Gift Giving for Assisted Living, Vol. 14, Issue 31

Dear Etiquetteer: My supervisor is entering a new stage of her life, namely moving from independent living to assisted living. Her husband’s health has progressed to needing additional care. On the occasion of previous moves, I have sent a small (work-appropriate) housewarming gift. With such sadness around the move, is it appropriate to send a gift? If so, what would be appropriate? Previous housewarming gifts have typically been a bottle of each of their favorite adult beverages.

I am quite close to my supervisor and she has recently been exceedingly generous towards me personally since the birth of my daughter. What is my best course of action?

Dear Presenting:

Moves of Necessity are often accompanied by sadness for the Moved, which creates an opportunity for loved ones to support them with Good Cheer. The way you refer to previous gifts of spirits sounds as if their presentation on moving could be considered a tradition, and Tradition is a terrible thing to break.

But perhaps the health of the gentleman in question no longer permits imbibing? As you and your supervisor know each other so well, Etiquetteer sees no difficulty in a discreet inquiry along the lines of “And do you and Ethelred still enjoy your highball before dinner?” The answer to that will guide you.

Otherwise, moves to assisted living often entail reducing the number of one’s possessions. Under these circumstances, useful gifts are most Perfectly Proper: foodstuffs, stationery, laprobes, etc. One item unique to assisted living facilities is decorations for one’s door. A gift of an all-seasonal wreath or something similar could help make the transition more homelike.

You Can (or Cannot) Leave Your Hat On, Vol. 14, Issue 30

Even Etiquetteer needs to check on what is Perfectly Proper or not, and one mystifyingly foggy aspect of etiquette has always been when and where a gentleman may wear his hat indoors. Movies are never really a reliable guide to How to Behave Properly, and yet there are so many old films in which men are seen wearing hats indoors (around poker tables, in hotel lobbies, etc.) that the practice must have had some wider acceptance. But one gag in Auntie Mame (1958) is about a man with his hands full needing to take his hat off in an elevator. What is the final word on this? To Etiquetteer's delight, the key to unlock the mystery was found in a gem of a book called Male Manners: The Young Man's Guide to: dating, good looks, making friends, getting into schools, clubs, activities, talking easily, job hunting, traveling, cars, and more, by Kay Corinth and Mary Sargent (1969). The key is whether or not a space is public or private. In someone's home or office, hats are removed when you enter. If it's an office building, and therefore public, your hat may remain on. If you're riding on a public bus, subway, or streetcar, it's Perfectly Proper to remain hatted. Gentlemen may leave their hats on in a public elevator (for instance, in an office building or a college campus), but not if it's an elevator for a residence (like one of those tall residential towers so fashionable in New York and elsewhere these days). This was Etiquetteer's big surprise, having always thought that a gentleman removed his hat in any elevator.

Two important exceptions exist where hats are always removed on entry: churches and restaurants. Of course this relates only to secular headgear.* Etiquetteer gets enraged when seeing hipsters or other men wearing those fashionable narrow-brimmed hats - or worse, baseball caps - inside churches. Stop it at once! Several years ago, Etiquetteer joined the audience of a New Year's Eve evening concert in a church and was put off by the usher barking "Hats off!" as soon as the door opened, not even giving Etiquetteer a chance to take it off first before being disciplined. Later, seeing the rest of the audience, Etiquetteer understood, but still felt rather abused.

To summarize, a gentleman may wear his hat inside in these places: public buildings (e.g. hotel lobbies, office buildings, and their elevators). A gentleman removes his hat when he enters these places: private homes (and their elevators), restaurants, churches and other houses of worship (unless religious headgear).

Etiquetteer is relieved that the "Bad Hair Day" excuse to remain hatted seems to have been capped. After all, if people think you can't manage your hair, do you think they'll think you can manage something more important, like your career?

* Once upon a time, it would not be necessary to state this, but with wider, and Perfectly Proper, acceptance of other cultures, it's important to specify.

Reference to Bodily Function in the Political Arena, Vol. 14, Issue 29

"Cousin Marie says politicians aren't gentlemen."

- Agatha Christie, Death on the Nile

A line has been crossed, and Etiquetteer is very unhappy about it.

Reference to Bodily Function, outside one's doctor's office, is not Perfectly Proper. Etiquetteer has said this before, and sadly will have to go on saying it. Don't think for a moment that this pleases Etiquetteer.

In the aftermath of last week's debate of Republican presidential candidates hosted by Fox News, popular (populist?) candidate Donald Trump abandoned forever any possible illusion anyone, no matter how deluded, might still cling to that he was still a viable candidate or a gentleman. Readers probably already know how he did this: by explaining that Fox News debate moderator Megyn Kelly was suffering from what used to be known as "female complaint" during the debate. Etiquetteer believes he made this suggestion because Ms. Kelly held him to account about previous, and very public, disparaging comments about women who had criticized him, nor would she accept his attempt to suggest that he only criticized one particular woman.

How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany? How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil? How might one feel if Mr. Trump had suggested this about one's mother?

Mr. Trump's behavior has always been the antithesis of presidential, and this incident confirms it for anyone who might wish to think otherwise. It is the antithesis of Perfect Propriety. It is the antithesis of Chivalry. Any man who could make such a suggestion, petty and vulgar, makes clear that he is not fit for public office, or any role in public life, and should slink in shame to his (in this case, gilded onyx) corner. Etiquetteer calls on those who might continue to support Mr. Trump as a candidate to condemn this behavior publicly.

How Not to Celebrate National Underwear Day, Vol. 14, Issue 28

Good underwear, like good housekeeping, is what you don't notice . . . at least not out in the streets, where it could frighten the horses. Etiquetteer only just learned that August 5 is National Underwear Day, yet another of the Hallmark Holidays brought to us by Retail and the Internet. Through an unhappy coincidence, today Etiquetteer also witnessed two examples of How Not to Celebrate National Underwear Day (should you choose to do so):

EXHIBIT A: In the morning Etiquetteer observed a young woman wearing a red-and-white print shirtwaist dress walking through a train station. As it happened, the dress was less than opaque. An unnaturally wide dark line spoiled the print of her dress. On closer observation, Etiquetteer was horrified to discover that the wide dark line was, in fact, the waistband of a pair of thong underwear, and that this young woman's buttocks were clearly visible through her dress. The one point Etiquetteer could award her for Perfect Propriety was that at least it appeared her brassiere was the same color!

But first, a thong is always wrong, and even more important, underwear should not be visible through one's outer clothing. Otherwise one might be branded a slattern or worse. (Etiquetteer is frantic with frustration at not being able to find an illustrative clip from the Jean Harlow film Red-Headed Woman, in which she tries on a dress. JH: "Can you see through this?" Saleslady: "I'm afraid you can." JH: "Then I'll wear it!" She proceeds to break up a marriage.) Clearly it's time for the slip, once an essential undergarment for ladies, to make a comeback.

EXHIBIT B: Later in the day Etiquetteer saw a Young Man greet his Lady Fair on the public street. He wore a pair of white athletic shorts over a quite obvious pair of briefs with a bold black and white print shining through. They reminded Etiquetteer of hotel curtains, and for a while Etiquetteer wondered if Fraulein Maria had made them for him. White is always Perfectly Proper for summer, as the world knows. But if you're going to wear white, wear it on the inside and the outside.

Let's recap, then, some Rules for Wearing Underwear:

• No one should know if you are, or are not, wearing underwear. It's no one's business. Don't make it their business.
• Underwear should not be visible through outer clothing. If you're wearing white outside, wear plain white underneath.
• Underwear should not be visible around outer clothing. Waistbands should be concealed by tucked-in shirts at the very least. Bra straps should not protrude from necklines.
• If you're wearing more than one piece of underwear, such as a bra and panties, they should be the same color.
• A thong is always wrong.

Really, the best way to celebrate National Underwear Day is probably just to buy, without fanfare, one or more pairs of underwear. Etiquetteer feels sure that's why Retail and the Internet gave us this holiday in the first place.

Crying Children, and What to Do About Them, Vol. 14, Issue 27

Remember how "Ill-Mannered Children with Complacent Parents" was the Champion Pet Peeve of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves? Remember that whole "Children must be seen and not heard" thing? It is time for parents to start leading us back there. Since most aren't, other impacted people are, and not always with Perfect Propriety. Etiquetteer sometimes has to specify that No One Cares About Your Loud Child. You, as a parent of a Loud Child, have an obligation to Maintain the Peace by keeping that child quiet. Yes, Etiquetteer recognizes that often that's easier said than done. Too many parents don't even make an attempt now, which is what leads to today's news story.

Darla Neugebauer, the owner of Marcy's Diner in Portland, Maine, yelled at a crying toddler in her diner to get her to be quiet, this after the crying had gone on for no little time. Buzzfeed has posted a more thorough account of the story. [NB: There's an awful lot of profanity being slung around by Ms. Neugebauer and others, which doesn't help. People ought to have their mouths washed out with soap.] Some people have a problem with this, starting with the toddler's mother, Tara Carson. Etiquetteer has a problem with Ms. Carson and her husband for not having taken the toddler outside for Quiet Time much earlier. It appears that she didn't consider, or care, about the impact all that caterwauling was having on anyone else in the room. To repeat, No One Cares About Your Loud Child. Etiquetteer is not making this up, you know.

But Etiquetteer, who knows from Bitter Personal Experience not to discipline the children of others, could only wish that Ms. Neugebauer had directed her ire at Ms. Carson and her husband more effectively, not the child. Here, she overstepped, and she is feeling the fury of the Internet as a result. No matter how provoked, no matter how justified one might feel, screaming at a child will more often than not make one appear in the wrong.

But no one comes out of this well, least of all the Carson family, and Etiquetteer sympathizes most of all with the other diners, who first had to endure the Loud Child, and then the altercation. The parents should have been more attentive to their child and more sensitive to its impact on others. Ms. Neugebauer should have taken a stand earlier, before losing her temper, and suggested to the parents that they take Loud Child outside until their order was ready. (Although according to accounts in the Buzzfeed post, she did.)

It seems that many people are insistently saying that they'll never patronize Marcy's Diner because of this, but Etiquetteer is not one of them. While Etiquetteer would have preferred to see this situation handled differently, it seems highly unlikely that any meal there in the future will be interrupted by a Loud Child.

Gift-Giving to Unresponsive Relatives, Vol. 14, Issue 26

Dear Etiquetteer: When I sent my nephew his Christmas gift of cash, I told him that I knew he would be turning 18 in summer and graduating high school soon before. I told him his combined gift for these special occasions was a plane ticket to my city so that we could attend a Major League Baseball game together. However, because I know he's busy, he had to plan in advance. I never (uncharacteristically) got a thank-you for the Christmas gift. And he got in touch with me only after I told his father about the gift last month. I received neither an invitation nor an announcement of the graduation. However, two days before, my sister-in-law asked my sister for my e-mail address so that she could send me the live link to watch the event. My brother has since told me that nephew is too busy this summer to come to Boston. So this is my question: Do I send him a different gift for this birthday, or just a card reminding him of the previous gift. And what should I do about the graduation?

Dear Avuncular:

One of the responsibilities that comes with adulthood is conducting your own relationships with your relations, and not relying on your parents to take care of them. Your Neglectful Nephew appears not to have learned this. Etiquetteer does not care how busy his senior year of high school might have been. He should have been in touch with you directly, either to set a date, or to decline graciously.

Etiquetteer has to agree with you that receipt of a graduation invitation goes a long way to making one feel invested in a young person's future, and the gift one selects. Etiquetteer does have to wonder if your nephew sent them out at all, as it's simply too far-fetched to think that you were omitted from a family list.

Your account of the situation certainly doesn't display any enthusiasm on his part in your gift. Etiquetteer certainly sees no point in reiterating it. For his birthday, you might send him a bit of memorabilia from his favorite baseball team, along with a Lovely Note of Infinite Regret that you weren't able to tempt him sufficiently to join you. Etiquetteer would advise caution about suggesting another trip again.

As for a graduation gift, this young man clearly needs to learn the value of Prompt and Gracious Communication. A box of custom-made notecards with his monogram would make the point nicely, and you could underscore it by addressing the first envelope in the box to you. If you prefer not to make the point so baldly, an engraved pen or pen/pencil set makes a useful and traditional graduation gift.

Dear Etiquetteer:

When my niece gets married this summer, I plan to give her a restored and nicely presented hymnal that was brought to the United States by our first ancestor to immigrate here. My niece has shown no interest in this side of the family, but I consider the book an heirloom that should go to her. I anticipate blowback from my sister about an insufficient gift. Would that characterization be appropriate, and should it be made, how would I respond? I am not close to either of them.

 Dear Heirlooming:

Heirlooms and other Items of Family Significance get short shrift from today's bridal couples, a fact which never ceases to depress Etiquetteer. Given that your niece has not shown any interest in your shared family history, may not belong to or actively practice the religion advocated in the hymnal, and also that the two of you are not close, she's apt to feel you're getting off cheaply in the Wedding Gift Sweepstakes. In the interest of family harmony, Etiquetteer would suggest selecting an additional gift from her bridal registry to give along with the hymnal. Conversely, you could also save the hymnal to present to her and her husband on their Leather Anniversary, which is the third anniversary. (Etiquetteer is, of course, assuming that it's a leather-bound hymnal.)

When you do give your niece the hymnal, Etiquetteer hopes you'll choose to include an image of your Immigrant Ancestor along with any family stories that have been handed down. Even if your niece doesn't care, one day her children may.

How to Respond to Hospitality, Vol. 14, Issue 25

Dear Etiquetteer: Can you tell me whether you think people who have been good guests at a dinner party or cocktail party (separate answers I think) - brought a hostess gift, behaved well, etc. - should also email or call the next day to say thanks? If they don't, were they unhappy with the party?

Dear Hosting:

When a Lovely Note of Thanks has not been received, it's always more charitable to assume Incompetence rather than Malice. Possibly your guests were taken ill, swept up in current events, anxious at the thought of finding something original to say about your party (which is completely unnecessary), or just too lazy to find your zip code. Regardless, their failure to express gratitude for your hospitality is no reflection on the hospitality you provided.

Etiquetteer may be the Lone Holdout in considering the Lovely Note more important than the hostess gift, but the expression of thanks afterward means ten times as much as the "payment for services rendered" sometimes implied by that bottle of wine. Few things reassure a host or hostess as much as the confirmation from guests of a "job well done," that one's efforts have not only been recognized, but appreciated. Too many people, Etiquetteer would suggest, feel daunted by the need to express themselves originally. But writing a Lovely Note certainly doesn't take as much effort as picking out a bottle of wine. (Etiquetteer can just hear the oenophiles shuddering as they read this.)

You are more accommodating than Etiquetteer is in terms of how you'd allow these Lovely Notes to be delivered, suggesting email and telephone as options without even considering a handwritten note - which even today Etiquetteer is loath to refer to as "old-fashioned." Communications unavoidably evolve with technology; this is not necessarily bad, but it's made many people careless. While it was once the only way to communicate at all, now - with the near-universal adoption of the Internet - handwritten correspondence now signifies a special effort to express sincerity and appreciation. This is why Etiquetteer continues to think it's the best way to convey thanks for hospitality received.

Etiquetteer hopes that you will not let the neglect of your guests cause you further anxiety, and that you'll set them a good example with your own Lovely Notes after they entertain you in turn.

A Sign of the Times, Vol. 14, Issue 24

Sad that a sign like this is necessary, but Etiquetteer does have to give the creator a Perfectly Proper Salute for the use of "beseech."

And, We Have a Winner, Vol. 14, Issue 23

And, at last, we have a winner, a Pet Peeve that trounces all others in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves:

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT: ILL-MANNERED CHILDREN WITH COMPLACENT PARENTS

Powerful, isn't it? And Etiquetteer is impressed that, of all the Pet Peeves in the grid, a selection that didn't specifically mention technology made it to the top.

Why don't today's parents realize that no one else cares about their Precious Snowflakes as much as they do - and never will? Are these parents absorbed in their own technology? So afraid of daily confrontation that they give in to the threat of any tantrum? Or simply blind to the fact that any children, even their children, will quite naturally behave in a way that is not Perfectly Proper?

Of course Etiquetteer must hasten to acknowledge all the good parents out there - surely there are some left, yes? - who are raising their children with Perfect Propriety (which is always better than Discipline Mixed with Love.)

But these Complacent Parents could use some Discipline Mixed with Love from the maitre d'. Years ago Etiquetteer was dining in a family-friendly restaurant (with, in fact, family members), and witnessed two parents with two children approximately age five, who were not only barefoot, but also using their banquette as a jungle gym. The parents were, Etiquetteer recalls, even worse than complacent; they were amused. And while Etiquetteer hardly advocates for that sort of behavior in the home, the home is an infinitely better place for it than out in public, where total strangers have to witness it.

One has only to do an internet search for "waitress blog" to find many stories of ill-mannered children dining out with complacent parents. Etiquetteer is eager to hear your own experience, should you be inclined to share it, at queries@etiquetteer.com.

Etiquetteer would like to thank all the readers who participated in this interesting little experiment. Let us now proceed into the summer, a summer without a pet peeve.

A Sign of the Times, Vol. 14, Issue 22

Etiquetteer was startled to see this notice in the restroom of the barber shop:

"Please do not rinse your head in our bathroom sink," it reads. Merciful heavens, has it really come to this? Etiquetteer is appalled that anyone would even consider this.

In other news, voting remains open in the final round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves. Make your momentous choice!

A Preposterous Pair of Pet Peeves, and Wedding Guests Who Don't R.s.v.p., Vol. 14, Issue 21

At long last we enter the final round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves: the Preposterous Pair! Please vote today - it won't take more than a moment to choose - or will it? At this point Etiquetteer has become so excited about untreeing the white bucks and shaking out the seersucker that the dates of the voting have been Shockingly Neglected - and as the Season of Ravenous June Bridezillas comes closer and closer, Etiquetteer wants to say a few words about the Champion Pet Peeve of the Weddings division, Guests Who Don't R.s.v.p.*

In general, we as a society have forgotten how to show respect by declaring in advance what our plans are, often relapsing into the Dreaded Phrase, "I'll have to see how I feel." Now that's one thing if the invitation is for something simple like drinks on the back porch. It's still not Perfectly Proper, but not nearly as maddening as it is for a Life Event like a wedding. How can one have ambivalence about celebrating the wedding of a friend or relative?

Actually, there are a few reasons for that:

• Distant Locations: As air travel makes our global society more global, attending a wedding has become less driving across town and more driving across state lines, and more often than that flying across the country or the pond. It's much more a time commitment than the time of the ceremony and reception, and it can feel like a lot to ask. Attending an out-of-town wedding is not trivial.
• Expense: The Wedding-Industrial Complex puts a lot of pressure on Happy Couples to spend a lot on their Happy Day, which also puts pressure on their Many Guests to do likewise in terms of wedding gifts, whether on a gift registry, a honeymoon registry, at a shower, or in plain old hard cash. See also "Distant Locations" above. Travel isn't always a bargain.
• Not Really Wanting to Go Anyway: You may not like weddings. You may not particularly like the Happy Couple and/or their parents**. You may be questioning why you got invited in the first place.
• Timing: The wedding may be scheduled for an inconvenient time of year on your calendar. Certainly Etiquetteer would like Happy Couples to reconsider holding their weddings on three-day weekends. Etiquetteer once spent four or five consecutive years going to weddings on Memorial Day, and not to the beach. Yes, having a wedding on a three-day weekend does provide an extra day off for travel, but do people really want to spend a three-day weekend attending a wedding?
• Not Wanting to Say No: Declining an invitation to a wedding may sometimes feel (to the invited guest) like sending a message of disapproval to the Happy Couple - and the Deity of Your Choice Above knows that some bridezillas will receive the news that way, which doesn't help. Not saying anything at all, however, doesn't help either.

Etiquetteer can't consider any of these reasons a valid excuse for just not responding to the invitation at all. Taking the time to send a Cordial but Decisive Decline will not take that long, and provides essential information to the Happy Couple about just how many people their caterer has to feed. Even when declining to attend, a response shows respect and consideration.

What's even worse than not responding and not attending, in Etiquetteer's book, is not responding and attending. A guest can do no wrong, of course, but still . . . what were you thinking? And what's probably even worse than that is not showing up having responded that you'd be there. Unless a hospital or a cemetery is involved, you must attend. Yes, yes, yes . . . there are legitimate excuses, and Etiquetteer has heard them all so much that they sound like Bunburying. But "Oh, was that yesterday?" and "We felt like doing something else instead" are not Perfectly Proper excuses.

One way to reduce the risk of this Pet Peeve is to reduce the number of guests invited in the first place, which Etiquetteer would do on a geographic basis first. The further removed one's home address from the wedding location, the more likely to receive an announcement than an invitation. Just a suggestion.

*Really, Etiquetteer is still just a mite disappointed that "Happy Couples who don't send thank-you notes" didn't take the honors in the Weddings division, but will accept that defeat with Perfect Propriety - and continued admonitions to Send Those Lovely Notes.

**This is too bad if you're a blood relation at the first cousin level or closer.

Returning to the Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, Vol. 14, Issue 20

There's no doubt about it, alas: Etiquetteer has been asleep at the wheel of his Hispano-Suiza for the last two weeks and was just about to drive off the most Perfectly Proper cliff you can imagine. Fate, however, had other plans, and steered Etiquetteer into a convenient field of poppies, from which Etiquetteer is now somewhat sleepily recovering thanks to the Good Witch of the North. So, where were we? Aha, just about to enter the Final Four Round of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves! And how exciting it is to find out what the top Pet Peeve is in each division:

WEDDINGS: Guests who don't R.s.v.p.

DRIVING AND TRAFFIC: Cell phone use while operating a vehicle.

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT: Ill-mannered children and complacent parents.

GENERAL PEEVES: Loud public cellphone conversations.

Vote now and help determine what the final Devilish Duo of Pet Peeves will be!

Etiquetteer is interested to learn your pet peeves, and was so pleased to receive this peeve from a reader, who sent it to queries@etiquetteer.com:

You ask for my pet peeve not on the list, and it's overt judginess.  This obviously doesn't mean you!  Or etiquette!  But the trend now to believe that everything that you believe is the only right thing and anyone who isn't voting/raising their children/protecting the environment/whatever in exactly the way that you are, needs to be set straight.  For instance, you have on the list, "parking illegally in handicapped spaces," which I actually voted for, but a bigger pet peeve would be feeling that you get to decide exactly who is handicapped enough to park in the space and leaving a note on the windshield of someone without a visible handicap saying that they should leave these spaces for real handicapped people.  People who don't mind their own business and feel that they should be able to tell everyone exactly how to live their lives, that is my pet peeve. Which is of course the whole marriage equality issue.  Do you want to get married to a person of your own gender?  No?  Then the normal thing to do would be to say, "Well, it doesn't affect me in any way, so those people can do what they like," not, "Well, it doesn't affect me in any way, so I will try to stop it with all of my power because EVERYONE MUST LIVE AND THINK EXACTLY AS I DO!"

This is my pet peeve.  I think it's too long for a survey question, though!

And really, Etiquetteer need not try to say it better than that.

Condolences and National Card and Letter Writing Month, Vol. 14, Issue 19

Dear Etiquetteer: Is the term, "I'm sorry" an appropriate response upon hearing of a death in the family of a friend? I see so much of that on Facebook, while I had thought that extending sympathy or condolences would be a more proper response.

Dear Condoling:

Your query shows a discerning attitude about how we use language, which Etiquetteer can only admire and wish more people would adopt. This led Etiquetteer to examine more closely the definition of "sorry." For a moment Etiquetteer thought the word might imply personal responsibility for what one was sorry for. As it turns out, one definition is ""Feeling regret, compunction, sympathy . . . " and another is "suggestive of grief or suffering," so Etiquetteer can say that "I'm sorry" is an appropriate response to the news of a death. I'm sorry.

Now, is it the most appropriate response? Like you, Etiquetteer would rather see "My condolences" or "My sympathies" used instead, because those words are more specific to the occasion. "I'm sorry" is used every time an apology is made. One cannot say "My condolences for forgetting to attend your birthday dinner," for instance. And online, "I'm sorry" looks rather like a throwaway comment, which (Etiquetteer must hasten to add before the brickbats fly) is surely not the intent of those commenting.

Etiquetteer remains ambivalent about online condolences, whether on social media or through the online guest books of funeral homes. This is not to say that such things aren't, or can't be, Proper; this only reflects Etiquetteer's ambivalence. Condolences serve two purposes: to express sympathy to the bereaved by sharing positive thoughts and memories of the deceased; and, through the act of thoughtful writing, to assist oneself through the grieving process. What is attractive about expressing sympathy online is its immediacy, and the swift expression of condolences remains a very important part of expressing them. But the pitfalls of Immediate Online Expression are thoughtlessness and indiscretion on one side, and the consciousness of writing for a larger audience than the bereaved on the other. This last can sometimes lead to - how to say it? - an Escalation of Histrionics that becomes less about the impact of the deceased and more about the individual grief of each commenter. Just as it is improper to steal the spotlight from the bride at a wedding, so is it improper to steal the spotlight from the deceased. Often that form of writing is best left to one's personal, offline journal.

 

Etiquetteer learned only recently that April is National Card and Letter Writing Month. Considering the query above, it's essential to note that online comments on a message board do not replace the need for a handwritten condolence note. Nor will Etiquetteer accept the complaint that this is stuffy and old-fashioned. If anything, the understandable rush to adopt online communications has made handwritten letters and notes that much more significant and special to the recipients! The Lovely Note of Thanks (especially for wedding gifts), the Get Well Card, and even the Letter for No Reason give us opportunities for creativity and thoughtfulness unavailable online, because the audience is the Recipient Alone. And the thrill of seeing an envelope in one's mailbox that isn't a bill or junk mail remains fresh.

Unfortunately Etiquetteer has mailed exactly two handwritten pieces of correspondence this month. Let's all do better than that in the remaining week of National Card and Letter Writing Month, and in the months beyond!

Today is the last official day to vote in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, and my goodness, what is to come afterward . . . This round determines the champion pet peeve in each division. NEXT week we'll see the divisions compete against each other: Weddings vs. Driving and Traffic, and Dining Out/Table Manners vs. General Peeves! So far these look like difficult choices. Please vote today!

Round II Results, Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, Vol. 14, Issue 17

Last week's voting in Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves have led to some exciting pairings for next week's competition, which will determine the Champion Pet Peeve in each of the divisions! Etiquetteer would like to thank everyone to voted, and encourage you all to cast your votes again this week. WEDDINGS

First off, and without surprise, "Guests who don't R.s.v.p." handily overtook "Lack of information about time, directions, etc." at 57% to 43%. As a result, this week "Guests who don't R.s.v.p." will have to compete with "Couples who don't send thank-you notes," which squeaked ahead of "Weddings as fund-raisers for the honeymoon" 52% to 48%. In some ways, Etiquetteer thinks this might be the bloodiest of competitions; each pet peeve involves the lack of a response. But which leaves Etiquetteer readers feeling more disrespected?

DRIVING AND TRAFFIC

It's interesting to observe that any pet peeve not relating to driving has not advanced in this category. "Drivers who ignore red lights" trounced "Drivers blocking bike lanes" 82% to 18%. "Cell phone use while operating a vehicle" had a less easy time getting ahead of "Illegally parking in handicapped spaces, " 65% to 35%. And a part of Etiquetteer is disappointed in that, because those who require handicapped parking already have a lot to deal with, and deserve better than to be inconvenienced. But choosing between "Drivers who ignore red lights" and "Cell phone use while operating a vehicle" will surely be a tough call for many.

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT

Here, behaviors that have been pet peeves for centuries won out. The comparatively recent "Texting at the table," to Etiquetteer's surprise, didn't stand a chance against "Chewing with mouth open," 59% to 41%. It just proves that Etiquetteer really does know only the Very Best People, since it's been a very long time since anyone's been witnessed chewing with his or her mouth open. And texting at the table is such a deliberate ignoring of one's physical companions! Ah well, "Chewing with mouth open" must now fight a steamroller of a pet peeve "Ill-mannered children with complacent parents," which topped "Cheap tippers" 75% to 25%! "Ill-mannered children with complacent parents" has consistently performed well in Spring Madness, and may well defeat all the competition.

GENERAL PEEVES

In our last category, the victors came out as Etiquetteer predicted. "Confusing customer service menus" was no match for "Door-to-door solicitors of any kind," going down 42% to 58%. Then "Loud public cellphone conversations" easily bested "Oversufficient cologne" 64% to 36%. This week's pairing pits one century against the other, in a way, as the door-to-door thing was so 20th century, and the cellphone thing is, well, so omnipresent.

So keep voting! It will take half as much time every week. And of course if you discover something you think is missing, you may always share it with Etiquetteer at queries@etiquetteer.com.

Texting at Cash Registers, Vol. 14, Issue 16

Dear Etiquetteer: I’m here to register another contemporary lack of manners - texting at the cash register. As a preamble, I’m usually pretty chill about navigating public space but several days after this happened, I’m still steamed about it. Here’s what happened:

The day before Passover, I was at a bakery to buy hot cross buns at a popular local food market. There are two lines leading to two cash registers where there’s limited counter space. The woman in front of me was picking up a couple of special order cakes that required special wrapping and bagging. After she received her cakes, she made no effort to leave the counter or even to clear some space for the other people lined up - and she started texting, obviously oblivious to everyone around her. It was not a short text. I was so stunned by her rudeness that I was (perhaps fortunately) speechless. Any words of advice on how to handle this type of situation in the future?

Dear Text-Blocked:

Etiquetteer has often found that a brisk "Excuse me, please!" can be effective in clearing the way. The cashier should have taken the matter in hand by calling out "Next, please!" and waved over the next customer. Should this Oblivious Texter remain just as insulated from the situation as before, you might have approached and said - kindly, without possible annoyance - "Excuse me, but there's a rather long line behind us." Saying it kindly is important, as otherwise you might have to have a big discussion about Feelings, which would hold up the line even more. And, as Etiquetteer has said so often before, no one cares How You Feel; you are still expected to behave with Perfect Propriety.

These situations occur more and more frequently as Consideration for Others is no longer thought as important as Personal Convenience. More and more the Perfectly Proper are having to Speak Up to prod the Uncaring into behaving well. Etiquetteer can't help but be saddened by this state of affairs.

Today is the last day to vote in Round II of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves! It is interesting to note that in Round II, the narrowest splits in the voting have to do with Weddings, while the greatest divide has to do with driving-related peeves. Please vote today! And should you have a pet peeve you need to share with Etiquetteer, send it to queries@etiquetteer.com.

Wedding Gift of Money, Vol. 14, Issue 15

Dear Etiquetteer: If we are going to give the bride and groom money for a wedding present, is it best to send it to them before the wedding, send it to them after the wedding, or give it to the bride or groom or bride’s father at the wedding?

Dear Moneyed:

Logistically, the most Perfectly Proper thing to do is to mail your gift before the wedding to the member of the Happy Couple you know best. Considering how busy the week before the wedding is, especially for the bride, Etiquetteer thinks it should arrive no later than eight to ten days before the wedding. This shows thoughtfulness to those recipients who take the trouble to send Lovely Notes of Thanks - which all Happy Couples should but don't - when gifts arrive.

Etiquetteer was just about to remonstrate with you for suggesting slipping a check in care of one of the fathers. After all, these days most Happy Couples are no longer teenagers fresh out of high school; they're fully functioning adults who ought to be responsible for their own affairs. But then Etiquetteer stopped, remembering that on the Great Day one's attention is taken up by so many things that it is very easy to forget just about everything one is supposed to do, such as remembering to bring the rings. So if one must bring a gift of money to the wedding itself, entrusting it to a Reliable Parent is better than slipping it into the groom's jacket pocket, where it might easily remain when returned to the tuxedo rental.

Your query reminded Etiquetteer of the Old Days when wedding gifts used to be displayed at the reception, a custom that happily has faded away. Etiquette writers of yore would advise on how to display checks given as wedding gifts so that the name of the giver was visible, but not the amount. Which just goes to show how manners continue to evolve, and not always for the worse.

Round II of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves remains open for voting! Go here to pick out what peeves you most about weddings, driving and traffic, table manners/dining out, and just in general.

Round I Results, Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, Vol. 14, Issue 14

The results are in, the votes tabulated, and different pairs of Victorious Pet Peeves will now compete in Round II! Etiquetteer was surprised, delighted, and disappointed with some of the results. Let's go through them division by division. WEDDINGS

Unfortunately, Etiquetteer was not exactly surprised to see "Lack of information about time, directions, etc." win out over "No indication of dress code," 75% to 25%. Etiquetteer attributes this to two things: 1) too few people caring about what they wear in the first place - remember, the opposite of Formal is Informal, not Casual! - and 2) the growing number of wedding guests that need to get on a plane to attend. "Lack of information" will now face off with "Guests who don't R.s.v.p.", which beat out "Bridal registry information on the invitation" 79% to 21%. While Etiquetteer has certainly had to smoke out enough unresponsive guests, it seems an even greater offense to make an invoice of an invitation.

"Weddings as fund-raisers for the honeymoon" triumphed over "Cash bar for wedding guests who have traveled across the country," 69% to 31%. One can only direct the largesse of one's friends and family so much! Unsurprisingly, "Couples who do not send thank-you notes" won out over "Destination weddings," 63% to 37%. There are those who don't really consider destination weddings a pet peeve. Etiquetteer has to wonder if they are, in fact, brides. So few brides understand that their wedding just isn't as important to everyone else as it is to them. But having gone to the trouble of selecting a wedding gift and bringing or sending it, and perhaps even going to the expense of attending a wedding far away, and then not even the courtesy of a Lovely Note -- indeed, that's an offense! Let's see how that does against "Weddings as fund-raisers for the honeymoon" in Round II.

DRIVING AND TRAFFIC

"Drivers who ignore red lights" peeves readers much more than "Pedestrians texting while walking in traffic," 69% to 31%, though Etiquetteer confesses that he is more peeved by texting pedestrians. The gap was narrower in the next pair: "Drivers blocking bike lanes" overrode "Cyclists wearing earphones" 52% to 48%. So we'll have two driver pet peeves facing each other in Round II. One wonders if there weren't more pedestrians taking this survey  . . .

Etiquetteer thinks that "Cell phone use while operating a vehicle" should have beat out "Double parking on narrow streets" by a larger margin. It was closer than Etiquetteer expected, 54% to 46%. Yes, double parking is annoying, but the former pet peeve is much more fatal in the long run. "Cell phone use" will face "Illegally parking in handicapped spaces" now, which triumphed over "Relying solely on GPS and getting lost" 73% to 27%. This does seem like an emotional vote. Depriving the handicapped of their convenient and legally protected parking is not just Perfectly Improper, it's Wicked. But Etiquetteer could shred road maps with his teeth in anxiety of the number of drivers who haven't the barest idea of where they're going until they get hopelessly lost - and then have to drive around in traffic using their cell phones.

TABLE MANNERS/DINING OUT

"Chewing with mouth open" - disgusting throughout the ages, much more so than "Check-splitting for more than four diners," 83% to 17%! Next week we'll see if it's more disgusting than "Texting at the table," which is definitely one of Etiquetteer's pet peeves. "Texting" beat out "Last minute cancellations" by a significant margin, 62% to 38%. One doesn't attend a dinner party to interact with people who are elsewhere. It's that simple!

"Diners who photograph their food" got off easy this time, as "Ill-mannered children and complacent parents" just destroyed them 82% to 11%. Photographing one's food is certainly a phenomenon of the Digital Age, but at least that's silent. Children have been shrieking and carrying on at dinner tables ever since the extinction of nannies.

But how well will those ill-mannered kids and their parents deal in the next round against "Cheap Tippers?" To Etiquetteer's surprise, "Cheap Tippers" came out the winner over "Slow service," 64% to 36%.

GENERAL PEEVES

It's probably a sign that our civilization is doing more online, but "Confusing customer service menus" garnered more votes than "Scratchy recorded music on call waiting," 80% to 20%. On the other hand, the former could apply to online transactions as well as the telephone. But the Big Communications Companies would go far to clean up their call waiting music. It's also a sign we're doing more online that "Door-to-door solicitors of any kind" won over "Being interrupted," 71% to 29%. Having to answer the doorbell certainly takes one away from the computer! But being interrupted is enormously aggravating. Sometimes the best way to deal is to stop communicating and give your Alleged Partner in Conversation a Blank Stare. When they notice, simply ask "May I continue?"

"Loud public cellphone conversations" easily bested "Visible undergarments," 85% to 14%. Etiquetteer, who is mighty tired of seeing bra straps and elastic waistbands, wished that had shown better in the polls.

Our final pair of pet peeves, "Insufficient deodorant" vs. "Oversufficient cologne," was the one Etiquetteer watched the most. For much of the voting, this pair was tied! The final result: "Insufficient deodorant" at 45% and "Oversufficient cologne" at 55%. Etiquetteer really thought it would go the other way. The solution is the same for both: bathe more. And here's some simple advice for those ladies and gentlemen who use scent. Your scent is supposed to attract others to you, but that's very difficult to do when it takes up all the air around you. Don't use enough that anyone can identify what it is. Your scent should be subtle and intriguing. Kidnapping with cologne will only get you under an oxygen tent.

Thanks for joining the fun! Now it's on to Round II here!

Spring Madness of Pet Peeves! Vol. 14, Issue 13

Voting ends tonight in Round I of Etiquetteer's Spring Madness of Pet Peeves, and it's been interesting to see what peeves Etiquetteer's readers - and what doesn't. Please vote now! Look out tomorrow for which pet peeves advance to the next round; the competitions will be even more interesting! Readers have also submitted pet peeves they didn't see in the competition, and the list is growing engrossing:

• Clicking on a link to respond to something and my computer opens up a mail program I never use. Etiquetteer hopes that this is something that can be easily resolved by tech support.
• Stupid pet videos taking over my Facebook newsfeed. Indeed! Etiquetteer has found some assistance by clicking "I don't want to see this" or simply hiding posts from pet-centric friends.
• Gum-cracking. "A word to the wise is sufficient," as Etiquetteer's Dear Mother says. Although, would the wise be cracking gum in the first place? Etiquetteer trembles to think of the first verse of "He Had It Comin'" from Chicago . . .
• Not deciding what to order until you get to the front of the long line. This is especially aggravating when there have been so many opportunities to consider the menu on the wall first. One can only hope that counter staff will occasionally call out "Please be ready with your order when you approach the counter!"
• Responding to a long, thought-out email, with "K." True, but that's better than "TLDR."
• Fiddling with the radio/air conditioning on someone else's car when they are driving. As the driver, one has the opportunity to say "Stop that!"
• Making fun of gifts given to you, with the giver in the room. Callous in the extreme! Recipients who behave that way should be stricken permanently from your gift list.
• Asking a question and then interrupting before they finish answering. Not a defensible habit, but Etiquetteer cannot Wag an Admonitory Digit too vigorously over it, since this is a Bad Habit of That Mr. Dimmick Who Thinks He Knows So Much (and certainly, in this case, knows better).
• Talking in theaters, especially live performances. Sometimes even the Icy Glare is insufficient - too many people suffer from a lack of Guilt and Shame at inconveniencing others. Time to call the usher.
• Taking the last of a communal good such as office coffee, and not making more. Indeed, it's frustrating when one's need for caffeine cannot be gratified immediately! The gravity of this offense lessens the further one gets away from the Hours of Greatest Consumption. For instance, it's wasteful to make a fresh pot of coffee two hours before closing time, when it couldn't all possibly be drunk.

As we advance to Round II tomorrow, Etiquetteer thinks you surely must have a pet peeve that isn't on the competition grid. Won't you please send it along to queries@etiquetteer.com?

The Best Advice Is Simplest, Vol. 14, Issue 12

Really, the best etiquette advice is the simplest. Etiquetteer has Ten Pieces of Simplest Advice for you: Get out of the way.

Hang up and drive.

Get out and vote.

Shut up and eat.

Show up on time.

Say "Please" and "Thank you."

Be nice to the staff.

Don't make a fuss.

If you said you'd be there, be there.

When in doubt, send a Lovely Note of Thanks.

 

Introductions and Smoking, Vol. 8, Issue 11

Dear Etiquetteer: Please advise the correct way to introduce a mentor to a friend or a spouse. Who gets introduced first, especially if you want to pay a significant honor to one of the people?

Dear Mentored:

One of the few areas where precedence or rank matter any more, the formula for introductions is really very easy to handle: less important people are introduced to more important people. So:

• Junior employees are introduced to senior employees.
• Young people are introduced to older people.
• Congregants are introduced to the minister.
• Gentlemen are introduced to ladies.
• Everyone is introduced to an internationally recognized diva (e.g. Renée Fleming, Bette Midler, but not that snobbish woman in Accounts Payable who just behaves like a diva.)*
• Everyone, including internationally recognized divas, is introduced to world leaders.

The key difference is how you craft the Phrase of Introduction, either "introduce you to" or "introduce to you." In your case, your mentor is due more honor, so you introduce him/her to your spouse: "Dr. Obtuse, I would like to introduce to you my spouse, Pat Mentored." In the same situation, if you were speaking to your spouse, you'd say, "Pat, I'd like to introduce you to Dr. Obtuse, an important mentor for me in college." Since it's dangerous to assume that married couples share a last name now, you would be more Perfectly Proper to include your spouse's last name in that last sentence.

Dear Etiquetteer:

This isn't really a question, but perhaps you can make me feel better and less angry.  I am in a consistent state of wonderment over why it seems socially acceptable for smokers to litter with their cigarette butts.  If I ate a candy bar and then just dropped the wrapper on the sidewalk or someone's lawn, my companion would be horrified (and justifiably so).  But cigarette butts seem to not count as littering.  I have seen people of all ages, genders and races commit this.  I have even been behind a police cruiser and seen the officer throw a cigarette butt out his window.  When I asked a good friend who had just done this why he thought it was OK, he had no answer, but admitted that he will probably continue to do so.  Any thoughts?

Dear Butted:

Etiquetteer deplores this habit, too, but especially at the beach. Few things can bring down one's beach experience more than finding out you've spread your towel over a nicotine graveyard. Just because one can bury one's butt in the sand doesn't mean it can't be uncovered later.

The only answer Etiquetteer can give to your query is that this custom ensures, believe it or not, public safety. Your theoretical candy wrapper was not on fire before you threw it away, and a carelessly disposed cigarette butt could start a fire in a trashcan. (Indeed, many years ago Etiquetteer had to put out just such a fire.) Etiquetteer has seen many a careless smoker drop his or her flaming butt unconcernedly on the sidewalk without even troubling to grind it out underfoot, but also knows some Perfectly Proper smokers who take the trouble to extinguish their cigarettes completely before throwing them away in a receptacle.

Etiquetteer makes no secret of preferring a non-smoking environment. Having worked one summer in an office the size of a large dining room table with two chain smokers deprived Etiquetteer of any tolerance for cigarette smoke. And yet Etiquetteer cannot help but deplore the near criminalization of smoking and the almost complete expulsion of smokers from interior spaces. From the days when etiquette writer Lillian Eichler recommended placing a container with three cigarettes between every two diners at a formal dinner party, Society has now condemned smokers to sidewalks. Where possible, Etiquetteer would like to see the return of the smoking room, or at least a dedicated interior space for smokers.

Write Etiquetteer today with your own etiquette queries at queries_at_etiquetteer_dot_com!