Breaking (My Heart) News

Very busy tonight and for the next few days with my (never-ending) Levinas paper. But had to break these two stories for you:

1. Remember that English thirteen-year-old who got his girlfriend preggers? The kid who looked like he was ten? The story that was so sordid that Fosco had to write about it not just once but twice?

Well, the DNA test is back and poor little Alfie is NOT the father! While that is certainly good news for little Alfie (whether he sees it that way or not), I'm not sure the story gets any less sad by this revelation. For one thing, the question of the father of Chantelle's baby, is going to get a lot more complicated. Incredibly, other reports note that

six other local boys came forward soon after the baby’s birth and said that they had also had sex with her and could be Maisie’s daddy.

Let's remember: Chantelle is 15. Jesus H. Christ.

And even if Alfie hasn't been saddled for life with a bouncing baby mistake, he seems unlikely to have a sparkling future ahead of him:

Before he took the test, he said: "I didn't know about DNA tests before but mum explained it's when they do a swab in your mouth and it tells if you're the dad. So if I have it, they can all shut up."

Sigh. Bright kid.

(However, as of this writing, the original story has disappeared from the website of the British tabloid The Mirror. Are they backing off on this story?)

2. Fosco's beloved city of San Francisco appears to be under attack by a zombie swarm. Still no word about affected areas of the city, but Fosco thinks it reasonable to assume that most of San Francisco is now uninhabitable by anything but undead.

This is the most tragic death of a great American city since GW Bush bombed the levies in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina.

Wounding Your Cavaliers

It's Sunday and, if you are like me, you would like to see something beautiful.

I finds this strange Pre-Raphaelite painting to be oddly gorgeous. This is The Wounded Cavalier by the delightfully-named William Shakespeare Burton (1824-1916).

Although this was painted around 1855, the depicted scene is from the English Civil War. Personally, I think it's reasonable to read the painting allegorically; otherwise, I'm not sure how you explain the presence of the dour, Bible-holding Puritan who looks on disapprovingly. Oh Puritans, is there anything you don't hate? Also, an allegorical reading may help to account for such oddities as the broken blade stuck in the tree and the small butterfly that is perched on it. (But no, I'm not going to do the allegorical reading for you.) Also, why in the hell is there a tree running down the center of the painting? And why is the Puritan hiding behind it? These are the kinds of questions that, to my mind, make this a worthwhile painting.

As far as I can determine, this painting is in the permanent collection of the Guildhall Museum of Art in London (although it does not appear on their website). There is a smaller "study" for this painting in the Tate collection, although its colors are very different and it is (on the whole) much less appealing.

A note on the coloration. There are numerous images of this painting online and the colors are different in every one. As Fosco has never seen the original (nor is it, apparently, on display except by appointment), he has chosen the version that is most appealing to him. You may find this image to be a little "washed out," but Fosco much prefers the faint mist in this image to some of the gaudier versions.


submit to reddit