But first things first. Get my head out of my pants? I'm not the one who reduces an analogy to marriage to something sexual. Unless you're one of those cavemen who think the sanctity of marriage is all bump and grind. The bumps of marriage and the grindstone that is life, that is. See, my mind isn't the one in the gutter. LOL
Besides, I knew long ago the relationship between the League and its founder isn't sexual. She stopped putting out for the hairy ape, a looooong time ago, because her husband became interested mainly in his money, and he was being played like a harp by an invisible woman from the rafters. LOL
For the record. I do not like arguing, in and of itself. I do enjoy debating. Arguing is simply a mechanism of debating. It is annoying when arguing becomes a symptom of a natural reflex action and not a symptom of thinking. The formal discussion is what I seek. Yes, I was a member of the debate team. I simply adore book discussions, where most people, sadly, seem to miss the grist, and the gist.
Wiki wrote:Debate is a process that involves formal discussion on a particular topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing viewpoints. Debate occurs in public meetings, academic institutions, and legislative assemblies.It is a formal type of discussion, often with a moderator and an audience, in addition to the debate participants.
Logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are elements in debating, where one side often prevails over the other party by presenting a superior "context" or framework of the issue. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will do it.
You claim I fail to address the text at all, but I do. I consider all of the text taken together (see context above) within the entire framework. Some may call it, reading between the lines. What lies between the lines that has always been missed in the forum, without fail, since joining, is human nature. I always find myself pointing out the ever present human element. The human element has invited its entire family and friends into this discussion, yet ye all continue to miss it.
Beowulf was right to lose her warm cozy feelings for her "common law" husband. To be honest, it is natural to fall out of love. It's difficult and oftentimes suicidal to continue to love one who has become unlovable. But, oftentimes, a spouse attempts to leave the relationship too late or incorrectly, like Beowulf. But she was wrong for trying to poison him with treachery. Attempted murder (of her entire founding) and sometimes possibly treason, is a crime of passion. For example, the decision not to sit on that Dispatch Boat was symptomatic of the crime of passion of a scorned woman.
I find it rather interesting that a reader can become so enamored with a character that they become oblivious to right and wrong, out of such sheer passion for the character. And blind loyalty. We humans can become self-destructive and make an ass out of ourselves when our hearts become involved. I'm not immune to it either, being human. It is the driving force behind spousal privilege, where a spouse does not have to testify against his better half and end up on the sofa that the wife has now fashioned into a bed of knives. We can become as loyal to our characters. I'm not immune to that either, but I have an uncanny ability to become the character. Not because a couple of English teachers said so. But because they realized it is true. Books, along with life, has always had the power to put me in touch with my emotional side. Emotion has a way of draining the pool of excrement, leaving nothing but truth. Man has a problem understanding her, oftentimes. I never have. I wonder if it is symptomatic of having five sisters. Nah! But I digress.
As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say "I'll be Bach," to compose a tune.
WULF! WTF! W 
Rob