Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gmku
I agree with Atari. The letter writer was obviously taking the piss with the columnist. It's very obvious. The accidental spilling of the tea on just the right lines. Come on. The columnist probably knew it too, but thought it would be a clever way to get a little sanitized sexual content into her column.
|
Yes.
Of course, upon occassion people definitely spill drinks all over papers. No one will dispute that.
The way, however, that the incident is worked into the letter asking for advice is telling. It's as if the real author wanted to cover their bases with the addendum. Or, in other words, in case the reader doesn't find it especially plausible that a kid is mixed up concerning the phraseology of "camel toes," the spillage story also supports that the godson actually may have the expresssion right, but that the hopelessly clueless godparent is, unfortunately, misreading a damaged paper.
And yeah, this all, of course, assumes that a real letter was sent in the first place. Like gmku, I don't believe this Leslie Potter woman would fake the letter itself. Although, yeah, the letter sufficed to spice up her column, she doesn't strike me as the Howard Stern type (haha) that might stage everything.
Much more likely is that the satrical letter is the work of a starving, frustrated writer.
Pranksters have been known to send in letters like this, especially to to minor publications. I'll also venture a guess that they probably use drugs too. And just maybe the author of the letter is one of her "younger, hipper coworkers" themselves. It's funny to think about the author deliberating over whether to make the person sending in the letter a parent or a godparent. And I can imagine them puzzling over whether to use a line about a drink spilling or not. I can mentally picture them wrestling over what kind of drink spilled, or whether or not to mention the type of drink at all. All in all, I think there's a good chance the whole parenthetical part was added almost as an afterthought.