DEAR MISS MANNERS: I don't wish to sound petty or unfeeling, but there is a situation one finds in newspaper death notices that troubles me. Surely, when a person dies and the obituary is published, he or she is entitled to his or her 15 minutes of fame. If not then, when?

It is nice to read "John Sledbearer, beloved husband of Charity" or "Susan Sportsworthy, cherished wife of Clyde." But I do object to "He is survived by his 'beloved' wife, Charmain." Who says she was beloved? Or, "He was survived by his 'loving' children."

Would the old man agree to that? And isn't this about him anyway? It feels self-serving and inappropriate for the survivors to use those adjectives about themselves in this situation, but correct me if I am misguided.

I don't object at all to the deceased being described as "Beloved" or "Cherished" (more power to 'em) but I just don't want those left behind taking the accolades that, in my opinion, belong solely to the deceased.

GENTLE READER: The old man may not agree with his obituary, but if he could, would he speak up?

Would he say, "I can think of several women I cared for more"?

Or "Loving children, my eye -- I noticed they were too busy to visit me in the hospital, but not too busy to start grabbing my stuff the second I croaked"?

Maybe. These days one cannot count on anyone to observe the decencies. Miss Manners agrees with you that it is bad taste to use a death to point out the deceased's admiration for oneself. Many a time has she heard a eulogy given by a colleague or friend that pinpoints the deceased's finest quality as his appreciation of the humble speaker.

She also shares your distaste for affectionate adjectives in death notices, but only because she doesn't believe that public announcements should include the emotional aspect of the situation. Wedding announcements don't mention that the couple is crazy in love -- or if they do now, Miss Manners doesn't want to hear about it. But she cannot begrudge it to the bereaved who find comfort in it. One of the disadvantages of death is that one must leave one's reputation in others' hands, and if the truth is somewhat stretched in favor of respectability, well, people tend to gloss over things in life, as well.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Sometimes at parties in private houses, or in the synagogue during services, guests or congregants move chairs from where they have been placed by the hosts or the ritual committee. I understand, of course, why this happens: The people wish to sit by friends. However, the effect may be to constrict the walking space and prevent other guests from circulating, and to block the fire exits and obstruct the Torah procession. Is there some appropriate statement or action in these circumstances?

GENTLE READER: The statement is either a public announcement of "Please clear the aisles" or a private request of "Excuse me, please," and the action is to have the moveable chairs replaced with ones that are either bolted down or too heavy to move. If you were thinking of something more forceful, Miss Manners requests you kindly to stop.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I don't want to invest in a formal gown I'll wear only once. What else would be appropriate on a formal occasion?

GENTLE READER: Your nightgown. Or so Miss Manners gathers from the fashion news. She was pleased to observe that there is also available nice, old-fashioned structured underwear, consisting of laced-up bodices and petticoats, which you could wear under it. Unfortunately, she has been told that these were alternative formal dresses.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Over the past year or so, I have, unfortunately, written a number of condolence notes on learning of the death of spouses or close relatives of acquaintances.

None of these notes have been acknowledged, making me wonder if they had even been received.

A friend has informed me that nowadays the bereaved only acknowledge charitable contributions. Should I discontinue sending condolences into the void, or continue anyway, since I feel that a personal, handwritten expression of sympathy is more meaningful than just a charitable contribution?

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners hates "nowadays" questions. They are always the last desperate plea on the part of those who are about to concede that the miscreants get to make the rules.

Sometimes it's the lazy miscreants who declare that whatever they don't feel like doing no longer needs to be done, and it is an imposition, if not a rudeness, to expect it to be. These are the ones who say that hosts are being selfish to expect anyone to answer an invitation -- until they are the ones giving the party, when they suddenly start whining that they need to know how many people will be coming.

Sometimes, it's the mercenary miscreants who are not miscreants out-for-hire but rather people who declare that money is the only factor to be counted. These are the ones who assess their guests in terms of giving power, demand presents or contributions and offer, in return, a cash bar.

On a bad day, and this seems to be one, you get the combination: Why bother to thank people when all they have shared is their thoughtfulness and compassion? Save that for the folks who fork over money.

Not only is this vulgar idea spreading, but another Gentle Reader claims that the person who told her attributed it to Miss Manners. "Hard to believe you should neglect someone who took the time and thought to offer their sympathies and put a monetary donation above thoughtfulness," this person writes.

Impossible to believe, Miss Manners would have thought -- of her or anyone else.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I feel it is rude and disrespectful for someone to call me and then yell at me on a speakerphone. I sometimes put up with this on business calls, but not personal calls. If they want to talk to me, they should pick up the phone and have a civilized conversation. Of course, I understand if the person is handicapped, but not if they are just too lazy to pick up the phone.

GENTLE READER: Miss Manners gets the impression that telephones of one kind or another and their accomplices are responsible for all the rudeness in the world. Cellular telephones, Caller ID, speaker telephones -- if it weren't for their running around making trouble, everything would be fine.

She is afraid that there is no etiquette rule requiring people to hold up the telephones on which they are speaking. However, it is inconsiderate to use equipment that unreasonably strains the other person's hearing or understanding, and it is rude to allow other people to hear what a person unaware of their presence is saying. If one of those is your problem, Miss Manners authorizes you to ask your caller politely not to use the speaker function when talking with you.

: