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."
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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."
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."
Thursday, December 20, 2012
12/20: P-Q6
Two Brownie Points to anybody who immediately got the point of the title and can guess to which letter it refers.
L2: The obvious solution to any impending situation in which one knows that a particular set of Privileged People will be Practising Privilege (here what might be called Dotage Privilege) is simply Not to Go. One might give the Prudecutor the tiniest bit of Wiggle Room on the question of it being both harmless and gracious to give the old dears permission to ride their fantasy for a bit. She has laid no foundation for the supposition that OD2s actually are imagining any sort of heat radiating from themselves. After all, one might say that she is presumably well past her prime - but there is no good purpose in speculating as to the nature of her private reading matter.
But there is a far better and more important question. There are people bound to ask whether the situation would merit the same response if the readers of some ghastly pornographic book were LW2's father and uncles instead of her mother and aunts. Of course it wouldn't, and there's an excellent reason. Old Women are Officially Past It. Old Men often are not deemed to have lost viability. When, to pull a hypothetical out of thin air, Betty White dating the winner of the Heisman Trophy were to generate no greater scandal than Hugh Hefner marrying a Playboy Bunny of the Year, come back and we'll talk.
L3: I thought the no-brainers were usually saved for L4. When in doubt, contact the recipients and ask. Some might be delighted; some might prefer not; some might opt for vetting. But whatever LW3 does, the worst thing to do would be to add the ridiculously obvious bits of smarm suggested by the Prudecutor, who has demonstrated on many occasions that she is convinced that her faked sentiment will fool the reader as surely as Imperial Margarine will convince Mother Nature it's butter. And we all know it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
L1: Whether XBF1 is a jerk, an abuser, both or neither, some of us will be concerned with the fact that we are, after all, dealing with hearsay evidence. It is one thing to know and understand what might or might not incline one to accept or doubt something told one by a friend, but here we are forced to trust both LW1 and LW1's account of F1. Who wants to be certain on such grounds? How often does one get a detail wrong? I can recall three occasions on which I posted a comment in one forum or another in some detail about something that happened on a television programme, with a majority of the details and the whole spirit right, but with an inaccuracy (for instance, saying that action X took place after both A and B when it was really after A and before B, though the timing was inconsequential to the point). Of course, when the welfare of a child is at stake, Mizz Lizz Probert will be the first to inform any Court in the land that we are not bound by legal quibbles about hearsay - even if that one comes back to bite her in the end.
In defence of F1 (if this really is a Degree of Separation letter, which I'll believe by default), at least she is not duplicating the conduct of Dr Schwyzer's potential partner in procreation, who simply decided (with excellent reason) which of two possible candidates she preferred for the role of Daddy, never informing her preference that she'd had any other encounters and convincing the future doctor to keep the secret. While I understand the temptation to arrange a relationship in such a way, giving oneself all the power to ruin one's partner's life in a moment of anger, it seems almost impossible that being in that relationship with such a lopsided power dynamic must surely have done the relationship harm.
Mainly, though, I wonder how long it will take, given the rush to the declaration that F1 should do all that is humanly possible to make sure that her secret is kept perfectly guarded in perpetuity, for straight men who want nothing to do with potential progeny to start wishing cancer and dead puppies all around. Not to knock the capacity of women to determine veracity, but it seems a plausible consequence.
L4: This was the title reference. Gentle readers may recall that Alice met Humpty Dumpty when she passed into the Sixth Square on her chessboard journey. One might recall that it was Mr Dumpty who persuaded Alice (or made a gallant attempt so to do) of the superiourity to birthday presents of unbirthday presents, due to the extreme superiourity of frequency of days on which they might be received.
As might readily be deduced, H4 has an entire year in which to manifest his delight in providing some less fortunate relation with The Perfect Present. I suppose it is encouraging that some men are as susceptible to the socialization of the obligation of such fanaticism. Some feminists may be pleased with this letter on that account. But his insistence on producing the goods only at Christmas in front of a Full Family Audience guaranteed to be amazed by the spectacle is behaviour to which a great many people would assign an adjective rhyming with, but with the prefix of an extra syllable than, flattery.
And H4's insistence (or the LW's; it's hard to say which) that he just wants to have the freedom to express his love of Christmas has a HUGE smack of the Christianist crowd that just wants to have the freedom to express their love of their version of Christ Jesus by indulging in what they view as his favourite pastime and stoning (or some socially-acceptable-in-Western-civilized-society equivalent, although I suspect most of them would go for stoning if they could) sodomites.
Moral: "When I pay a word, it means what I tell it to mean."
L2: The obvious solution to any impending situation in which one knows that a particular set of Privileged People will be Practising Privilege (here what might be called Dotage Privilege) is simply Not to Go. One might give the Prudecutor the tiniest bit of Wiggle Room on the question of it being both harmless and gracious to give the old dears permission to ride their fantasy for a bit. She has laid no foundation for the supposition that OD2s actually are imagining any sort of heat radiating from themselves. After all, one might say that she is presumably well past her prime - but there is no good purpose in speculating as to the nature of her private reading matter.
But there is a far better and more important question. There are people bound to ask whether the situation would merit the same response if the readers of some ghastly pornographic book were LW2's father and uncles instead of her mother and aunts. Of course it wouldn't, and there's an excellent reason. Old Women are Officially Past It. Old Men often are not deemed to have lost viability. When, to pull a hypothetical out of thin air, Betty White dating the winner of the Heisman Trophy were to generate no greater scandal than Hugh Hefner marrying a Playboy Bunny of the Year, come back and we'll talk.
L3: I thought the no-brainers were usually saved for L4. When in doubt, contact the recipients and ask. Some might be delighted; some might prefer not; some might opt for vetting. But whatever LW3 does, the worst thing to do would be to add the ridiculously obvious bits of smarm suggested by the Prudecutor, who has demonstrated on many occasions that she is convinced that her faked sentiment will fool the reader as surely as Imperial Margarine will convince Mother Nature it's butter. And we all know it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
L1: Whether XBF1 is a jerk, an abuser, both or neither, some of us will be concerned with the fact that we are, after all, dealing with hearsay evidence. It is one thing to know and understand what might or might not incline one to accept or doubt something told one by a friend, but here we are forced to trust both LW1 and LW1's account of F1. Who wants to be certain on such grounds? How often does one get a detail wrong? I can recall three occasions on which I posted a comment in one forum or another in some detail about something that happened on a television programme, with a majority of the details and the whole spirit right, but with an inaccuracy (for instance, saying that action X took place after both A and B when it was really after A and before B, though the timing was inconsequential to the point). Of course, when the welfare of a child is at stake, Mizz Lizz Probert will be the first to inform any Court in the land that we are not bound by legal quibbles about hearsay - even if that one comes back to bite her in the end.
In defence of F1 (if this really is a Degree of Separation letter, which I'll believe by default), at least she is not duplicating the conduct of Dr Schwyzer's potential partner in procreation, who simply decided (with excellent reason) which of two possible candidates she preferred for the role of Daddy, never informing her preference that she'd had any other encounters and convincing the future doctor to keep the secret. While I understand the temptation to arrange a relationship in such a way, giving oneself all the power to ruin one's partner's life in a moment of anger, it seems almost impossible that being in that relationship with such a lopsided power dynamic must surely have done the relationship harm.
Mainly, though, I wonder how long it will take, given the rush to the declaration that F1 should do all that is humanly possible to make sure that her secret is kept perfectly guarded in perpetuity, for straight men who want nothing to do with potential progeny to start wishing cancer and dead puppies all around. Not to knock the capacity of women to determine veracity, but it seems a plausible consequence.
L4: This was the title reference. Gentle readers may recall that Alice met Humpty Dumpty when she passed into the Sixth Square on her chessboard journey. One might recall that it was Mr Dumpty who persuaded Alice (or made a gallant attempt so to do) of the superiourity to birthday presents of unbirthday presents, due to the extreme superiourity of frequency of days on which they might be received.
As might readily be deduced, H4 has an entire year in which to manifest his delight in providing some less fortunate relation with The Perfect Present. I suppose it is encouraging that some men are as susceptible to the socialization of the obligation of such fanaticism. Some feminists may be pleased with this letter on that account. But his insistence on producing the goods only at Christmas in front of a Full Family Audience guaranteed to be amazed by the spectacle is behaviour to which a great many people would assign an adjective rhyming with, but with the prefix of an extra syllable than, flattery.
And H4's insistence (or the LW's; it's hard to say which) that he just wants to have the freedom to express his love of Christmas has a HUGE smack of the Christianist crowd that just wants to have the freedom to express their love of their version of Christ Jesus by indulging in what they view as his favourite pastime and stoning (or some socially-acceptable-in-Western-civilized-society equivalent, although I suspect most of them would go for stoning if they could) sodomites.
Moral: "When I pay a word, it means what I tell it to mean."
Thursday, December 13, 2012
12/13 - Pru World Disorder?
With the run-up to Christmas producing its usual quantity of difficulty in ducking the relentless assault of heterocentrism, a brief moment of congratulations to all those newly married this week in Seattle, Mr Savage prominent among them.
This is a brief What is the World Coming to? sort of post.
As far as L1 goes, if the world is the sort of place where the relations of a perpetrator have to take legal advice before making a sanitized expression of sympathy with anything of any real feeling or meaning sucked out of it, the world has already lost. And it might have behooved the Prudecutor to pay some attention to the difference between the LW's loss of an illusion and the bereaved family's loss of someone who, whatever his faults, at least is not known to have committed an active forfeiture of a large portion of merit. Additionally, the obvious solution is to find one of the numerous friends in common to serve as, if not exactly an intermediary, then at least as a sort of sounder out.
L2 is disqualified on technical grounds. The information is insufficient to judge whether OF2 is being swamped on home or neutral ground by BF2. Besides, First World Problems, Inc.
L3 makes me wonder how conservatives get anything done when they don't have blackmail-worthy evidence to hold over people's heads. But I am more saddened by the Prudecutor's more than acquiescence in this horrific system in which one must from the youngest of ages compose a presence that will satisfy the Great Corporate Behemoth about matters which absolutely concern it not.
As for L4, it could be quite possible that a donation would be just the thing to be the ideal present all around, but, not only was the peremptory manner of the Prudecutor's recommendation (more of a command) well off key, the timing is wrong. Just as one does not make the funeral of an uncle the time to make one's polyamourous orientation the main focus, introducing such a style of gift suddenly and as a surprise with such short time for preparation is not the best receipt for success and happiness all around. LW4 would be best advised to pick a low-key time for an introductory donation and all the attendant activities.
I think I'll pass on the moral.
This is a brief What is the World Coming to? sort of post.
As far as L1 goes, if the world is the sort of place where the relations of a perpetrator have to take legal advice before making a sanitized expression of sympathy with anything of any real feeling or meaning sucked out of it, the world has already lost. And it might have behooved the Prudecutor to pay some attention to the difference between the LW's loss of an illusion and the bereaved family's loss of someone who, whatever his faults, at least is not known to have committed an active forfeiture of a large portion of merit. Additionally, the obvious solution is to find one of the numerous friends in common to serve as, if not exactly an intermediary, then at least as a sort of sounder out.
L2 is disqualified on technical grounds. The information is insufficient to judge whether OF2 is being swamped on home or neutral ground by BF2. Besides, First World Problems, Inc.
L3 makes me wonder how conservatives get anything done when they don't have blackmail-worthy evidence to hold over people's heads. But I am more saddened by the Prudecutor's more than acquiescence in this horrific system in which one must from the youngest of ages compose a presence that will satisfy the Great Corporate Behemoth about matters which absolutely concern it not.
As for L4, it could be quite possible that a donation would be just the thing to be the ideal present all around, but, not only was the peremptory manner of the Prudecutor's recommendation (more of a command) well off key, the timing is wrong. Just as one does not make the funeral of an uncle the time to make one's polyamourous orientation the main focus, introducing such a style of gift suddenly and as a surprise with such short time for preparation is not the best receipt for success and happiness all around. LW4 would be best advised to pick a low-key time for an introductory donation and all the attendant activities.
I think I'll pass on the moral.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Prize show?
Was this week the Thick Awards?
LW1 is about as self-aware as Sir Walter Elliot. At least, that was the first thought to spring to mind. It might be quite apt, as one wonders exactly how much indulgence one might have to extend to AW1. We recall well how Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable, whose judgment and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful indiscretion that made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence thereafter.
LW2 and LW4 apparently appear to be competing for the same award. LW2 is in slightly the more sympathetic position. While LW4's concern for the elderly might be exaggerated into something almost touching, it might be a truth universally acknowledged that the difficulty in informing one's partner of an unpleasant aspect of an Otherwise Highly Desirable Body Part decidedly lies in the challenge of making the communication without being consequently denied access to the Otherwise
Highly Desirable Body Part in question. But LW2's selection of the Prudecutor by way of consultant is the less explicable. They both could use a touch of Miss Bates, who could not keep anything to herself for five minutes, or perhaps Mrs Allen, who could never remain entirely silent.
LW3 makes one wonder how OC3 was in any position to be able to make any confidences at all. We do, do we not, have freedom of association. One might think that LW3 could have been capable of choosing whether to have any conversation with OC3 or not, and one might wonder why a LW of any number whatsoever should consent to continual conversation with OC3 or anybody like her. Now granted, as is the case of Emma with Mrs Elton, there are some social menaces who cannot be avoided entirely. However, if one recalls such customers as Mrs Bambi Etheridge, it seems reasonable to suggest that LW3 might have done a better job of ducking contact. Having been the recipient of the dangerous confidence, it's a little late to be out of it now, but things ought not to have reached such a state; LW3 should learn for the future.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
11/22 - For the Reluctant Cardplayer
Some of my favourite Austensplaining:
In the evening it was found, according to the predetermination of Mrs Grant and her sister, that after making up the whist table there would remain sufficient for a round game, and everybody being as perfectly complying and without a choice as on such occasions they always are, speculation was decided on almost as soon as whist; and Lady Bertram soon found herself in the critical situation of being applied to for her own choice between the games, and being required either to draw a card for whist or not. Luckily Sir Thomas was at hand.
"What shall I do, Sir Thomas? Whist and speculation; which will amuse me most?"
Sir Thomas, after a moment's thought, recommended speculation. He was a whist player himself, and perhaps might feel that it would not much amuse him to have her for a partner.
Moral: Bring the relation in question a copy of Mansfield Park.
In the evening it was found, according to the predetermination of Mrs Grant and her sister, that after making up the whist table there would remain sufficient for a round game, and everybody being as perfectly complying and without a choice as on such occasions they always are, speculation was decided on almost as soon as whist; and Lady Bertram soon found herself in the critical situation of being applied to for her own choice between the games, and being required either to draw a card for whist or not. Luckily Sir Thomas was at hand.
"What shall I do, Sir Thomas? Whist and speculation; which will amuse me most?"
Sir Thomas, after a moment's thought, recommended speculation. He was a whist player himself, and perhaps might feel that it would not much amuse him to have her for a partner.
Moral: Bring the relation in question a copy of Mansfield Park.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
11/15 - Quickie on the Recap
Well, to give the Prudecutor her due, at least she didn't pack the court with fawning follow-ups designed to attribute to her an infinite wit and wisdom which she possesses not. It certainly would have been easy to stack the deck; who could have proved it different? So the Unwanted House Guest turned out to be not quite so sinister as she thought.
But one glaring thing sticks out from the Twincest Follow-Up. Our LW mentions in the follow-up how his brother read the column at breakfast and flipped out when he caught on to the personal nature of the subject matter. One must wonder, therefore, why the flying flip the Prudecutor and her editorial council ran the letter without looking into the situation in the first place.
The LW obviously was familiar with the Prudecutor's column, and it stood to reason as highly probable that the twin was as well. As their circle had a reasonable degree of familiarity with them and their lives despite not being in on The Big Secret, it ought not to come as the greatest shock in the world if some of their acquaintance might just happen to be readers of the Prudecutor's column as well. Should such be the case, how possible could it be that any such person would not add up gay twins living together as supposed bachelors and not visibly dating?
As it would not take a team of rocket surgeons to work out the likelihood of discovery, the next thing is to wonder why the Prudecution would run the letter without first checking in with the LW that it would not ruin his life. Now, one could easily claim that there's no obligation to do so. And certainly the Prudecutor's conduct since the letters has been indicative of excessive salivation over the increase in traffic and revenue the letter would bring her way, given its vast superiourity to the legions of dull letters that only made this shine all the brighter. But not to check in first to make sure that both the LW and his brother were okay with the letter being run? Perhaps not necessary, but reasonably described as Heartless.
As for the follow-up itself, the LW comes across as rather the tedious sort, or at least borderline so. I do not blame him for Fitting the Stereotype; some people do, and he at least does not Universalize it the way one sees happening only too often. I just detect a bit of the wrong sort of uberassimilationist strain in the bit about sexual dropping-off being Not Uncommon Among Gay Male Companions and Guess What? Some Straight Couples Too!
Laissez-moi barf.
But one glaring thing sticks out from the Twincest Follow-Up. Our LW mentions in the follow-up how his brother read the column at breakfast and flipped out when he caught on to the personal nature of the subject matter. One must wonder, therefore, why the flying flip the Prudecutor and her editorial council ran the letter without looking into the situation in the first place.
The LW obviously was familiar with the Prudecutor's column, and it stood to reason as highly probable that the twin was as well. As their circle had a reasonable degree of familiarity with them and their lives despite not being in on The Big Secret, it ought not to come as the greatest shock in the world if some of their acquaintance might just happen to be readers of the Prudecutor's column as well. Should such be the case, how possible could it be that any such person would not add up gay twins living together as supposed bachelors and not visibly dating?
As it would not take a team of rocket surgeons to work out the likelihood of discovery, the next thing is to wonder why the Prudecution would run the letter without first checking in with the LW that it would not ruin his life. Now, one could easily claim that there's no obligation to do so. And certainly the Prudecutor's conduct since the letters has been indicative of excessive salivation over the increase in traffic and revenue the letter would bring her way, given its vast superiourity to the legions of dull letters that only made this shine all the brighter. But not to check in first to make sure that both the LW and his brother were okay with the letter being run? Perhaps not necessary, but reasonably described as Heartless.
As for the follow-up itself, the LW comes across as rather the tedious sort, or at least borderline so. I do not blame him for Fitting the Stereotype; some people do, and he at least does not Universalize it the way one sees happening only too often. I just detect a bit of the wrong sort of uberassimilationist strain in the bit about sexual dropping-off being Not Uncommon Among Gay Male Companions and Guess What? Some Straight Couples Too!
Laissez-moi barf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)