Crouch tactics. And Sexiness.

[ssk7882 <skelkins@attbi.com>]

Hi, guys.

[apologies in advance for personal note]

[Eileen -- Cindy has mentioned that you have been trying to reach
me.  Just so you know, my email is out of service, and I can't
access messages.  Outgoings have been erratic.  Just so you know
I'm not ignoring you.]

David wrote:

> While I am 'on air', so to speak, may I be permitted to comment on
> another thread on this list? Concerning Madam Elkins' nanology, I 
> have no comment on the actual content (my in-tray is groaning as it
> is). However, may I suggest, in the case where a number of posts
> were already prepared, there might have been tactical merit in 
> releasing the posts gradually, perhaps on a daily basis, and 
> concealing until late in the day the precise number of them? The 
> increased reader anticipation is, I believe, well worth the wait. 
> Not that the case is likely to arise again.

Well, I certainly hope not!  ;->  And if so, I promise I won't choose 
poor Eileen as my victim a second time (boy, talk about turning other 
people into your mirrors!  Poor Eileen was just laboring under the 
Imperius Curse all the way through that thing, wasn't she?).

But if the block of postings caused inconvenience for anyone on
the technical level, then please do accept my apologies.  I read 
the list on webview myself, and so it didn't occur to me until 
after I was done that my decision may have caused some hardship 
to people who receive the list in individual e-mail or digest 
form.  If I caused a nuisance, then I am most terribly sorry.

Really, though, I was trying to be considerate in posting them
all at once like that.  Parts 1-7 were really one complete argument.
I thought that it might be a bit unfair to Eileen to release them
in dribs and drabs, causing her to start approaching parts of
the argument before she had the coherent whole in front of her to 
work from.  That, at any rate, would have been how I would have 
preferred such a thing to be presented to me, had I been Eileen.  
So I really was just trying to play fair.  

It seems, however, that I failed.  Eileen wrote:

> Well, actually, I'm still in awe of the brilliance of Elkins's
> strategy. I've been wondering for a long time whether she's a
> Slytherin or a Ravenclaw, and now I'm convinced it's the former. 

Oh dear.

You see what happens when I try to play fair?  I get it all *wrong*
and wind up being all sneaky and Slytherinesque instead.  <sigh>

Boy, you should see what happens when I try to be *devious.*  

> You see, if she had released the posts separately, she knew that I
> would immediately argue back on grounds that would later be
> destroyed in her next posts. 

But, but, but...but I was trying to be sporting!

Well...as sporting as I could be, at any rate, given the intrinsic
evilness of having smacked you with a post that long.  It really
wasn't meant to be that long, you know.  It honestly wasn't.  It 
was the fever!

And of course, you know that I was only willing to mistreat you 
so horrifically because I absolutely adore you.  And because
I *know* how much you enjoy that sort of thing. ;-)

> She wanted to overwhelm me with a complete coherent argument that 
> covered literally everything, and to have me keeping in mind
> everything she said when I made my response to separate points.

Well, you see, I myself have terrible trouble with parts and wholes.
I often find it rather difficult to get a handle on things until I 
feel that I have all of the pieces (or at least, a good number of
pieces) laid out in front of me.  To be brutally honest, I'm actually 
rather *slow.*  This is one of the reasons that I'm so often very 
late jumping in on threads: I just don't know quite what I think 
sometimes until I've had the chance to sit down with lots of little 
conceptual bits and pieces and *play* with them for a while.  (It's 
also the reason that I've been holding off on responding on the main 
list, btw.  I'm waiting on part seven.) 

I guess that, like most people, I do tend to assume that other 
people's minds work the same way that mine does.  Often a foolish
assumption, that, I know.  And a rather telling one, too, in light
of part seven, eh?

But I really did think that Eileen would like it better having the 
entire block to work with at once.  The "tactics" really weren't
intended as such.   

As for Eileen's tactics, though...

Eileen wrote, on the main list:

> "...To tell you the truth, I've been stealthily leaving things 
> out of my Crouch apologetic posts, performing sleights of hand 
> to make anyone blush. (Like the fact that Black's timeline seemed 
> wrong.) And Elkins called me on every one of my ommissions, as I 
> rather expected her to do. And she caught the hints I'd made to 
> the points that told against me."
>
> "Eileen, which House did you say you were in again?"
>
> "Gryffindor," says Eileen innocently. 

Which she is, you know.  She really truly is, no matter how 
charmingly self-deprecating she may be, calling herself a Slytherin 
and all.

Because she *gave* me those hints.  Now, didn't she.

<shakes head in helpless admiration>

Chivalry and honour.  They're nice qualities, Eileen.

But, uh, look.  If in fact that *wasn't* chivalry?  If it was 
just that, er, 'Comfort-Hurt' of yours?  

Please.  *Don't* tell me, okay?  Allow me to keep my illusions.  ;-)

However, I didn't actually pick up on *all* of the hints,
did I?  Because I missed this glaring one right here:

> "No, of course not. We all know who's Dead Sexy in King Lear."

<slaps hand on forehead>

*Doh!*

> "I don't want to know," says Cindy. "I don't want to know."
>
> "The manipulative parricide who always speaks in double meanings. If
> Lear is an analogue to Crouch Sr., Barty Jr.'s analogue is obviously
> Edmund. 

Yes, of course.  I went haring after Brutus Jr. in a heartbeat, yet 
completely missed Edmund.  Overlooked him completely.  Now how did I 
manage that?

Probably because I didn't find Barty Jr. sexy.  Edmund, on the other 
hand?  Now, Edmund was *Dead* Sexy.

As for Crouch Sr...

Wendy:

> On my first reading, the image that came to my mind of Crouch was 
> David Niven. Very straight, thin, impeccably groomed. Handsome, 
> yes, perhaps. But I personally don't find that sort of look to be 
> sexy. 

<quiet moan>

Oh, Wendy!  But I *do,* you see.  I *do!*

Oh, how could you do this to me?  It never even would have *occurred* 
to me to envision Crouch as David Niven.  Gah!  Are you on my 
therapist's *payroll* or something?

> I won't go so far as to say that evil=sexy. But evil characters can 
> certainly be incredibly sexy. Lucius Malfoy comes to mind. 

<smiles>

Eileen, would you like to feel better about that whole Bentness thing?

I am Jewish.  And I find Lucius Malfoy rather sexy.  For just the
reasons you might think.

So cheer up about Elder Crouch, will you?  The man may indeed 
have been a bit of a jack-booted fascist, but at least he's not 
some sick and shameful stormtrooper fantasy.  You could have done
worse in the Bent department.  A *lot* worse.  Trust me.

> "I don't like Mrs. Crouch," says Eileen. 
>
> "It's envy," says Cindy.

Yup.  'He loved her as he had never loved me.'

Have a mirror, Eileen.  And don't think too hard about the troubling
implications.  *Any* of the troubling implications.  <g>


Eileen scared me by saying:

> I have a canon that's going to blow her out of the water on one 
> particular point and do a bit of damage to the Crouch/Winky ship 
> as well (though my arguing against Crouch/Winky is going to be 
> hopelessly cognitively dissonant, since I brought it up in the 
> first place on the list, but I have two canons to man against it.) 

TWO canons?  *TWO?*

Uh-oh.

I've some idea what one of them might be, but I have absolutely no 
idea what the other one is!  I look forward to finding out.

> Oh yeah, I can see your skeptical faces. Look, I've been playing to
> lose so far, trying to salvage what's left of Crouch's reputation, 
> but from Post Six onward, I'm going on the offensive. 

Well, I certainly hope you take that nasty little TBAY!Elkins out
to the woodshed!  'Cause she's had that coming for a looooong
time now.  


Elkins