I have the idea that I can get to work in nine minutes. I think I got this idea because it happened. Once. One morning, probably a few years back, every single light was green, there was no traffic, the planets were aligned, and I arrived at work in a miraculous nine minutes.
The problem is that, at that moment, my brain reset my expectation for how long it takes to get to work. Click! Nine minutes. Never mind that the other 2047 times, it has taken me twelve minutes, or at least eleven.
When I am cooking my two eggs and gathering up, I don't see a problem when the clock says it's ten minutes until I am expected at work--because I think I can make it in nine. It's like the "Best Times" feature on Minesweeper. If you once played a game in nine seconds, it retains that. It doesn't average your scores.
Realizing that this is nuts has led me to wonder if I do this in other areas--and to think about other people's expectations, too. For example, someone I live with always seems to think he has more time than he has. And that things take less time to do than they do.
I'm apparently the same to some extent.
I may have gotten this tendency from my mother. She never started Christmas shopping until December 22, at the earliest. And she had eight kids and a zillion grandkids. She always pulled off Christmas somehow, but usually with zero sleep the night before. And I have childhood memories of fighting with my brothers and sisters and doing forbidden somersaults over the back of the couch that had been pulled away from the window for the expected Christmas tree (never purchased before December 22 either) while she and Dad shopped from dawn to midnight.
She never did taxes until April 15.
When it was time for me to leave to go to my wedding, she was still sewing the buttonholes onto my wedding dress. I remember waiting nervously in my slip for a prom dress, wondering which would arrive first--it or my date. And I ran to my first day of fifth grade late and pinned into my new green star dress.
I don't know why she did things this way. It seems not to have occurred to her that she didn't have to. In more important ways, she was a very on-the-ball mom. The best.
For myself, I can't stand that kind of stress. I consciously and deliberately changed some of this in my own life. When I was a single mom struggling to pay a $306 mortgage and a $500 day care payment (not to mention food and utilities) out of two $404 checks a month, I felt more secure making sure--before December 22--that my kids would get Christmas. One Columbus Day (back when state employees still got all their holidays), it dawned on me that while I was off and my kids were in school, I could just take myself to the store and secure Christmas then and there. Yes, in October. Why not?
A tradition was born. I get the main shopping done before I would have to fight the crowds and the weather. My anxiety thermometer stays at a comfortable level, too. As December creeps along, I have none of that research-paper-due type of stress mounting up on the back of my neck. I know that, whatever happens, my kids will have Christmas. In other ways, I haven't wised up yet.
I think the procrastination problem could be genetic. I have a child who likes to run things in a very last-minute fashion. He's charming enough to pull it off. He once got a teacher to postpone a deadline for him seven times. He likes to surprise me with last-minute requests--like, do we have any purple pants he could use for a costume? I told him I thought his six-year-old sister had some. (Does he seriously think I keep things like that handy, just in case?)
I'm sure something in my past asked for this. But I'm working on it. I have learned to consider the time church starts as 12:15, not 12:30. I have been learning to exercise, do laundry, and--with less success--clean my house on a schedule instead of on an as-needed (translation: last-minute) basis. Maybe I can knock down my mind-sets one at a time, even the one about how long it takes to get to work.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Miracle Pill
Imagine if there were a miracle pill that would make you feel and look better in a completely healthy way--would you take it? Or a completely safe over-the-counter pill that would reduce stress, promote better sleep, boost your mood, and improve your self-esteem? Sound too good to be true? I am sure lots of us would go for a safe, inexpensive pill that would help us lose weight. How about one that could prevent diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, breast cancer, colon cancer, high blood pressure, plaque in the arteries, and premature death?
Would you take a safe pill that would improve your performance at work and in recreation? One that improved your endurance and stamina? One that could increase your mental focus? Build your confidence and effectiveness? How about one that improved your digestion, or your sex life? Build your lean muscle mass, provide more muscle definition, strengthen your bones, and make you more agile? Sometimes we do want pills that can lessen joint pain or back pain, or reduce depression or anxiety, or improve our metabolism. I see them sold all the time.
Would you take a pill that could reduce menstrual cramps, burn extra calories, and improve your complexion all at the same time? How about a pill that increased your appetite for healthy foods? What if there were a pill that could do all of these things, cost practically nothing, and was available to almost everyone without a prescription?
But wait! There's more! What if it also improved your posture, lowered your resting heart rate, enhanced oxygen and calcium transport throughout the body--and helped alleviate varicose veins? What if there were a drug you could take that actually increased your self-discipline, your sense of achievement, your ability to control your life in ways that could just keep growing? Imagine the online sales of such a drug, or the stampedes at the drug store.
If there were any one thing that could do all of these things, everyone would take it, wouldn't they? Such a drug would sell even if it cost a lot of money.
Now, don't get mad, but there is such a thing that can give every single one of these benefits. No, it's not as easy as popping a pill, but it's not out of the reach of most people, either. The cost is on a sliding fee scale--it can cost a lot if you want, but it can also be practically free.
The thing, of course, is exercise. Just regular exercise. It can start with a daily walk to the corner and back. With walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator. The only trick is to be consistent--do what you can really do, but do it several times a week. Then slowly add to it. Walk just one minute longer each day or week, or jog just one tenth of a mile per minute faster for five minutes than you did yesterday.
With its potential benefits, and the potential costs of not doing it, why not? If you would take a pill that could do even some of these things, why not take a walk or a run?
Would you take a safe pill that would improve your performance at work and in recreation? One that improved your endurance and stamina? One that could increase your mental focus? Build your confidence and effectiveness? How about one that improved your digestion, or your sex life? Build your lean muscle mass, provide more muscle definition, strengthen your bones, and make you more agile? Sometimes we do want pills that can lessen joint pain or back pain, or reduce depression or anxiety, or improve our metabolism. I see them sold all the time.
Would you take a pill that could reduce menstrual cramps, burn extra calories, and improve your complexion all at the same time? How about a pill that increased your appetite for healthy foods? What if there were a pill that could do all of these things, cost practically nothing, and was available to almost everyone without a prescription?
But wait! There's more! What if it also improved your posture, lowered your resting heart rate, enhanced oxygen and calcium transport throughout the body--and helped alleviate varicose veins? What if there were a drug you could take that actually increased your self-discipline, your sense of achievement, your ability to control your life in ways that could just keep growing? Imagine the online sales of such a drug, or the stampedes at the drug store.
If there were any one thing that could do all of these things, everyone would take it, wouldn't they? Such a drug would sell even if it cost a lot of money.
Now, don't get mad, but there is such a thing that can give every single one of these benefits. No, it's not as easy as popping a pill, but it's not out of the reach of most people, either. The cost is on a sliding fee scale--it can cost a lot if you want, but it can also be practically free.
The thing, of course, is exercise. Just regular exercise. It can start with a daily walk to the corner and back. With walking up the stairs instead of taking the elevator. The only trick is to be consistent--do what you can really do, but do it several times a week. Then slowly add to it. Walk just one minute longer each day or week, or jog just one tenth of a mile per minute faster for five minutes than you did yesterday.
With its potential benefits, and the potential costs of not doing it, why not? If you would take a pill that could do even some of these things, why not take a walk or a run?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
The Prime Writing Op--An Obituary
I have a confession to make. I read obituaries. Every day. At a minimum, I scan the names to see if someone I know is there. But if one catches my eye--if it's the obituary of a young person, or the person's name is funny, for example, I read through it. If I have time, I read through several.
I can tell you that I have seen a lot of strange things. So strange, sometimes, that I wonder if some people know what an obituary is.
Obituary proofreader or consultant would be a dream job for me. I would love to help people avoid making fools of themselves at such a difficult time. I figure the loss of a loved one is when they need people crying with them, not laughing at them.
I know it's not nice to make fun of people who are grieving, and someday, I'll repent, but some of the things I see are quite amusing. Some are interesting cultural trends (that should, or, more likely, should not, survive). Like the years when every time the second spouse in a marriage died, the words "Together Forever" appeared below the picture. Or the words "Gone Fishin'," "Gone Huntin'," or "Gone Shoppin'."
Unfortunately, in Utah, obituaries are not edited. They are not proofread. There is no such person whose job it is to gently guide those who many not be in their right minds back to a level of decorum that would take the focus off of them and put it back where it belongs. Not everyone is a good writer, nor do they have to be. We all have different strengths.
Maybe there should be some rules. Maybe the best writer in the family should get the job, and then show it to someone else for an objective opinion. Of course, if the obituary writer is the best they have, sharing it with the family will only provoke changes for the worse. Often, the only objective observer is the person from the mortuary who forwards it to the newspaper. And he's not really objective--he's getting paid. Nor, necessarily, a good writer, either. I have noticed that the mortuary people do not usually interfere. The most they might do is to ask, "Are you sure this is how you want it?" Which, of course, is not helpful. That question will not prompt anyone to suddenly remember a grammar lesson nor the correct spelling of the word "lose." It will not shift a grieving person's mind into the gear that tells them that publishing a picture of an already-dead baby no one would recognize anyway may not be in the best taste. (We know because you wrote that she was stillborn. Yet, here is a picture.)
The only possible answer to that question is a firm, "Yes." And so entertaining obituaries continue to be published.
I see obituaries that never mention that the person died. They will say that the person was born, usually. As if that were the point. Some just expound on the alleged virtues of the person or how much they will be missed, or quote rhyming verses, and never ever get to the point.
Because an obituary is a notice of death. It comes from the Latin obire, to die. The purpose is simply to inform those who knew him or her of his/her passing. It's also nice, I think, to briefly review the person's life, list some accomplishments, and mention the names of those people to whom the person belonged. There's nothing wrong with mentioning facts.
Sometimes, all the obituary says is that a seemingly wonderful person was born who has all these amazing qualities, and, the next thing you know, it's talking about the whereabouts of a funeral, without mentioning a death. Quite shocking.
Around here, it costs more to publish a photo with the obituary. Photos can be very helpful when scanning an obituary page. You might recognize someone you know better from a picture than you would from their name. Or it might give you a clue whether the deceased is the Jane Brown you know. Unless, of course, the deceased is 85 and her senior prom picture is used. Sometimes, presumably in order to catch all the people who knew the deceased throughout her life, both younger and older pictures are used. I have seen as many as four in one obituary. This costs more, so it might be wise to ask oneself if it is worth it. Sometimes, the change is not that dramatic. Sometimes, it's so dramatic that it adds to the entertainment value. I have seen only a toddler picture used for a middle-aged man. Guess who wrote that obituary, right? I often see live people pictured in the obituary--the surviving spouse, or even a grandchild. There is such a thing as having a picture cropped so that only the deceased shows. I would think it would be unnerving to turn to that page and see oneself, or a child in the family. Believe me, it's unnerving enough to see your loved one--who is dead--there.
One time, an obituary featured a picture of a man holding up a chicken. There are sometimes pictures of people with their dogs. These remind me of stories of ancient civilizations where the person's pets, possessions, slaves, and even family members were buried with them.
One time, instead of a photograph, an obituary featured a drawing of a man talking on the telephone. I had to wonder, Was that the best they could come up with? I shake my head when the picture shows someone in sunglasses. What's the point if we can't see their face?
Sometimes I think people just don't know what they are saying. I have seen sentences like this: "Marva Lois Green was the oldest of fourteen children born to Alva Ira and Johanna Green on March 14, 1910." Wow! How come I've never heard of these people before? Or this one: "After his mission, he attended the University of Utah, where he met and married his eternal sweetheart on June 1, 1955." I guess it's okay to meet and marry someone on the same day if they're your eternal sweetheart. Otherwise, it might be too risky.
Or they don't know what "survivors" are. (Blood relatives who are still alive when you die.) This leaves people survived by dogs, friends, nurses, in-laws, and, occasionally, an already-dead relative. "She is survived by her children, Laura, Mike, and Pete (deceased)." Creative writing at its best.
Sometimes, obituaries are painfully honest. "He spent his last months as he wished. He slept all the time and ate as much as he wanted." Or, pure fantasy: "Everyone who ever met her loved her deeply." Some people use writing the obituary as revenge: "He married Carol Lewis, the mother of his children, later divorced. He then married his eternal soul mate, best friend, and loving companion, who was the joy of his heart, Sylvia Mermaid, with whom he shared the most blissful years of his life."
Even when there is relief for a loved one who suffered much, it is probably not best to "joyously announce" her departure, as if the obituary were a wedding invitation.
Sometimes, people use obituaries to preach sermons or promote their brand of faith. I love the ones where the obit writer guesses (but states as fact) what the person is doing in the afterworld or who exactly met him at the gate.
Sad are the ones where a child was brutally murdered, but the parents say he "flew away one day into God's arms." Worse, to me, the ones where a child died of neglect--as told in other stories in the newspaper--but the obituary states that "God decided to call him home." I suppose obituaries can hide, as well as reveal, a multitude of sins. Sometimes, you can just tell who wrote the thing.
Sometimes obituaries are used as thank you notes to medical staff. At several dollars per line, it would be more cost effective (not to mention more correct) to mail those notes out. Sometimes, obituaries are used to beg for money.
Some of the things I see are not only laughable, but downright embarrassing. One grieving family published that their son died right after the LDS General Conference ended. I had watched conference, and it wasn't that bad. Another obituary writer boasted that her loved one had "single-handedly" made wearing a particular item of clothing popular. Um, yeah.
Another time, the person's name was listed along with the title of "President." I scanned the obituary quickly, a sinking feeling in my stomach, wondering what this guy had been president of. As I did so, I was thinking that, even if my father were the current President of the United States, and died, I would not list the title with his name in the obituary. My worst fears were realized when I discovered that the closest this guy had ever come to being any kind of president was once, well, okay, twice, when he had been a member in a stake presidency--just a counselor, not even the stake president--more than forty years ago. But that's okay. He was "the most spiritual person ever" and, as the obituary pointed out in numerous incidents, apparently influential in the lives of the prophets and general authorities he had bumped into in his life.
Soon afterward, a delightful obituary ran for a successful self-made elderly businessman, written from the point of view and supposed memory banks of his mother. Never mind that she had died decades before him.
You would think writing an obituary would be a job no one would want to undertake--because of what it means has happened in their family. But some people seem to relish it as a creative writing opportunity--perhaps their only chance to get their words published. Or a way to color the situation the way they want it seen. Or to have the last word on the deceased. Some people ought to be haunted for it, though. One family didn't seem able to agree, and two different obituaries ran in the papers for the same person--with differing lists of survivors. Maybe this is why some people go ahead and write out their own. Which is fine except for the creepy "I passed away on November 29. . ." part.
But, as I said, not everyone is a good writer. If we were, it would take all the fun out of reading them.
I can tell you that I have seen a lot of strange things. So strange, sometimes, that I wonder if some people know what an obituary is.
Obituary proofreader or consultant would be a dream job for me. I would love to help people avoid making fools of themselves at such a difficult time. I figure the loss of a loved one is when they need people crying with them, not laughing at them.
I know it's not nice to make fun of people who are grieving, and someday, I'll repent, but some of the things I see are quite amusing. Some are interesting cultural trends (that should, or, more likely, should not, survive). Like the years when every time the second spouse in a marriage died, the words "Together Forever" appeared below the picture. Or the words "Gone Fishin'," "Gone Huntin'," or "Gone Shoppin'."
Unfortunately, in Utah, obituaries are not edited. They are not proofread. There is no such person whose job it is to gently guide those who many not be in their right minds back to a level of decorum that would take the focus off of them and put it back where it belongs. Not everyone is a good writer, nor do they have to be. We all have different strengths.
Maybe there should be some rules. Maybe the best writer in the family should get the job, and then show it to someone else for an objective opinion. Of course, if the obituary writer is the best they have, sharing it with the family will only provoke changes for the worse. Often, the only objective observer is the person from the mortuary who forwards it to the newspaper. And he's not really objective--he's getting paid. Nor, necessarily, a good writer, either. I have noticed that the mortuary people do not usually interfere. The most they might do is to ask, "Are you sure this is how you want it?" Which, of course, is not helpful. That question will not prompt anyone to suddenly remember a grammar lesson nor the correct spelling of the word "lose." It will not shift a grieving person's mind into the gear that tells them that publishing a picture of an already-dead baby no one would recognize anyway may not be in the best taste. (We know because you wrote that she was stillborn. Yet, here is a picture.)
The only possible answer to that question is a firm, "Yes." And so entertaining obituaries continue to be published.
I see obituaries that never mention that the person died. They will say that the person was born, usually. As if that were the point. Some just expound on the alleged virtues of the person or how much they will be missed, or quote rhyming verses, and never ever get to the point.
Because an obituary is a notice of death. It comes from the Latin obire, to die. The purpose is simply to inform those who knew him or her of his/her passing. It's also nice, I think, to briefly review the person's life, list some accomplishments, and mention the names of those people to whom the person belonged. There's nothing wrong with mentioning facts.
Sometimes, all the obituary says is that a seemingly wonderful person was born who has all these amazing qualities, and, the next thing you know, it's talking about the whereabouts of a funeral, without mentioning a death. Quite shocking.
Around here, it costs more to publish a photo with the obituary. Photos can be very helpful when scanning an obituary page. You might recognize someone you know better from a picture than you would from their name. Or it might give you a clue whether the deceased is the Jane Brown you know. Unless, of course, the deceased is 85 and her senior prom picture is used. Sometimes, presumably in order to catch all the people who knew the deceased throughout her life, both younger and older pictures are used. I have seen as many as four in one obituary. This costs more, so it might be wise to ask oneself if it is worth it. Sometimes, the change is not that dramatic. Sometimes, it's so dramatic that it adds to the entertainment value. I have seen only a toddler picture used for a middle-aged man. Guess who wrote that obituary, right? I often see live people pictured in the obituary--the surviving spouse, or even a grandchild. There is such a thing as having a picture cropped so that only the deceased shows. I would think it would be unnerving to turn to that page and see oneself, or a child in the family. Believe me, it's unnerving enough to see your loved one--who is dead--there.
One time, an obituary featured a picture of a man holding up a chicken. There are sometimes pictures of people with their dogs. These remind me of stories of ancient civilizations where the person's pets, possessions, slaves, and even family members were buried with them.
One time, instead of a photograph, an obituary featured a drawing of a man talking on the telephone. I had to wonder, Was that the best they could come up with? I shake my head when the picture shows someone in sunglasses. What's the point if we can't see their face?
Sometimes I think people just don't know what they are saying. I have seen sentences like this: "Marva Lois Green was the oldest of fourteen children born to Alva Ira and Johanna Green on March 14, 1910." Wow! How come I've never heard of these people before? Or this one: "After his mission, he attended the University of Utah, where he met and married his eternal sweetheart on June 1, 1955." I guess it's okay to meet and marry someone on the same day if they're your eternal sweetheart. Otherwise, it might be too risky.
Or they don't know what "survivors" are. (Blood relatives who are still alive when you die.) This leaves people survived by dogs, friends, nurses, in-laws, and, occasionally, an already-dead relative. "She is survived by her children, Laura, Mike, and Pete (deceased)." Creative writing at its best.
Sometimes, obituaries are painfully honest. "He spent his last months as he wished. He slept all the time and ate as much as he wanted." Or, pure fantasy: "Everyone who ever met her loved her deeply." Some people use writing the obituary as revenge: "He married Carol Lewis, the mother of his children, later divorced. He then married his eternal soul mate, best friend, and loving companion, who was the joy of his heart, Sylvia Mermaid, with whom he shared the most blissful years of his life."
Even when there is relief for a loved one who suffered much, it is probably not best to "joyously announce" her departure, as if the obituary were a wedding invitation.
Sometimes, people use obituaries to preach sermons or promote their brand of faith. I love the ones where the obit writer guesses (but states as fact) what the person is doing in the afterworld or who exactly met him at the gate.
Sad are the ones where a child was brutally murdered, but the parents say he "flew away one day into God's arms." Worse, to me, the ones where a child died of neglect--as told in other stories in the newspaper--but the obituary states that "God decided to call him home." I suppose obituaries can hide, as well as reveal, a multitude of sins. Sometimes, you can just tell who wrote the thing.
Sometimes obituaries are used as thank you notes to medical staff. At several dollars per line, it would be more cost effective (not to mention more correct) to mail those notes out. Sometimes, obituaries are used to beg for money.
Some of the things I see are not only laughable, but downright embarrassing. One grieving family published that their son died right after the LDS General Conference ended. I had watched conference, and it wasn't that bad. Another obituary writer boasted that her loved one had "single-handedly" made wearing a particular item of clothing popular. Um, yeah.
Another time, the person's name was listed along with the title of "President." I scanned the obituary quickly, a sinking feeling in my stomach, wondering what this guy had been president of. As I did so, I was thinking that, even if my father were the current President of the United States, and died, I would not list the title with his name in the obituary. My worst fears were realized when I discovered that the closest this guy had ever come to being any kind of president was once, well, okay, twice, when he had been a member in a stake presidency--just a counselor, not even the stake president--more than forty years ago. But that's okay. He was "the most spiritual person ever" and, as the obituary pointed out in numerous incidents, apparently influential in the lives of the prophets and general authorities he had bumped into in his life.
Soon afterward, a delightful obituary ran for a successful self-made elderly businessman, written from the point of view and supposed memory banks of his mother. Never mind that she had died decades before him.
You would think writing an obituary would be a job no one would want to undertake--because of what it means has happened in their family. But some people seem to relish it as a creative writing opportunity--perhaps their only chance to get their words published. Or a way to color the situation the way they want it seen. Or to have the last word on the deceased. Some people ought to be haunted for it, though. One family didn't seem able to agree, and two different obituaries ran in the papers for the same person--with differing lists of survivors. Maybe this is why some people go ahead and write out their own. Which is fine except for the creepy "I passed away on November 29. . ." part.
But, as I said, not everyone is a good writer. If we were, it would take all the fun out of reading them.
Friday, October 2, 2009
What a Wedding Is
People seem to have forgotten what a wedding IS. I've been hearing stories of people getting married during their child's funeral, holding guests hostage as they stage a political lecture, weighing the bridesmaids, and marrying while planning to get annulled after they split up the gifts. For heaven's sake, a wedding is not the time to show ignorance or victimize your friends, but to show you are an adult and get your friends to sincerely wish you well.
Therefore, out of the goodness of my heart, I offer this public service message in attempt to get the world of weddings back to normal again.
A wedding is an event in which you marry someone. You do it in public so that your community can witness your vow to be married to that person.
That's really all it is! I swear!
So, think of a simple and charming way to do that, and you will save yourself and everyone you love and even just like a lot of grief. By charming, I mean understated, affordable, respectable, elegant, and refined. I do not mean cutesy, tacky, bold, outrageous, or offensive.
There are many small ways to make your wedding unique without trying to top everyone else you ever heard of or saw on TV, and without spending more money than you'll have in your lifetime--even if you're not planning on the money you spend being technically yours.
As getting married is one of the most visible and important bridges from childhood to adulthood, it's a good time to show your witnesses that you are an adult.
Looking at the questions posed to advice columnists and things I've heard about popular TV shows, it seems a lot of people plan to stage a display of their brattiest behavior ever as part of their wedding. The most outrageous plan to do this with other people's money.
Plan a wedding you can afford. Within your budget and savings, that is, not the limit of anyone's or everyone's credit card. Traditionally, the bride's parents pay for the wedding reception. That's still fine if they want to, or if the bride has not already established her own home and/or her own career. It's okay for the groom's family to help if they want to. But it is not okay to arm-wrestle either family into huge debt.
If the bride and groom are a little older, have their own means, have been married before, or want something the parents cannot afford, they should (as adults) foot the bill. (Within their budget and savings is best.)
Any questions?
"What about getting the guests to contribute?"
Ah, the guests. I'm glad you asked that.
No. Guests are not compelled to give gifts or money, and paying for the wedding means they are no longer "guests." Traditionally, guests give a present to help a young couple set up their own household. You know, people at that stage where it never occurs to them to buy their own Scotch tape or safety pins because their mom always has them. When you get married, you need your own stuff. Wedding presents are good for that, but they should be given voluntarily, which means the bride and groom are supposed to not count on them. Gifts are not admission to the wedding. Ideally, they are given from the heart, and the bride and groom should be delighted and surprised to be the recipients of generosity, however modest.
If the bride and groom have already set up their households--and particularly if they have already set up a household TOGETHER--gift-giving gets a little trickier. They should register for and expect less, not more. They should be thinking how lucky they are to need less, not how to get their friends to upgrade all their stuff.
"You mean you can't have a money tree or register for the stuff you want?"
Money trees fall in to the tacky, bold, outrageous, and offensive category. It's okay to register, but let's keep it down, huh? Register for your fine china and/or a few nice affordable household items to match your decor, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sleep in less than $300 sheets in your little one-bedroom apartment. Let people buy you one spoon if they want to, for example. And please limit the registry to things that are a little bit special. I have seen the following items on wedding registry lists: a swimsuit for the bride, socks for the groom, video games, packaged food, and even laundry bleach. Are they serious? Do they really want laundry bleach for a wedding present? Are they going to think fondly of Aunt Gladys as they pour it into the toilet, or what? It should be something that will last. Buy your own groceries, and let Aunt Gladys pick out a nice clock or toaster to be remembered fondly by. And the registry should only be mentioned to wedding guests who ask for that information. Since you're technically not supposed to even expect a gift, you don't want to be blatantly telling people what to give you, what to pay for it, and where to get it. The registry is to be helpful, not proscriptive.
I have seen registries that have very expensive items on them (come on, how many people are really going to spend $300 on your wedding besides maybe your parents?) and very silly, cheap things on them, but not very many reasonably-priced nice things. People don't want to give you hangers as a wedding present.
"Without a money tree, how can you have a decent honeymoon?"
You should take the honeymoon the groom or the couple or the groom's parents (when offered) can afford. The most important thing is being alone together. Where is almost beside the point.
The good news is, some people will give you money. But it's not nice to ask for it nor to count on it to fund your trip. There are honeymoon registries now, which I guess is okay, if people want to contribute that way, but I have to wonder if it really is tasteful not to take a trip you can already afford. Are brides and grooms already so tired of each other these days that just being together isn't what matters most?
Another question that comes up a lot is who, in a complicated family, should give the bride away. I understand that this can get tricky. I personally think that wedding ceremonies that don't require that are charming, but, to answer the question, it depends. Traditionally, the father does this. It is also okay to have a stepfather, grandfather, mother, or both parents do it. But think about what it means. This tradition started back in the Dark Ages when daughters never married by choice but were bartered like the property they were. The wedding was not their own idea, but a business deal between the groom and their father. I believe the father was actually dragging them to the altar and literally handing them over to another man. Modern women could ask themselves if this is a tradition they want to uphold.
The unseemly origin of giving the bride away also gave rise--I believe--to the tradition of the veil over the face. The veil was not lifted until the vows were finished. THEN, in some cases, the groom got his first look at the bride he'd just married. Maybe the veil also served to hide her tears. Or her identity. Some sister switcheroos were apparently performed way back when.
Despite this history, some people seem to still consider this tradition charming. So, if it makes sense to you, have at it. At any rate, it would probably not make sense for someone to whom you never "belonged" to give you away. The worse case I ever heard of was one where the bride's little boy "gave her away."
If the bride has already "given herself away," especially many times over, the tradition makes even less sense and will come off as absolutely ridiculous to those who are thinking about it. She might as well just "give herself away" again by not pretending someone else is.
When I was young, some weddings were tacky, but the worst problems were an invitation seemingly issued from beyond the grave or printed on green paper so that the happy couple's faces were green. Now, they seem to be outrageously out-of-hand, as in the following examples.
The reception before the ceremony--in which case, there is no "new couple" for the community to receive, and no reason to celebrate. If you want to hold an engagement party, that's fine, but you might want to do it sooner than the night before the wedding. Guests don't like feeling hoodwinked showing up with a gift when you didn't actually get married yet. What if something happens and you don't? This falls into the tacky, bold, outrageous, and offensive category.
Gifts for the guests: one of the worst new trends is giving every guest a goody bag (possibly in lieu of thank you notes?). One can only guess that this was the bright idea of some wedding planner who noticed that some misguided, overindulgent parents thought that every child at a birthday party needed to receive, as well as give, a gift, and then capitalized on it. Sort of makes the whole gift-giving thing meaningless, huh? And, at one to three dollars a bag, this is really an expensive unnecessary expense to tack on to an already expensive day. Not a must-have.
Destination weddings: pretending that your wedding, your love, or maybe your own self is too special to waste on your local church or reception center is a headache and budget-breaker for everyone you know. If you really want to go to Tahiti, choose it for your honeymoon (if you can afford it--see above), and let great-grandma worry about getting uptown, not halfway across the world. Advice columns are full of people asking this question: "With attending the wedding costing me hundreds of dollars, do I really have to give a gift, too?" This is not the direction you want people going in.
Wedding colors: these days, it seems like two or three colors are picked at random, like Cabbage Patch Doll names--Dolores Josie or McKensie Nelly--that should have nothing to do with each other.
Risque wedding dresses. Please. Save it for him. Later. Don't make your guests feel like they married you, too.
Having the big traditional white no-holding-back wedding when the circumstances do not call for it. If it's not your first wedding, taste requires doing something small that doesn't scream "give me presents again." If people gave you wedding presents once upon a time, that's all it's nice to expect. Someone who already had a nice first wedding should not expect bridal showers or wear a white dress. The same goes for people who got married quietly a year ago, or already have children between them. If you chose to get married another way, that was your choice and your wedding. Instead of expecting the same people to come to big-and-fancy wedding after wedding, it would be charming to host a big 10th or 25th anniversary party in the future.
I see that things that would have been way out there a few years ago now seem necessary, and brides will die of shame not to have them, so it's no wonder the price of weddings has skyrocketed. Like having both showers AND bachelorette parties. Apparently, people COUNT on this stuff and come unglued if it's not perfect/better than everyone else's. Come on. Consider the current economy, if nothing else.
I once read in an etiquette book that there is something charming about being secretly better than how you present yourself. You know, instead of bragging and exaggerating your assets at the outset, being a little more educated, more generous, more wealthy, or more gracious than you at first let on. Modesty is the opposite of being a braggart. If you really want a charming wedding, spend a little less than you have, show a little less skin than you possess, and leave people (and yourselves) with a few of their own resources when your wedding is over. Make those you care about happy that they shared your day with you, and give them nothing to talk about except their hopes for your happiness.
Coming soon--what an obituary is.
Therefore, out of the goodness of my heart, I offer this public service message in attempt to get the world of weddings back to normal again.
A wedding is an event in which you marry someone. You do it in public so that your community can witness your vow to be married to that person.
That's really all it is! I swear!
So, think of a simple and charming way to do that, and you will save yourself and everyone you love and even just like a lot of grief. By charming, I mean understated, affordable, respectable, elegant, and refined. I do not mean cutesy, tacky, bold, outrageous, or offensive.
There are many small ways to make your wedding unique without trying to top everyone else you ever heard of or saw on TV, and without spending more money than you'll have in your lifetime--even if you're not planning on the money you spend being technically yours.
As getting married is one of the most visible and important bridges from childhood to adulthood, it's a good time to show your witnesses that you are an adult.
Looking at the questions posed to advice columnists and things I've heard about popular TV shows, it seems a lot of people plan to stage a display of their brattiest behavior ever as part of their wedding. The most outrageous plan to do this with other people's money.
Plan a wedding you can afford. Within your budget and savings, that is, not the limit of anyone's or everyone's credit card. Traditionally, the bride's parents pay for the wedding reception. That's still fine if they want to, or if the bride has not already established her own home and/or her own career. It's okay for the groom's family to help if they want to. But it is not okay to arm-wrestle either family into huge debt.
If the bride and groom are a little older, have their own means, have been married before, or want something the parents cannot afford, they should (as adults) foot the bill. (Within their budget and savings is best.)
Any questions?
"What about getting the guests to contribute?"
Ah, the guests. I'm glad you asked that.
No. Guests are not compelled to give gifts or money, and paying for the wedding means they are no longer "guests." Traditionally, guests give a present to help a young couple set up their own household. You know, people at that stage where it never occurs to them to buy their own Scotch tape or safety pins because their mom always has them. When you get married, you need your own stuff. Wedding presents are good for that, but they should be given voluntarily, which means the bride and groom are supposed to not count on them. Gifts are not admission to the wedding. Ideally, they are given from the heart, and the bride and groom should be delighted and surprised to be the recipients of generosity, however modest.
If the bride and groom have already set up their households--and particularly if they have already set up a household TOGETHER--gift-giving gets a little trickier. They should register for and expect less, not more. They should be thinking how lucky they are to need less, not how to get their friends to upgrade all their stuff.
"You mean you can't have a money tree or register for the stuff you want?"
Money trees fall in to the tacky, bold, outrageous, and offensive category. It's okay to register, but let's keep it down, huh? Register for your fine china and/or a few nice affordable household items to match your decor, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sleep in less than $300 sheets in your little one-bedroom apartment. Let people buy you one spoon if they want to, for example. And please limit the registry to things that are a little bit special. I have seen the following items on wedding registry lists: a swimsuit for the bride, socks for the groom, video games, packaged food, and even laundry bleach. Are they serious? Do they really want laundry bleach for a wedding present? Are they going to think fondly of Aunt Gladys as they pour it into the toilet, or what? It should be something that will last. Buy your own groceries, and let Aunt Gladys pick out a nice clock or toaster to be remembered fondly by. And the registry should only be mentioned to wedding guests who ask for that information. Since you're technically not supposed to even expect a gift, you don't want to be blatantly telling people what to give you, what to pay for it, and where to get it. The registry is to be helpful, not proscriptive.
I have seen registries that have very expensive items on them (come on, how many people are really going to spend $300 on your wedding besides maybe your parents?) and very silly, cheap things on them, but not very many reasonably-priced nice things. People don't want to give you hangers as a wedding present.
"Without a money tree, how can you have a decent honeymoon?"
You should take the honeymoon the groom or the couple or the groom's parents (when offered) can afford. The most important thing is being alone together. Where is almost beside the point.
The good news is, some people will give you money. But it's not nice to ask for it nor to count on it to fund your trip. There are honeymoon registries now, which I guess is okay, if people want to contribute that way, but I have to wonder if it really is tasteful not to take a trip you can already afford. Are brides and grooms already so tired of each other these days that just being together isn't what matters most?
Another question that comes up a lot is who, in a complicated family, should give the bride away. I understand that this can get tricky. I personally think that wedding ceremonies that don't require that are charming, but, to answer the question, it depends. Traditionally, the father does this. It is also okay to have a stepfather, grandfather, mother, or both parents do it. But think about what it means. This tradition started back in the Dark Ages when daughters never married by choice but were bartered like the property they were. The wedding was not their own idea, but a business deal between the groom and their father. I believe the father was actually dragging them to the altar and literally handing them over to another man. Modern women could ask themselves if this is a tradition they want to uphold.
The unseemly origin of giving the bride away also gave rise--I believe--to the tradition of the veil over the face. The veil was not lifted until the vows were finished. THEN, in some cases, the groom got his first look at the bride he'd just married. Maybe the veil also served to hide her tears. Or her identity. Some sister switcheroos were apparently performed way back when.
Despite this history, some people seem to still consider this tradition charming. So, if it makes sense to you, have at it. At any rate, it would probably not make sense for someone to whom you never "belonged" to give you away. The worse case I ever heard of was one where the bride's little boy "gave her away."
If the bride has already "given herself away," especially many times over, the tradition makes even less sense and will come off as absolutely ridiculous to those who are thinking about it. She might as well just "give herself away" again by not pretending someone else is.
When I was young, some weddings were tacky, but the worst problems were an invitation seemingly issued from beyond the grave or printed on green paper so that the happy couple's faces were green. Now, they seem to be outrageously out-of-hand, as in the following examples.
The reception before the ceremony--in which case, there is no "new couple" for the community to receive, and no reason to celebrate. If you want to hold an engagement party, that's fine, but you might want to do it sooner than the night before the wedding. Guests don't like feeling hoodwinked showing up with a gift when you didn't actually get married yet. What if something happens and you don't? This falls into the tacky, bold, outrageous, and offensive category.
Gifts for the guests: one of the worst new trends is giving every guest a goody bag (possibly in lieu of thank you notes?). One can only guess that this was the bright idea of some wedding planner who noticed that some misguided, overindulgent parents thought that every child at a birthday party needed to receive, as well as give, a gift, and then capitalized on it. Sort of makes the whole gift-giving thing meaningless, huh? And, at one to three dollars a bag, this is really an expensive unnecessary expense to tack on to an already expensive day. Not a must-have.
Destination weddings: pretending that your wedding, your love, or maybe your own self is too special to waste on your local church or reception center is a headache and budget-breaker for everyone you know. If you really want to go to Tahiti, choose it for your honeymoon (if you can afford it--see above), and let great-grandma worry about getting uptown, not halfway across the world. Advice columns are full of people asking this question: "With attending the wedding costing me hundreds of dollars, do I really have to give a gift, too?" This is not the direction you want people going in.
Wedding colors: these days, it seems like two or three colors are picked at random, like Cabbage Patch Doll names--Dolores Josie or McKensie Nelly--that should have nothing to do with each other.
Risque wedding dresses. Please. Save it for him. Later. Don't make your guests feel like they married you, too.
Having the big traditional white no-holding-back wedding when the circumstances do not call for it. If it's not your first wedding, taste requires doing something small that doesn't scream "give me presents again." If people gave you wedding presents once upon a time, that's all it's nice to expect. Someone who already had a nice first wedding should not expect bridal showers or wear a white dress. The same goes for people who got married quietly a year ago, or already have children between them. If you chose to get married another way, that was your choice and your wedding. Instead of expecting the same people to come to big-and-fancy wedding after wedding, it would be charming to host a big 10th or 25th anniversary party in the future.
I see that things that would have been way out there a few years ago now seem necessary, and brides will die of shame not to have them, so it's no wonder the price of weddings has skyrocketed. Like having both showers AND bachelorette parties. Apparently, people COUNT on this stuff and come unglued if it's not perfect/better than everyone else's. Come on. Consider the current economy, if nothing else.
I once read in an etiquette book that there is something charming about being secretly better than how you present yourself. You know, instead of bragging and exaggerating your assets at the outset, being a little more educated, more generous, more wealthy, or more gracious than you at first let on. Modesty is the opposite of being a braggart. If you really want a charming wedding, spend a little less than you have, show a little less skin than you possess, and leave people (and yourselves) with a few of their own resources when your wedding is over. Make those you care about happy that they shared your day with you, and give them nothing to talk about except their hopes for your happiness.
Coming soon--what an obituary is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)