Your Problems Solved
Dear Maly Q. One of the most characteristic aspects of being a member of the British middle class 'nouveau pauvre' is finding it embarrassing to take action when things we used to take for granted as a free service are now very expensive. I have paid over £3,000 to our (private) dentist for our younger son to be fitted with the new South African 'train track' mini-braces that are a status symbol at his school. After 18 months he admittedly does have a Hollywood smile, but all I have is a large bill and the recently removed set of perfectly fine braces. It seems a criminal waste of money to throw them away. My wife, who is of German extraction, has suggested that, with a bit of adjustment, they could be re-fitted on to our border terrier — a pedigree animal only let down by a slightly undershot lower jaw. I regard this as a completely outrageous idea but my wife insists it is only sensible to see if the cost can be amortised, and insists I speak to the dentist. Mary, how can I approach him without being seen as mercenary about it all?
NT., Peaslake, Surrey A. Your wife must be commended for her imaginative recycling initiative, yet you can assure her there is no point in your approaching the dentist. A curious anomaly in the law would prevent him from treating the terrier. While vets are not barred from medically ministering to humans, the Veterinary Surgeons Act of 1966 dictates that dentists and doctors are barred from attending to animals. More to the point, as the Holland Park vet Andrew Carmichael informs me, 'even if it were legal, a terrier would not tolerate any type of foreign body in its mouth, whether or not it were adjusted to fit snugly'. It is worth hanging on to the braces nevertheless. Your son's adult status may lend them resale value. In 2004 the first cutting of Sylvia Plath's baby hair, still in the original hairdresser's envelope, was offered for sale by dealer Rick Gekoski at $7,500. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, he might be interested in your son's DNA-rich Q. Is the emailing out of vast photo albums of oneself and one's celebrity friends 'larking' about on a series of exotic and far-flung holidays a treasonable or reasonable offence? Some of these photos could be sold for vast sums to the tabloids, but they are rather a smack in the teeth for someone like myself, as I secretly — or in fact openly — crave to be among celebrity of any description in sunny locations. Are these albums sent to make one feel inferior and sad, or to promote the sender's own self esteem?
D'E. P, address withheld A. These albums are not circulated with malicious intent but only to give their senders a little thrill of self-importance. Time was when people had to sit through lengthy slideshows of their friends' holidays, and since the modern option allows you to glance at the whole album in 30 seconds, it has to be preferable. Yet few Top People disseminate such intrusions into their own private lives, and the fashion — even among those pretending to be doing it ironically — has already peaked, so you should soon see an end to the nuisance. In the meantime you must not take these albums personally. They are, above all, impersonal.
Previous page