Self-explanatory, I imagine.

L4: Divorcing is, if anything, too obvious. LW4's modus operandi is to forbid his wife to do things he finds distasteful, how extremely? Perhaps he might like to emulate another famous husband, well known for his accomplishments at court tennis and in the reformation of churches, who tried forbidding his wives to give him daughters, to the effect that today there are a great many fewer nuns in the world. But that is where the concept of husbands forbidding wives to do things belongs - half a millenium ago.

Then, too, W4 is almost equally a winner. Whatever one might think of her decorational capacities, she has manifested extremely poor taste in husbands. Why on earth did she not marry a Brony? That would have been just the sort of person with whom she could have lived happily ever after. But I suspect here that domestic harmony might not be most agreeabloe to W4. She certainly seems to be enjoying herself to a most thorough extent.

In the end, this is a very tough call. C4 are two people whom I definitely would not want to see united with people I liked. But equal misery is such a plus. In the end, I shall tentatively brief myself for putting the divorce on tentative hold, especially if it would come up to be heard by Mrs Justice Appleby. But I should reserve, if possible, the right to recall W4 and cross-examine her until I can safely recommend whatever course runs contrary to her true wishes.

L3: Apparently the Prudecutor has leapt to the conclusion that R3 was prosecutable. This is an entirely justifiable assumption, but a skilled cross-examiner would never have run such a risk. Letting opposing counsel wait until the final speech to the jury and then point out that there was not a scrap of evidence presented to suggest that R3 was not also a minor? Careless.

But this is one of the clearest cases in favour ofn divorce to come down the pike for a long time. LW3 is clearly settling. Her self-esteem bruised by her internal conflict over lack of prosecution (not to mention the support that was not provided by her family at the time of the (purported) rape, she has latched onto the first halfway-decent potential husband to treat herself and her elder child tolerably (Miss Austen alone gets a pass on that little twist). H3 has completely failed to shut down this line of questioning from HF3. He has also completely failed to help LW3 arrive at any better place concerning her past. It should not take a cross-examiner with the skill or motivation of even a Mizz Liz Probert to establish that H3 likes things this way. LW3's question is far too subtle for her if H3 has not arranged things just as he likes. Clear-cut case for divorce.

L1: Here we have another clear-cut case for divorce, not because C1 are bad for each other but because they make a terrible team. They have completely failed at their objective. That S1 is functional in the world only adds to the severity of their offence (rather like winning a case after one's learned leader has been sacked). And the question. How could even the Prudecutor have missed that the question is a complete mess? What on earth does LW1 mean by give up or give in? How is either such possibility different from letting S1 find his own way? This couple is a mess. And the Prudecutor's inverse snobbery is showing yet again - really, her editors ought to know better by now.

L2: Alas, LW2 is not married. Divorce is no option for her, when she would be such an excellent candidate for it, too! The key to L2 is the way in which LW2 attempts to be sneaky about clubbing the reader over the head with her accomplishments, which she has acquired in the manner of a Mary Bennet or a Lucy Steele, by trying to sneak them in to the letter where they will stand out without being set up in too obvious a way. The attempt was not a bad one. And of course she doesn't want other female applicants to be judged for their looks, not when she spent all that time acquiring accomplishments (and from the way she rattled them all off, she believes in women being pitted against each other in a way that would make Diane Chambers weep). My advice to LW2 would be to follow the plot line of the Miss Boston Barmaid pageant, only not to weaken for a cheap holiday.

Moral: "I loathe female contests with every fibre of my being."

3/22 - And That Matters Because.....???

This will be another speed record week.

L1: The Prudecutor appears to believe that it makes a difference that LW1 is propbably not in the same tip-top condition (s)he was (if we give hir the benefit of the doubt) in when the pair married. But what would the Prudecutor reply to a LW presenting with even better physical form than at the beginning of the relationship in question? I don't even think it really matters whether LW1's perception that W1 hides her thighs when changing is true.

What is clear is that LW1 (perhaps with an assist from W1; we can't say) has done nothing to foster an atmosphere in which the couple can discuss these matters. There is middle ground between You-Look-Perfect-to-Me-at-All-Times and I'm-Gone-the-Moment-You-Don't-Match-My-Ideal. I'll go farther than most and say that it does not really matter whether LW1 meant the opening bit or threw it in as pandering. What matters is that LW1 views a temporary, expensive and likely ineffective procedure as the first solution to a problem that is not going to diminish in time. And LW1 judges W1 not on the Wife Standard but on the Potential Wife Standard. This is an easy one. Divorce at once.

L2: The Prudecutor seems to think that it matters that some government official who has some form of scientific credentials has written a book trying to stake out some middle ground, or that some polling organization has put out a poll with results that suit its confirmation bias. Meh. Both the Prudecutor and LW2 seem to think that what matters is that the big mean bad atheists are going around all over the country if not the world trampling all over the feelings of religious believers everywhere. The Prudecutor in particular, who has doubtless learned her lesson from stealth candidates for local school boards, thinks that believers ought to be sneaking into positions of authority. She obviously approves of the complete kowtowing of the educational system of the entire country to the religious beliefs of the people on that board in Texas who decide the content of textbooks for all.

What LW2 doesn't specify is exactly what in hir book counts as being "insulting" of religion. This can be quite a wide range. After all, think of all the religious organizations who are being victimized because they are not being allowed to discriminate as they like against people they think bound for somewhere other than Heaven in the afterlife. Or, worse, those who think they are victimized not only because they aren't allowed to persecute people to the full extent of their desire, but because government does not join them in the persecution they want to see. Is LW2 conflating non-acquiescence with ridicule? Or are hir co-workers genuinely bigoted, even if they are necessarily so on a far lesser scale than the reverse, and with far less power?

Another point is that LW2 uses the word seem. If the co-workers haven't been drawn out sufficiently to be firmly behind their prejudicial beliefs, assuming their beliefs to be so, then what can be done about the situation? Is LW2 capable of making a reasonable case to back up mixing science and faith? Would (s)he feel equally out of place surrounded by fundamentalist co-workers who would jump on any sign that an outsider didn't take every word of the Bible as literal truth? I could go on. But I keep coming back to the place that, while these are not situations one would want in an ideal world, the feelings of religious people in one of the ridiculously overnumbered areas in which they are in the minority come low on the priority list. I'll get around to them in time when I run the universe - but I suspect they view their cause as more important than teen suicide.

L3: LW3 seems to think it matters what to do if A, then if B, then if C when A is not necessarily near happening yet. As far as his ongoing quarrel with his adoptive mother, I'd ask why he isn't relieved to be free of such a homophobe?

The Prudeuctor seems to think that rebuilding the rotten relationship with AM3 matters. Why? Plenty of people do fine without a mother. Not that BM3 necessarily will or can replace AM3, or that she can be approached in such a spirit, but stranger things have happened.

It would have been nice to have confirmation about the rift, but I like my guess.

L4: The Prudecutor doesn't do too badly on this one. LW4 seems to think that A4 gets a say in the sale of the necklace or has to be consulted first. Why on earth?

Moral: "I can get you any numbers you like."

3/15 - What Mrs Prudecutor Saw (Or Mainly Missed)

Without any preamble:

L4: "Months of sleuthing..." LW4 should either found a chapter of the Baker Street Irregulars or take up as an impersonator of Julia Sweeney. Were it not for the likelihood of gendered rest rooms, we'd have very little by which to guess.

L2: I've no idea where the Prudecutor came up with those nicknames, and don't want to know. As far as LW2 and S2's use of a questionable word, at least we can take it as progress of a sort that we can't just tell LW2's next child to take up golf or tennis - maybe badminton or table tennis, which would shift the stereotype to those of Asian descent. But I am depressed to think of how corporatized we've become that the main worry is really, when stripped to the bare bones, just a covered-up concern over how this will damage S2's Permanent record and render him Unemployable.

L3: "Your father wants the best for you?" Where on earth does the Prudecutor come up with that? I'll Love You When You're Like Me (or at least more what I want you to be) would be far more apt. But we have the possibility to Austensplain to F3 about money. Does LW3 agree more with Marianne Dashwood or Elinor? Remember, Marianne's idea of an income that she calls a competence is double Elinor's idea of wealth.

L1: While I feel I ought to recuse myself from the bulk of the letter, the Prudecutor completely missed LW1's question, instead going off on a rant of her own about her own view that she wishes to impose on the rest of society concerning the Nature of Marriage. Of course, she also completely misses the Bisexual Option as well, but that is standard for the Prudecutor. (In fact, now that I consider it, it would really serve the Prudecutor and many commenters right if H1 were to come out as bisexual and leave LW1 for a woman whose happiness didn't rest on his never realizing his true nature.)

I repeat the question: Is it terribly selfish of me to just enjoy my marriage for what it is and hope he never comes to the same realization I have?

Now had LW1 applied to an advisor with a bit more wisdom than the Prudecutor before writing her question, she might have been counseled to end the question after fifteen words instead of adding the Second Eleven. She would then have received an entirely different answer to what now follows: Divorce H1 at once. He deserves better.

As for how to lead into a discussion should LW1 decide to do so, as being direct and Using Her Words seems beyond LW1's capacities, I'll advise that she clarify their cheating policy on some pretext or other. That's probably a worthwhile thing for most couples to do on an infrequent but regular basis.

Trivia Question: Who was the first person to portray the wife of Dana Carvey's SNL character Lyle the Effeminate Heterosexual?

Moral: "Two thousand a year! One is my wealth! I guessed how it would end."

3/8 - In Other Words

Being a bit put out still by Monday, this may be even faster than last week's.

Q2: How do I control and manipulate my boyfriend without being controlling and manipulative?

A2: Even Soapy Sam Ballard wouldn't need to be in top form to handle this one.

Q3: How do I get over my problem past without letting go of it?

A3: With a mashie-niblick (borrowed from Uncle Tom).

Q4: How do I balance my social gaffe against my friends' taking up residence in Denial, MS?

A4: With new friends, more carefully selected than Phyllida Erskine Brown chose her husband.

Q1: How do I cope with my posionous mother-in-law and my skeptical husband?

A1: For one thing, be thankful she's rather inefficient. This almost reminds me of the inadequate poisoning of the Crackenthorpes in 4:50 from Paddington. Only, in their case, the main goal of the poisoner was to keep old Luther Crackenthorpe alive long enough to dispose of some of his children before the capital on the interest of which Luther was living would be divided up among the survivors after Luther's death.

Next, pit them against each other. Convince MIL1 that desperate measures need to be taken and that the dose of poison needs to be a fatal one on the next opportunity (perhaps by telling her that you and H1 are moving to Australia and she'll never see him again). Then create a diversion (perhaps following the example of Death in the Clouds using the presence of a wasp, or maybe the VHS game version of Clue) and go the Prudecutor one better by swapping food without anyone seeing. H1 will die, and MIL1 will know you know her guilt.

Top it off with a touch from Titus Andronicus. Have H1 cremated. Then mix a bit of ash into something baked for a family reception, and see how MIL1 enjoys it.

Moral:  "One, I believe, is an Hugarian wine."

This WILL Be a Speed Record

L4: Look over, not write, Prudecutor. Other than that, the choice facing LW4 is simple. Tell F4 the truth or cover up in perpetuity. This seems like a cross between a technical question and a parallel of the Unbreakable Rule that one must never tell anyone that (s)he looks fat in that outfit.

L1: The Prudecutor misses the boat. F1 has been keeping this fact a secret for years. This couple is not going to wed. If they do, however, I shall give them considerable credit. How many couples wed after the sex dries up? And some heterocentric assumption on the Prudecutor's part that F1 proposed marriage when there is not a scrap of evidence to that effect and only heterosexist and heterocentric assumptions and gender roles to back up that flimsy piece of testimony on the part of counsel for the Prudecution.

L2: Even the Timsons are more competent criminals than this. Why is it that, when in the presence of slightly questionable actions, people want to jump all over the putative perpetrator, but, when faced with obviously criminal activity, so many fall all over themselves to whitewash it, as if even seeing someone wearing a striped jumper and carrying housebreaking implements by night and a bag marked SWAG wouldn't be sufficiently convincing. And the Prudecutor is wrong. O'Brien is far too effective. Remember, she changed the destiny of a dynasty with nothing more than a bar of soap. Thomas is the incompetent one who ought to have been in this analogy.

L3: There is much one coulod say about this letter. But I shan't. Ethan and Marissa????? The only good thing about this letter is that the heterosexism of LW3 is neatly matched by that of the Prudecutor. Accordingly, I refuse to dignify such nasty minds with the lengthy response this letter would warrant otherwise.

I am too disgusted to provide a moral. And this was done in under half an hour!

2/23 - Going for a new speed record

As announced.

L4: Presumably there is an upstairs bathroom, quite likely cleaned by CW4. If this is a regular habit of CW4's, it seems reasonable that she might use the master bathroom before she cleans it. Then again, I hardly trust LW4 to get this across in a proper manner. LW4 might just consider this along Savagerian lines as a price of admission - if CW4 is such a treasure, then this one inconvenience might not be enough to justify replacing her if LW4 can't reasonably expect a more positive overall balance sheet.

L3: Why on earth is UE3 a poor hiring choice? What else is a trial period for but to determine whether someone is going to be a good employee or not-so-good? As its purpose is evaluatory, the idea is to make creative hires, secure in the knowledge that some won't work out and some will. One might argue that, just as any bridge player who defeats every contract (s)he doubles does not double often enough, anyone whose new hires all pass the trial period easily is likely too cautious in hiring. Of course, LW3 does not exactly seem a prize; it might have been rather just of the Prudecutor had she advised LW3 to give UE3 a glowing recommendation, so that the whole thing would come back to bite LW3 later. UE3 recalls to mind the colourless Hoskins, who always opposed any addition to Chambers staff at Number Three Equity Court on the grounds of having to support four daughters.

L2: On the brink of disappointing us all and getting one right for once, the Prudecutor manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory quite impressively this time. Yes, LW2 was a miserable mother. The situation is entirely of her own making. And most of the letter is all about her, and the attention she wants from S2 but isn't getting. So far, so good. But what does the Prudecutor propose by way of remedy? She recommends the sort of Obvious Social Lie in the form of admiration for what S2 has made of his life (and we have not a scrap of evidence about what LW2 actually thinks about what S2 has made of his life) that is bound to result in failure. Again, it might be clever were the Prudecutor doing it on purpose. If LW2 wants to approach S2, the way to do so is in a manner that centres S2 and his new family. At least he has a thorough understanding of How Not to Parent - and without having to undergo a week of torture at the hands of TLC.

L1: First of all, as LW1 has accompanied W1 to this particular conference in years past, those posters who will doubtless pile on LW1 and complain that he has no business calling a work conference a near-vacation are out of line in that particular. LW1 is more out of line in his archaic beliefs, which render a response to W1 of DTMFA to be not entirely out of line. One might reasonably postualte that anyone who objects to the gender of hir spouse's friends deserves a cheating spouse. So far, so good for the Prudecutor. But she fails to inquire into why both spouses let this slide until now. Clearly there has been some unresolved difference between them; the departure from her life of XCW1 presumably seemed a decent reason to cease hostilities. But now look where that strategy led. And the Prudecutor completely fails to explode LW1's assumption that XCW1 is only waiting for a moment alone to get his tingling naughty parts, as the Church Lady would say, into W1's panties.

To send W1 off to the conference by saying that he and the boys will be doing "guy stuff", all LW1 will achieve will be to make his wife as glad as possible to be going. If I were to give the Prudecutor real DIOP credit, it would be this time. But the correct approach for someone who sounds as if he's read A Fairly Honourable Defeat and only absorbed about half of it is that LW1 has several months in which to make W1 so attached to home and kin that she will spend the entire conference longing for the family and pulling out photos of husband and children until XCW1 gives up in disgust.

Moral: "I suppose it's just possible that some solicitors have daughters, too!"

2/16 - Quick Takes

Having survived Tuesday without reuniting with anyone (always a danger for someone insufficiently inclined to deny people things they request), I want to see if I can set a speed record today.

L2: As for handling the situation in the here and now, LW2 might do a bit better either going a more innocent route than suggested by the Prudecutor - for instance, asking how such a client could tell her to be a new hire, or perhaps being fully open but taking her size as a strength. Those poor slim-line oil paintings, they had to take so much time keeping themselves so gorgeous that they just never got any good work done. It must have been terrible for the poor client having to work with them. Then she can watch Get Realwith particular attention to the scene between Kevin and Linda at the school dance, in which Linda gets considerably the better of the encounter.

I would wonder, though, why LW2 never thought to bring up the matter with her employer. There would be no need to make a dramatic splash about it. Just present the question matter-of-factly. The company had a history and an image. The hire is apparently a step in repairing that image. How does E2 want LW2 to presnet herself? And how ought she to respond to client comments? Easy enough.

L4: LW4 appears to be reacting in typical victim fashion. The initial flavour of the letter is that there is potential abuse here. But which of the two is the cart and which is the horse? It can occasionally be the other way around, although that seems unlikely here. On the whole, one wonders how the first instance or two of this sort of thing were handled. When BF4 returned from his first trip and made the first comment, why did not LW4 channel Ms Messy and make it only too painfully clear that (s)he harboured no desire whatsoever to play the role of Mrs Monk? Much too easy. Hiring a maid would have been a much more appealing idea had it been raised earlier. While it is likely a good solution, the timing suggests that it might do more harm than good. As for whatever BF4 might have, I leave that diagnosis to the quacks.

L1: Now, why couldn't the Prudecutor simply have answered the question without bringing up squicky references? If she'd wanted to make nasty comments about FT1s, she had plenty of reason. Had she wanted to answer the question in a straightforward way, she could have done so. Is there something sinister in the background? It could be like the Laceys in The Killings at Badger's Drift, in which a sister/brother pair of incestuous siblings wreak various forms of havoc. But they were far from the most disturbing related pair, an honour which belonged to the Rainbirds, mother-son owners of the mortuary who were quite creepily attached to each other and fond of blackmail on the side.

As for the general situation, the procreation argument doesn't apply, and the argument against people raised together is a bit flimsy. There are always tangents about relations not raised together or blended families, etc. This is the sort of reason why I did not aprticularly want marriage in the first place. Ideally, a paradigm could have been drawn up to serve the needs of same-sex couples, and I'd have rather had something specific and special rather than trying to crowd into the already leaky boat. But it would not have done.

It would be interesting to ask T/L1 a few questions. Why suddenly want to be open about it now? What are the logical gains and/or losses? Does T/L1 expect F1 to rally behind the couple? Does he intend to advocate for incest rights? Was being gay insufficiently controversial? Is he just that bothered by the pressure to settle down? Does the idea of dividing the family actually appeal to him? It's hard to say. But there are some people who just enjoy being edgy. Now that gay has become considerably less edgy, they look to advance three spaces to something more provocative.

L3: The only thing for LW3 to do is to frame the dog for a crime. The idea makes the letter bearable, as it suits a comparison to Dumb Witness, particularly the televised version. Rich old Miss Emily Arundell trips and falls downstairs, but does not die. Did she trip over Bob's ball, which Bob liked to bunt down the stairs? Poirot discovers soon enough after she dies some time later that a member of the family inserted a screw at the top of the stairs to hold a tripwire, but not until after the spiritualist Tripp sisters hold a seance in which (at least on television) the mediumistic sister, speaking "as Emily", declares the murderer's name to be Robert Arundell,there being no human of that name.

Miss Lawson, Miss Arundell's companion and the beneficiary of the new will Miss Arundell makes after the fall, presents Bob to Poirot at the end of the case. In the televised version, however, this is moved up to the middle of the investigation, so that Poirot (with Hastings attendant) and Bob spend some time together as the case develops. Poirot is highly sympathetic to the plight of poor Bob, who knows who murdered his mistress and who finally, when Poirot asks him to speak, goes and barks at his own reflection, which provides Poirot with the solution to the whole case by clarifying for him whether Miss Lawson saw Theresa or Bella reflected in her mirror.

In the book and the radio version, Hastings is the one who gets on better with Bob, and appropriates the dog at the end. In the televised version, Poirot has to find some way to get Bob a home in the country. But he manages it neatly. Just at the end, he and Hastings call on the Tripps to reveal a remarkable encounter from the night before when the spirit of their late springer spaniel appeared and told Bob to go and live with his people.

Moral: "You don't understand dog psychology! Now Bob and I understand each other perfectly, don't we?"