“Her Aching Heart” and the science of romance (novels)

July 21st, 2014

Last night I dreamed I went to Central Square Theater again …

… because “Her Aching Heart” was so darn funny the first time (Globe review here). Aimee Rose Ranger and Lynn Guerra play modern-day urbanistas cautiously falling in love with each other while reading a gothic romance about a tempestuous English lady and the innocent peasant girl who sparks her affections. Only the occasional phone call or song hint at the present moment–most of the show is dedicated to the two actresses playing all the parts in the lesbian bodice-ripper. (Aimee’s bluff, rapey Lord Rothermere and Lynn’s palsied Granny, full of incomprehensible forest wisdom and whole-body tics, were my favorites.) Yes, I know it sounds stupidly complicated, but it’s not, really. If you liked the movie parodies Carol Burnett used to do, you’ll like this.


(Lynn Guerra and Aimee Rose Ranger in “Her Aching Heart,” A.R. Sinclair photography)

The romance parody in “Her Aching Heart” inspired me to dig up my dissertation, which was on the psychology of literary genre. I was curious to know if people had expectations about stories that went beyond surface characteristics (e.g., if it’s in the future, it’s science fiction, if there’s a murder, it’s a mystery). I asked participants to rate 10 different genres, including romance, classics, science fiction, and fantasy, across 16 different dimensions.

Here’s a graph showing how “romance” (in red, natch) differs in people’s imagination from ordinary fiction (in black):

People perceive romance as dumber, basically–I said that in a fancier way in the actual dissertation, of course, but I think my advisers knew what I meant. Romance is seen as more predictable, simpler, upbeat, emotional, and fantasy-based than regular fiction: It’s written for money and read for fun. No wonder it’s so delightfully easy to parody! We don’t even feel bad about making fun of romance novelists, because we assume as long as they’re making bank they don’t care about critical opinion.

I did my dissertation in 2002, and I wonder how “romance” would be defined in today’s imagination. That’s the tricky bit about trying to scientifically study a cultural phenomenon like literary genre–it keeps changing on you. In 2002, I would occasionally encounter people who didn’t know what “genre” meant, because it was still a lit-crit term, and wasn’t how iTunes and Amazon and Netflix preferred to organize your content and sell you more. Romance-wise, 2002 was before “Twilight” and “50 Shades of Gray” and “The Fault in Our Stars.” Would these dark offerings lead college students today to rate romance as a more pessimistic, complicated (if not intellectual) genre?

Sunday column: Bad apples edition

July 20th, 2014

Today’s column is online here, and it’s about the options you have when a book club gets taken over by a nonstop talker. As synchronicity would have it, my unread copy of The Jane Austen Book Club popped up Friday (it’s delightful to reacquaint myself with all the books that were in storage during our renovation!) and I’m a couple of chapters into it and enjoying it greatly.

The author, Karen Joy Fowler, also wrote We Were All Completely Beside Ourselves, which I mentioned a few weeks ago. At the time, I was avoiding spoilers–but oh, what the hell, it’s about a girl who was raised with a chimp. Now you know. There were experiments around the 1970s in which scientists tried to raise chimpanzee babies as humans to see how much humanlike intelligence and language could be evoked in them, and Ms. Fowler’s novel is about a human woman who, as a girl, had a chimp “twin.” It’s absolutely wonderful.

And it all comes full circle with “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which like today’s column is about the fact that when you’ve got a bad ‘un in your group, you’re going to have to do something unpleasant about it. It’s part of being a social species–deciding who’s in and who’s out. It’s what we have in common with apes and wolves. It’s what we like to write novels about.

Hangout of the “Planet of the Apes”

July 17th, 2014

Earlier this week I did a video broadcast with PeaceBang and NYT religion reporter Michael Paulson about religion themes in “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which Mr. Improbable and I saw this weekend. Boy, the reading glasses were a mistake! But I had never done a Google hangout before, and wanted to keep an eye on the proceedings. We do give away most of the plot–elements that aren’t implicitly contained in the title, that is–so watch with caution.

More discussion after the jump

Click to continue reading "Hangout of the “Planet of the Apes”"

Sunday column: Unfortunate acronyms

July 13th, 2014

Today’s column is a three-fer, which is something I occasionally enjoy doing. I don’t know if readers notice this or not, but I do try to change up the column a bit from week to week, in content and tone–I’ll try not to run two “heavy” columns in a row, or two in which I come down against the LW. I also like to balance out the columns where I give people quick-and-dirty “here’s what you do, hon” advice with longer exegeses. Next week’s column is one question, about how to handle That One Person who takes over a book group.

Here’s Q&A #3 from this week:

My second cousin is getting married to one of my sister-in-law’s best friends. I received the save-the-date but have not received an actual wedding invitation. I don’t know what’s worse?—?doing nothing and them thinking that I’m blowing them off or asking them about it and making them feel awkward.

Ask. You are in an unclear situation, and you are seeking clarification?—?this isn’t like hinting around to be given a “plus one.” Don’t worry about causing your friends grief. Your invitation was surely lost in the mail. However, if it turns out that they sent you a save-the-date and then decided not to invite you after all, then they deserve any discomfort the conversation might bring.

I mean, if someone’s given you an STD, they really have to invite you to the wedding.

The unfortunate acronymization of “Save The Date” isn’t the only time that particular TLA* has tripped me up. I used to work in human resources at Harvard, and was appalled one day to hear one of the benefits directors callously state that she considered pregnancy an STD. How offensive!

She meant Short-Term Disability.

Have you ever been tripped up by someone’s use of an acronym that means something very different in your world?

*Three-Letter Acronym

Sunday: Kitchen, no magazine

July 6th, 2014

No Globe Magazine today because of the holiday, hence no column. It’s been an exciting week here as our apartment renovation was finally completed! We still need to paint and do the floors on the rooms that we’ve been living in, which will take another couple of weeks, but in the meantime we have space to move around in again, two bathrooms, a kitchen, and an outdoor deck. Last night we entertained our first guests, so exciting!

The Bostonian personality

July 1st, 2014

Commented to a friend from Kansas this morning that she really ought to consider moving out here, as her personality would fit much better in New England, which led me to muse on one of my favorite muse-snacks, the Boston personality. Here’s what I see, almost 20 years after I made the move from the Midwest myself:

Bostonians value honestly over tact and would rather discuss their opinions than their emotions. We expect people to have some kind of clear identity, whether it’s ethnic, professional, religious, or whatever. We have an innate understanding of multiple intelligences. This moderates the intellectual snobbery people expect from the city, although it also means, in practice, that most of us are easily intimidated by each other: I’ve seen physicists scared of actresses, lawyers intimidated by chefs. We have no ability to move through space in a coordinated and efficient fashion, whether on foot or by car or bike, in striking contrast to New Yorkers, who navigate their city like schools of fish. Despite our terrible street signage, Bostonians place a high value on information and think that giving people the full and accurate intel to make a decision is an important etiquette practice. (The homeless people have more informative signs in Boston than in any large city I’ve been to.) We are somewhat antisocial, although to us it feel more like respecting other people’s privacy, and avoiding the awkwardness that we secretly believe is inherent in every social interaction. (It’s no coincidence that half the cast of “The Office” came from Newton.) Bostonians will ghost at a party because we don’t want to put the host through an awkward goodbye when he’s deep in a conversation about string theory or the Sox with another guest.

What do you think? Am I right? What would you add?

Sunday’s column: Fill in the blank

June 29th, 2014

Today’s column is online here, and the first question–well, see for yourself:

My sibling requested that my spouse no longer attend family get-togethers. My sibling stated that my spouse creates tension and causes others to be on edge and uncomfortable. The fact is my sibling is correct. My spouse does not like to visit or host family but says we should be together on such occasions. Should I share this request with my spouse?

Readers, can you spot what’s missing? Yes! The reason that Spouse and Family don’t get along has been utterly omitted by the LW! This puts Miss Conduct, perhaps intentionally, behind a veil of ignorance, required to craft an answer that would work whether the Spouse is the innocent victim of bigots, a miserable and misanthropic lout, or a complicated person who simply can’t mesh gears with another group of complicated people and it’s no one’s fault, exactly.

I posted the question on my personal Facebook (Miss Conduct is here: befriend me!) to brainstorm on possible causes of the Spouse-Family disconnect, and one of my friends replied with an extraordinary insight:

I am the tense one when my husband’s family gathers. It’s not because I am a shitty person … it’s because I am FUCKING TERRIFIED because my family dynamic is so very different from theirs and I have an ingrained distrust of family. I like them very much and I feel like I should be able to get over this – but it isn’t exactly easy even when you don’t have a mixed race or same sex relationship. There are tons of issues faced by abuse survivors and dealing with functional families can be one of them.

I was so grateful she shared that.

Anyway, no matter how I turned it over in my mind, the reason for the disconnect does matter, and I wound up offering the LW a range of choices.

The Peculiar Incident of the Missing Problem reminded me of a similar column from a year ago, in which a Letter Writer asked, briefly and tantalizingly, “How soon does one tell a prospective love interest that you are a conspiracy theorist? I did a little too soon, with dire consequences“–without mentioning exactly which conspiracy theory she held to.* I finally decided that the real question wasn’t about the substance of her beliefs, but about the tricky dance of revealing any controversial opinion to a potentially significant other:

The fact that you’re open to dating outside the fold?–not to mention the whole “willing to write to the mainstream media for advice” thing–suggests that your conspiracy beliefs exist in a kind of psychological silo. They might matter in your relationship to the world at large, but not necessarily in your relationship to other individuals.

Learn to tune in to that vibe in others, especially those with whom you’d like to conspire in that special candlelit way. Some people see politics (or religion or economics or science) as impersonal and vain, irrelevant between friends, lovers, family. Other people find these abstract ideas to be fundamental to their self and values and could never choose a life partner with whom they disagreed on the basic nature of reality. Some folks couldn’t imagine dating a creationist?—?or not dating one. Others couldn’t imagine … well, how to end this example without making a terribly tasteless joke about the big bang.

The column was behind a paywall when this was originally published, so if you didn’t catch it before, you can read it now here.

*There are theories so noxious I would be hesitant to facilitate the romantic lives of their adherents, but said adherents probably wouldn’t be seeking advice from the likes of me.

Friday roundup

June 27th, 2014

There are so very, very many advice columnists and etiquette writers out there. I should know who they all are, but I don’t. I’d never heard of Amy Alkon, for example, a California etiquette & advice lady who takes a vigilante approach to manners policing. From the New York Times:

A peep does not exactly describe what Ms. Alkon did a few years ago after deciding Range Rovers, Chevy Tahoes and Cadillac Escalades had become a nuisance in her gentrifying neighborhood. She printed cards and tucked them under windshield wipers. They read in part: “Road-hogging, gas-guzzling, air-fouling vulgarian! Clearly you have an extremely small penis, or you wouldn’t drive such a monstrosity. For the adequately endowed, there are hybrids or electrics.”

The cards listed a phone number (since disconnected) on which she continued the rant with a recorded message. “Piggy, piggy, piggy,” it started

Read the entire article, she sounds like a dreadful person. But she’s got a syndicated column and I don’t, and she wrote two books and I’ve written one. Coincidence? At any rate, the article would be a good jumping-off point for a discussion about being nice versus being good. Ms. Alkon believes she is doing good, even if it means not being nice about it. We all know situations exist where you have to be the complainer, the buzzkill, the un-goer-along, in order to do the right thing. Agreement on what, exactly, those situations might be, is a different matter.

Another NYT article that’s been haunting me is this one about the parents of troubled sons:

Shootings in places like Isla Vista, Calif., and Newtown, Conn., have turned a spotlight on the mental health system, and particularly how it handles young, troubled males with an aggressive streak. About one in 100 teenagers fits this category, according to E. Jane Costello, a psychiatric epidemiologist at Duke University School of Medicine, and they often have multiple diagnoses and are resistant to treatment.

Most of these young men will never commit a violent crime, much less an atrocity. But the questions of how best to help them and how to pay for it are among the most intractable problems hanging over the system.

Thousands of families know this experience too well: No single diagnosis fits, no drug brings real relief, and if the teenager rejects the very idea of psychotherapy, there is little chance of lasting improvement.

Shorter version: Nothing works, and the families can’t afford it anyway. They simply live with a ticking time bomb. There are over 800 comments on the article. Some are from families that have troubled members like this. Some are from people whose lack of empathy is almost as terrifying as the disturbed young men portrayed in the article.

Slate looks at another aspect of developmental psychology: The fact that so many of the studies are done on the babies and children of privileged, mostly white Westerners:

While other children play “House” or “Doctor,” these Berkeley kids have been known to play a game called “Research.” One child holds a clipboard and asks other children to “play a game” while the child observes them and pretends to jot down notes. Some of these children have told me about their international travels, and several of the 3-year-olds have told me they can read.

Meanwhile, Emily Bazelton argues that these kids, and many others like them, are getting the clear message from their parents that achieving is more important than caring for other people:

While most parents and teachers have told other researchers in the past that they rank children’s capacity for caring above achievement, kids don’t believe them.I don Four out of five of the teens Making Caring Common surveyed said their parents cared more about achievement or happiness than caring. They saw teachers this way, too.

I don’t think parents are deliberately setting out to turn their kids into miniature Gordon Gekkos, but this rings true to me. Middle-class parents are nervous about their kids’ futures, reasonably so. There’s a lot of pressure to do well academically, to develop the toughness and work ethic that our competitive labor market demands. Also, it’s straight-up easier to praise and call attention to achievements. Trophies and prizes and scores are objective and easily interpreted and occur regularly. Empathy is harder to quantify and more difficult to interpret (was your kid being nice or a pushover, really?) and doesn’t occur on a neat schedule of standardized tests or away-v.-home games.

“Mad Men” is my day job, part I: Portability, or why Joan needs that money

June 26th, 2014

I mentioned earlier that “Mad Men” is basically the audio-visual supplement to my day job as a researcher at Harvard Business School. My boss, Boris Groysberg, primarily studies high achievers at professional-service firms. He’s particularly interested in how women advance in male-dominated environments.

You can see the relevance.


Dawn and Joan gaze in disgust and consternation at the face of the patriarchy (not shown).

Joan Harris has made some stunning advances, both professional and personal, this season. She handed over her administrative duties to the super-efficient Dawn, and promoted herself to “account man” with the support of Jim Cutler and Ken Cosgrove. (Joan’s whole process of becoming an account rep is a classroom-worthy case study of the importance and boundaries of relationships in the business world. Before she re-invented herself, Joan made sure she had support from above–a senior partner and the head of accounts backing her play–as well as someone to fill the role she was trying to step out of. Though not stated overtly, it’s clear that one of the reasons Joan chooses Dawn to succeed her as office manager is that, as one of only two or three African-American secretaries at the agency, Dawn isn’t looking for girlfriends in the secretarial pool or a husband in the executive suites. She focuses on doing excellent work and keeps herself aloof. Joan knows Dawn will be fair and stick to policy rather than doing favors and bending rules for her friends.)

Because of her professional rise, and greater honesty and warmth in her personal life, many critics have found it strange that Joan is also increasingly money-hungry and still deeply resentful of Don for keeping the firm from going public last season. This is where Boris’s work comes in.

Boris writes about portability: the extent to which a worker can move around in the labor market without losing value. You know who is portable in “Mad Men”? Don Draper, that’s who. Don’s power at Sterling Cooper Whatever MacGuffin Foo is based on the fact that any other agency would hire him in a heartbeat. He has a clear portfolio of accomplishments and the nature of his work is such that it can be done anywhere. Give him a file box of product research, a pad and pen, and Don Draper is ready for action.

You know who is not portable? Joan Harris. Joan has tremendous company-specific human capital: She knows everything about SC&P’s operations, clients, vulnerabilities, future projections. She has a deep understanding of the psychology of the people she works with. She has off-the-books leverage over name partner Roger Sterling.

If she moved to another firm, she would lose all of that. If she even could move to another firm. It’s doubtful she could take any clients with her if she did–she’s a new account rep and no one is especially loyal to her yet. While women are breaking into creative, client work is overwhelmingly male-dominated–as are most of the client businesses themselves–and Joan would be faced with the depressing, overwhelming task of making men take her seriously all over again if she were to try to start somewhere new. She could easily get a job as office manager elsewhere, but that would be a step down. Joan spent 16 years building her career at SC&P, and that work simply won’t transfer elsewhere.

This is why Joan so desperately wants the cash that a buyout–or a public offering, like Don blew up–represents. She’s a queen in her little kingdom of SC&P–a second-floor office! a 5% partnership!–but if anything happens to that little kingdom, and plenty has already, she goes back to being Head Secretary and Dirty-Joke Target at some other shop on Madison Avenue. Unlike Don, and even Peggy, she won’t have other agencies offering her comparable or better jobs. And unlike Roger, Jim, and the rest of the male partners, she doesn’t have any wealth to tide her over.

This is why she wants the buyout, and why she’s still so very angry at Don for spiking the public offering. Don has two forms of security: job portability and wealth. Joan knows–although she hasn’t found a b-school professor to give her the words for it yet–that she doesn’t have the former. It’s no wonder, as a single mother in the 1960s, that she’s so bound and determined to get herself the latter.

Is “sorry” the wrong number?

June 24th, 2014

Anna North–I like this woman’s writing!–has a piece up summarizing reactions to the Pantene “Sorry” commercial:

In part, she points out, the women in the commercial aren’t actually apologizing:

The linguist Deborah Tannen tells her the word often isn’t an admission of guilt; it’s merely a way of “taking into account the presence of another person.” The woman in the Pantene ad who apologizes when a man bumps her elbow doesn’t really think she’s done a bad thing — she’s just politely acknowledging the man’s existence. But men don’t tend to reciprocate with their own sorrying. Ms. Tannen says:

“I see this as the more general phenomenon that language almost never means what the dictionary definition says; it’s used the way others use it — as a ritual. But those who don’t share the ritual tend to take the words literally. Since American men don’t tend to use ‘sorry’ this way, they mistakenly take women’s use of it literally, as an apology.”

Just because the men are getting it “wrong” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stop doing it anyway, of course. North defends the casual “sorry” as an expression of empathy–”At its best, ‘sorry’ may be an expression of caring for someone else — whether it’s a real admission of wrongdoing or just a simple acknowledgment that sometimes two people have to occupy the same cramped waiting room.”

I’m not buying it, though. I think the auto-sorry blurs the line between empathy and culpability in a bad way. We all know what a crappy apology sounds like–”I’m sorry you were offended,” that kind of thing, in which the miscreant uses the proper apology words but never invests in them. The auto-sorry devalues the language of apology in a similar way, albeit with a kinder intent. You can’t possibly be sorry for your physical existence in a shared space with another human being, as in regretful of your choices and determined not to let that happen again, so don’t say you are.

The English language has a phrase for those situations in which you want to acknowledge another person’s possible inconvenience without assuming blame for it: “Excuse me.”

Save the “sorrys” for actual apologies.

Sunday column: The role of the audience

June 22nd, 2014

Today’s column is online here. The second question is about a neighbor who harps on the Letter Writer’s parking. From my reply:

What do you think is motivating Florence? Personal animus against you? Or against something you represent? Does Florence appear to have a full life, with frequent opportunities to express herself? How would you describe the tone of her criticism: Worried? Superior? Helpful? This is a clue to how Florence sees herself. To know your enemy’s state of mind: Whether your goal be a battle won or a peace made, this must be your first step, grasshopper.

You and Florence are locked into a cycle of mutually assured aggravation. The trick you need to pull off is to briefly interrupt the cycle the next time it starts and treat Florence as your ally against this stupid meshugas that has developed between you. Almost as though there were some malicious third party sowing discord between you–you and Florence, who are such buddies at heart!

A crucial and overlooked aspect of being a good social actor is knowing how to cast your audience in a flattering role. Have you ever met someone at a party who told wonderful stories but nonetheless, you couldn’t wait to get away from? Chances are that person was casting you in the role of Goggling Peasant, shooting their tales over your head as though you couldn’t possibly have anything of similar value to contribute. It’s not a good look. Much better, when telling stories, to cast your interlocutor as a Trusted Confidant, someone who can marvel with you at the wonders you’ve witnessed and who, perhaps, might have avoided some of the traps you yourself have fallen into.

Sunday column: “Neighbors”

June 15th, 2014

Today’s column is online here. The second question is from a woman who got conversationally ambushed one night by her neighbor–”My next-door neighbor in my condo building came over and spilled her guts about her husband–cheating on her, being controlling and unkind. She talked for three hours straight”–and is wondering if one night’s conversation puts her on the hook to give yet more help if asked.

It doesn’t, and I pointed out that the neighbor might very well have been wanting to talk to a near-stranger anyway:

Occasionally you want to vent to someone who’s outside your normal social circle, so that gossip doesn’t start or people don’t ask “How are you?” with searching, compassionate eyes every time they see you for the rest of your life. You want a fresh perspective. You want someone who isn’t involved.

But her question does get at one of the difficulties of modern life. The Bible is full of injunctions about how to treat one’s “neighbor,” and whether you’re religious or not, those ideas make sense. We know we’re supposed to help each other, and offer aid and counsel. We know it takes a village.

We know we’re supposed to bring soup to someone when they’re sick. We just don’t know who.

When the Bible was written, and up until the past 100 years, you knew who your “neighbor” was. Your work colleagues, your friends, your extended family, your co-religionists–there was tremendous overlap between those groups, and that was your neighborhood. Nowadays, physical proximity and emotional attachment don’t necessarily go together. Your physical neighbors, whom you could help with chicken soup and lending power tools and babysitting now and then–you might not even know those people’s names. Meanwhile, your cousins and college roommates and other relationships of long emotional standing are scattered around the country. You can send them cards, or post a cartoon you know they’d like on their Facebook wall, or offer support and advice long-distance, but you can’t lend them your nicest party dress or take their dog for the weekend so they can get out of town.

(Oh, I also wrote a piece about long weekends that you might like.)

I don’t know what to do about that. It’s frustrating. I think it’s one of the factors that leads to a sense of social breakdown. Our physical environment doesn’t match up to our emotional reality.

Friday roundup

June 13th, 2014

A few random things:

Our apartment is being renovated, and is almost done, so I’m taking daily cyber-vacations on Pinterest and Apartment Therapy to help me envision the future. I’m obsessed with beverage dispensers. They’re so grown-up, so official. Beverage dispensers do for a party what big pearls do for an outfit: They let people know you mean business.

Internet nostalgia is A Thing, you might have noticed. Anna North thinks that it can be healthy, a kind of memento mori. We don’t encounter actual death and the cycles of nature the way we used to–but we’ll always have technology to make us feel old.

In any species, some individuals are going to be lousy parents. I learned this initially from my aunt, who bred German Shepherd dogs. Some of her dogs were attentive mothers who were sad when their puppies were taken away, while others were irritable with their offspring and happy to be rid of them. This fascinating article looks at how and why parenting ability–in humans and other species–varies across individuals:

It is not clear to me what makes this variability either – Selene, one of my best mothers, was the mother of one of my worst mothers. This doe had the experience of both good parenting and the genes for fabulous mothering, to the extent these things are heritable in goats, and she still was pretty much a loss.

Male parenting ability too is highly variable – we’ve had roosters who were incredibly diligent about bringing food to the babies and protecting them, bucks who stayed with the mothers and babies rather than foraging, and a goose father who got left to single parent when his partner took off for a neighboring pond, and did a fine job.

Author Sharon Astyk argues that parenting ability in humans might be likewise variable, which certainly jibes with my experience. We’ve all known parents who are simply good at it, even though they may have had lousy upbringings themselves, and no clear chance to learn a better way. My own parents would fit that bill. The problem, Astyk writes, is that “We tend to assume that all of us have some natural ability to parent, and if we didn’t, we wouldn’t – but the truth is that the level of insight that allows people to decide they would not be good parents is a rarer thing.”

I do have that level of insight, and people freak out when you tell them you don’t think you would have been a good mother. It’s like the worst thing you can say about yourself.

Some people find out they weren’t cut out for parenthood the hard way, which is one way of describing the slightly spoileriffic “Gidion’s Knot,” playing through June 22 at the Calderwood. What is the duty of a “good parent” when a child does something terrible? How do you assess risk where children are concerned? When does parental loyalty go too far?


Photo by Bridge Rep Co.

I can’t give away much more than that or it will give too much away, so between “Gidion’s Knot” and “Orange Is The New Black” I’ve been feeling spoiler-stuffed this week. It might make economic sense, but artistically and psychologically, releasing an entire season at once as Netflix does is just not optimal. Nobody knows when they can talk about anything! And the inevitable binge-watching detracts from the integrity of the individual episode.

The greatest condolence letter ever written

June 11th, 2014

Look what we got on Monday, from a girl in the neighborhood who was a big fan of our Milo. Count the ways–from graphic design to advanced empathy–that this letter excels.

Manners change

June 10th, 2014

My favorite etiquette reference book, the 17th edition of Emily Post, copyrighted 2004, begins thus:

“While scientific and medical advancements have made life easier over the years, the stresses and strains that have come with population density, technological advancements, all-pervasive news and entertainment media, and a redefinition of the family have resulted in a whole new set of challenges. People behave no worse than they used to (rudeness and other social offenses are nothing new), but the pressures of modern life make it all the more difficult to stay civil.”

My fifth edition 1943 Emily Post Blue Book ends with this:

“Etiquette like our living language is seemingly rigid but actually fluid. The times in which we live rare constantly producing new and, therefore, puzzling situations. We gladly accept forms that are helpful but we have little patience with those whose purpose is the preservation of form for form’s sake. It has long been my particular occupation not only to urge keeping those precepts and customs of practical use and to discard those which no longer serve, but also to meet the new problems constantly arising. It is this increasing fusing together of the new with the old, that has kept this book from becoming a collection of dry-dust maxims, to which ‘Finis’ might otherwise have been written twenty years ago.”

My friend Lisa, an English professor at Emmanuel College, gave me a wonderful 1962 Chandler Guide to Beauty, Style, and Poise, which features the following in its etiquette section:

“In our present-day society, social usage is a dynamic, changing cog in the wheel of social progress. It is interesting to refer to ‘The Ladies’ Guide to True Politeness and Correct Manners’ by Miss Leslie. In 1864, a lady did not go out by herself after dark, She sent her male caller home by ten o’clock and never called him by his first name. She would not think of corresponding with any man except her husband or a member of her family. Nowadays the telephone, radio and television, to mention just a few inventions, have changed our way of living and our social usages as well. In large cities, it is even considered proper now for a young woman to go to a man’s apartment for dinner, because it is his home.”

Change is the only constant! Do you have any etiquette books, old or new? Do they include a passage about how times have changed and manners must be based on common sense and kindness rather than clinging to old conventions? My book has a rather lengthy one, of course. At the time I thought I might have actually said something new. Now I’m merely content to have said it well.