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!"
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
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?"
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?"
Thursday, February 9, 2012
2/9 - Short Without Parallels
As my pre-Valentine grumps continue, I shall polish this week off as quickly as possible, with few frills.
L1: The Prudecutor is wildly wrong. Yes, there is something potentially interesting in LW1's reluctance to have photos of the couple taken. And we don't know what F1 thinks of the matter. That could make for an afternoon of harmless fun. But there are people who are head-ruled sufficiently to think in this way; if they are well-matched in their selection of spouse, then more power to them.
And what this is mainly about is M1 trying to take over the entire wedding. There are those of the ilk who can be appeased. But in the main, it just strengthens the position of such a Plan Changer from which to launch a subsequent attack. Give in on the pictures (though, if F1 likes the idea, it seems a sufficiently low-meaning point that even Drs Cooper and Fowler might be willing to compromise on it) and M1 will start on the location, or the reception, or the cake, or something.
L2: The Prudecutor is wrong. Nobody KNOWS - even after the tight period of not a day short of a year nor a day over eighteen months held as such a strict standard by Dr Schlessinger. It is a leap of faith - which is actually a great deal more romantic than "knowing". The Prudecutor made a leap of faith and got lucky. But lucky people, like Franklin Clarke, tend after sufficient incidence to conflate luck with skill or brains, get careless, and subsequently err. While I should not wish on anyone the fate of thinking wrongly that (s)he is in a monogamous relationship, the Prudecutor tempts me.
As for LW2, the proportions seem odd. Marry after four months' acquaintance - it happens. Plan a wedding for eight months - not excessive. But a wedding involving preparations that took twice as long as the couple's previous acquaintance? While "Rules" of Weddings are beyond my ken, it would seem sensible if such a Principle existed in reverse, that the duration of acquaintance before the engagement should be twice as long as the time spent planning the wedding. That would seem much likelier to produce a successful marriage - not that many wedding planners think beyond the honeymoon.
L3: The Prudecutor has one minor aspect correct, but in most respects is completely on the wrong continent. I shall resist the temptation to wonder about LW3 wishing (s)he'd never read the accusatory email. I am less inclined - assuming LW3 to be male - to excuse his patriarchal attitude. He is far too inclined to take it upon himself to decide what F3 can and cannot handle. If this is not nipped in the bud, then he should break the engagement for her sake.
On the plus side, it seems admirable that LW3 is willing to side with F3 regardless of the truth in the matter, and does not particularly care what that truth may be. But this is a golden opportunity. LW3 ought to be thanking VW3 for the accusation. It has given him the ideal lead-in to a series of conversations that every engaged couple should be having and hardly any ever do. What matters here are not the facts about what F3 did (except in one possible instance and even then not directly) but what F3's views were during the affair (if there was one), and how her attitudes about fidelity changed or were confirmed before, during and after. Have these conversations and the marriage will be a good deal stronger.
It is possible that F3 did act sufficiently badly that she ought to make some gesture of atonement to VW3. In such a case, LW3 has the opportunity to shine by offering to assist F3 in the offering of such a gesture. And this is where the one case for reconsidering the engagement comes in. F3 might clearly have been in the wrong in her past conduct, but might insist, not that LW3 assist her to do the right thing, but that he support her regardless of the probity of her conduct or lack thereof. Perhaps LW3 would be content so to do. Perhaps the difference between them would (as happened with Lord Kidderminster) open his eyes to a new and disturbing aspect of her character.
L4: The Prudecutor is wrong. Do not present it as being old-fashioned. It will lock both LW4 and GF4 into all the wrong gender roles. The prospect is so revolting I am forced to leave off abruptly at this point.
L1: The Prudecutor is wildly wrong. Yes, there is something potentially interesting in LW1's reluctance to have photos of the couple taken. And we don't know what F1 thinks of the matter. That could make for an afternoon of harmless fun. But there are people who are head-ruled sufficiently to think in this way; if they are well-matched in their selection of spouse, then more power to them.
And what this is mainly about is M1 trying to take over the entire wedding. There are those of the ilk who can be appeased. But in the main, it just strengthens the position of such a Plan Changer from which to launch a subsequent attack. Give in on the pictures (though, if F1 likes the idea, it seems a sufficiently low-meaning point that even Drs Cooper and Fowler might be willing to compromise on it) and M1 will start on the location, or the reception, or the cake, or something.
L2: The Prudecutor is wrong. Nobody KNOWS - even after the tight period of not a day short of a year nor a day over eighteen months held as such a strict standard by Dr Schlessinger. It is a leap of faith - which is actually a great deal more romantic than "knowing". The Prudecutor made a leap of faith and got lucky. But lucky people, like Franklin Clarke, tend after sufficient incidence to conflate luck with skill or brains, get careless, and subsequently err. While I should not wish on anyone the fate of thinking wrongly that (s)he is in a monogamous relationship, the Prudecutor tempts me.
As for LW2, the proportions seem odd. Marry after four months' acquaintance - it happens. Plan a wedding for eight months - not excessive. But a wedding involving preparations that took twice as long as the couple's previous acquaintance? While "Rules" of Weddings are beyond my ken, it would seem sensible if such a Principle existed in reverse, that the duration of acquaintance before the engagement should be twice as long as the time spent planning the wedding. That would seem much likelier to produce a successful marriage - not that many wedding planners think beyond the honeymoon.
L3: The Prudecutor has one minor aspect correct, but in most respects is completely on the wrong continent. I shall resist the temptation to wonder about LW3 wishing (s)he'd never read the accusatory email. I am less inclined - assuming LW3 to be male - to excuse his patriarchal attitude. He is far too inclined to take it upon himself to decide what F3 can and cannot handle. If this is not nipped in the bud, then he should break the engagement for her sake.
On the plus side, it seems admirable that LW3 is willing to side with F3 regardless of the truth in the matter, and does not particularly care what that truth may be. But this is a golden opportunity. LW3 ought to be thanking VW3 for the accusation. It has given him the ideal lead-in to a series of conversations that every engaged couple should be having and hardly any ever do. What matters here are not the facts about what F3 did (except in one possible instance and even then not directly) but what F3's views were during the affair (if there was one), and how her attitudes about fidelity changed or were confirmed before, during and after. Have these conversations and the marriage will be a good deal stronger.
It is possible that F3 did act sufficiently badly that she ought to make some gesture of atonement to VW3. In such a case, LW3 has the opportunity to shine by offering to assist F3 in the offering of such a gesture. And this is where the one case for reconsidering the engagement comes in. F3 might clearly have been in the wrong in her past conduct, but might insist, not that LW3 assist her to do the right thing, but that he support her regardless of the probity of her conduct or lack thereof. Perhaps LW3 would be content so to do. Perhaps the difference between them would (as happened with Lord Kidderminster) open his eyes to a new and disturbing aspect of her character.
L4: The Prudecutor is wrong. Do not present it as being old-fashioned. It will lock both LW4 and GF4 into all the wrong gender roles. The prospect is so revolting I am forced to leave off abruptly at this point.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
2/2 - Instead of Daria
This week's crop of LWs lack the capacity to watch Daria and draw from it the appropriate lessons. They are clearly in need of some suggestions.
L1: My main question here is why LW1 is writing the letter now. Surely GD1 was known to present the situation she would present to LW1 and H1 at the beginning. The timetable with M1 seems a bit wonky. But, given that what is, is, who says that LW1 and H1 must give up their all? Who on earth is forcing either of them to attend GD1's sporting events? What self-respecting teenager wants such a thing? And of course the Prudecutor dreads her stepdaughter's eventual departure - without a third person in the house, the marriage is almost sure to disintegrate.
LW1 has been watching Daria and perhaps thought that being GD1's guardians would not prevent herself and H1 from living the life of Vincent and Amanda Lane, the parents of Jane and Trent who tend to be more conspicuously absent from home than present there. Perhaps she should try watching My So-Called Life instead. She might pay particular attention to the plight of Rickie in the Christmas and New Year's episodes.
L2: First off, is there any way on earth that the Prudecutor could have mangled this letter? She didn't come up with anything brilliant, but how much easier could her selectors have made it for her? Even so, I must ask how on earth LW2, on the first or at the aboslute latest second occurrence of any of these highly offensive statements, falied to respond with something along the line of, "And my problems seem to make you feel so much better about yourself, don't they?"
LW2 has been watching Daria and thinking that there is no way to oust Sandi Griffin from the presidency of the Fashion Club. She might watch the episodes Art Burn and Life in the Past Lane, in which the downtrodden Stacy manages to score two significant victories over Sandi - in the first by secretly acquiring the caricature of the group in which Stacy was the only one portrayed in a complimentary fashion, and in the second through the success of her acting during Upchuck's apparently botched escape trick, which was made even worse for Sandi when both Tiffany and Quinn expressed interest in Stacy's teaching them to cry as useful in a variety of scial situations. Or go even better and watch Muriel's Wedding. Keep an eye open for the way in which Rhonda scores over Muriel's tormentors.
L3: It never occurred to the Prudecutor to wonder exactly why everybody knows that the couple in question has not consummated the marriage? Have the dynamics of modern life changed so drastically? Or has the column merged with Savage Love behind our backs?
LW3 has been watching the My Night with Daria episode in which Daria dithers about her first sexual experience with Tom, schedules it, backs out, makes a preemptory breakup, and reconciles. Nothing but drama at every turn. But, without losing that dramatic flair, there are two alternatives for LW3. One would be to watch Wilde with a view to learning to be thankful that this particular marriage has yet to be consummated (and perhaps giving F3 a hint to be wary of letting H3 spend much time in the company of blond undergraduates. The other would be to watch The Tudors and advise H3 to treat W3 as his sister, which did wonders for the relationship between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves, who might reasonably be said to have gotten rather the best out of her marriage (whether despite or because of having gotten rather the least out of Henry himself is open to interpretation) of all the wives.
L4: LW4 has been watching the Is It Fall Yet? feature-length episode in which, when Daria's enthusiasm to find employment for the summer is conspicuously absent despite Quinn's surprising willingness to undergo tutoring in her quest to raise her SAT score to over 1,000, Helen enrolls Daria as a counselor at drippy Mr O'Neil's Okay to Cry Corral. But Daria does better than expected there, forging a bit of a bond with a young version of herself, Link, though with different problems. But Daria's progress is dwarfed by that of an even less likely counselor, Mr DeMartino. "Uncle Anthony" has difficulty with lanyards and fears he has gone too far when he lashes out at young Josh, who has drawn a picture of a football player because football players are winners. But this wins Uncle Anthony a round of cheers, as Josh was the worst bully in the camp. He goes on to differ with "Uncle Timothy" over whether the campers should be playing outside, swimming and hiking, or remaining safely indoors communicating with their inner selves, finally breaking down when a camper holds his hand and gets peanut butter on it. Mr DeMartino breaks the window to the delight of the entire camp, is popularly demanded to give the closing speech at the end-of-camp ceremony, and returns to Lawndale High eager to teach (where he is rewarded early the next school year when Quinn, fresh from her tutoring, is able to provide a creditable definition of Manifest Destiny).
LW4 ought to watch After the Funeral with her husband. The relatives of the deceased Richard Abernethy, having already survived his sister Cora's asking immediately after the funeral, "He was murdered, wasn't he?" gather after Cora's death to divide up furniture and china. Clearly H2's family need to establish this practice, and H2 needs to waste his first choice on LW2's quilt. These are valuable occasions - in ATF it is during the dispute over such things as china services and green malachite tables that the murderer makes a fatal mistake.
Moral: "Besides, quilting can be very therapeutic."
L1: My main question here is why LW1 is writing the letter now. Surely GD1 was known to present the situation she would present to LW1 and H1 at the beginning. The timetable with M1 seems a bit wonky. But, given that what is, is, who says that LW1 and H1 must give up their all? Who on earth is forcing either of them to attend GD1's sporting events? What self-respecting teenager wants such a thing? And of course the Prudecutor dreads her stepdaughter's eventual departure - without a third person in the house, the marriage is almost sure to disintegrate.
LW1 has been watching Daria and perhaps thought that being GD1's guardians would not prevent herself and H1 from living the life of Vincent and Amanda Lane, the parents of Jane and Trent who tend to be more conspicuously absent from home than present there. Perhaps she should try watching My So-Called Life instead. She might pay particular attention to the plight of Rickie in the Christmas and New Year's episodes.
L2: First off, is there any way on earth that the Prudecutor could have mangled this letter? She didn't come up with anything brilliant, but how much easier could her selectors have made it for her? Even so, I must ask how on earth LW2, on the first or at the aboslute latest second occurrence of any of these highly offensive statements, falied to respond with something along the line of, "And my problems seem to make you feel so much better about yourself, don't they?"
LW2 has been watching Daria and thinking that there is no way to oust Sandi Griffin from the presidency of the Fashion Club. She might watch the episodes Art Burn and Life in the Past Lane, in which the downtrodden Stacy manages to score two significant victories over Sandi - in the first by secretly acquiring the caricature of the group in which Stacy was the only one portrayed in a complimentary fashion, and in the second through the success of her acting during Upchuck's apparently botched escape trick, which was made even worse for Sandi when both Tiffany and Quinn expressed interest in Stacy's teaching them to cry as useful in a variety of scial situations. Or go even better and watch Muriel's Wedding. Keep an eye open for the way in which Rhonda scores over Muriel's tormentors.
L3: It never occurred to the Prudecutor to wonder exactly why everybody knows that the couple in question has not consummated the marriage? Have the dynamics of modern life changed so drastically? Or has the column merged with Savage Love behind our backs?
LW3 has been watching the My Night with Daria episode in which Daria dithers about her first sexual experience with Tom, schedules it, backs out, makes a preemptory breakup, and reconciles. Nothing but drama at every turn. But, without losing that dramatic flair, there are two alternatives for LW3. One would be to watch Wilde with a view to learning to be thankful that this particular marriage has yet to be consummated (and perhaps giving F3 a hint to be wary of letting H3 spend much time in the company of blond undergraduates. The other would be to watch The Tudors and advise H3 to treat W3 as his sister, which did wonders for the relationship between Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves, who might reasonably be said to have gotten rather the best out of her marriage (whether despite or because of having gotten rather the least out of Henry himself is open to interpretation) of all the wives.
L4: LW4 has been watching the Is It Fall Yet? feature-length episode in which, when Daria's enthusiasm to find employment for the summer is conspicuously absent despite Quinn's surprising willingness to undergo tutoring in her quest to raise her SAT score to over 1,000, Helen enrolls Daria as a counselor at drippy Mr O'Neil's Okay to Cry Corral. But Daria does better than expected there, forging a bit of a bond with a young version of herself, Link, though with different problems. But Daria's progress is dwarfed by that of an even less likely counselor, Mr DeMartino. "Uncle Anthony" has difficulty with lanyards and fears he has gone too far when he lashes out at young Josh, who has drawn a picture of a football player because football players are winners. But this wins Uncle Anthony a round of cheers, as Josh was the worst bully in the camp. He goes on to differ with "Uncle Timothy" over whether the campers should be playing outside, swimming and hiking, or remaining safely indoors communicating with their inner selves, finally breaking down when a camper holds his hand and gets peanut butter on it. Mr DeMartino breaks the window to the delight of the entire camp, is popularly demanded to give the closing speech at the end-of-camp ceremony, and returns to Lawndale High eager to teach (where he is rewarded early the next school year when Quinn, fresh from her tutoring, is able to provide a creditable definition of Manifest Destiny).
LW4 ought to watch After the Funeral with her husband. The relatives of the deceased Richard Abernethy, having already survived his sister Cora's asking immediately after the funeral, "He was murdered, wasn't he?" gather after Cora's death to divide up furniture and china. Clearly H2's family need to establish this practice, and H2 needs to waste his first choice on LW2's quilt. These are valuable occasions - in ATF it is during the dispute over such things as china services and green malachite tables that the murderer makes a fatal mistake.
Moral: "Besides, quilting can be very therapeutic."
Thursday, January 26, 2012
1/26 - Problem At Sea
This will be a bit of a quickie.
L4: It is a truth universally acknowledged that a garlic lover and a garlic hater ought not to holiday together if they shall have to do their own cooking.
I am all a-marvel at how LW4 can seriously sit down and write of looking forward to the holiday and then almost immediately want to insist on the families preparing and eating separate food. Why, if the question of food were so important, agree to a holiday without planning to stay at an hotel?
One can ask all sorts of questions. LW4's diet apparently is not vegan. Seafood-including vegetarian? Or is LW4 one of those healthniks who cannot condone any indulgence? Or just one of those drill-sergeant type of parents who has every detail of the child's life regimentalized? How old is the son? Has he never eaten a hamburger or a hot dog? Have there never been conflicts in his life because of this (parties, picnics, visits to friends)? How many friends has this cost S4? And why would H4's mother be the party
Life with LW4 sounds about as amusing as a long visit to the Thripps, that charming couple who communicated with each other by means of brusque, insulting and typewritten notes. The only irony is that, chez Thripp, the child of the family, young Norman, made out like a bandit when his parents appeared to be headed towards divorcing. A rival present from each every week made for quite the arms race.
I advise LW4 to divorce. It was foolish to marry into such a family. But if the purity of S4's palate is worth spoiling the family holiday and worth not teaching him to be able to eat foods outside of his ordinary range when the occasion requires, then it's worth a divorce.
L3: A happily family of co-workers had long been established by LW3 at Company X.
This one is too easy. Either trade the distrubing element to another department or entrap him. There are way too many parallels to which LW3 can refer. One can look at the case of Francesa Clapstick, who managed, just before her sixteenth birthday, to seduce her English teacher, Ronald Ransom, earning him two years in the nick, and all because he gave her boyfriend Charles bad grades. Or one can refer back to Shakespeare himself - Measure for Measure, anyone?
L1: LW1, handsome, clever and rich, had lived in marriage for nearly twenty-one years with very little to distress or vex her.
This is a sad situation. The Prudecutor reminds me of Sir William Bradshaw telling Septimus Warren Smith and his wife Rezia that Septimus will do better in the country, far away from his wife, for the people closest to us are not good for us when we are ill. I'm sure that not many would quarrel with such a choice on the part of LW1, but the suggestion is made in a way that comes across here as ghoulish. The reader might well think that I should not object to sticking the Prudecutor into Assisted Living, but it would not be proper for me to comment.
In this sort of situation, barring strong financial considerations, I prefer an open consort to a divorce and remarriage. It better shows which relationship is centred.
L2: LW2 - Why do you care if it would selfish to refuse a second request for any reason you might choose? So what if it is? Why did you even agree to do it once in the first place? Are you the sort of person who is regularly bullied by relations? Do you comply all too easily to such requests? Why does your husband say nothing when you are attacked in this manner?
The Prudecutor misses the true heart of the issue. I do not entirely blame her, as the key to the letter is a very small one. It is a tiny word, so tiny as to consist of only one letter. LW2 states, "Last year I gave birth to a lovely daughter." The key word is a. Surely the correct phrase for a surrogate to use would be their lovely daughter. Whatever the desires of either couple in the case, I'd advise against LW2's serving as the surrogate again just on the facts.
This reminds me of "Problem at Sea" when Mrs Clapperton complains that her husband won't play bridge. Only Poirot is sufficiently astute to pick up on the difference between won't play and can't play (although doesn't play might have been interesting). We later learn why. When the good Colonel is doing card tricks at the end of the evening, he agrees to play one hand, and deals each player all thirteen cards of one suit as an example of why a man who can manipulate the deck so should avoid a friendly game of bridge. Has the henpecked husband just given himself away as a conjuror?
Moral: "She takes it as a personal insult that he doesn't, I suppose," said Ellie, drily.
L4: It is a truth universally acknowledged that a garlic lover and a garlic hater ought not to holiday together if they shall have to do their own cooking.
I am all a-marvel at how LW4 can seriously sit down and write of looking forward to the holiday and then almost immediately want to insist on the families preparing and eating separate food. Why, if the question of food were so important, agree to a holiday without planning to stay at an hotel?
One can ask all sorts of questions. LW4's diet apparently is not vegan. Seafood-including vegetarian? Or is LW4 one of those healthniks who cannot condone any indulgence? Or just one of those drill-sergeant type of parents who has every detail of the child's life regimentalized? How old is the son? Has he never eaten a hamburger or a hot dog? Have there never been conflicts in his life because of this (parties, picnics, visits to friends)? How many friends has this cost S4? And why would H4's mother be the party
Life with LW4 sounds about as amusing as a long visit to the Thripps, that charming couple who communicated with each other by means of brusque, insulting and typewritten notes. The only irony is that, chez Thripp, the child of the family, young Norman, made out like a bandit when his parents appeared to be headed towards divorcing. A rival present from each every week made for quite the arms race.
I advise LW4 to divorce. It was foolish to marry into such a family. But if the purity of S4's palate is worth spoiling the family holiday and worth not teaching him to be able to eat foods outside of his ordinary range when the occasion requires, then it's worth a divorce.
L3: A happily family of co-workers had long been established by LW3 at Company X.
This one is too easy. Either trade the distrubing element to another department or entrap him. There are way too many parallels to which LW3 can refer. One can look at the case of Francesa Clapstick, who managed, just before her sixteenth birthday, to seduce her English teacher, Ronald Ransom, earning him two years in the nick, and all because he gave her boyfriend Charles bad grades. Or one can refer back to Shakespeare himself - Measure for Measure, anyone?
L1: LW1, handsome, clever and rich, had lived in marriage for nearly twenty-one years with very little to distress or vex her.
This is a sad situation. The Prudecutor reminds me of Sir William Bradshaw telling Septimus Warren Smith and his wife Rezia that Septimus will do better in the country, far away from his wife, for the people closest to us are not good for us when we are ill. I'm sure that not many would quarrel with such a choice on the part of LW1, but the suggestion is made in a way that comes across here as ghoulish. The reader might well think that I should not object to sticking the Prudecutor into Assisted Living, but it would not be proper for me to comment.
In this sort of situation, barring strong financial considerations, I prefer an open consort to a divorce and remarriage. It better shows which relationship is centred.
L2: LW2 - Why do you care if it would selfish to refuse a second request for any reason you might choose? So what if it is? Why did you even agree to do it once in the first place? Are you the sort of person who is regularly bullied by relations? Do you comply all too easily to such requests? Why does your husband say nothing when you are attacked in this manner?
The Prudecutor misses the true heart of the issue. I do not entirely blame her, as the key to the letter is a very small one. It is a tiny word, so tiny as to consist of only one letter. LW2 states, "Last year I gave birth to a lovely daughter." The key word is a. Surely the correct phrase for a surrogate to use would be their lovely daughter. Whatever the desires of either couple in the case, I'd advise against LW2's serving as the surrogate again just on the facts.
This reminds me of "Problem at Sea" when Mrs Clapperton complains that her husband won't play bridge. Only Poirot is sufficiently astute to pick up on the difference between won't play and can't play (although doesn't play might have been interesting). We later learn why. When the good Colonel is doing card tricks at the end of the evening, he agrees to play one hand, and deals each player all thirteen cards of one suit as an example of why a man who can manipulate the deck so should avoid a friendly game of bridge. Has the henpecked husband just given himself away as a conjuror?
Moral: "She takes it as a personal insult that he doesn't, I suppose," said Ellie, drily.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Prudecutor: Venice; Boat: Skagerrak
I find myself rather appalled by the Tuesday commentary that does not recognize any position between splitting the deceased brother's estate evenly and keeping the entire inheritance. While it is highly possible that the deceased might not particularly have objected to the sharing out of the estate and just couldn't bring himself to leave money directly to the non-inheriting sibling, an even split doesn't feel quite right, although it does have rather a Biblical flavour to it. Perhaps therein lies the source of my objection. But I'd want to cross-examine the LW about the source of the estrangement. One could have serious moral objections to a sibling's conduct. And, while the Prudecutor actually managed to come across as more moderate than most of the commentariat, I suspect she'd have given an entirely different answer had it been revealed that the unlegacied sister had been left out because of racism on her part.
L4: Had this letter been the only example on which I based my assessment, I'd probably have put the Prudecutor in Tokyo. Yes, there may be some appeal in using the abuser and then turning her in. But what horrid conduct, sacrificing the class to LW4's ambition. Mainly, though, this does not change the fact that LW4 has observed abusive behaviour for a considerable period of time and done nothing about it other than write to the Prudecutor whining about how (s)he needs the abuser's approval. This is even worse than the scene from Heathers with inefficient intervention to stop an incident of bullying, as this is hierarchical, systemic, ongoing and gratuitous.
Someone more concerned with her/his own career prospects than the well-being of children does not belong in the education field at the elementary level, likely not at any level. Thank the abuser, LW4, for showing you that you do not (at least not yet) belong in this field, and report her immediately afterwards. But at least I can see why LW4 consulted the Prudecutor. They share the same sickeningly skewed moral priorities.
L3: No need to draw this out. The Prudecutor at least managed to get onto the same continent on this one, although I'm not sure why she would expect someone who would perpetrate a risky prank to have the financial risk to his family uppermost in mind.
The short answer, LW3, is to follow your husband's example. He retained a lawyer; do likewise, though counsel of rather a different sort. The long answer is that there is room for various degrees of vengeance. You might go to visit Frank and return home to tell your husband in detail about how Frank seduced you. You might emulate Witness for the Prosecution the other way round and contrive to insure that Frank wins a huge legal settlement from your husband. Or you might take your husband to the cleaners in the divorce and remarry Frank; the last sounds like a superb prank indeed.
L1: What a shame this letter didn't come up during Homocentric August! There does appear to be considerable fodder for cross-examination into exactly what occurred. Clearly GF1 considered her conduct to be more serious than a game of Spin the Bottle. (I shall earn considerable Brownie Points by refraining from venturing into wondering what sort of desperate young person would be sufficiently so to play Spin the Bottle in such company, but I will wonder, given the Prduecutor's response to the pregnant LW on Monday, if her advice would have been different had GF1 and BM1 produced a terminated pregnancy.) But the most interesting line would be to discover where the Carried Torch originated. Is it LW1 baking from scratch? Is it an invention of GF1's to make her lot seem more sympathetic?
I am unclear about exactly why BM1 walking GF1 down the aisle should be such a najor concern for LW1. What the Prudecutor misses completely is the GF1's request that LW1 consider how she feels having to participate in a wedding along with these guys. And, worse (or better, depending on perspective), LW1 actually sees sense in this. GF1 is clearly the sort of woman who views sex as something women give to men, an appalling attitude that makes the two of them a perfect couple. On that basis, I advise LW1 to upstage the entire wedding party by proposing to GF1 during the ceremony and asking to make it a double wedding.
L2: This one is too easy. Combine Julius King from A Fairly Honourable Defeat with Stephen Norton from Curtain and get the IL2s to murder each other. Although Julius only expanded on his philosophy to Morgan because he was actually using her as one of his pawns and not really trying to separate Simon from Axel, she did act almost exactly as he told her Simon would. And Norton was quite safe from any sort of accountability for his actions.
Simultaneous murder ought not to be too difficult for LW2 to achieve, given the material with which there is to work. A good example is what appears at one point to be the solution to One, Two, Buckle My Shoe. Mr Morley, Hercule Poirot's dentist, is found shot, an apparent suicide. His last patient, Mr Amberiotis, confirms details of his first-time visit to Mr Morley and dies that afternoon from an overdose of anaesthaetic. After Mr Morley's assistant, who had been called away for the day by a faked telegram, rules out the possibility of an accidental overdose on the dentist's part, and Mr Amberiotis' shady past is revealed, for a breif time, it appears plausible that it was simultaneous murder - that Mr Morley murdered Mr Amberiotis by giving him a deliberate overdose and then Mr Amberiotis shot Mr Morley after the dentistry had been completed. And in a way that was the right answer. Mr Amberiotis was murdered by a "dentist" who just didn't happen to be Mr Morley, and Mr Morley was shot by a "patient" other than Mr Amberiotis - the shooting just occurred before the overdose instead of after.
It should give LW2 little difficulty to acquire some deadly poison and give each IL2 the opportunity to steal some on the same day after being worked up into a frenzy by LW2's subtle psychological tactics. I like the idea of FIL2 making MIL2 a poisoned cup of coffee in the kitchen just as MIL2 finishes poisoning FIL's glass of wine in the dining room. Even if the plan backfires and only one in-law dies, at least it will be half the problem solved for LW2 and H2.
Moral: "All human beings have staggeringly great faults which can easily be exploited by a clever observer... Play sufficiently on a person's vanity, sow a little mistrust, hint at the contempt which every human being deeply, secretly feels for every other one."
L4: Had this letter been the only example on which I based my assessment, I'd probably have put the Prudecutor in Tokyo. Yes, there may be some appeal in using the abuser and then turning her in. But what horrid conduct, sacrificing the class to LW4's ambition. Mainly, though, this does not change the fact that LW4 has observed abusive behaviour for a considerable period of time and done nothing about it other than write to the Prudecutor whining about how (s)he needs the abuser's approval. This is even worse than the scene from Heathers with inefficient intervention to stop an incident of bullying, as this is hierarchical, systemic, ongoing and gratuitous.
Someone more concerned with her/his own career prospects than the well-being of children does not belong in the education field at the elementary level, likely not at any level. Thank the abuser, LW4, for showing you that you do not (at least not yet) belong in this field, and report her immediately afterwards. But at least I can see why LW4 consulted the Prudecutor. They share the same sickeningly skewed moral priorities.
L3: No need to draw this out. The Prudecutor at least managed to get onto the same continent on this one, although I'm not sure why she would expect someone who would perpetrate a risky prank to have the financial risk to his family uppermost in mind.
The short answer, LW3, is to follow your husband's example. He retained a lawyer; do likewise, though counsel of rather a different sort. The long answer is that there is room for various degrees of vengeance. You might go to visit Frank and return home to tell your husband in detail about how Frank seduced you. You might emulate Witness for the Prosecution the other way round and contrive to insure that Frank wins a huge legal settlement from your husband. Or you might take your husband to the cleaners in the divorce and remarry Frank; the last sounds like a superb prank indeed.
L1: What a shame this letter didn't come up during Homocentric August! There does appear to be considerable fodder for cross-examination into exactly what occurred. Clearly GF1 considered her conduct to be more serious than a game of Spin the Bottle. (I shall earn considerable Brownie Points by refraining from venturing into wondering what sort of desperate young person would be sufficiently so to play Spin the Bottle in such company, but I will wonder, given the Prduecutor's response to the pregnant LW on Monday, if her advice would have been different had GF1 and BM1 produced a terminated pregnancy.) But the most interesting line would be to discover where the Carried Torch originated. Is it LW1 baking from scratch? Is it an invention of GF1's to make her lot seem more sympathetic?
I am unclear about exactly why BM1 walking GF1 down the aisle should be such a najor concern for LW1. What the Prudecutor misses completely is the GF1's request that LW1 consider how she feels having to participate in a wedding along with these guys. And, worse (or better, depending on perspective), LW1 actually sees sense in this. GF1 is clearly the sort of woman who views sex as something women give to men, an appalling attitude that makes the two of them a perfect couple. On that basis, I advise LW1 to upstage the entire wedding party by proposing to GF1 during the ceremony and asking to make it a double wedding.
L2: This one is too easy. Combine Julius King from A Fairly Honourable Defeat with Stephen Norton from Curtain and get the IL2s to murder each other. Although Julius only expanded on his philosophy to Morgan because he was actually using her as one of his pawns and not really trying to separate Simon from Axel, she did act almost exactly as he told her Simon would. And Norton was quite safe from any sort of accountability for his actions.
Simultaneous murder ought not to be too difficult for LW2 to achieve, given the material with which there is to work. A good example is what appears at one point to be the solution to One, Two, Buckle My Shoe. Mr Morley, Hercule Poirot's dentist, is found shot, an apparent suicide. His last patient, Mr Amberiotis, confirms details of his first-time visit to Mr Morley and dies that afternoon from an overdose of anaesthaetic. After Mr Morley's assistant, who had been called away for the day by a faked telegram, rules out the possibility of an accidental overdose on the dentist's part, and Mr Amberiotis' shady past is revealed, for a breif time, it appears plausible that it was simultaneous murder - that Mr Morley murdered Mr Amberiotis by giving him a deliberate overdose and then Mr Amberiotis shot Mr Morley after the dentistry had been completed. And in a way that was the right answer. Mr Amberiotis was murdered by a "dentist" who just didn't happen to be Mr Morley, and Mr Morley was shot by a "patient" other than Mr Amberiotis - the shooting just occurred before the overdose instead of after.
It should give LW2 little difficulty to acquire some deadly poison and give each IL2 the opportunity to steal some on the same day after being worked up into a frenzy by LW2's subtle psychological tactics. I like the idea of FIL2 making MIL2 a poisoned cup of coffee in the kitchen just as MIL2 finishes poisoning FIL's glass of wine in the dining room. Even if the plan backfires and only one in-law dies, at least it will be half the problem solved for LW2 and H2.
Moral: "All human beings have staggeringly great faults which can easily be exploited by a clever observer... Play sufficiently on a person's vanity, sow a little mistrust, hint at the contempt which every human being deeply, secretly feels for every other one."
Thursday, January 12, 2012
1/12 - BBC Scattershot
This will be a quickie revisit of some old favourites.
L4: Interesting... the boots that never existed. This one has been lifted almost verbatim from the Poirot case of the Western Star. Poirot is consulted by a film star who owns one of a pair of diamonds which has been much in the newspapers of late. She has received letters threatening the theft of her diamond, but she won't part with it until after she meets the peeress who owns the Eastern Star. The poor peeress actually has her diamond stolen from off her neck just as she is about to enter a room wearing it. Of course, the two diamonds were only one all along.
An alternative, "The Regatta Mystery," features Mr Parker Pyne. A wealthy man who always carries a valuable diamond passes it around the dinner table in a foreign hotel to be viewed by a group of acquaintances. The next evening, a fifteen-year-old girl bets that she can steal the diamond - a new tobacco pouch against six pairs of stockings - if it passed around the table again. The passing begins. Waiters enter the room to clear the plates, the girl's father holding on to the diamond until the waiters leave. When the diamond reaches the girl, she drops it. During the search a little confusion ensues, a glass is knocked off the table, etc., but the diamond is gone. Everyone is searched and the room examined thoroughly - nothing. The girl then reveals that she wedged it into the gap in her evening bag where a stone of similar size had fallen out - only this time it's really gone. It remains for Mr Pyne to piece together that father, daughter and one of the waiters pulled off a sneaky substitution - sneaking the real diamond out of the room on the bottom of a plate and passing a glass copy that the girl simply broke after she dropped it, knocking her glass off the table in the search.
LW4, I suppose this ought to prove a useful lesson to make sure to witness any such items in future and store them carefully for the duration of the visit.
L3: Oh, dear. The overgrown schoolgirl brings bad dreadful memories. Losing ten cases in a row before Judge Bullingham - retiring to Florida - returning because of a letter supposedly written by a murderer using his victim's blood as ink - marking type by appropriating a brief defending a dirty bookstore owner that would otherwise have been returned to Albert Handyside - having to pore through some of the dullest and least erotic pornography ever created only to be interrupted by the return to England of She Who Must Be Obeyed, resulting in Schoolgirl Capers Volume One, Number Four being left behind in the magazine rack - disregarding the client's instructions to attack the character of the alderman who was the chief witness for the prosecution in order to keep the case purely about Freedom of Speech (and losing the case) - She finding Schoolgirl Capers Volume One, Number Four among the other old magazines and consequently making a rather alarming attempt to become alluring. The only saving graces were winning the big murder case and Guthrie Featherstone asking to borrow some of the evidence in the bookstore case. But since then, it has been resolved that cases involving dirty books should be given to young, upstanding female barristers. Fiona Allways won such a case in Manchester - after all, if a nice girl like Fiona could read those books and not find anything terrible about them, they couldn't be all that bad, could they?
It distresses me too much that this is even seen as a situation worthy of outside consultation to address LW3's question.
L2: Ah, a problem with some heft to it. It may comfort LW2 to compare her stepdaughter to Lettice Protheroe in The Murder at the Vicarage. Out of jealousy when the young artist Laurence Redding prefers her stepmother Anne to herself, Lettice, who generally finds it difficult to wake up before lunch and wafts about unsure what day it is, acts with remarkable decision after the murder of her father in the Vicar's study. She steals a distinctive earring belong to Anne, goes to the Vicarage when she will find only Mary (the maid) there, announces that she left her yellow beret in the study where the murder was committed, hides the earring in the study and then insinuates (so out of character that the Clements can hardly believe it when Mary voices this as a grievance) that Mary doesn't dust properly when she does the room (a proposition with which the Vicar entirely concurs), thus ensuring that the earring will soon be found. Only the good fortune that the Vicar happened to see and handle both earrings in Anne's room the day after the murder thwarts Lettice's plan of incrimination.
Some questions: How does the Prudecutor know that SD2 didn't think about the possible consequences of a one-time sexual encounter, and, if the Prudecutor is going to follow that route, exactly what course of action ought someone so young to follow? It's all well and good to leave it up in the air, so that the Wait Until Marriage Crowd won't get upset if one says Wait Until Stable, and the Wait Until Stable Crowd won't get upset if one says Wait Until Marriage. For LW2, how much competition with BM2 is there in the desire for SD2 to come to you with her problems? For SD2, what was the intention behind telling LW2 only? For LW2 again, against whom do you fear the rampage - SD2 or ONSB2? For LW2 and SD2 combined, why has there been no mention of ONSB2 and his role in whatever is done about P2? Back to LW2, what on earth does your financial status have to do with SD2's decision and your support thereof?
I suspect that LW2 wants to keep this a secret from BM2, which is a walking disaster waiting to happen. It's hard to get any sort of guess about what's going on with F2. It seems highly plausible that SD2 knew that telling LW2 meant telling F2, and wanted to enlist LW2 as a buffer first and an assistant in getting necessary ground work done before the big revelation. Novelizing it, though, it would be tempting to have SD2 genuinely intend to get the abortion, but not be entirely averse to having both "ONSB2" and LW2 contribute.
As for what to do, that appears to be largely up to location, although in any event, even if no parental notification or authorization is required, on the evidence presented, I'd opt for informing - not consulting - BM2 and F2 before the event, even if it being made clear that SD2 will not be discussing the decision. Not a strong feeling, though.
L1: The comparison is obvious. BF1 wants to be Francis Urquhart, master Macchiavelian manipulator in the House of Cards trilogy. In House of Cards itself, Urquhart, Conservative Chief Whip, is the object of a bit of a crush held by talented young reporter Mattie Storin. As Henry Collingridge becomes PM, declines to favour Urquhart and his cronies with plum appointments, and gets off to an unimpressively bumbling start, Urquhart plots to get rid of him, blackmails one or two bit players and gradually lets Mattie grow closer to him. Finally, at the urging of his wife Elizabeth, Urquhart makes the affair a physical one. But Mattie can't feel right calling him Francis. She admits that she would like to call him Daddy, which she continues to do even when she confronts him at the end and he throws her off the roof of the House of Commons (a fortuitous difference from the original novel, in which Urquhart jumps to his death after she leaves the roof - two sequels followed).
LW1 is clearly getting exactly what she deserved. "Wanting to make all of someone's sexual fantasies come true" is the sort of dribble one would only get from someone in need of being sent back to the Sally League for more seasoning. The Prudecutor does better than usual on this, noting the existence of rape fantasies and the fact that they correlate only to fantasy play. But she should have told LW1 to run like crazy. Not because BF1 is or isn't a paedophile - but because LW1 ought not to be in any relationship if she is going to go about asking questions that pose as nonjedgmental and then judging the answers to kingdom come.
As to why LW1 consulted the Prudecutor instead of Mr Savage - she wanted to be told to RUN, and was not about to risk being told to be GGG, although Mr Savage's version of GGG does allow for one to decline particular squickies. But LW1 was taking no chances.
Moral: "You can hardly call me Chief Whip."
L4: Interesting... the boots that never existed. This one has been lifted almost verbatim from the Poirot case of the Western Star. Poirot is consulted by a film star who owns one of a pair of diamonds which has been much in the newspapers of late. She has received letters threatening the theft of her diamond, but she won't part with it until after she meets the peeress who owns the Eastern Star. The poor peeress actually has her diamond stolen from off her neck just as she is about to enter a room wearing it. Of course, the two diamonds were only one all along.
An alternative, "The Regatta Mystery," features Mr Parker Pyne. A wealthy man who always carries a valuable diamond passes it around the dinner table in a foreign hotel to be viewed by a group of acquaintances. The next evening, a fifteen-year-old girl bets that she can steal the diamond - a new tobacco pouch against six pairs of stockings - if it passed around the table again. The passing begins. Waiters enter the room to clear the plates, the girl's father holding on to the diamond until the waiters leave. When the diamond reaches the girl, she drops it. During the search a little confusion ensues, a glass is knocked off the table, etc., but the diamond is gone. Everyone is searched and the room examined thoroughly - nothing. The girl then reveals that she wedged it into the gap in her evening bag where a stone of similar size had fallen out - only this time it's really gone. It remains for Mr Pyne to piece together that father, daughter and one of the waiters pulled off a sneaky substitution - sneaking the real diamond out of the room on the bottom of a plate and passing a glass copy that the girl simply broke after she dropped it, knocking her glass off the table in the search.
LW4, I suppose this ought to prove a useful lesson to make sure to witness any such items in future and store them carefully for the duration of the visit.
L3: Oh, dear. The overgrown schoolgirl brings bad dreadful memories. Losing ten cases in a row before Judge Bullingham - retiring to Florida - returning because of a letter supposedly written by a murderer using his victim's blood as ink - marking type by appropriating a brief defending a dirty bookstore owner that would otherwise have been returned to Albert Handyside - having to pore through some of the dullest and least erotic pornography ever created only to be interrupted by the return to England of She Who Must Be Obeyed, resulting in Schoolgirl Capers Volume One, Number Four being left behind in the magazine rack - disregarding the client's instructions to attack the character of the alderman who was the chief witness for the prosecution in order to keep the case purely about Freedom of Speech (and losing the case) - She finding Schoolgirl Capers Volume One, Number Four among the other old magazines and consequently making a rather alarming attempt to become alluring. The only saving graces were winning the big murder case and Guthrie Featherstone asking to borrow some of the evidence in the bookstore case. But since then, it has been resolved that cases involving dirty books should be given to young, upstanding female barristers. Fiona Allways won such a case in Manchester - after all, if a nice girl like Fiona could read those books and not find anything terrible about them, they couldn't be all that bad, could they?
It distresses me too much that this is even seen as a situation worthy of outside consultation to address LW3's question.
L2: Ah, a problem with some heft to it. It may comfort LW2 to compare her stepdaughter to Lettice Protheroe in The Murder at the Vicarage. Out of jealousy when the young artist Laurence Redding prefers her stepmother Anne to herself, Lettice, who generally finds it difficult to wake up before lunch and wafts about unsure what day it is, acts with remarkable decision after the murder of her father in the Vicar's study. She steals a distinctive earring belong to Anne, goes to the Vicarage when she will find only Mary (the maid) there, announces that she left her yellow beret in the study where the murder was committed, hides the earring in the study and then insinuates (so out of character that the Clements can hardly believe it when Mary voices this as a grievance) that Mary doesn't dust properly when she does the room (a proposition with which the Vicar entirely concurs), thus ensuring that the earring will soon be found. Only the good fortune that the Vicar happened to see and handle both earrings in Anne's room the day after the murder thwarts Lettice's plan of incrimination.
Some questions: How does the Prudecutor know that SD2 didn't think about the possible consequences of a one-time sexual encounter, and, if the Prudecutor is going to follow that route, exactly what course of action ought someone so young to follow? It's all well and good to leave it up in the air, so that the Wait Until Marriage Crowd won't get upset if one says Wait Until Stable, and the Wait Until Stable Crowd won't get upset if one says Wait Until Marriage. For LW2, how much competition with BM2 is there in the desire for SD2 to come to you with her problems? For SD2, what was the intention behind telling LW2 only? For LW2 again, against whom do you fear the rampage - SD2 or ONSB2? For LW2 and SD2 combined, why has there been no mention of ONSB2 and his role in whatever is done about P2? Back to LW2, what on earth does your financial status have to do with SD2's decision and your support thereof?
I suspect that LW2 wants to keep this a secret from BM2, which is a walking disaster waiting to happen. It's hard to get any sort of guess about what's going on with F2. It seems highly plausible that SD2 knew that telling LW2 meant telling F2, and wanted to enlist LW2 as a buffer first and an assistant in getting necessary ground work done before the big revelation. Novelizing it, though, it would be tempting to have SD2 genuinely intend to get the abortion, but not be entirely averse to having both "ONSB2" and LW2 contribute.
As for what to do, that appears to be largely up to location, although in any event, even if no parental notification or authorization is required, on the evidence presented, I'd opt for informing - not consulting - BM2 and F2 before the event, even if it being made clear that SD2 will not be discussing the decision. Not a strong feeling, though.
L1: The comparison is obvious. BF1 wants to be Francis Urquhart, master Macchiavelian manipulator in the House of Cards trilogy. In House of Cards itself, Urquhart, Conservative Chief Whip, is the object of a bit of a crush held by talented young reporter Mattie Storin. As Henry Collingridge becomes PM, declines to favour Urquhart and his cronies with plum appointments, and gets off to an unimpressively bumbling start, Urquhart plots to get rid of him, blackmails one or two bit players and gradually lets Mattie grow closer to him. Finally, at the urging of his wife Elizabeth, Urquhart makes the affair a physical one. But Mattie can't feel right calling him Francis. She admits that she would like to call him Daddy, which she continues to do even when she confronts him at the end and he throws her off the roof of the House of Commons (a fortuitous difference from the original novel, in which Urquhart jumps to his death after she leaves the roof - two sequels followed).
LW1 is clearly getting exactly what she deserved. "Wanting to make all of someone's sexual fantasies come true" is the sort of dribble one would only get from someone in need of being sent back to the Sally League for more seasoning. The Prudecutor does better than usual on this, noting the existence of rape fantasies and the fact that they correlate only to fantasy play. But she should have told LW1 to run like crazy. Not because BF1 is or isn't a paedophile - but because LW1 ought not to be in any relationship if she is going to go about asking questions that pose as nonjedgmental and then judging the answers to kingdom come.
As to why LW1 consulted the Prudecutor instead of Mr Savage - she wanted to be told to RUN, and was not about to risk being told to be GGG, although Mr Savage's version of GGG does allow for one to decline particular squickies. But LW1 was taking no chances.
Moral: "You can hardly call me Chief Whip."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)