DEAR MISS MANNERS: When attending a performance of, say, a high school musical, what are the rules about standing ovations? They seem to be occurring more and more frequently for what I'd consider an adequate, but certainly not spectacular, performance.

I know people are proud of their offspring and want to show that, but my goodness, a standing ovation? My husband and I feel mean-spirited just sitting when everyone has heaved him-or-herself out of the chair to "ovate." I must add that those who do stand appear to do so with some lack of enthusiasm. Any thoughts?

GENTLE READER: That pretty much everyone attending a high school musical has a young relative involved in it. If you merely wandered in because you were in search of a spectacular performance of "The Fantasticks," you are asking for disappointment.

Mind you, Miss Manners has sat quietly through many a standing ovation at the professional theater and the opera, clapping normally if she thinks the performance a good one, keeping her hands in her lap if not. She agrees with you that ovation inflation has made it impossible for audiences to express their enthusiasm for a performance of rare excellence.

And although she is incapable of uttering a "boo," she relishes being in audiences that are discerning and emotionally involved enough to register even negative opinions.

But high school? Or any amateur performance? It is there, and not in the costly professional theater, that the audience's kindly duty is to encourage the performers. Or at least to reassure them that they have not made fools of themselves.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Last month, my friend informed me that she was pregnant with her first child. Soon afterwards, she began including me in a group that receives a weekly e-mail regarding the status of her pregnancy. It includes a few comments from her, followed by a description of the baby's development, including a diagram like one you'd find in a textbook.

While I am happy that she is excited about having her first child, I find that this is a little too much information and somewhat self-centered.

Should I just let the e-mails continue or is there a way I can politely say something so that I can be excluded from these weekly e-mail distributions?

GENTLE READER: Let us hope that your friend does not take to tweeting. Minute-by-minute accounts of pregnancy are something that only prospective fathers and grandparents should be expected to bear.

What you are getting is also lacking in charm and general interest, but Miss Manners believes that once a week, you could take a minute to 1) hit the reply key, 2) type "Congratulations," and (3 and 4 in rapid succession) hit the send and delete keys.

Pregnancy is, by its nature, a self-preoccupied state, but it often leads to the opposite state. Should your friend start sending weekly baby pictures, follow the above instructions, substituting the word "cute" for step two.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: What should an American president do when he greets a foreign head of state? What about his wife? And would that be any different from an average American citizen greeting a foreign head of state?

A handshake and "How do you do?" seem appropriate everywhere, but what about curtsies, head nods and genuflecting? Is a bend at the waist considered different from a bent knee? If anyone can have a final say on this, I believe it would be you.

GENTLE READER: Final say? If only that were true. Miss Manners has now watched at least half a dozen administrations get this wrong. They go to one extreme or the other, behaving like other presidents' buddies or like monarchs' subjects.

Where is the Office of Protocol, for goodness' sake?

Yes, yes, Americans pride ourselves on being warm and open and spontaneous. But heads of state are the symbolic embodiments of their countries, and the greeting gesture is itself symbolic. If they improvise mistakenly, they can expect a spontaneous outburst of American disdain.

The American greeting routine used to be simple. Because we officially consider all people to be equal and equally worthy of respect, the same gesture, the handshake -- simple, dignified and egalitarian -- would do for all.

We knew it wasn't universal, but it was our way. We felt superior to people who had to bow down to their leaders. And we found it side-splitting to watch news footage of French generals bestowing kisses on their soldiers when they gave out medals.

Then, about half a century ago, came the American huggy movement. Instant intimacy was going to solve everyone's problems by making them feel good, which, in turn, would end war and strife. It took rather vigorous forms among some, but eventually infiltrated even the most staid parts of society, where the handshake had been the greeting that fathers gave their young sons.

And it spread internationally. Heads of state took to kissing and hugging one another, a truly bad idea politically. Those photographs are bound to surface when the loved one or his country does something nasty.

Symbolically, it is bad even in good times. Such bonding smacks of the days when protocol had sovereigns from different monarchies addressing one another as "Monsieur Mon Frere" or "Madame Ma Soeur," regardless of whether they had any familial ties. The idea was that they belonged to an international ruling class as distinguished from the mere subjects over whom they reigned.

And if you don't see that, you should try a spontaneous hug on any head of state -- your own or anyone else's -- who happens to come your way in a parade or ceremony.

But symbolic subservience to a foreign ruler is worse. When Miss Manners sees American citizens delighting in bowing or curtseying to royalty, she tries to remind herself that they are just being silly, not treasonous. When an American official does it, we can only hope it was because he was noticing that his own shoelace was undone-- and not that he recognizes the divine right of kings in general, or the authority over us of that king in particular.

:

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Every year my husband and I have a birthday party for our son. Every year the party starts at the same time (2 p.m.), and every year we have the same issue: a set of grandparents who arrive hours early.

The time of the party is set to allow for decorating/set-up time in the morning and a quick nap for our son, all of which has been explained to our guests. By arriving early, they disrupt the set-up and, most importantly, our son's nap.

We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or be rude, but I don't think they have considered how it bothers us to have company arriving before we're ready for them. Or perhaps they don't care. We've made unsuccessful attempts to (gently) point out that the party starts at 2 p.m., but this has gotten us no results.

Since these are relatives (and not just rude friends) we can't stop inviting them, but we are stuck as to what to do about it. Can you tell me how to handle this?

GENTLE READER: Do they always arrive hours early when you invite them for casual visits?

That was a trick question. Miss Manners suspects that this information was not already included because there are few, if any, casual invitations issued. If there were, you would not refer to your son's grandparents as "our guests" whom you have to entertain (sigh) every year.

Her guess is that these people are starved to see their grandson and are trying to cage extra time with him. It may be that you are not on pleasant terms, or it may only be that they live far away and are rarely able to visit. If you cannot schedule more visits, you might solve the problem by asking them, ahead of time, to stay on after the birthday party for some private time with your son.

DEAR MISS MANNERS: Myself and three other people carpool to work in the mornings and afternoons, and each week we take turns driving. Usually, whoever's driving listens to music and/or news radio at a very low volume.

However, one of the people in the carpool listens to religious Christian music and/or Christian talk radio. I find this to be very rude because I personally am not religious, and I think it's wrong to "assume" that everyone else has the same religious views as he/she. In addition, this person plays the music in their car very loudly.

Am I wrong in this? Should I be offended? I know some of the other riders have mentioned their distaste in this person's choice of radio stations.

Is there a "tactful" way to address this? Some of us have even gone so far as to listen to iPods on the rides in hopes this person would "get the hint" but to no avail.

GENTLE READER: You don't need a hint; you need a policy. And not a religious policy, either.

It seems to Miss Manners that this driver is acting within your present policy to play his or her choice of radio programs. He or she (can't you look in the front seat and figure out which?) need not assume you agree with it or like it; the only point is that he does.

Suggesting a new policy by which everyone gets to approve the choice of stations will avoid one ugly confrontation, although possibly inspire another. Or you could all disappear into your iPods.

: