I have been going nuts trying to remember the name of this series. From what I can remember it was about a girl who moved to a new town, and got a new (hot) boyfriend. They were friends with a girl and her boyfriend who always dressed in baggy clothing, even though they had great bodies (oh early '90s I love you). As time went on it came out that they (accidentally) killed the guy's ex-girlfriend. I remember there was an annoying friend who played an Edith Piaf record to mess with them (Je ne regrette rien). Also there was a girl who wore rice powder makeup, and they hung out in a diner and ate linzer cookies. The title had like diary or journal or something in the title. 

I would love to reread this series and so far I'm totally stumped. If anyone can help I'd be their new best friend.

Here's hoping,

Jenn

*****

I am looking for a science fiction novel. I read it in the 1990s (or possibly the late '80s) in paperback. 

In this novel, aliens came to Earth a long long time ago and replaced real life with some kind of dream life. Most people are little balls of glowing substance, but a few who are extra hardy (or hardy or something) are in some kind of suspended animation. People imagine lives and then get to act them out like some kind of super-immersive MMORPG (although the book was written before MMORPGs, so that term is never used).

The book starts with the narrator and his childhood sweetheart growing up in some middle-America small town in the mid-20th century. Neither of them knows that their lives are not "real," but the childhood sweetheart starts to figure it out, and eventually, she disappears, leaving behind a placeholder self. Eventually the narrator realizes that the "real" her is gone, and he figures out how to break out of the dream life too. I remember he ends up on a beach in Hawaii with piles of cash in his pockets, where he runs into the childhood sweetheart and they set out to have a lot of adventures in this dream world where they can be anything, do anything.

Eventually, they get all bored with that, and he goes to talk to one of the aliens. It turns out he is a little glowing ball but the sweetheart is in suspended animation. I recall that he asks if in all these centuries of dreaming, he ever had even one original dream or moment of a dream, and the alien says no. So the narrator and his sweetheart decide to leave the dream. The aliens hooks them up with new bodies and put them outside the dream complexes, which are in the plains of North America. Cities and all the traces of human occupation are gone except for the dome that leads back to the dreamworld. 

They get along okay and then the sweetheart gets sick or injured and they realize that they don't have the skill to survive in a wilderness. So they go back to the dome where the aliens agree to completely wipe their memories and put them back in the dream world. They decide to have their "first life" in a Native American tribe in the same area where they went when they were outside, so that after another round of centuries of dreams and adventures, when they get bored, they will have the skills to survive out there. 

I can't recall who wrote it, what it's called, anything USEFUL like that. And nothing I try on the internet has turned the thing up. I'm hoping one of the Vine readers can help me out here.

Thanks!

SorchaRei

I have an "expired friendship" question. I've known this friend (Mark, let's say) since our first year of college, which was nearly twenty years ago. I considered him one of my closest friends, and he would have said the same. He was always smart and funny and fun to be with. However.

About ten years ago, Mark told me that he suffered from addiction (sexually compulsive behavior and some drug issues). He'd hidden it from everyone for years. He was seeing a therapist, went to various twelve-step programs, and threw himself into recovery. That was all good, and while he's suffered relapses, he is a healthier person. His whole life, however, became about his recovery. He has few (maybe zero, now) friends that are not "from group," he attends group daily (sometimes several times a day), he goes on retreats, and he sees his therapist at least once a week. He became, really, a therapy addict and a zealot, insisting that everyone is actually sick and should be in therapy, and lots of it at that. I don't have a problem with therapy, but I don't think it's a panacea, nor is it for everyone.

So while it was good for him, to a point, his new therapy-centric life didn't fix his worst quality: tremendous self-involvement. In fact, therapy seemed to aggravate his narcissism by validating — in his mind, at least — his self-absorption. He'd always been unreliable, but now he was supposed to "focus on himself" and to him that meant license to never do anything he didn't feel like doing. Like skipping a friend's wedding (that was being held ten minutes away) because he didn't feel like going. There are dozens of examples, most small, some big.

For a while I forgave his thoughtlessness — he has an addiction, he's in recovery. But after ten years in recovery, and the millionth time he was rude to someone since he "needed to focus on me right now," I realized: this is just who he is. I would occasionally tell him that I felt I couldn't rely on him (and his unreliability was a running joke among our friends) and he would say that he didn't want to be that kind of person…but it never changed. He was never going to be done focusing on himself. So over a year and a half ago I took a break. There were precipitating events, though nothing out of the ordinary for him (he hurt the feelings of a friend who was visiting by repeatedly blowing him off). We didn't have a discussion, there was no fight, I just had had enough. He tried contacting me a few times, then he gave up.

I had some misgivings, of course, because I hate to walk away from such a long friendship. It was nice, however, to have the stress and anger out of my life. Any remaining misgivings were swept away when I discovered that a few months ago he dumped his dog (whom I had helped him adopt a couple years earlier through the shelter I volunteer for) back at the shelter. Reason? He needed more time to focus on himself. Working with homeless dogs is probably my one real passion, and after that, there really is no salvaging the relationship.

Today Mark emailed me saying he's been "looking at [his] past relationships" and that he wants see me to "connect with [me] about some of [his] past behavior." It's quite a formal email and he says he doesn't think this meeting would take a long time, so I don't think he is trying to restart the friendship. I instead get the distinct idea that the purpose of the meeting is therapeutic. I can't imagine what I might get out of the conversation, and that irritates me. I made a conscious decision to move on and now he wants to see me, not because of anything to do with me, but in order to help him understand his own behavior. From his email, I gather I'm either supposed to passively listen to him talk about his actions, or actively help him understand his past behavior. Neither is palatable to me, since both underscore his continuing narcissism.

The question! Do I sit there and listen to Mark talk about himself, or do I tell him I'm not up for it? If the latter, do I explain why, or if the former, do I relate to him my frustration at being used? I'm irked that I'm expected to be a sounding board as he navel-gazes, and even if what he contemplates is an apology or making amends…what is the point? I don't want an apology or amends; I just don't want to deal with him anymore. On the other hand, it's not like he's really asking for a lot, especially after so many years, and I generally like to be helpful and nice. I'm not an analyst — maybe he is really making progress in therapy that I don't see and something like this would really help him. So…I'm torn. And would welcome a fresh perspective on this.

Thanks. You can sign me…

So Very Tired Of This

Dear Tired,

I see what you're saying. I'd usually ask right up front what you want out of the interaction, but you've already got that straight for yourself: you don't want anything.

…Well, not from Mark. Another thing you want, I think, is to not come off like that asshole who wouldn't accept an amends from someone who's trying to get better, which is understandable, but 1) so is wanting to keep your distance here, and deciding to hold your boundary doesn't make you an asshole; and 2) my understanding, if this is in fact an amends scenario, is that the addict/amender understands that not everyone he approaches with amends is going to want to let him back in, even briefly, and he has a support structure for that. In other words, if you want to "do you" and not get sucked in, it doesn't make you a jerk and it won't shove him off the wagon.

By that same token, going and hearing him out doesn't make you a sucker by extension. You give him one last half-hour of your time, you hear him out, and you return to your life. Yeah, it's an imposition, but at this point, you know better than to expect anything from him, so you do him a small mitzvah and go back to not dealing with him.

…Hmm, I guess I'm torn also. You know what? Don't go, and here's why. You're already annoyed, and you're already trying to come up with ways to explain to him — for what it sounds like is the fiftieth time — why his self-absorption alienates you and hurts your feelings, and you shouldn't go back down that road, because the scenery isn't going to have changed. If you do feel like you can sit with him over a cup of coffee and listen to what he has to say and not feel a lava flow of "AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU AGAIN ARGH" rising into the back of your throat, great. If you already feel that lava flow, honestly, meeting up with him won't do much good for you or him.

So. Be real with yourself about whether reconnecting with him is going to dredge up the old feelings of disappointment and frustration that caused you to let the friendship go in the first place — and if it is, respond with a simple "I won't be able to do that; best of luck to you."

Okay, Nation: I need your help. Between claw pulls, tears, and the fullness of fashion time, my black-cardigan fleet is down to one acceptable option, and even that one is kind of a C-plus. I need you to find me black cardigan sweaters.

What is not wanted:

• crochet or other open weave
• three-quarter sleeves
• big, contrast-y, or otherwise showy buttons
• a cropped outline (I have a very long torso; a "boyfriend" cardigan on most of you hits me at the hip)
• aggressive/elastic bracelet cuffs or bottom edge
• vintage (see previous two list items for why)
• wrap or "shawl" cut — no closure + added bulk in front = ixnay
• 100% wool 

What is okay/workable:

• cashmere/expensive, within reason
• cheap or cheap-seeming; I ain't proud
• nipped, shaped, or fitted
• ruffles (little 'uns, within reason) or other "action," as long as it's not too young, because I…am not, anymore
• sequins (ditto)
• a bird on it ('cause I'm that guy) 
• any cardi that fits the above specs but isn't available in black (no pastels please)

Brands you can skip thinking about:

• Lands' End/Lands' End Canvas (cute on some; too boxy on me)
• J. Crew (good call, but they got nothin' right now)
• Target (already own three in other colors) 

Nation: This English major is chilly right here. SHOP FOR ME.

For the past couple of years, I have asked for my birthday/Christmas for a charitable donation (mainly DonorsChoose). I even had a housewarming and asked guests that instead of a hostess gift, they make a donation. This request comes from a genuine desire to donate to charity. Also, I tend to be particular about what I wear or keep around the house. I'm not trying to sound ungrateful, I am very blessed to have people in my life who are very kind and generous, but a charitable donation seems like the best and easiest way to take care of the gift-giving conundrum.

However, almost without fail, this never happens and I'm not sure why. My husband says we give enough to charity and he doesn't want to give any more. Other than that, there seems to be a real resistance from other people. Can you help understand why there is such a hesitance to giving donations, and if there is anyway I can help encourage it?

Thank you for your help and advice,

Vanessa

Dear Vanessa,

Assuming that you don't tend to suggest divisive or politically fraught non-profits as the recipients, it's probably that some people just don't like to buy from a list. They consider it "cheating," somehow, and whether it's a registry or an Amazon wish list, it's a shortcut that they can't bring themselves to take. I'm sure that, like every other engaged couple in the history of forever, you and your husband found yourselves writing "thank"-you notes for hideous and hard-to-store nonsense like a set of eight martini glasses with little charms on the stems, or a bread dough…something-ometer. You didn't put it on the registry, and you didn't put it on the registry because you had neither the room nor the desire to own the thing, but inevitably a couple of people consider it insultingly "unoriginal" to buy from a list, and it is important to them that you know that they thought about it, and went to some effort with it, and gave you a unique present. Gift-giving should not become about competition, or have a weird performative aspect to it…but it often is and it often does. People are weird and make things about themselves, and that's what Goodwill is for etc. and so on.

Another reason, which is sort of related, is that people get funny about money, by which I mean cash, in the gift "space." Like, the same person who will cheerfully drop $60 on a coffee-table book will get all pearl-clutchy about a $25 donation to charity, because a book is a gift, but a donation is money and that's tacky. It's not even conscious most of the time, I don't think, but if it feels like a transaction, some people get ooged out.

So that's why, probably. Alas, knowing why doesn't really mean you can — or I guess I should say "should" — do anything about it. Again, it's a gift, and the most you can do is, as you put it, "encourage" people to donate to Donors Choose or another worthwhile non-profit instead of buying you stuff. You can try making little jokes about cutting down on clutter in 2012; you can go the heartfelt "this organization really means a lot to me, so if you must buy a gift, a few bucks in their direction would be the best present"; you can just say "no gifts — your presence is your present" and hope nobody follows up.

But: they will. Or they will ignore you and buy some chenille horror, and you will have to act delighted by it. If it's a housewarming, they will bring you wine and novelty coasters, because this is the extent of the thinking most people want to do about a housewarming. Good news, though! 1) 99 percent of them mean well, and love you, so you can enjoy the process on that basis, and 2) there is nothing you can do about the behavior, so permission not to stress about it anymore, ever, is hereby granted. Thank friends and relations sincerely; display the item prominently, once, so they can see it; escort it off the premises with respectful promptness or whatever you want to do (but: maybe don't sell it on eBay? Or the next letter on The Vine will be about you? Just a thought); done, next thing. But a lot of people have a lot of cultural synapses about gifts that you will never re-carve for them, and trying to will only annoy and alienate everyone involved. Accept this, accept them, and go buy your own neat clothes and coasters and enjoy life.

There is an earworm that has been crawling around inside my brain for the better part of three decades, and I am seeking the assistance of TN's loyal readers in identifying (and possibly purging) it.

My family moved to the Puget Sound region in 1984 and we were devoted watchers of the two PBS stations that we could pull in on our little television via coat hanger and tin foil. One was KCTS 9, which is still on the air, but I don't remember the name/channel of the other one, and nothing I pull up online rings any bells. (I suppose it might even have been one of the Canadian channels.) Whichever station it was would put little filler pieces in between programs as necessary to even out the start/end times. One of these fillers was the source of my previously-mentioned earworm.

The piece was short and began with a group of interestingly-dressed musicians standing around in some studio space waiting for an off-camera cue. (The waiting was awkward and obvious, and usually caused me to do a little, "Aaannnnd, Action!" routine in front of the TV, which I found entertaining but I'm sure wearied my parents.) The group then launched in to their song, which I loved but do not know the exact name of. Neither do I know the name of the group. The lyrics that I remember go like this:

Chorus:

Come to the dance at D.J. McKay's 

there'll be (something something something)

and lights all a-blaze

Come faster, come quicker

bring lots of hard liquor

and if you come sober

you'll leave in a daze.

(I'm here to tell you, "come faster come quicker" is not a word combination you want to type into Google.)

Many verses about this shindig at Mr. McKay's followed, but I don't remember anything more specific until the last verse which goes something like:

Said D.J. McKay as they put ["hauled"? "took"?] him away,

"Dear God, what a glorious spree!"

The song was very folk-y (is that a word?) and some of the musicians looked a little like they had recycled parts of their old Renaissance-festival garb to wear for the taping. But they were talented, the song was quite enjoyable, and after all these years, I'm increasingly frustrated that I can find no trace of it. I would love to find a copy of the video online somewhere, but barring that, I would settle for the name of the group and a complete set of lyrics.

The only other information I can offer is that I can narrow the dates down to between March 1984 and late '86/early '87. After that, we finally got cable and we watched a lot less PBS.

Oh, and I did send off an e-mail to KCTS a couple of years ago, but their response basically said that they never kept records of the filler pieces from that era and they couldn't really help me. So I'm turning over my aging earworm to the Vine readers. Any help would be immensely appreciated.

Thanks,
PNW Expat

If I am describing how something relates to another thing, I generally use "in relation to" or "in respect of." However, I keep seeing the phrase "with respect to" used in the same way. My boss actually changed some a sentence recently to use "with respect to" rather than "in respect of" in this way: "an indication of what is to come with respect to a strategic, regional or landscape approach."

I think "with respect to" means something different to "in respect of." Like, you are giving actual respect to something or someone, not describing how something relates to another thing.

Am I in the wrong here?

In other words, is it "Our conclusion was influenced by consultation undertaken in respect of the Tomato Nation" or "Our conclusion was influenced by consultation undertaken with respect to the Tomato Nation"? I am not talking about the respect given to the Tomato Nation during that consultation, but rather that the Tomato Nation was the subject of the consultation.

Thanks so much,
Lauren

Dear Lauren,

My first instinct is twofold: 1) neither phrase has much to do with "respect" in the sense of esteem; 2) "in respect of" sounds like a clanky overcorrection to me, and I would change it to "with respect to" or "regarding" in any document in which I found it.

But your original letter placed terminal punctuation outside of quotation marks, which indicates that I shouldn't necessarily look to American English for an answer here. To the Google-ator! Among the things I found:

• a definition of "respect" that mentioned "with respect to," but not "in respect of"
• Wiki Answers lists "in respect of" as chiefly a British usage
• Merriam-Webster does the same
• …et cetera and so on

Garner expresses neither a preference for either phrasing nor an opinion on differing meanings, merely noting that either phrasing is better replaced with a single preposition. (Did you know you can follow him on Twitter? You can. You're welcome.)

So, shows what I know. I still don't believe there's any meaningful difference between the versions of the phrase; it's a matter of regional usage. I would advise you to rewrite that sentence entirely so it's less garbage-y corporate, to wit: "A consultation on the Tomato Nation influenced our conclusion."

The short version: the phrase itself is not wrong. Your interpretation of it as differing from the alternative is probably fictional.

About two to three years ago, I occasionally read a blog about a woman going through her second pregnancy. She had some kind of rare blood-clotting disorder that really only became a problem while pregnant. If I remember correctly, this was diagnosed after the premature birth of her first child. This little girl ended up passing away as a toddler from (I think) a lung infection — a side effect from her prematurity. The readers of the blog helped donate money for the funeral and other expenses.

Even though I started reading after that event, those entries made me cry. I stopped reading and can't remember the name of the blog, the name of the blogger or any of her family members, or even how I stumbled across it in the first place. I have no idea if it's still active.

Today I just found out that a good friend has some kind of blood disorder. From the details I recall from the blog, it is extremely similar to what the blogger had. My friend's was diagnosed after her third miscarriage. I would love to find that blog again. I'm not sure if I will pass it on to my friend (the story of losing their child might not be the best message for her right now) but maybe it has some links to support sites and more information. At least if the second pregnancy ended happily, it might give my friend some hope. 

I've tried Google but haven't had any luck. Other details I remember: the little girl visited the ducks shortly before she passed away, the father wrote a guest post or two about how he was trying to cope with the grief, the family possibly lived somewhere on the West Coast. The child she was pregnant with when I stopped reading would be about two now, if my own dates are right. The woman had some warning signs during her first pregnancy that were dismissed by the doctors. With careful management, she was hopeful she could carry the second child full-term but was of course nervous. I think the blog had a reasonable-sized readership — it wasn't like I stumbled across a personal blog that was only for family and friends. I really enjoyed her writing, and now that I've remembered the blog because of my friend's situation, I am very curious to find out how things worked out for her, and I hope it can help me find some resources for my friend. 

Any help the Nation would give me would be very much appreciated!

Thank you,

Forgetful Reader

*****

Hi Sars,

The Nation readers helped me with a childhood book title in the past, so I was hoping someone might be able to identify this one:

It's a young-adult book, set in London after WWII. The main character, Philip, is a teenager who is sent to stay with his great-aunt Jane while his widowed mother takes a nursing course. Jane, who has never married, still lives in her childhood home with Philip's teenage cousin (and Jane's great-niece) Susan. Although Philip is initially sullen about being sent to live with Jane and Susan, he gradually adapts as he and Susan bond over a mysterious light which appears nightly in the window of a room upstairs (or possibly the attic). They eventually enter the room while the light is on and discover a scene from Jane's adolescence being replayed. Philip and Susan discover that Jane was betrayed by her father, who decided not to pass on letters from her suitor, who later died in WWI.

I read the book sometime around 1995, but I think it was originally published in the 1970s, or perhaps even earlier. I thought the title was similar to "The Light in the Window" or "The Light Upstairs," but searches along those lines have yielded nothing.

I know it's a long shot, but does anyone recognize this book?

Thanks,

AK

"H" and I have been friends for seven years. For the first four, we were very close; then I moved schools and we both went to university, so we saw each other less often, but still talked on the phone and met up regularly.

She is a much more dramatic and sensitive person than me, and over the years I've seen several of her friendships go up in flames. I know it takes two people to argue, and I've always been supportive of H when she's been upset. I've always been quite sarcastic and cynical, as are most of our friends, but I always try to tone it down around H if I think she won't appreciate the joke. Having said all this, we're very similar in lots of ways, have had loads of fun together and have never had a serious argument. She's been a good friend to me, and up until a few weeks ago I thought she felt the same way about me. I really hope the following isn't too confusing.

This past summer we spent a lot of time with our other friends in the town we all come from, although this tailed off in the last few weeks of the holidays as we went on holiday with our families. About a week before term started, I received a long email from H which said that she thought we "hadn't really spoken" over the summer, that our interests were diverging and that she had decided "not to contact [me]" again because she thought I didn't find her interesting, but had decided to resume contact because she wanted to know what I thought about the whole issue.

It was a pretty confusing email and I wasn't sure exactly what she wanted from me, but it was clear that I'd hurt her feelings, so I replied saying — truthfully — that I hadn't noticed that she didn't think we'd been getting along well, I was sorry if I'd seemed rude and she should have just said something casually. I also mentioned that, over the summer, H had said to me that she didn't think she was getting on well with some of our other friends, trying to suggest (although I didn't say it) that maybe the problem was with her and not me. I accepted that I might have accidentally been rude to her — I don't think I was, but it's a totally subjective issue and I fully acknowledge that I could have upset her.

I should also mention that when H talks about "speaking" to someone she means "having the kind of conversation you have at 3 AM when you're 14, about which teachers you secretly have a crush on and how you do kind of wish you were one of the popular girls." This is related to something I asked her about in my reply, which was her opinion that she's interested in "us and why we are the way we are," as in our small group of friends and acquaintances, and I'm interested in "films, politics and literature, and the outside world in general." That she would present these as opposing interests which meant that we could no longer be friends completely baffles me. Sars, I know that university changes people, but I've always been interested in "the outside world," which isn't to say that I'm not interested in gossip or hearing about my friends' lives. She seemed to be saying "I'm more interested in myself and my friends than anything else; sorry."

H replied thanking me for being so "kind," apologising for being "overly sensitive" and basically suggesting that we forget the whole thing. She said that she couldn't really explain what she meant about our different interests. When we met up a few days later, she apologised again and seemed genuinely embarrassed. Apart from that, everything was as normal — no sign of the apparently insurmountable difference in interests. This was all a few weeks ago, and since then two things have been bugging me:

1) She said she decided never to contact me again (before changing her mind)! This only really struck me recently, but surely it's pretty rude to tell someone that you decided your friendship with them was over. Although you might have a different interpretation, in my opinion her email basically said "I don't really like you anymore, but I want you to know that it's all your fault. Hey, want to apologise?" I now think I might have been too kind in my reply in an effort to reduce any awkwardness in the future, because even if H had stuck to her decision never to contact me again, we would definitely have seen each other at parties, etc.

2) I didn't really care. I have so many friends from whom an email like this would have been really upsetting, but my reaction to this was nothing more than irritation. I think this is a mixture of knowing how dramatic H can be and also just…not really caring. I'm sorry that she was upset, but I wouldn't have minded if our friendship never picked up again. She may have picked up on this before I did, which would explain why she felt I was being rude to her. I just don't know, because until she emailed me I had no idea that I felt like this. This might be a simple case of "friendships have a lifespan," except that H doesn't know what she wants. I know this sounds odd, but I don't really mind either way.

Basically, my questions are: What exactly happened here? Was H wrong to express her anger/sadness/irritation by telling me that she had decided to end our friendship? Was I too kind to her, or not kind enough? My instinct at the moment is to do what H wants and forget the whole thing — maybe it was caused by another problem in her life which she hasn't told me about — but I need some perspective on this.

Thanks,

Yes, we really are 19

Dear Nineteen,

I think you're right that H picked up on your…well, "apathy" is maybe a little harsh, but the fact that you don't have as much invested in the friendship as she apparently does. So, to answer your first question, I think that's what happened: she sensed that she doesn't mean as much to you as you do to her; she decided to make a big old drama out of capital-W Walking Away from it; when you failed to follow her, which she could have predicted, because you don't care as much as she does, she decided to make sure you knew she'd changed her mind about storming out of the relationship. That would get your attention, in a way that a more graceful withdrawal from/acceptance of the evolution of the friendship would not, and your attention is the central issue for H, I would guess — that she doesn't get enough of it, or the right kind, or whatever, and she hasn't gotten to that point in her life where she can accept that not everybody is BFF, or manage her feelings about that.

As far as whether it's "wrong" for H to have handled it that way…yeah, I suppose. "Wrong-headed" is probably more accurate, because at best, she overreacted to a simple miscommunication and now she looks like a dramaholic. More likely, she's playing on a sense of guilt, or pity, to keep you close to and/or paying attention to her; that isn't the most awesome friendship foundation, but…honestly, I don't know how much of a "friendship" this is. You walk on eggshells around her; the way you describe her hurt feelings, it's like a lawyer instructed you on how to phrase it so as not to draw any further ire, with the "subjective" this and the "I fully acknowledge" that. It's…not actually that subjective. Girl needs to grow a thicker skin, like yesterday, especially if she's going to try to provoke her so-called besties with condescending nonsense about how she's just more interested in people than in books, or…whatever that was.

She's got some growing up to do, and that being the case, you handled it the best way you could have. You let it go, which is the smart play; you took the least enmeshed, operatic route. I don't think a harsher tone or response would have helped the situation, but I do think you spend more time on managing her oversensitivity than your stated feelings for her would warrant. Don't you think? For instance: "I always try to tone it down around H if I think she won't appreciate the joke." Well, fine, that's nice of you, but if you can't even be yourself around her, what's the point of any of this. Not appreciating a joke is not going to kill her, and you calling her on it when she gets way oversensitive and brings the whole room down isn't going to kill you, either. In fact, it sounds like it's overdue.

The short version: she's a drama queen. She'll get over it eventually. Regardless, stop handling her like she's a bomb with 4 seconds left on the timer; you have better ways to spend your time.

I have hair. And when I say that, I mean I have hair. It doesn't go far past my shoulders, but it is thick, and coarse, and full of weird waves and cowlicks. It has been compared to "horse hair" by several people who have gotten their hands on it. This is some hair, people.

Basically, the only way to get it out of my way is to twist it back in one of those big hair claws. I've had one for years, and since it's plastic, it looks like I've had it for years. I've looked for metal ones, but they're either tiny, or they're those glittery ones encrusted with rhinestones that weigh a ton and look right only on brides or fifteen-year-olds. I've looked on Etsy, but the ones there tend to be made of cigar bands or have huge flowers attached. I just want some nice, plain, metal hair claws big enough to hold hair that is the width of a respectable hot-dog bun. Anyone got an idea where to get them? Or, failing that, an easy way to sweep big, thick hair back with pretty accessories?

Sincerely,

Hair Clogs My Vacuum Cleaner Every Week

Dear Clog,

I have fine, thin hair that's only fluffy enough to take even a teeny claw clip because I wreck it to hell with blonde hair color every six weeks, so I will not be a ton of help. But I have friends with thick "horse" hair, and my first recommendation, for any hair type, is to get a stylist who understands how to deal with your particular hair. My girl Angela knows my head; she understands how to layer to give me more volume, that she has to cut "on the bias" in the back because my cowlick placement is kooky, etc. Try to find your own Angela, one who will suggest thinning out your hair underneath so it isn't quite such a massif, and who shows you how to style it yourself at home, using tools or a pomade or whatever. I learned a sweet tip to help me with straightening last time I went in.

I say this because, if you've reached the point where you twist it up in the same clip every day…I mean, you may as well cut it all off. I don't think you want to do that, but if you care enough about how it looks to ask for "pretty accessories," you care enough about it to experiment with it, and spend some time on it, and I think you've kind of convinced yourself that your hair is intractable and that styling it every day would take a full hour and you're Not That Guy. This isn't a judgment — I was like that — but a good hair wrangler can 1) get you a cut that works WITH your hair and 2) teach you how to do it yourself (or close enough) in your own bathroom, which 3) gives you some options for leaving it down sometimes.

…This isn't what you asked, but since recently re-achieving Ponytail Length, I'm kind of an evangelist for giving yourself a menu of styles. Don't let your past narrative of "oh, nobody can do anything with this mane" close off your options.

Anyway! Google "Goody Corporation" to see what they've got going on (I believe you can finally order direct from their site now?), and let's see what the readers recommend.

*****

Hi Sars,

I am looking for non-fiction books to read. I try to read four books at a time, because I am insane — a "fun" fiction, usually something genre or light and beachy, like the True Blood books; a classic or at least well-written piece of fiction; a fun non-fiction, usually a celebrity biography or something of that nature; and a serious (read: educational) non-fiction. I have more fiction titles in my queue than I can probably finish in my lifetime — I am looking for suggestions on the non-fiction side, especially for the serious/educational side.

For the serious category, I am open to reading most any topic — economics, business, sociology, psychology, science (if it's not too in-depth), history, politics, GLBT studies, etc.; so long as I can learn from it I'm happy. Only thing off limits is biographies of the more nauseating Republicans (if I was trapped on a desert island and it was the only thing available to read, I STILL would not read Going Rogue). Two books I recently enjoyed were Lies My Teacher Told Me and A Short History of Nearly Everything (which was exactly the right level for me in a science book — not childish, but not so in-depth I didn't understand or get bored). For the non-serious side, celebrity biographies of actors mostly, or humorists like David Sedaris are the kinds of things I enjoy.

I strongly prefer the recommendations be available for Kindle, but I would consider buying the paper book if it's really that good.

Thanks,

Sophie's Choice For Me Would Be My Kindle Or My TV 

Dear Sophius,

I'll let the readers handle this one, mostly, but I've got a couple of suggestions.

One is the works of William Poundstone. He's the author of the Big Secrets series, which I mention on here alllll the tiiiiiime, and he started publishing those…Jesus, 30 years ago. So some of the information is not the most recent, and I don't know that they're Kindle-able. (…"Kindlable"? Can I get a ruling?) But it's a ton of info about "secret" stuff like the formula for Coke and KFC; the Masons; Scientology; celebrities' real ages; those phantom radio frequencies that only broadcast one letter; that kind of thing. Poundstone's tone is dry, but not TOO dry, and he's also written things like The Ultimate, which settles great armchair debates, and Fortune's Formula, which is about betting systems — again, written so civilians can enjoy it, and if you like books about blackjack and games, that's a great one.

I'm also in the middle of Earl Swift's The Big Roads: The Untold Story of the Engineers, Visionaries, and Trailblazers Who Created the American Superhighways. It's not easy to make state-congress infighting over transportation funding interesting, but Swift does a great job, and his prose evokes the times really well.

So that's what I've got for you. (Friend me on Goodreads if you want to see my true-crime "shelf." It's terrifying.) Readers, hit Sophius with some suggestions, but please confine yourself to THREE (3) SUGGESTIONS PER so he's not overwhelmed. Thanks!

My best friend is just that because she's fun, honest, caring, and a truly good person. I know I can count on her for…well, almost everything.

Here's the thing — BF believes she can't have a good time unless there's alcohol involved. Two DUIs on her record now. She just got her license back on a restricted basis (for the second time) and absolutely cannot ever have even one drink and get behind the wheel, ever again in this state. I've been the DD for the last few years whenever we go out.

She's my concert and sushi buddy, we go several times a month to shows or local events and maybe once a week for dinner. I'm ready for someone else to drive now. I like to enjoy a couple of beverages, but when I'm DD I don't drink at all, or just limit to one. And it's not just my wanting to drink too, it's also my having to be physically alert and ready to drive late at night, every time. Public transportation is terrible in this area, especially at night, so that's not an option. Most of the shows and events are at least an hour away.

I've talked to BF about this, telling her it's time to go sober for an evening, it's her turn to drive. She's not happy about this at all, saying it won't be fair to her if I have alcohol and she can't. She is insisting that we can stay at a hotel whenever we go out, so she can still drink. I don't want to do this, because I have an older dog and won't leave her alone and locked up in the house for that long. Also, hotels = expensive.

I'm a little old to whine, "It's not fair!" But — it's not. I'm tired of being the responsible one. I want my turn to lean the seat back in the car and snooze on the way home for once. Am I being whiny, or do you think I have a valid point?

Thanks!

Starting To Become Resentful And I Don't Like Me This Way

Dear Resentful,

No, it's not whiny; yes, you have a valid point. Of course, the real point here is that BF is incapable of socializing without lubrication. I mean, the obvious solution, in a vacuum, is for the two of you to alternate occasions as designated driver — but outside the vacuum, you had to ferry her from pillar to post for years thanks to her DUI issues. Really, your friend should drive you both everywhere, without complaining or even giving you a chance to ask her to, and she should drink green tea on these outings and shut up about it.

But she's dependent enough on booze that that doesn't occur to her. You take your turn — and hers — without thinking much about it, because you don't need to drink, or to drink more than an Amstel, to enjoy yourself. She can't envision taking her turn as DD, because if she doesn't have the option of getting fucked up, she can't deal.

This is how it goes sometimes with alcoholics, or with people who are, for lack of a better term, situational alcoholics — there's some toxicity or anxiety or sadness in their lives that booze dulls or lets them forget — and it's heartbreaking, and frustrating, not least because the only thing you can do is drop a boundary around it. It won't change BF's behavior or make her do anything, but it will keep you from resenting her, and it will let you relinquish control of her actions back to her, where it belongs.

The next time she's all, "But then I can't drink, wah wah," tell her what you just told me. "BF, it's your turn. It's been your turn. I don't like driving every time, I can't afford a hotel, and if you won't drive, we won't go. Decide what you want to do; I'm changing the subject now." "But –" "No. I've done enough driving. Take your turn, or I stay home. Next topic."

She'll probably get pissed, because she's not getting her way or because she's forced to examine the cost of the behavior. The first thing she can just get over, and the second thing she should have done after the first drunk-driving charge anyway. It's up to you if you want to expand the conversation into a come-to-Jesus about her relationship with alcohol, telling her that you don't judge her, but it concerns you that she's still this unwilling to consider going sober for the evening now and then. She's your best friend, after all, and people don't do this dance with Messrs. Beam and Jameson because they love the taste. She's unhappy and she's in denial, and you may want to say, hey, I noticed that this is pretty messed up, and I'm mentioning it because I love you.

You don't have to; you don't have to do it now; you don't have to enjoy the fact that drawing this line means you may have to miss a few shows, or get into A Thing with your best friend. But if you don't want to keep driving? Stop. Refuse to give in; tell her why; stick to it.