1/17 - For the Personals

Last week just seemed far too technical. Today we start out in the spirit of just having watched the 2-6,6-3,11-9 win for Laura Robson over Petra Kvitova.

L1: As this letter will probably bring comparisons to Borgias into people's minds, I must admit to finding Lucrezia and Cesare almost tedious. The Medicis will do better when that series eventually is made, even without incest to keep the siblings interesting. I much prefer the marriage of Gioffre and Sancia, with her extramarital entanglements.

LW1 really ought to go after the inept original counselor and see that buffoon fried. Afterwards, I propose a potential practical solution to the situation. Should IC1 find themselves unwilling or unable to part with success, why not find their own kind? It worked well enough for a number of same-sex couples of complementary genders. Not an ideal solution for those couples, but potentially a bit better for emotionally involved opposite-sex siblings.

L2: We really do not need to hear about the Prudecutor and her daughter (or is it her stepdaughter? There really is nothing wrong with the status of stepparent, and the insistence on dropping the designation of step merely strikes me as an historically irritating affectation) and their visits to massage parlours of dubious provenance. Let them take their pleasures where they find them. Anyone so willing to erase an inconvenient woman from history while pretending to revere her is bound to lead a young woman into temptations about which I choose not to speculate.

LW2 has that irritating sort of consciousness that seems almost to deserve what it gets. W2 might deserve better, but it is highly tempting to tell LW2 that he must keep this little occurrence a secret throughout all eternity. It would serve the sort of annoying person he is right. If he had a better frame of mind about this, he and W2 could use the personals to advantage, indulging in the sort of public role play that would be highly obnoxious if people knew about it.

L3: What is with the Prudecutor in her insistence on whether EB3 is or isn't valid? M3 sounds like quite a piece of work. That is without doubt. But LW3 provides a refreshing lack of background here. Are we seriously supposed to believe that LW3 and W3 married without any discussion of religion among the members of F3? It was never a point, if not of concern then at least of clarification, that LW2 was dating, becoming serious about and then marrying someone rather removed from the Episcopalian strain? This is the stuff that could provide even Claude Erskine Brown or George Frobisher (who would need the daily refreshers rather more, not being married to a High Court Judge) with ample material for at least a week. Possibly even more promising is the line of questioning about why LW3 didn't convert before conception. It will only count for being about half so good if he converts now. And what W3 and WF3 had to say about the mixed marriage remaining mixed can be thrown in as well. Are they among those Jews who regard conversion as a nice gesture but irrelevant because no convert can ever be as good as the real thing? Or, the matriarchal line being sufficient for heritage, do they regard paternity and its provider as insignificant? With any luck, a good cross-examiner would be bound to hit on a line of questioning that would inevitably lead to a new case of divorce being sent to the Family Division, however much one might quake at the thought of appearing before Mrs Justice Appleby.

LW3 is to be commended partially for at least wanting this settled before the actual birth. Treating the issue as a gross violation, presumably to FS3 rather than as a vile insult to W3 and himself, however, not only fuels the wonder about his not converting but also gives back almost all that credit, if not more. And as for the question of the validity of such baptisms, the Prudecutor really missed the best opportunity to strike a blow against bullies and bullying. If such baptisms were valid, then all over the red states, high school football players would be busy calling Baptism on all the owners of those heads they keep dunking into school toilets. Far be it from me to quarrel with anyone denying a rampaging religious zealot of a grandparent access to a grandchild, but LW3 is doing it in about the most ridiculous manner possible.

L4: While the Prudecutor's use of offensive and oppressive language in her choice of puns is fully indicative of how she deserves to be locked in a room with Martina Navratilova (except that one would not want to inflict such a fate upon poor Martina), LW4 apparently thinks that her forcibly-switched daughter will grow up to be Maria Sharapova. A mother might want better for her child. But she could certainly do worse. Perhaps a more likely case, which ought to serve as a warning, is personified in Margaret Court. Changing hands worked well enough for her in winning her Grand Slam and more major titles than anyone else, if one counts before the Open Era. But just look what has become of her since.

And there are such good cases in point in the opposite direction. Defence Exhibit A: Phil Mickelson. While not matching Mr Woods in talent, he has far surpassed him in hearts captured and fan loyalty. It will be interesting to see whether Mr McIlroy will be able to supplant both TW and PM, one or the other, or neither. Defence Exhibit B: Rafael Nadal. Not only will he go down as the Absolute Monarch of clay and the great blot in Roger Federer's GOAT Exhibit, but he is surely the greatest defender of tennis history records, having three times won the match that would have given his opponent the distinction of holding all four major titles concurrently. On top of which, there has been a great deal more said against his main rivals on the subject of character, the primary knock against Rafa being his propensity for underwear yanking.

Moral: "That is all pages, unless you wish to join us... but, no. That would be too much, even for the Duke and Duchessa of Squillace."

1/3 - What Will Likely Happen

We skipped last week as a protest. It was impossible to accept the hearsay evidence of LW1 for either side of the case. About the only thing possible to say is that it is quite plausible that DGF was strung along by someone not quite so out of it as he appeared, though my favoured take on this angle might best be summarized by the episode of Absolutely Fabulous in which the two protagonists plot to get one of them impregnated by Crispin Bonham Carter, the last survivor of a titled family, who, at the end, reveals that his predecessors went through all the money.

So, what will happen this week?

L3: In a just world, the dog survives the marriage. This is not a just world.

L2: I am quite appalled that the Prudecutor should go out of her way to install avarice into the head of a LW who had no intention of profiting from Doing the Right Thing. It's difficult to gauge here whether LW2 is consulting the Prudecutor out of a sense of disappointment in F2 for not taking action himself or out of a sense of wanting to do whatever version of the right thing least harms F2. I am not at all surprised that the only thing the Prudecutor can conceive of doing is to consult a solicitor, which rather reminds me of Oswald Martin's response when Major Armstrong took exception to Martin's publishing a booklet advising farmers on the tax code in Dandelion Dead. I shall leave alone the question of how uncorrupted government funds remain as they make their way through the bowels of "non-profit" organizations, and suspect that a case could be made that, for all LW2 or F2 know, the level of fraudulence in this case is perhaps even below normal.

What perhaps ought to happen would be for LW2 to conduct a great deal of research before presenting F2 with a fair array of options for how to proceed, properly assisted by LW2. As for what will happen, I am torn between LW2 straining the friendship and accomplishing nothing if the motive is preservation, and dumping F2 in a grand manner only to be rewarded in a way similar to Mary Crawford after she overspends in buying William Price's knave.

L1: Well, at least the Prudecutor has reinforced her anti-racist credentials. I shall base my response entirely on what happened when, earlier in the relationship, LW1 and BF1 had a deep and meaningful conversation in which LW1 made it clear that use of the word in question was an absolute dealbreaker. Of course, there probably was no such conversation, in which case the time has come for a good deal of introspection on the part of BF1 to examine just how racist he really is and just how much LW1 will accept. If the relationship is to survive and thrive, it would be as well for BF1 to be at least inclined to one of those philosophies given to excruciating parsing of motives.

What will almost certainly happen is that LW1 will "forgive" BF1 and maintain the moral upper hand throughout the course of the relationship, which will end in a way best suited to fit LW1's scripts about how unknown or subconscious point X always happens to turn out to be true.

L4: This is the most important of the letters. We have established (and it was handled with great skill, far greater than usual) that the Prudecutor has never been among those so humiliated by such means as a non-invitation to a wedding.

Moral: "The game was hers, and only did not repay her for what she had given to secure it."