reasonable to say that one might feel more confident than usual, if S1 maintains her stance against such strong opposition from LW1 and F1, supported only by BF1, that the decision is more probably the correct choice for her. Far better to have ended this letter with reflections on LW1's future character as an aunt.
In Miss Austen's day, open adoptions seemed if anything rather more common than they are now, although the children in question more often went to family connections and the legal ramifications were considerably more loose. One of Miss Austen's own brothers provided a case in point. The whole of Mansfield Park begins with and concerns a sort of open adoption, when Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram, urged by Mrs Norris, agree to undertake the raising of their niece, Fanny Price. And a closer example to the modern day is provided in Emma. While we not only have the secondar example of Jane Fairfax being raised by her father's friend Colonel Campbell, there is the case of Frank Weston being so avowedly adopted by the Churchills as to take their name. The practice raises dual opinions in the bosoms of John and Isabella Knightley when, some twenty-odd years later, Frank sends his father's new wife a handsome letter on the occasion of the marriage. Isabella cannot imagine a child being taken from parent and home, and, while she is puzzled that Mr Weston could have borne to part with the little boy, she mainly cannot think well of anyone who could propose such a scheme. John counters that noone ever thought well of the Churchills, but his main opinion is that Mr Weston could not have felt what Isabella would have done in giving up one of her children.
Moral: "Mr Weston is rather an easy, cheerful-tempered man, than a man of strong feelings: he takes things as he finds them, and makes enjoyment of them somehow or other, depending, I suspect, much more upon what is called society for his comforts, that is, upon the power of eating and drinking, and playing whist with his neighbours five times a week, than upon family affection, or anything that home affords."
Thursday, October 13, 2011
10/13 - Voyaging Through
As much as I might enjoy cross-examinging the woman from Monday who began healthier habits that led to weight loss shortly before her boyfriend commented that her body type wasn't his preference, that would take far too long. I find I am still unsatisfactorily able to get back into full swing. Apologies in advance.
L1: Now here's a couple who clearly have at least one point of compatibility - they both have some foresight, but rather a limited quantity. As they are so well matched in this regard, it seems almost a shame to advise them that Divorce is by far the easiest solution to their problem, although parting is certainly vastly more convenient than either of the parties changing his or her views. And a divorce ought to mean a brief from LW1 for Mizz Lizz Probert, who did very well in Singleton v Singleton. If LW1 does not have a proper contempt for H now, she most certainly will by the time Mizz Lizz is finished with her.
I might cross-examine LW1 on why she thinks that her statement of the respective viewpoints of herself (or, in all fairness, himself, as L1 never explicitly specifies) and H1 are something about which they necessarily need to agree to disagree. How is being a pacifist and despising guns inconsistent with the belief that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms? Such viewpoints will lead to difficulties in the application of reconciling them in a living situation, but it is perfectly possible to hold both beliefs. The interesting thing here is that LW1 equates personal attitudes to what (s)he presents as H1's stance coming from his belief in a general or universal right. Either this is a great incompatibility or LW1 doesn't really fight fair.
As for a solution, I have two - go the route of Solomon and let H1 have all the guns he likes so long as no bullet ever crosses the threshold, or follow the example of And Then There Were None (a much more politically correct version of the title than Ten Little Whatevers), in which Mr Justice Wargrave collects all the potential lethal weapons in the possession of anyone still alive on the island and places them in a silver chest, which is then placed in the plate cupboard. He then gives the key of the chest to Lombard and the key of the cupboard to Blore (or the other way around). Either way, this will have the hallmark of all the best compromises in satisfying nobody.
L2: I suppose it seems reasonable to assume that someone who would carry large sums in cash would be the sort who would be comfortable with resorting to physical violence to settle a dispute. I might again point out the desirability of a Divorce. Lest anyone think I am merely touting for briefs on behalf of Mizz Lizz Probert, I point out as an unshakeable defence that LW2 and W2 are both dreamers, and it is well known that dreamers are unsuited to the real world of Actual Bodily Harm. I could go farther and hold that anyone who gets The Wedding of Her Dreams invariably finds that life goes downhill from there. But any marriage beginning with such a wedding is bound to have a hex on it. And C2 need not stay divorced. I pass without comment over the Prudecutor's strange display of what she takes for humour.
As for the cash, who cares? It's a kind gesture not to cash IG2's check and send in that direction a donation more or less equal to the amount of CB2's gift to IG2, although that might be a tacit admission of guilt or responsibility, and could possibly end up costing LW2 and W2 more than either might care to undertake. Being in a more than usually tasteful mood today, I shall refrain from inquiring with any solicitude into the question of whether CB2 is provided with adequate Defence Counsel.
L3: Now we see the point of the entire column. A gift of LW3's hair as a wig is something that gives the Prudecutor a mild case of the squicks; therefore, LW3 must channel the thought into some conventional effort that has considerably less meaning. Typical. Of course, why LW3 thinks that making such a gift as a surprise is so clever I've no idea. It's too simple. LW3 mentions to F3 that she (this letter does seem to have more in favour of the assumption that others, although it is not absolutely explicit) is planning to cut her hair. F3 probably makes some remark about this, and LW3 asks if F3 would like her hair made into a wig. The element of surprise could come in the form of LW3 already having looked into the practice.
L4: I might have sided entirely with LW4 on this one, but the list of complaints is rather odd. The complaint about there being no smoke alarms might have carried some weight if tied explicitly to the dangers of conflagrations on premises owned by near-hoarders. But in combination with the unlocked doors (as if there were any need to keep intruders out of such a home), LW4 comes off as being extremely soapy, if not an outright priss. The real damage has been done. LW4 ought to have enforced on the occasion of the engagement (or at least the marriage) that P4s treat the new family with appropriate respect. Consider the case of Susan Warrington in The Voyage Out. Although a minor character who, along with her eventual fiance, Arthur Venning, is used as a sort of foil for the love story of more central characters, Susan, whose existence is established as that of a drudge in service to her aunt, finds an unexpected improvement in her lot on the occasion of her engagement. The old tyrant shows such a respect for the married state that Susan's view of her prospects for the near future are considerably brightened. A slight variation on this theme occurs in Death on the Nile, in which Cornelia Robson is liberated from her lot of being dogsbody to Miss van Schuyler.
Moral: "Directly she became engaged, Mrs Paley behaved with instinctive respect, positively protested when Susan as usual knelt down to lace her shoes, and appeared really grateful for an hour of Susan's company where she had been sued to exact two or three as her right."
L1: Now here's a couple who clearly have at least one point of compatibility - they both have some foresight, but rather a limited quantity. As they are so well matched in this regard, it seems almost a shame to advise them that Divorce is by far the easiest solution to their problem, although parting is certainly vastly more convenient than either of the parties changing his or her views. And a divorce ought to mean a brief from LW1 for Mizz Lizz Probert, who did very well in Singleton v Singleton. If LW1 does not have a proper contempt for H now, she most certainly will by the time Mizz Lizz is finished with her.
I might cross-examine LW1 on why she thinks that her statement of the respective viewpoints of herself (or, in all fairness, himself, as L1 never explicitly specifies) and H1 are something about which they necessarily need to agree to disagree. How is being a pacifist and despising guns inconsistent with the belief that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms? Such viewpoints will lead to difficulties in the application of reconciling them in a living situation, but it is perfectly possible to hold both beliefs. The interesting thing here is that LW1 equates personal attitudes to what (s)he presents as H1's stance coming from his belief in a general or universal right. Either this is a great incompatibility or LW1 doesn't really fight fair.
As for a solution, I have two - go the route of Solomon and let H1 have all the guns he likes so long as no bullet ever crosses the threshold, or follow the example of And Then There Were None (a much more politically correct version of the title than Ten Little Whatevers), in which Mr Justice Wargrave collects all the potential lethal weapons in the possession of anyone still alive on the island and places them in a silver chest, which is then placed in the plate cupboard. He then gives the key of the chest to Lombard and the key of the cupboard to Blore (or the other way around). Either way, this will have the hallmark of all the best compromises in satisfying nobody.
L2: I suppose it seems reasonable to assume that someone who would carry large sums in cash would be the sort who would be comfortable with resorting to physical violence to settle a dispute. I might again point out the desirability of a Divorce. Lest anyone think I am merely touting for briefs on behalf of Mizz Lizz Probert, I point out as an unshakeable defence that LW2 and W2 are both dreamers, and it is well known that dreamers are unsuited to the real world of Actual Bodily Harm. I could go farther and hold that anyone who gets The Wedding of Her Dreams invariably finds that life goes downhill from there. But any marriage beginning with such a wedding is bound to have a hex on it. And C2 need not stay divorced. I pass without comment over the Prudecutor's strange display of what she takes for humour.
As for the cash, who cares? It's a kind gesture not to cash IG2's check and send in that direction a donation more or less equal to the amount of CB2's gift to IG2, although that might be a tacit admission of guilt or responsibility, and could possibly end up costing LW2 and W2 more than either might care to undertake. Being in a more than usually tasteful mood today, I shall refrain from inquiring with any solicitude into the question of whether CB2 is provided with adequate Defence Counsel.
L3: Now we see the point of the entire column. A gift of LW3's hair as a wig is something that gives the Prudecutor a mild case of the squicks; therefore, LW3 must channel the thought into some conventional effort that has considerably less meaning. Typical. Of course, why LW3 thinks that making such a gift as a surprise is so clever I've no idea. It's too simple. LW3 mentions to F3 that she (this letter does seem to have more in favour of the assumption that others, although it is not absolutely explicit) is planning to cut her hair. F3 probably makes some remark about this, and LW3 asks if F3 would like her hair made into a wig. The element of surprise could come in the form of LW3 already having looked into the practice.
L4: I might have sided entirely with LW4 on this one, but the list of complaints is rather odd. The complaint about there being no smoke alarms might have carried some weight if tied explicitly to the dangers of conflagrations on premises owned by near-hoarders. But in combination with the unlocked doors (as if there were any need to keep intruders out of such a home), LW4 comes off as being extremely soapy, if not an outright priss. The real damage has been done. LW4 ought to have enforced on the occasion of the engagement (or at least the marriage) that P4s treat the new family with appropriate respect. Consider the case of Susan Warrington in The Voyage Out. Although a minor character who, along with her eventual fiance, Arthur Venning, is used as a sort of foil for the love story of more central characters, Susan, whose existence is established as that of a drudge in service to her aunt, finds an unexpected improvement in her lot on the occasion of her engagement. The old tyrant shows such a respect for the married state that Susan's view of her prospects for the near future are considerably brightened. A slight variation on this theme occurs in Death on the Nile, in which Cornelia Robson is liberated from her lot of being dogsbody to Miss van Schuyler.
Moral: "Directly she became engaged, Mrs Paley behaved with instinctive respect, positively protested when Susan as usual knelt down to lace her shoes, and appeared really grateful for an hour of Susan's company where she had been sued to exact two or three as her right."
Thursday, October 6, 2011
10/6 - Why Consult the Prudecutor?
This week's crop is so poor that I cannot justify providing any of the letters with a parallel or a moral.
L1: Why consult the Prudecutor? Mr Savage would have provided LW1 with all the necessary justification and validation for continuing in his current line of conduct. I'm not quite sure why the Prudecutor assumes that W1 "easily" climaxes (assumes facts not in evidence) or why she thinks that anyone content with sex once a month would consider her own climax a boon to her partner. But those are minor points.
How certain is LW1 exactly that his wife would end the marriage over infidelity? There seem to be a number of possible reactions, of which outrage, while valid, is but one. She might resent the expenditure, and tell him to get a mistress instead. She might be quite willing to outsource the majority of his sexual expression. While it's not really kosher to present one's recent behaviour as a future possibility, it may be an option for initiating a discussion, little as I like it.
I am perhaps most interested in the Household Help sideline. If memory serves, one could well recall that, for years, Women in Authority have told Husbands who wonder why they aren't Getting Any that a freshly done and folded load of laundry is the Finest Aphrodisiac in the World. But the Prudecutor now gives this the lie, claiming that LW1's intent in relieving his wife of some of her burden being that it might lead her to be In The Mood more often negates the value of his activities. Somehow, I don't think the Radical Sisterhood of Wives Who Already Know They Aren't Going to Give It Up is going to thank the Prudecutor for showing up their scam.
L2: Why consult the Prudecutor? This one's obvious - LW2 is more successful than the Prudecutor. Any other columnist would likely talk down to him. It might be entertaining to debate the relative nature of Success, but not with someone who so desperately needs to stack the deck.
L3: At least one can see the case for LW3 consulting the Prudecutor (and LW4 as well, once we get there). If I were going to provide a parallel, it might have to do with Fred Couples, who never liked answering the telephone, because somebody might be on the other end. LW3 might not want to speculate too deeply about exactly what is going on in his son's home during the weekly telephone calls. Or, then again, if he's of the creepy variety, perhaps he might. I'm not sure why the Prudecutor thinks S3 should apologize beyond the obligatory Whoopsie for sending something to the wrong person. But it might be enjoyable to cross-examine LW3 on why, if he has such a brilliant relationship with S3, he chose to adorn a message with the worst possible spin and have an instant snit.
L4: And since when, LW4, does someone, even someone celebrating a birthday, merely decide with whom among her intended co-celebrants she intends to adopt the status of guest and inform the lucky recipient of her stay? Here the Prudecutor has actually given an excellent imitation of a stopped clock and gotten one right. The Tudors in particular were fond of a Royal Progress, and why not? They were most economical - potentially ruinous to the lucky hosts, but that was always a secondary concern. As for LW4's actual question, the obvious thing would be to have the boyfriend attend in drag. Anything else is just too boring to contemplate.
L1: Why consult the Prudecutor? Mr Savage would have provided LW1 with all the necessary justification and validation for continuing in his current line of conduct. I'm not quite sure why the Prudecutor assumes that W1 "easily" climaxes (assumes facts not in evidence) or why she thinks that anyone content with sex once a month would consider her own climax a boon to her partner. But those are minor points.
How certain is LW1 exactly that his wife would end the marriage over infidelity? There seem to be a number of possible reactions, of which outrage, while valid, is but one. She might resent the expenditure, and tell him to get a mistress instead. She might be quite willing to outsource the majority of his sexual expression. While it's not really kosher to present one's recent behaviour as a future possibility, it may be an option for initiating a discussion, little as I like it.
I am perhaps most interested in the Household Help sideline. If memory serves, one could well recall that, for years, Women in Authority have told Husbands who wonder why they aren't Getting Any that a freshly done and folded load of laundry is the Finest Aphrodisiac in the World. But the Prudecutor now gives this the lie, claiming that LW1's intent in relieving his wife of some of her burden being that it might lead her to be In The Mood more often negates the value of his activities. Somehow, I don't think the Radical Sisterhood of Wives Who Already Know They Aren't Going to Give It Up is going to thank the Prudecutor for showing up their scam.
L2: Why consult the Prudecutor? This one's obvious - LW2 is more successful than the Prudecutor. Any other columnist would likely talk down to him. It might be entertaining to debate the relative nature of Success, but not with someone who so desperately needs to stack the deck.
L3: At least one can see the case for LW3 consulting the Prudecutor (and LW4 as well, once we get there). If I were going to provide a parallel, it might have to do with Fred Couples, who never liked answering the telephone, because somebody might be on the other end. LW3 might not want to speculate too deeply about exactly what is going on in his son's home during the weekly telephone calls. Or, then again, if he's of the creepy variety, perhaps he might. I'm not sure why the Prudecutor thinks S3 should apologize beyond the obligatory Whoopsie for sending something to the wrong person. But it might be enjoyable to cross-examine LW3 on why, if he has such a brilliant relationship with S3, he chose to adorn a message with the worst possible spin and have an instant snit.
L4: And since when, LW4, does someone, even someone celebrating a birthday, merely decide with whom among her intended co-celebrants she intends to adopt the status of guest and inform the lucky recipient of her stay? Here the Prudecutor has actually given an excellent imitation of a stopped clock and gotten one right. The Tudors in particular were fond of a Royal Progress, and why not? They were most economical - potentially ruinous to the lucky hosts, but that was always a secondary concern. As for LW4's actual question, the obvious thing would be to have the boyfriend attend in drag. Anything else is just too boring to contemplate.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
9/29 - Rather Short Answers to Rather Uninspiring Questions
One might get used to the new format at Slate over time, but the initial impression is not favourable. It is probably fortunate that time was short today anyway; it suits the questions.
L2: Then: Sow. Now: Reap.
L3: Two words. Word 1: Buh. Word 2: Bye.
L4: Missing the following is a bit much, even for the Prudecutor: "I can't fathom sending my kids to live with people who won’t even spend their time and money being more involved in our children’s lives." LW4's defending barrister must be rather white in the wig. Any counsel of discernment would never let such a witness take the stand.
L1: The short answer is that this is why God in Her wisdom created Reconstructive Surgery.
What the Prudecutor is doing blathering on about genes, which have nothing to do with the case, I don't know - one could not even call it so much of a Rattling Good Yarn as the opening for the Prosecution when that provider of pure historical bilge water, Miss Amelia Nettleship, sued the Daily Beacon for libel. There will be much debate about whether LW1 needs to find some way to forgive her mother or not, and I have an examplar for her to consider when she finds herself torn between the Scylla of loving forgiveness and the Charybdis of further separation. LW1 should consider and perhaps follow the example of Marigold Featherstone.
It so happened that Marigold was away from the Featherstone abode in Knightsbridge when Sir Guthrie, after being savaged by the Court of Appeal for reckless comments when passing sentence in a case in which the conviction was reversed, sought consolation in inebriation at the Sheridan Club. Upon leaving the Sheridan, he chanced upon the Bexley Heath Thespians, led by his old clark Henry from #3 Equity Court. Invited to accompany the Thespians for a bit of a bop and lured to accept by the attraction's of Henry's new typist, Dot Clapton, Guthrie shuffled about the floor for a bit, called Dot Debby, and maundered on about the Appeal Judges.
The next day, Guthrie met the newly elected Claude Erskine Brown and guest at the Sheridan. In order to cheer himself up still further and deflect attention away from the Court of Appeal, he told a tale full of Amourous Intrigue of how many young women - girls, even, prefer the slightly older male as a partner - in every sense of the word, relating how he struck lucky afterwards - in every possible way. Unfortunately, this conversation was earwigged by one Toby Harringay, a habitue of the bridge club frequented by not only Marigold but also She Who Must Be Obeyed, to whom the old earwig related the entire tale before he could recall the name of the lascivious judge involved.
Of course, She wasted no time in relating the treacherous tale to the mortified Marigold, who confronted the groveling Guthrie over breakfast, telling him that Little Miss Whatsit was perfectly welcome to his attentions, such as they were. Did that mean she forgave him? Well, she could hardly do that when he went blabbing about it at the Sheridan Club. Guthrie then thought that Marigold would leave him. But a big No to that also. That would make it far too easy for him.
Marigold, that Thinker Outside the Box, decided that she would stay at home and not forgive him.
Moral: "But, Marigold - I appeal to you!" "I'm sorry, Guthrie; you've lost your appeal."
L2: Then: Sow. Now: Reap.
L3: Two words. Word 1: Buh. Word 2: Bye.
L4: Missing the following is a bit much, even for the Prudecutor: "I can't fathom sending my kids to live with people who won’t even spend their time and money being more involved in our children’s lives." LW4's defending barrister must be rather white in the wig. Any counsel of discernment would never let such a witness take the stand.
L1: The short answer is that this is why God in Her wisdom created Reconstructive Surgery.
What the Prudecutor is doing blathering on about genes, which have nothing to do with the case, I don't know - one could not even call it so much of a Rattling Good Yarn as the opening for the Prosecution when that provider of pure historical bilge water, Miss Amelia Nettleship, sued the Daily Beacon for libel. There will be much debate about whether LW1 needs to find some way to forgive her mother or not, and I have an examplar for her to consider when she finds herself torn between the Scylla of loving forgiveness and the Charybdis of further separation. LW1 should consider and perhaps follow the example of Marigold Featherstone.
It so happened that Marigold was away from the Featherstone abode in Knightsbridge when Sir Guthrie, after being savaged by the Court of Appeal for reckless comments when passing sentence in a case in which the conviction was reversed, sought consolation in inebriation at the Sheridan Club. Upon leaving the Sheridan, he chanced upon the Bexley Heath Thespians, led by his old clark Henry from #3 Equity Court. Invited to accompany the Thespians for a bit of a bop and lured to accept by the attraction's of Henry's new typist, Dot Clapton, Guthrie shuffled about the floor for a bit, called Dot Debby, and maundered on about the Appeal Judges.
The next day, Guthrie met the newly elected Claude Erskine Brown and guest at the Sheridan. In order to cheer himself up still further and deflect attention away from the Court of Appeal, he told a tale full of Amourous Intrigue of how many young women - girls, even, prefer the slightly older male as a partner - in every sense of the word, relating how he struck lucky afterwards - in every possible way. Unfortunately, this conversation was earwigged by one Toby Harringay, a habitue of the bridge club frequented by not only Marigold but also She Who Must Be Obeyed, to whom the old earwig related the entire tale before he could recall the name of the lascivious judge involved.
Of course, She wasted no time in relating the treacherous tale to the mortified Marigold, who confronted the groveling Guthrie over breakfast, telling him that Little Miss Whatsit was perfectly welcome to his attentions, such as they were. Did that mean she forgave him? Well, she could hardly do that when he went blabbing about it at the Sheridan Club. Guthrie then thought that Marigold would leave him. But a big No to that also. That would make it far too easy for him.
Marigold, that Thinker Outside the Box, decided that she would stay at home and not forgive him.
Moral: "But, Marigold - I appeal to you!" "I'm sorry, Guthrie; you've lost your appeal."
Thursday, September 22, 2011
9/22 - A New Guest
To the Regular Readers of This Column:
Please do not be alarmed that Rumpole is not writing this week. Hilda hasn't murdered him - yet. His absence, perhaps due in part to overindulgence in Pommeroy's Ordinary Red, also springs from my having convinced him that it is high time his readership were exposed to a less patriarchal view of the questions he addresses here. Then too, he has permitted Claude Erskine Brown to write here as a guest on more than one occasion. It was not difficult for me to persuade Rumpole that I could perform the task at hand much better than Claude. I suppose Rumpole must have thought that I had far too many more important things to do, what with running the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers and all that, but what I always say is that, if the personal is political, then the political is personal, and so here I am.
L1: Do you know, LW1, that until the very end of the letter, I thought you were a man? Your unnecessary emphasis on your husband's co-worker being female, when you called her She in the next clause, made it appear that there was an unusual emphasis on her being a woman. My original assumption was therefore that you were a male couple, hence the emphasis. We are, after all, soon to have full marriage for same-sex couples soon (Americans already have such marriages in several states), and most of the couples in civil partnerships I meet when I do Legal Aid work in support of Gay and Lesbian Rights (they really ought to include Bisexuals as well; such exclusion is highly patriarchal and divisive) call their spouses their husband or wife. But then just at the end you mention his sleeping with another woman, and that settles the question.
I am a little surprised that you ask which of the pair to believe. For one thing, even when she commits the unpardonable act of trying to steal your man, another woman is much less likely to be telling you a lie than any man, of course, because patriarchy. I'm sorry that this was how you had to learn that you didn't really have a good marriage after all, but better now than later. After all, as the wisest character in Shirley Valentine (Jane, of course) tells us, All Men Are Potential Rapists (even the Pope). And it is hard to see why you could think that the answer to your question makes any difference. You know he's a cheater and can't be trusted, and it only matters how many times if it will affect your divorce settlement. That might depend on where you got married. To be absolutely honest, which of course I am, being a woman, I don't think I've done a divorce since Singleton v Singleton. If you had consulted me before you'd married, I'd have advised you to make him sign a prenuptial agreement giving you 90% of his assets if you ever split up. I should not advise any woman to marry a man without getting him to sign such an agreement. There are people who say it's not romantic, but they're just misogynists. Why shouldn't a man sign it? After all, as long as he remains faithful and doesn't give his more deserving wife any reason to want to divorce him, it won't cost him a penny. And if he refuses to sign, it's proof positive that he's already thinking of cheating, and who wants to marry that?
L2: Now, Rumpole tells me that he often makes literary references in his answers, and this letter makes me think of Oscar Wilde, who, even though he was a man, wrote some clever things. Rumpole, of course, being just a teensy bit homophobic, like almost all heterosexual men, does not often quote Oscar Wilde, but at least it makes it go down easier to be quoting a man at all. Wilde once said that there are only two trageides in life, not getting what you want, and getting it.
LW2, you appear to have gotten what you want. You say you have always appreciated your friend's directness and pragmatism. And here she has just given you a remarkable example of the qualities you so appreciate about her. I agree that it is possible for such a gesture to be intended badly and to be hurtful, but don't think that's the case here - after all, it's not as though it were a man not inviting your father to a wedding, or your mother not being invited. And men don't really appreciate weddings, anyway. In my opinion, most weddings would be far better off without them. I'm sure it's not as if your father would want to go, if he were alive, that is.
You say your friend is direct and pragmatic. Well, what can be more direct and pragmatic than this? You and your mother can't possibly object unless she would have RSVP'd that both your parents would attend, when clearly that isn't going to be the case. Your father would have to go on the list of those planning to att end, which means that your friend would have had to include him in her seating plans, and that, in case you never happen to have gotten married, can be an absolute nightmare. So many women, who, after all, are often marrying mere men, need the consolation of having nice, even numbers at all the tables, and a guest who accepts an invitation only to die before the event is a major headache. And as long as your father is on the list, then your friend can't decently invite someone who would make a nice couple with your mother once she's a widow. And that would not feel quite nice if your friend were penciling in a replacement guest. It's just not at all the same thing.
Yes, your friend ought to have apologized for hurting your and your mother's feelings. But you made a mistake confronting a bride-to-be over the telephone. One never knows what madness might be engulfing her during the call. Correct procedure is to take her to lunch and then take her to task when she's far removed from disturbing influences and can give you her proper attention. Of course, if you really want to end the friendship, then it would be silly to try to stop you. But the Prudecutor, as Rumpole calls her, frequently advises people to give a bride the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases, and I have worked with Rumpole long enough to find it suspicious that she considers this to be a clear case of a friendship-ending insult? Don't burn your bridges, LW2, because after a long dose of burying your head in the sand next to your mother's, you'll probably be in the mood for some of your friend's direct pragmatism before too much longer.
L3: Your parents (who appear to have acquired their fiscal brains from Sir Walter Elliot) have just provided you with a classic example of Ageism. They are bad people. They denied you your agency in choice of university and then turned around and billed you after cheating you out of the opportunity to take the bill into account in agreeing to attend the uni you did when a poly probably would have done just as well. They probably dislike your choice of career, although good for you for going into public service. Now, once again, they are attempting to deny you your agency in trying to force you to travel with them and pay a ruinous amount in expences. Cut them out of your life once and for all. You are far better off without ageists of this ilk around you.
L4: And we finish by going from Ageism to Ableism. You ought to check your privilege, LW4, and be aware that the T in TAB and TAM stands for Temporarily. But sadly, prejudice and discrimination against the non-TAB and non-TAM have been on the increase. Why, in the States, I've heard that there are people who are actually trying to establish that the Presidency and other major political offices not be open to those who are non-TAB or non-TAM. Perhaps they realize that they can hardly be trusted to choose such office holders in open elections, but I don't know why the idea should scare them. After all, we've been quite content with non-TAB and non-TAM elected officials at the highest levels for ages, and it hasn't done us irreparable harm.
However, a woman has the right not to be bothered by a man in her own home. This is something that your non-TAM neighbour can appreciate to at least a partial degree if he is able to be out and about by himself without supervision. (Perhaps he ought to be supervised at all times, but it does not appear from L4 that this is the case.) It probably behooves you to involve his mother in establishing a comfortable relationship - after all, as All Men Are Potential Rapists (see LW1), it should entirely be the woman's prerogative to select the degree of acquaintance with which she is comfortable.
Well, all, I hope that this was a satisfacotry first attemtp. I may appear again in future, when I hope I shall have more time, instead of having to rush to a meeting about Claude Erskine Brown. You'd think that by now he wouldn't be given any more female pupils...
L. Probert, S.R.L.
Please do not be alarmed that Rumpole is not writing this week. Hilda hasn't murdered him - yet. His absence, perhaps due in part to overindulgence in Pommeroy's Ordinary Red, also springs from my having convinced him that it is high time his readership were exposed to a less patriarchal view of the questions he addresses here. Then too, he has permitted Claude Erskine Brown to write here as a guest on more than one occasion. It was not difficult for me to persuade Rumpole that I could perform the task at hand much better than Claude. I suppose Rumpole must have thought that I had far too many more important things to do, what with running the Sisterhood of Radical Lawyers and all that, but what I always say is that, if the personal is political, then the political is personal, and so here I am.
L1: Do you know, LW1, that until the very end of the letter, I thought you were a man? Your unnecessary emphasis on your husband's co-worker being female, when you called her She in the next clause, made it appear that there was an unusual emphasis on her being a woman. My original assumption was therefore that you were a male couple, hence the emphasis. We are, after all, soon to have full marriage for same-sex couples soon (Americans already have such marriages in several states), and most of the couples in civil partnerships I meet when I do Legal Aid work in support of Gay and Lesbian Rights (they really ought to include Bisexuals as well; such exclusion is highly patriarchal and divisive) call their spouses their husband or wife. But then just at the end you mention his sleeping with another woman, and that settles the question.
I am a little surprised that you ask which of the pair to believe. For one thing, even when she commits the unpardonable act of trying to steal your man, another woman is much less likely to be telling you a lie than any man, of course, because patriarchy. I'm sorry that this was how you had to learn that you didn't really have a good marriage after all, but better now than later. After all, as the wisest character in Shirley Valentine (Jane, of course) tells us, All Men Are Potential Rapists (even the Pope). And it is hard to see why you could think that the answer to your question makes any difference. You know he's a cheater and can't be trusted, and it only matters how many times if it will affect your divorce settlement. That might depend on where you got married. To be absolutely honest, which of course I am, being a woman, I don't think I've done a divorce since Singleton v Singleton. If you had consulted me before you'd married, I'd have advised you to make him sign a prenuptial agreement giving you 90% of his assets if you ever split up. I should not advise any woman to marry a man without getting him to sign such an agreement. There are people who say it's not romantic, but they're just misogynists. Why shouldn't a man sign it? After all, as long as he remains faithful and doesn't give his more deserving wife any reason to want to divorce him, it won't cost him a penny. And if he refuses to sign, it's proof positive that he's already thinking of cheating, and who wants to marry that?
L2: Now, Rumpole tells me that he often makes literary references in his answers, and this letter makes me think of Oscar Wilde, who, even though he was a man, wrote some clever things. Rumpole, of course, being just a teensy bit homophobic, like almost all heterosexual men, does not often quote Oscar Wilde, but at least it makes it go down easier to be quoting a man at all. Wilde once said that there are only two trageides in life, not getting what you want, and getting it.
LW2, you appear to have gotten what you want. You say you have always appreciated your friend's directness and pragmatism. And here she has just given you a remarkable example of the qualities you so appreciate about her. I agree that it is possible for such a gesture to be intended badly and to be hurtful, but don't think that's the case here - after all, it's not as though it were a man not inviting your father to a wedding, or your mother not being invited. And men don't really appreciate weddings, anyway. In my opinion, most weddings would be far better off without them. I'm sure it's not as if your father would want to go, if he were alive, that is.
You say your friend is direct and pragmatic. Well, what can be more direct and pragmatic than this? You and your mother can't possibly object unless she would have RSVP'd that both your parents would attend, when clearly that isn't going to be the case. Your father would have to go on the list of those planning to att end, which means that your friend would have had to include him in her seating plans, and that, in case you never happen to have gotten married, can be an absolute nightmare. So many women, who, after all, are often marrying mere men, need the consolation of having nice, even numbers at all the tables, and a guest who accepts an invitation only to die before the event is a major headache. And as long as your father is on the list, then your friend can't decently invite someone who would make a nice couple with your mother once she's a widow. And that would not feel quite nice if your friend were penciling in a replacement guest. It's just not at all the same thing.
Yes, your friend ought to have apologized for hurting your and your mother's feelings. But you made a mistake confronting a bride-to-be over the telephone. One never knows what madness might be engulfing her during the call. Correct procedure is to take her to lunch and then take her to task when she's far removed from disturbing influences and can give you her proper attention. Of course, if you really want to end the friendship, then it would be silly to try to stop you. But the Prudecutor, as Rumpole calls her, frequently advises people to give a bride the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases, and I have worked with Rumpole long enough to find it suspicious that she considers this to be a clear case of a friendship-ending insult? Don't burn your bridges, LW2, because after a long dose of burying your head in the sand next to your mother's, you'll probably be in the mood for some of your friend's direct pragmatism before too much longer.
L3: Your parents (who appear to have acquired their fiscal brains from Sir Walter Elliot) have just provided you with a classic example of Ageism. They are bad people. They denied you your agency in choice of university and then turned around and billed you after cheating you out of the opportunity to take the bill into account in agreeing to attend the uni you did when a poly probably would have done just as well. They probably dislike your choice of career, although good for you for going into public service. Now, once again, they are attempting to deny you your agency in trying to force you to travel with them and pay a ruinous amount in expences. Cut them out of your life once and for all. You are far better off without ageists of this ilk around you.
L4: And we finish by going from Ageism to Ableism. You ought to check your privilege, LW4, and be aware that the T in TAB and TAM stands for Temporarily. But sadly, prejudice and discrimination against the non-TAB and non-TAM have been on the increase. Why, in the States, I've heard that there are people who are actually trying to establish that the Presidency and other major political offices not be open to those who are non-TAB or non-TAM. Perhaps they realize that they can hardly be trusted to choose such office holders in open elections, but I don't know why the idea should scare them. After all, we've been quite content with non-TAB and non-TAM elected officials at the highest levels for ages, and it hasn't done us irreparable harm.
However, a woman has the right not to be bothered by a man in her own home. This is something that your non-TAM neighbour can appreciate to at least a partial degree if he is able to be out and about by himself without supervision. (Perhaps he ought to be supervised at all times, but it does not appear from L4 that this is the case.) It probably behooves you to involve his mother in establishing a comfortable relationship - after all, as All Men Are Potential Rapists (see LW1), it should entirely be the woman's prerogative to select the degree of acquaintance with which she is comfortable.
Well, all, I hope that this was a satisfacotry first attemtp. I may appear again in future, when I hope I shall have more time, instead of having to rush to a meeting about Claude Erskine Brown. You'd think that by now he wouldn't be given any more female pupils...
L. Probert, S.R.L.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
9/15 - A Gradual Return
With service finally restored after the not-all-that-recent hurricane, I shall resume with a short post today, including doing the format backwards and poking at Monday after the Thursday letters, which shall all be Quick Takes.
L1: The obvious person/people to cross-examine is/are MIL1's diagnosing doctor/s. LW1 seems to be making enough leaps of presumptive dislike to convince a Jury to find MIL1 Not Guilty because of LW1's overreaching. Did the doctor(s) make it abundantly clear that this was information to which other family members potentially at risk of procreation NEEDED (in capital letters) to have? Then again, this might only be useful in reducing LW1's anger. From a practical point of view, LW1 needs to decide what to do now. That her problem is largely that her husband isn't angry enough for her is telling. His mother faces a gruesome death, he has about an even shot of the same fate, and yet he's supposed to Yes, Dear his wife's rage and fury. I suspect that nothing short of his going over and murdering MIL1 in person would satisfy LW1, who is overplaying justifiable anger (although, when her son is tricked into parenting, perhaps she will extend to him the same sympathy she now seeks).
My advice to LW1, since her husband apparently does not intend to do him mother the kindness of sparing her from a gruesome death by murdering her himself, is to do so. As stated, it will be doing MIL1 a kindness to spare her such an end, and doing a kindness to those who have wronged us is one way to acquire an incredibly high level of self-satisfaction. Additionally, it would have the benefit of ending a doomed marriage (it would give me SUCH satisfaction if LW1 were the same woman who complained on Monday that her husband wasn't having an appropriate response to the 9/11 anniversary). However, most important of all, LW1 murdering MIL1 would eventually provide employment for one of the more deserving members of the legal profession, who might at the time be very much in want of a case that will provide him the opportunity to show off his masterful courtroom skills by securing an Acquittal (not to mention the much needed Daily Refreshers).
L2: I long to cross-examine W2 about exactly how many outside trysts she enjoyed before the engagement, or if indeed the couple were even exclusive. I advocate (and selflessly, in this instance, as I rarely do divorces, not having much innate fondness for the Family Division) immediate separation from this gaslighting spouse. And, with a conscience like his/hers (after all, there is absolutely no gender specification in L2), LW2 would be of the utmost service to us all in a profession where such a conscience is desperately needed - politics. LW2 should run for Congress immediately. This will have the side benefit of being the one thing that ought to, if anything will, flush PMF2 out of the woodwork. If PMF2 does not emerge while LW2 is running for office, he can remarry with hardly any fear of being exposed.
L3: When did you ever know what you wanted to do with your life, LW3? It appears that all you ever wanted was to please your parents with an endless pile of accomplishments that was never big enough for them. You have two choices. The first choice is to realize that a First in Law never made anyone a better cross-examiner, nor did a Fourth prevent one from excellence in the field, and draw the appropriate lesson. The second would be to give your parents what they most deserve in the world and indulge in suicide. Which course holds more appeal (no bets here)?
L4: You could always reply that you'd hoped you'd wiped your predecessor from the memories of your complimenters by your superiour performance. Or you could eliminate the compliments by impersonating her inferiour performance.
Now for Monday and a pair of letters. First, in the case of the BISEXUAL ex-boyfriend newly engaged to a sweet little Bible-blogger, it is incredibly tempting to suggest that SLBB not only deserves what she gets but also in all probability already knows exactly what she's getting, and that any interference will only serve to strengthen SLBB's determination to marry him, deliver him from his perceived deviance and in so doing prove her superiour womanhood in relation to that of her ungodly predecessor. But I am displeased with the LW over the incorrect use of mutual, too displeased to ask the obvious question: How on earth does the common friend know what the ex is doing (unless, of course, CF is the famed stereotypical Gay Best Friend, so beloved of television and film writers, who can give the most firsthand of testimony)? I smell Danish.
Then we have the LW bride suffering at the hand of Familial Guestzillas. LW, if you have the good taste to select a lesbian as your attendant, it seems hardly likely that you really want the bigots at the wedding in the first place. With or without advance warning that this will be done, simply remove anyone who objects to the selection of the wedding party or the composition of the guest list from that list. It's not that hard.
L1: The obvious person/people to cross-examine is/are MIL1's diagnosing doctor/s. LW1 seems to be making enough leaps of presumptive dislike to convince a Jury to find MIL1 Not Guilty because of LW1's overreaching. Did the doctor(s) make it abundantly clear that this was information to which other family members potentially at risk of procreation NEEDED (in capital letters) to have? Then again, this might only be useful in reducing LW1's anger. From a practical point of view, LW1 needs to decide what to do now. That her problem is largely that her husband isn't angry enough for her is telling. His mother faces a gruesome death, he has about an even shot of the same fate, and yet he's supposed to Yes, Dear his wife's rage and fury. I suspect that nothing short of his going over and murdering MIL1 in person would satisfy LW1, who is overplaying justifiable anger (although, when her son is tricked into parenting, perhaps she will extend to him the same sympathy she now seeks).
My advice to LW1, since her husband apparently does not intend to do him mother the kindness of sparing her from a gruesome death by murdering her himself, is to do so. As stated, it will be doing MIL1 a kindness to spare her such an end, and doing a kindness to those who have wronged us is one way to acquire an incredibly high level of self-satisfaction. Additionally, it would have the benefit of ending a doomed marriage (it would give me SUCH satisfaction if LW1 were the same woman who complained on Monday that her husband wasn't having an appropriate response to the 9/11 anniversary). However, most important of all, LW1 murdering MIL1 would eventually provide employment for one of the more deserving members of the legal profession, who might at the time be very much in want of a case that will provide him the opportunity to show off his masterful courtroom skills by securing an Acquittal (not to mention the much needed Daily Refreshers).
L2: I long to cross-examine W2 about exactly how many outside trysts she enjoyed before the engagement, or if indeed the couple were even exclusive. I advocate (and selflessly, in this instance, as I rarely do divorces, not having much innate fondness for the Family Division) immediate separation from this gaslighting spouse. And, with a conscience like his/hers (after all, there is absolutely no gender specification in L2), LW2 would be of the utmost service to us all in a profession where such a conscience is desperately needed - politics. LW2 should run for Congress immediately. This will have the side benefit of being the one thing that ought to, if anything will, flush PMF2 out of the woodwork. If PMF2 does not emerge while LW2 is running for office, he can remarry with hardly any fear of being exposed.
L3: When did you ever know what you wanted to do with your life, LW3? It appears that all you ever wanted was to please your parents with an endless pile of accomplishments that was never big enough for them. You have two choices. The first choice is to realize that a First in Law never made anyone a better cross-examiner, nor did a Fourth prevent one from excellence in the field, and draw the appropriate lesson. The second would be to give your parents what they most deserve in the world and indulge in suicide. Which course holds more appeal (no bets here)?
L4: You could always reply that you'd hoped you'd wiped your predecessor from the memories of your complimenters by your superiour performance. Or you could eliminate the compliments by impersonating her inferiour performance.
Now for Monday and a pair of letters. First, in the case of the BISEXUAL ex-boyfriend newly engaged to a sweet little Bible-blogger, it is incredibly tempting to suggest that SLBB not only deserves what she gets but also in all probability already knows exactly what she's getting, and that any interference will only serve to strengthen SLBB's determination to marry him, deliver him from his perceived deviance and in so doing prove her superiour womanhood in relation to that of her ungodly predecessor. But I am displeased with the LW over the incorrect use of mutual, too displeased to ask the obvious question: How on earth does the common friend know what the ex is doing (unless, of course, CF is the famed stereotypical Gay Best Friend, so beloved of television and film writers, who can give the most firsthand of testimony)? I smell Danish.
Then we have the LW bride suffering at the hand of Familial Guestzillas. LW, if you have the good taste to select a lesbian as your attendant, it seems hardly likely that you really want the bigots at the wedding in the first place. With or without advance warning that this will be done, simply remove anyone who objects to the selection of the wedding party or the composition of the guest list from that list. It's not that hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)