YOUR PROBLEMS SOLVED
Dear Mary. . .
Q. When walking the other day on the Chelsea Embankment I had the temerity to tell a passing cyclist that he was not on a cycleway. He wheeled round and we then had a polite, though heated exchange. He sought to explain that his action was justi- fied by the greater danger he would have encountered had he ridden in the carriage- way. I sought to explain that he was break- ing the law and was a threat to pedestri- ans. I added that the killing of pedestrians by cyclists was a regular occurrence. We soon parted and as he mounted his machine he said, 'When I am as old as you are, I hope I am not so anally retentive.' I did manage a retort but it was not particu- larly brilliant. Might you equip me for the future? It may be helpful for you to know that, in addition to being the president of the Pedestrians' Association, I am a keen cyclist and have ridden all over inner Lon- don for 30 years.
T.B., London SW10 A. Whenever the cliché `anally retentive' is used, it is safe to assume that the user is only half educated but intellectually preten- tious. It is therefore appropriate to wag the finger and retort 'Ars longa, vita brevis!' with a triumphant chuckle as though you have made the quip of the century. Your victim will be disconcerted. Are you making some pun on the word 'arse' which, of course, is the 'seat' of anal retention? A pun that he does not get? Even if he chal- lenges the relevance you can just chuckle maddeningly. Either way you will rob him of the last word and take the metaphorical air out of his tyres.
Q. Walking each day from the train to work in an inner-city suburb, I am obliged to cross a large and busy road. I invariably cross at the traffic lights and one morning when there were no cars in sight in either direction, I pressed the button and waited for the signal to cross. As the lights changed, one car did come along and was stopped by the lights to allow me to cross. The car, however, was no ordinary one but a Rolls-Royce, flying the Prince of Wales's pennant, taking His Royal Highness from Government House to the airport. No other car or pedestrian appeared, and in my confusion I hurried across, pretending not to notice. I thought later that it had been churlish of me not at least to have acknowledged HRH's presence after the traffic lights had, in a sense, forced me to take precedence over him, but to stop and bow in the middle of the road struck me as being a little too formal for the circum- stances. Perhaps a cheery wave might have been acceptable? I would value your thoughts on what my response to this situa- tion should have been in case I find myself faced by such a dilemma again.
KS., Dulwich, Sydney A. When a man has been the unfortunate recipient of so much gratuitous criticism it would be friendly to try to lift his spirits by indicating your approval. A bow would have been wrong, however, as this might have been construed as satirical. You were in Australia, but it would have also been wrong to shout 'Good on ya, Charlie!' as you might have looked, to the occupants of the soundproof vehicle, as though you were bawling abuse. The correct response would indeed have been a cheery wave and a broad beam of friendship.
If you have a problem write to Dear Mary, clo The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL.
Mary Killen
Previous page
