A depressed economy followed by the national crisis somehow led to the discovery that it is possible to consume an entire meal at home, sitting down at a real table as if one were dining out. Some have thought of using this as a way to entertain friends.

Naturally, this is confusing to people who have come to believe that restaurant manners are the last word in sophistication, but never bothered with how to eat at home, let alone at someone else's. Whatever grace and dexterity they learned in order to elicit favorable judgments from the hired help at restaurants would be wasted on their families, they figured.

Restaurant manners are actually a spin-off from those that are supposed to be used privately, not the other way around, Miss Manners is afraid, and it is the private ones that are of a higher standard. No restaurant, no matter how fancy, can get away from the compromises that must be made because of the unpredictable and commercial nature of the business.

Miss Manners is prepared to help people make the transition by addressing some of the most common problems for those who are asked to go to their friends' houses to eat, rather than to meet them somewhere.

Q: How do I make a reservation, or is that necessary?

A: It is necessary, but you can't. You have to wait for them to call you.

Q: That's awfully exclusive, isn't it? But what if I don't know how many will be in my party?

A: It isn't your party. Only people who are asked by name can attend.

Q: How late can I cancel without a penalty?

A: Once you accept, you can never cancel.

Q: What do you mean, never? Suppose I change my mind? Suppose I get run over by a truck?

A: If you change your mind after accepting, you still have to go. It's true that you can arrange to be excused by being run over by a truck, but then you have to send a letter of apology, preferably accompanied by flowers.

Q: Is there a dress code?

A: Yes, and no one will tell you what it is. Inquiries will bring such non-guidance as "Oh, it doesn't matter" or "Just be comfortable," and the word "casual" has as many possible meanings as the number of people who so casually toss it in for every occasion.

Q: If I show up on time, will I be seated right away, or might I be told to get a drink until my table is ready?

A: You must show up on time, but you will still be given a drink elsewhere before being taken to the table.

Q: Is it all right to let them know after I arrive what I want to eat, or is it necessary to order in advance?

A: There is a fixed menu, no substitutes and no choices.

Q: Suppose I don't like it?

A: OK, there is a choice: Take it or leave it.

Q: I'm very particular about wine. Can I bring my own?

A: You can bring it and hand it over, but you may never see it again. It will be considered a present, and is not likely to be served unless it happens to go with the menu and you have brought enough for everyone.

Q: How do I settle the bill?

A: By being charming and grateful and issuing a return invitation.

Q: Except for that, it's free?

A: Not of the need to be polite.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: When entering my Episcopal Church, we have traditionally knelt in silent prayer and kept quiet before the service starts. Recently it sounds more like a cocktail party than a sanctuary.

A whispered "good morning" I can accept, but I was recently subjected to details ranging from what was cooking at home to a thoroughly explicit medical report of the innards of the man behind me, plus his home improvement project.

This seems to be happening all over the country. At my niece's church, ballet performances are part of the service. A friend hears business contracts all but signed, sealed and delivered while waiting to worship.

Good Lord, deliver us.

GENTLE READER: First, He is going to have to get the churchgoers' attention. Miss Manners would think that the clergy might feel obliged to point out to those who consider their churches to be social, entertainment and business centers that occasionally someone does go there to pray.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: In my eighth-grade history class, we came upon the subject that women have equal rights to men. We talked about how men used to be the dominators and that women were known as wives, end of sentence.

Women have come far in their fight for equal rights. But men still pull out the chairs for women to sit down in, and they still open doors for women and say, "Ladies first."

So, for the sake of manners, is it still right that men are treating women better than women are treating men?

GENTLE READER: Are they? Surely someone in your class must be arguing that such gestures of deference are actually bad treatment, intended to humiliate and handicap women by marking them as helpless.

Not that Miss Manners is taking that position, or yours, either. But then, she has had enough advanced etiquette history to know that both have elements of truth, and neither tells the full story. (Nor does your conclusion that women were "wives, end of sentence." Many managed to distinguish themselves in various fields despite barriers and prejudices.)

Chivalric etiquette was an improvement on the previous system of "Ladies never." Nevertheless, symbolically declaring women too superior to run the everyday world had an amazingly similar effect to declaring them too inferior. And, by the way, chivalry originally applied only to upper-class ladies, and while a version of it was extended to the middle-class in the 19th century, it never inspired anyone to defer to the lower classes.

In order to debate whether remnants of this system should still be practiced, you must understand the cultural and sentimental part that tradition plays in history. The manners at any given time are not an exact fit with a society's philosophy, nor should they be. It takes awhile for consensus to build, even -- or especially -- for the most morally sound changes, and progress is not helped by the abrupt condemnation of familiar ways.

Still, everything evolves, and sometimes needs help to do so sensibly. The trick is to distinguish practices that might be harmful from those that are merely graceful.

If the boys in your class opened doors for the girls and pulled out their desk chairs for them, it would emphasize gender differences just when you are supposed to try to forget them and concentrate on your work. But would you welcome a rule that, as everyone is equal, you all have to dress alike for the prom?

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I was eating lunch in a mall restaurant a few days ago, when a woman who was eating alone a couple of tables to my right paused in her eating/reading, reached into her purse, and pulled out a cell phone. She looked at the screen, put down her fork, and, as she raised her phone to her right ear, she raised her left hand to her mouth and cupped the phone.

The resultant conversation was only barely distinguishable from the restaurant background noise and much quieter than the live conversations around us.

As I was leaving, I thanked her for her courtesy and said I would pass her practice on. She thanked me.

GENTLE READER: But did you get her telephone number? Miss Manners only asks because she would be happy to thank the lady, too, if only she knew how to reach her.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I am currently working on a research paper on the parental right to censor music. My question for you is, Should parents censor or monitor their children's listening habits? And, if so, how should they go about doing so?

GENTLE READER: Such a harsh word -- "censor." All freedom-loving people, even small ones, bristle when they hear it and rise to protect their liberties from those who would usurp them under the guise of benign paternalism.

But wait. Isn't benign paternalism what parents are supposed to provide? What else are they there for, besides providing the wherewithal to purchase disgusting music?

Miss Manners realizes that parents cannot hope to protect their children for long against outside influences, however nasty. The protection they can provide them is to teach them that there are other, higher standards, and that they subscribe to these and expect their children to do so.

Are the children actually going to do so? Of course not. But the parents can make rules against buying and bringing into the house what they consider to be vulgar or otherwise objectionable. They can also use the issue to discuss why they feel the way they do, thus making their resentful children aware that there are people -- including people they love and respect in spite of their differences in taste -- who maintain their own standards instead of succumbing to whatever is out there.

Will their rules and arguments be challenged, ridiculed and broken? Of course. That is why parents do need to do some reasonable monitoring.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What, precisely, are the obligations of the host when the guest room is also the living room? In a one-bedroom apartment, there is often a disconnect between the host's sleeping schedule and that of the guest.

I'm starting to dread going to my dad's very small apartment. First of all, he won't go to bed until 1 a.m. or so. The apartment is so configured that the only place to put the air mattress is right in front of his chair, and that can't be done until he retires for the evening (and he's not willing to do that earlier because the television is in the living room).

It then takes me until 3 a.m. to drop off. He gets up at 9 or 10 a.m., which means I have to get up, too, because he wants to watch television.

GENTLE READER: It is Miss Manners' painful obligation to tell you that someone who is not concerned about whether his daughter gets a good night's sleep is not going to change his habits upon being told that hosts are indeed obligated to make their guests comfortable. If you are an adult, she urges you to stay elsewhere when visiting your father. If you are a minor, she hopes you will confide the arrangements to someone in a position to insist that he accommodate you properly, even if it means sacrificing some television.

: