This is what I’m up against:
"Now, the beginning is unbegotten, for that which is begotten has a beginning; but the beginning is begotten of nothing, for if it were begotten of something, then the begotten would not come from a beginning. But if unbegotten, it must also be indestructible; for if beginning were destroyed, there could be no beginning out of anything, nor anything out of a beginning; and all things must have a beginning."
Faulkner’s a piece of cake compared to this spot in Phaedrus, where Socrates is really just beginning, after having begotten mere rhetoric, to get to the crux of the matter of love. I do believe that Plato writes the setting and the setup one-third way into the essay more to get one prepared for what is to come, and in his wisdom, knowing one has spent time and effort to get this far, shall continue on to read the ending, knowing well that only then shall it all become evident to the reader.
So therefore, I am grateful I suppose, for the misbegotten beginning.
(If posting henceforth ceases, it is most likely due to a lack of computer access allowed to patients.)