I just said something similar to this regarding Erin's 'Urban Renewal' series at BC and it applies here as well.

What you are doing here is amazing to me, Donna. With each brief glimpse into Jo and Richard's plight, you tantalize the reader. The characters literally spring to life from the text, and even as we postulate about what will happen next we fear it as well. Your skill is immense, and I thank you whole heartedly for sharing it with us!

Personally I hope that Richard can avoid using that W word until Strangefellows day is past. I said before that he could easily be the hero of this piece, and it still applies. In truth, he has the makings of an excellent antihero, a rogue and a rake but yet someone with a true heart underneath it.

Sincerely,

Scott

~If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.~
Lazarus Long
Robert A. Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'

Let my play ... Devil's Advocate ...

The only clear violation thus far is the aforementioned manipulation of reality to alter the past. As this has already been acknowledged by both parties, and the Party of the First Part, henceforth known as 'the Big Three', has agreed that what's done is done, the Party of the Second Part, Miss Sophie Drake, is thereby free of any obligation or indeminification for the offense.

As to Ms. Messenger's second wish, the Advocate for the Big Three has stipulated that Ms. Messenger's 'consciousness of who she is' cannot be touched. Ms. Messenger is still quite conscious of who she is - she knows she is not dead for instance - so any alterations to her have not violated the conditions laid down by the Advocate for the opposition, no matter how they may have altered Ms. Messenger's personality, intellect or behavior. In short, Jo still knows that she is Joel Messenger, even if she is begininng to feel very differently.

In closing, I would point out once more the words of opposing counsel - 'consciouness of who she is'. By acknowledging that Ms. Messenger is, indeed, a female, this stipulation could be interpreted as to give tacit approval for the alteration of Ms. Messenger's mindset to one more appropriate to her gender.

Sincerely,

Scott

~If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.~
Lazarus Long
Robert A. Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'

...because I don't visually confuse handed images, p and q, or 6 and 9 for instance. But I do the keyboard thing pretty frequently, it's one of the first things I check for when proofing my own stuff. And on many common tasks, I can use either hand with equal clumsiness. :)

Other than playing pool or sorting cantaloupes (long story) I've never found this to be much advantage, though I used to take real delight in swapping hands while painting or drawing to confuse art teachers all of whom wanted to teach me various techniques for avoiding the problem of your hand covering up what you're trying to draw. :)

I did some reading on this and dyslexia and handedness do seem to be related to brain structure with a glitch in the cerebellum being inmplicated fairly frequently.

But, too, women's brains are organized slightly differently than men's brains: more side to side connections and fewer one-side-only specializations. (I just typed 'sedi' for side.) That might be part of Jo's confusion, too.

Then there are haptic and kinesthetic body maps in the brain: your brain maps your hands and face as being as big as all the rest of your body for some purposes. If the devil has re-mapped certain parts of Jo's anatomy as enormous, she's going to pay them more attention. :)

A brain is the Devil's ideal plaything!

- Erin

I've had the same thing happen to me. The night I separated from my wife, I couldn't remember the pin number for my debit card, despite having had the same one for at least ten years. I punched in the wrong number so many times they suspended the account until I called them to straighten it out. There is also the distinct possibility Jo did dial the number right one of those times, but it's not the same anymore.

Sincerely,

Scott

~If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.~
Lazarus Long
Robert A. Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'

"It is the position of my Superior, that you have to abide strictly by the words of the wish. And since she phrased her desire in the proper subjunctive, that you cannot alter the past this time. We think you cheated on that first wish; the man, Richard also used the subjunctive and you should not have altered the past."

Sophie smiled."I didn't at first, and I only altered time as far back as last Strangefellows Day in my second intervention, just two months." She laughed. "The poor booby hasn't discovered what I did yet."

The clarence waggled a finger at her. "No more of that. Your justification for the second intervention violated several rules; Joel did not actually make a wish in simply agreeing with Richard's and you changed time. It is the position of my Principal that what is done is done and what is undone is undone, so no more mucking about with time."

The argument about 'breaking the rules' only applies to Ms. Messengers latest wish. The clarence ... er, Advocate for the Opposition has already conceded on the point of any prior violation.

The demise of Joel and the loss of his job occurred do to Ms. Drake's second intervention, where she did indeed alter time and reality. That action, however, falls under the category of 'what is done is done and what is undone is undone'. In fact, one could interpret that to say that Joel is indeed dead, and his life cannot be restored at this point. To correct it Ms. Drake would have to 'muck about with time' again, which she has been expressly forbidden to do.

As for extreme body modifications, I have already stated that such could lead to a fundamental alteration of Ms. Messenger's psyche. However, much hinges on how the phrase 'consciousness of who she is' is defined. One definition would be that Ms. Drake cannot make Ms. Messenger forget that she was once Joel Messenger, a man.

However, the use of the word 'she' by opposing counsel could be read as an admission that Ms. Messenger is now female, and therefore making 'her' perceive herself as female would not be altering her 'consciousness of who she is', but rather correcting it.

Her treatment at work is a moot point - she has no job. The clause you cite has no bearing on this because it was introduced after the fact, and thus has no bearing on previous actions.

As for Mr. Mason ... bring him on ...

Sincerely,

Scott

~If a person had time enough, he could love all of that majority who are decent and just.~
Lazarus Long
Robert A. Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love'