The Vine: September 3, 2008
Sars,
I’ve got a question that’s about either etiquette, friendship, or both. Here goes:
Recently, my girlfriend and I spent a week in a quaint European city with a group of friends. We rented a few apartments in the same building so everyone had their own bed. The GF and I ended up sharing an apartment with our friend, “Bob,” who was recovering from a breakup with a long-term boyfriend. The apartment was a small 2BR and, in exchange for a balcony, my girlfriend and I ended up in the smaller room. Not a big deal, we just had to leave most of our stuff out in the living room.
A great time was had by all. Sight-seeing by day, hitting the clubs at night. Bob, always a drinker, was drinking a little more than usual, and bringing guys home more than I expected, but, hey, vacation, break-up. I understood. The gf and I usually ended up getting back to the apartment earlier than Bob, which was fine. He never woke us up, even the sight of his new friends leaving in the morning didn’t phase us.
Then, two days before the end of the vacation, we heard Bob come in with someone, and shortly thereafter tell him that he had to leave. A small crash, the door closing, then silence. So we went back to sleep. We awoke to find Bob passed out in a pile of vomit on the bathroom floor. We roused him, stuck him in the shower and made sure he was okay. No big deal, he’d have done the same for me.
The thing is, our camera was gone. Presumably stolen by the mystery man. When Bob was sober enough to comprehend, he felt awful, apologized, etc. What he didn’t do was offer to buy us a new camera.
Time has passed and I’m still angry he didn’t offer to replace the camera. I know I’m more upset about losing the card with hundreds of pictures of us frolicking in Europe than the actual camera. When I said as much to Bob, he did offer to email me copies of his pictures, which, not the same thing. At all. I feel a little guilty for being angry and offended, but I am.
My questions are: 1) Shouldn’t have he at least offered to replace our camera since it is gone thanks to him? 2) Am I a bad friend for wishing that it had been his camera that was stolen?
Thanks,
I want my thousands of words back
Dear Thousands,
1) If I were Bob, I would have offered.Well, up to a point; I wouldn’t replace a thousand-dollar camera, because a piece of equipment that expensive, you should probably store it in your bedroom at night.
2) Not really.This is what I call “you play; I pay” behavior; most friendships run up against it at one point or another, and you get past it (and, in my circle, turn it into teasing fodder for later), but at the time it’s annoying.
The thing to keep in mind here is what you actually resent.It’s not the camera itself, although having to replace that is irritating; it’s the pictures you had on the camera when it was stolen, which can’t be replaced — and it’s Bob’s failure to apologize for what you actually resent, versus suggesting a solution that isn’t the point.
Speak forthrightly to Bob.Tell him what you’ve just told me.It sounds like you’ve hinted that the memory card was the issue — I don’t know exactly what you said, but I don’t get the impression that you told him, in so many words, “Your behavior led to the theft of my camera.I wanted those pictures, not yours, and now I can’t see them.It’s not the end of the world, and I feel guilty for being angry and offended…but I am, and I think you should have offered to replace the camera as an acknowledgment that this wasn’t my fault.”
“But I don’t want to bring it up again — he’ll think I’m harping!”Okay, then.Your other choices: let it fester; let it go.But if what you want in order to repair the friendship is to let him know that he didn’t take the theft of your possessions with the appropriate seriousness, it is evident that you will have to say exactly that.You will have to say that it felt to you like, on top of the inconvenience to you, he didn’t care that much.
If what you want is the camera back, though…not gonna happen.Assigning blame correctly won’t reverse the consequences.Talk to Bob or don’t, but: move on.
Dear Sars,
I may have made some mistakes that brought me to this situation, but things as they stand now:
I have signed a lease in City B where I have an offer for Job B that I was going to take. I am to move out of my current apartment by September’s end. I am currently still in City A at Job A. I received a response from Job B shooting down my counteroffer, but that’s alright.
Job A is great. I have a mentor and I get the plum assignments for entry-level people and just yesterday received a 14% raise.
So why would I leave Job A for Job B?
1) Job A is not on a career path I see working out long-term. If it were to be my career path, I would need to take time off to get a PhD anyway to end up at the level I want to attain.
2) Job B is something like a 30% pay cut and frankly, it’s an easier job. I am not sure I could ever completely overcome my prejudices and respect myself or my work if I went into this field instead of something more personally challenging. Job B wouldn’t be too bad, but if the alternative were working an administrative job at an interesting company and studying and volunteering on the side, it would be a tough call.
3) I would much rather live in City B than in City A. City A is a terrible place for me to live. The crime is bad. I can’t walk outside after dark, which I love, and there is no real public transportation or ease of parking. City B would be a great place to live — though it is smaller than City A, it has enough culture and is more convenient to my friends and family. There is nature to enjoy and crime is miniscule compared to where I live now.
Is it foolish for me to be considering an Option C? I am thinking of taking this year “off” — living in City B, but only working for a bit of liquidity and studying and talking with professors and trying to prepare for grad school. Traveling and such, trying things to get a direction before committing to the huge expense of grad school. Helping/forcing my father to get my mother’s things finally in order and figure out where we are financially. (She passed away my last year at university, which is part of the reason I went straight to work without more serious consideration of grad school.)
I know it’s a luxury and a risk (both monetarily and time-wise) to take that time off, but a recent post of yours makes me wonder if it’s worth it. What if I come out with no direction, etc.?
Advice, Sars? Thank you for your time, either way. I appreciate your blog.
Regards,
As Of Yet Less Than Structured Risk
Dear Risk,
Thanks for the kind words.I don’t know for sure which post of mine you mean, but it’s not like I don’t refer to my dad’s words of wisdom on this point all the time anyway, so let’s hear them again: if you aren’t sure what to do, take a moment and do nothing.
A moment can mean an actual moment (this is the Let’s Not Panic And Make Things Worse School of Light Plumbing and Pasteboard Furniture Repair); it can mean a few weeks or months.The idea is that too much doing precludes clear thinking, basically.
I would need more information in your specific case — for starters, I have no idea which fields you’re in, which might help me somewhat — but despite our culture’s allergy to the concept of the mental walkabout, it’s often very beneficial.It sounds to me like you can take Job B and just kind of float through it, so why not do that for six months or a year — make enough money to live, leave at 5:30 every day, and give yourself some room to think ahead?
Or take a different job, Job B.5, something that has nothing to do with anything but makes you some regular money.Move to City B and see how you like it, and find a Job B that lets you live there.Write some five-year-plan lists.Wander around some neighborhoods.This doesn’t sound like doing nothing, but it’s the difference between treading water, which isn’t always a negative, and swimming like hell towards a port city you’re not sure you want to visit.
If you can afford it, take the time.Decide how much time right up front, tell yourself you’ll have a plan in place by the end if that makes you feel more secure, and just drift.Let everything come into focus.It’s not easy to make yourself do, but it’s worthwhile.
Is the word “cliché” really an adjective? My copy of Webster’s says that “cliché” is a noun, full stop. I keep noticing people using it as an adjective (as opposed to “clichéd”) — at first I thought they just weren’t enunciating very well, but then I started seeing it in writing.
Are people misspeaking, or is this becoming accepted usage?
A Penny for Your Thoughts?
Dear A Stitch In Time Saves Vine,
“That’s so cliché” — gah.HATE that usage.I fear that it’s one of those descriptivist things, though, where it’s become accepted because so many people use it incorrectly that you might as well move the correct line behind it.Let’s check the books…
…Boo, 11C!My Webster’s 11th Collegiate lists “cliché” as an adjective; it’s the third of three in order of preference, but it’s there.Garner has an entry on clichés, but only to caution against using them, not on the word itself.
I’ll spare you the rant, but see my comments here.Hate it; will change it in any document I edit.
Tags: etiquette friendships grammar workplace
“That’s so cliché” has no right to live in a world in which “That’s such a cliché” can survive.
Urgh. I know what you mean, Penny–that bugs me too. I only recently saw a couple of guys arguing over another common pet peeve: “Regime” vs. “regimen”. The former means administration or rule, as in “Peron regime”, “Noriega regime”, and so forth. The latter refers to routine or practice, as in “My beauty regimen includes weekly facials”.
At least, I THINK that’s correct. If I’ve got it backwards, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Although this wouldn’t apply to that many people, I suspect the reason some folks avoid adding the “d” to the adjective form of cliché in English is that “é” is the typical ending for a past participle (including the past-participle-used-as-adjective) in French (like “ed” is in English), and so it sounds a bit redundant to anyone familiar with French — the “d” at the end of cliché sounded to my French ear like an overcorrection. Or just wrong, like “hackneyeded” would. I am therefore embarrassed to admit that, as a French speaker, I always assumed cliché was both a noun and an adjective in French; I was surprised to learn just now by looking it up in a French dictionary that in French it is only a noun and not an adjective. There is no adjective form as such of cliché in French except as a phrase; in French, if you want to describe something as clichéd, you’d have to say something like it is “full of clichés.” Anyway, that’s just my $0.02. I love how flexible and adaptable English is, and how free it is to steal useful words from other languages and bend them to its will… :)
@LaBellaDonna: Awwww. Poor Don LaFontaine. RIP.
Sars,
If you ever print up the diploma ( or anything else) for the
“Let’s Not Panic And Make Things Worse School of Light Plumbing and Pasteboard Furniture Repair” I want one. Maybe a few, for friends.
thanks.
I think Stitch should stick to her or his guns. I was as surprised as Lisa that “cliché” appears not to exist in French as an adjective; as Lisa points out, it looks like it obeys the rules for being one. I don’t really have a problem with it as over-correction. I guess if “flambéed” and “sautéed” are okay in English, “clichéd” should be, too. (I know – looking for consistency in usage is … kind of insane.) “That’s so cliché!” makes me wince. But then the whole trend of constructions (mis)using “so” make me antsy. (cf: “You are so fired!” and all the “hilarious” catchphrases it spawned.)
A brief digression: when did “moreso” become a word? Egad, seeing that makes me stabby. It’s two words! (And often used incorrectly even when so spelled!)
So odd that this discussion (particularly “hackneyeded” above) came up today. Within the past three hours I have heard both “drownded” and a driver’s license referred to as plural, I suppose because the word ends with an “s” sound. My fingernails were growing out nicely and everything, but they’re gone now and won’t be back for some time.
@Thousands
For some reason, I want to know if you even got a copy of his photos. If you were me, I think I’d come to the conclusion that while friend was in the wrong, in the end I was also angry with myself for not storing my valuables closer to my person when strangers were rambling about the house.
Is there a possibility that the camera wasn’t stolen, but lost? Do you have a distinct memory that it made it home that day? Just wondering if there’s a chance of it showing up here: http://ifoundyourcamera.blogspot.com/
If we give free reign to the affect of misformed grammars, it will decimate our ability to conversate.
Risk: Life is about way more than your profession. City/Job B sounds great, except maybe for the pay cut. But if you can afford it, sounds like that situation is FAR better. Closer to family/friends, more free time, safer environment… sounds heavenly. You seem like a very intelligent, balanced person, take your pride from that rather than your job title. Too many people focus too much on What I Do For A Living than how happy I am in the rest of my life.
I *may* be projecting, as I go through a career crisis of my own. But I still think it’s good advice, and that you should at least do what Sars advises and take six months or a year in the “worse” job/better situation to figure things out.
@Sars: “Dear A Stitch In Time Saves Vine”… *snrrk* *eye roll* *SNRRK*
Risk: I can totally second Sars on this… I did the dreaded not-going-to-college-straight-out-of-high-school thing, which got me plenty of acceptance from my workaday parents but all kinds of dire assessments from others, who swore that if I didn’t do it now, I’d never do it at all. Humph.
Fast forward a few years, 1991, to yet another dead-end job. I got fed up and announced that I was quitting the job, and would be taking two weeks to figure out if I was going to start school or what, and for what degree if so. No harping allowed, and I would not be job-hunting during this time, either. Freaked my folks right out, let me tell you: “You quit a full-time job IN THIS ECONOMY?!? Little did we all know.
Anyway, they let me be, and by the end of the time, I had a plan for school, a degree I could get passionate about, and eventually, a career that I still love. The time was key though, and while half a month was fine to get me started in junior college, you’re thinking of graduate school here. Take the time you need, stop looking so hard, and the answers will come clear. Best of luck to you!!
Cliché is a pisser because, like many adjectives, it comes from the past participle of a verb (like tired, worn, etc), only in French (it’s the past participle of clicher, to stereotype). Used as an adjective, I see it in the same light as “passé” – you’d never say that something outmoded was “passéd.”
Thousands: Just a note — you say your camera is gone, “thanks to him,” meaning Bob. I’d point out that your camera is gone thanks to the person who stole it. While it’s true that Bob let the person into the apartment, if you had never suggested to Bob that you expected him not to bring home strangers and had actually made it clear that you considered bringing home strangers to be an acceptable use of shared spaces, then…I mean, you got robbed. Your camera got stolen. You’re a victim of a crime. It’s very unfair, but it’s not really Bob’s fault. You say Bob “felt awful” and that he apologized, and that seems appropriate and adequate to me. As Sarah says, it would have been nice if he’d offered within reason, but honestly, if he’d offered, I’d have said you should say no. Bob didn’t steal your camera.
Sometimes, things get stolen, and I think Bob’s wrongdoing here, given what were apparently the house rules about guests, is pretty minimal. I mean…I also tend to agree with Sarah that I wouldn’t have stored the camera in the living room. I know you say you were short of space in the smaller bedroom, which I’d understand if someone stole your steamer trunk, but…y’know. Camera. So Bob’s behavior gave the thief access to the camera, but so did yours, and I don’t think it makes either of you to blame. If Bob had ordered food and the delivery person had stolen the camera, would you expect Bob to pay for it? At some point, it’s just theft, and Bob was just the way you happened to encounter that thief.
Your camera was stolen while you were on vacation; you’re not the first, and you won’t be the last.
While we’re at it, shouldn’t it be “even the sight of his new friends leaving in the morning didn’t FAZE us”? That one always makes me cringe.
Thousands, I’d be ticked at Bob, too, although I agree with Sars in that the camera probably should have been in the room with you. I mean, the room can’t have been THAT small that two people couldn’t fit into it and still fit a camera, right? (If it was, next time let Bob have the balcony.)
Second, you must be way more mellow than I am. I’d be really creeped out if total strangers were coming in and out of the apartment I was staying in. In this day and age, it’s just unsafe – you just don’t know who you might be bringing into your space. (See the New York papers if you don’t believe me – a couple of days ago, in my parents’ neighborhood, a bright, promising, 19-year-old college student was murdered by another young man he’d met that night and brought home.)
I’m sorry you lost your camera/pix – that’s definitely a hard lesson learned. I agree that Bob should have offered to replace it, because if it were me, I’d feel that an apology without an offer to replace the item was insincere.
Hey Risk. One option to consider if you do decide to just chill for the year in City B, if you’re looking for some disposable income and a disposable job is waiting tables or some other restaurant-related job. The hours can be as flexible as you want, which gives you time for thinkin’, and it’s a good way to meet some cool folks when you’re new to a city. I moved to a new city where I had a couple of friends, but one left town a couple of months after I moved and the other was buried in law school, so it ended up being the outlet where I met a bunch of folks that I still keep in touch with 14 years later.
Another flexible work idea for Risk – Kaplan/Princeton Review/equivalent. The money can be *great*, it’s fun, and very flexible. Some people love waiting tables – me, not so much. Whenever I’ve needed a part-time job, one of my main criteria has been that the pay makes it worth my time. Test prep should be somewhere in the $17-$25/hour range, which can be tough to beat for similarly flexible hours.
“I’d feel that an apology without an offer to replace the item was insincere.”
I think it is a little insincere, because Bob is apologizing for something that he knows isn’t his fault. With no Bob, there’d be no guest, and there’d be no thief, but it’s still not Bob’s fault. Consider: I ask you to come over and help me move a sofa. On your way here, you get in a fender bender. I will say, “Oh, yeesh, I’m sorry,” and I will certainly feel bad for you that you got in an accident while coming to help me. But it’s not my responsibility to pay to have your car fixed.
Yes, with no Bob, no thief. But Bob had either explicit permission or implied permission to have guests over, and that’s the decision you guys made. And if you made it assuming, “If one of these punks steals something, I’m sure Bob’s good for it,” I think that was a mistake. That he inadvertently brought a thief into your life doesn’t make your friend responsible for the theft.
I always thought of “That’s so cliche” as a deliberate misuse. I frequently hear people use nouns as adjectives (in casual conversation, of course, not in formal writing), such as “That’s so Julie,” or “That’s very LA.” I always sort of assumed that anybody who was saying that knew that it was technically incorrect but was using it as slang or to make a point.
Maybe people are dumber than I think. :-)
Christ on a cracker, I SO SO SO wish I had asked for and received the advice given to As Of Yet Less Than Structured Risk before I went to law school. My life would be SO different now, and probably better. Damn it.
Are y’all serious? I think Bob is ABSOLUTELY at fault for the behavior of someone he invited into the apartment.
Well, constructive discussions almost never result from answering the question “Are you serious?”, but yes, I am serious.
If my friend X is invited to my home and I tell her she can bring a date, and she brings her friend Y, and we later conclude that Y stole my iPod, I’m certainly not hitting up my friend X to pay for it, particularly where I allowed her to bring a date. My iPod can get stolen on the bus, my iPod can get stolen on the street, my iPod can get stolen from somebody breaking in. In that scenario, I lost my iPod to theft; I don’t care whether my friend brought the person over or I ran into the person on the bus, unless (1) the friend had the person over without my permission; or (2) she had some reason to know he’d steal from me.
For me, living in the world with other human beings means that sometimes, they commit crimes. Victims of theft are always innocent, as is Thousands, and it sucks, but it happens, and trying to hit up your friend for the damage when he didn’t really do anything wrong doesn’t strike me as the right move.
I wouldn’t let Bob totally off the hook. I wouldn’t let him replace the camera even if he did offer, because I would feel as though the offer, if made sincerely, signals that he feels like shit about it and understands that his perhaps-questionable judgment did affect me negatively. That’s just me.
But if Bob had not been sharing the space with them, the camera would not have been stolen *by that guy*, so while Bob shouldn’t necessarily feel responsible for replacing it (after all, he didn’t steal it), he *should* feel responsible for addressing any bad feelings the theft may have caused.
Yeah, Thousands probably should have kept the camera closer to her if it had been established that strangers were coming and going — but that’s easy to say in hindsight. I shouldn’t have put my bag over the back of my chair that time, but I’d done that a billion times before and it had never gotten lifted…until it got lifted.
The real problem is that the actual thief is long gone, so Thousands is trying in part to apportion blame to who’s still around. Totally normal reaction — in my case, because Sticky Fingers took off probably an hour before I even realized the bag had gone missing, I just blamed myself for not keeping a closer eye on it — but not productive, so the question now is what can she get from Bob, verbally, that lets her let it go.
In other words, Bob is not completely blameless here, but he shouldn’t be expected to shoulder the thief’s share of the blame as well as his own. He didn’t abet the guy; he just got too drunk and made bad choices.
@Jill (tx): YES, thank you, that totally bugged me too!
Agreed with last Sars post re: Bob, as well. Fully and completely. However, I am just wondering if maybe Bob HAS appropriately apologized and Thousands is downplaying his apologies because s/he’s still pissed and misplacing blame. “…he felt awful, apologized, etc. What he didn’t do was offer to buy us a new camera.” sounds to me like Thousands wouldn’t care if Bob had gotten down on hands and knees and begged, sobbing, for forgiveness if there weren’t monetary restitution involved. It’s pretty dismissive.
No way to know, of course. I’ve just seen letters I, um, recognized in here and knew for sure the story was way distorted toward the writer’s point of view. This read to me like it may be one of those. But it’s good advice in any case!
@Risk, I thought I didn’t have anything to offer regarding your situation, but WednesdayGirl reminded me that I did. If you can take the time, take it. Wait tables, do test prep (I’d like to hear more about that, myself), sell yarn part-time in a knitting store. Then take the job that makes you happy. This brings me to my Dire Warning:
Too many people in your situation who are still in college but don’t know what they want to be when they grow up decide, What the heck. I’ll go to law school and be a lawyer. At least they make good money.
For those without friends in law school, let me tell you, it is a horrifying grind. But at least it’s expensive. Then they get out, and the lucky ones pass the bar (or bars) and get into a law firm. (The unlucky ones don’t get into a law firm, and they get to work as temps, or paralegals – even if they’ve passed the bar.) Lucky or unlucky, the majority of them have huge debts to pay off as they start out. Like it or not, they’re now stuck working as lawyers. In my experience working at law firms (more than 20 years and counting), most new lawyers are shocked by the law firm experience. Gruelling as law school is, it really does nothing to prepare them for the reality of working for a law firm. Those huge salaries? Between the debts they have to pay, and the hours they have to work, they would make slightly more per hour flipping burgers at Burger King. Sadly, a lot of the lawyers I’ve met would rather be doing Something Else for a living – often, anything else. But they can’t. Even the ones who’d like to be working in the more altruistic branches of the law can’t – at least not when they start out. They can’t, because they’re paying off their law school debt. There are lawyers I know who are happy, because they love being lawyers. They’re not just committed fiscally, they get a real rush out of it, and they’re still happily lawyering away at 80-plus. They’re not the ones who went to law school because they didn’t know what to do when they grew up, however.
So take your time off. Anyone still in school, if you need a year or two or or five to figure out which way you’d like to head as an adult, take the time. Going to law school is a lousy default for not knowing what you’d like to do with your life.
A host is ultimately responsible for the behavior of his/her guest. If the thieving guest had instead done some kind of damage to the flat they were renting, the financial responsibility for that would fall squarely on the shoulders of Bob, the person responsible for the destructive guest being there in the first place. I don’t see why a distinction should be made simply because the loss was personal rather than third-party.
Yes, legally that’s probably true. If Thousands wishes to sue Bob in small claims to get the cost of the camera, she can probably win, provided she could prove Mystery Man took it; provided she could prove Bob brought Mystery Man home that night; and provided she wants to gut the friendship over a camera when the best she can do in this letter is “PRESUMABLY Mystery Man took it.”
In a perfect world, the guy wouldn’t have taken it, or Bob would be able to reimburse her in a one-to-one fashion somehow, or she’d get the memory card back, or there would be no hard feelings, whatever, but WE live in THIS world, and in this world, consequences do not get divided up exactly evenly, “fair” and “realistic” do not always match up, and I think Dr. Phil is full of shit sometimes but if ever there were a test case for “you can be right, or you can be happy,” this is it.
Thousands *deserves* not to have had her camera stolen. That outcome is not on the menu. Bob can buy her two new cameras; it doesn’t address the real problem. I am an older sibling and I am quite compulsive about everyone following the rules and doing their share, “but I didn’t do anything,” “why does he get the same size cookie when he’s smaller than me,” wah, so I understand the control-freaky score-keeping, but comes a time you have to realize interpersonal relationships are not a court of law.
The distinction should be made for the sake of the friendship, and so that Thousands can deal with the resentment and not spend any more of her mental real estate on this problem.
I think there’s a bit of underlying moral judgment going on, too.
Consider the example that Linda gave with friend X and date Y: Linda invites X, says, “hey, bring Y,” Y steals camera (iPod. Whatever). Linda is bummed but doesn’t blame X.
What about: Linda invites X. X shows up on doorstep with Y, says, “Hope you don’t mind I brought Y along,” Linda – caught off guard but gracious – invites X and Y in, Y steals item. Linda, herself, might still not blame X, but I can tell you that *I* would certainly be a lot more pissed and inclined to blame X in that situation – however unfairly – than in the first. Because now there is not only the fact of the theft, but it is compounded by the moral/etiquette/social contract issue of the behavior that led up to it.
The phrasing of the third paragraph (“a great time…”) is, although I don’t think it was meant to be, rather disapproving. The author doesn’t WANT to be unsettled by Bob’s amorous adventures, but s/he is – otherwise they wouldn’t ever have gotten mentioned. It would have just been “Bob brought someone home one night,” instead of the back story about the “more than I expected” and “didn’t even phase [sic sic SIC!!!] us” and the puking on the floor thing.
I’m sure Thousands doesn’t *want* to be judgmental, but I think s/he is, underneath, a little, and the frustration of having to bit his/her tongue on that is spilling over and intensifying the frustration about the camera. Since saying, “Bob, if you hadn’t been such a drunk slut, this probably wouldn’t have happened” is off-limits, it gets transferred to the slightly more acceptable “You should make an offer to repair the damage.”
And I think Leigh is correct, too, in that Thousands has indicated, clearly, that Bob felt rotten about it… but “feeling rotten” wasn’t good enough.
If I were Bob, I’d go out and replace the camera if I were able to – not simply offer to. Just do it; if they don’t want the replacement, they can return it. Because my experience has been that, in some similar situations, the “wronged” party wants you to make the offer simply so they can reject it, and thereby hold on to their position of moral superiority. But then, I’ve had more than my share of toxic relationships.
“The thing is, our camera was gone. Presumably stolen by the mystery man.”
Here’s what I’d do if I were Thousands – I would take the tiny spark of an inkling of a doubt in that “presumably” and turn it into “Maybe I left the camera at that cafe/pub/park/whatever.” so that I could get over it & still stand to look at Bob. If I were Bob, I’d’ve bought you a new camera, even though the most precious thing -the pictures- are irreplacable.
I think E is right; I think there’s a little judging going on, and I think there’s a whole lot of underlying Mad At The Universe in the subtext, too. “Bob was the one coming home drunk, not us! Bob was the one whoring around, not us! Bob was the one who passed out in his own vomit, not us! We were good! We took care of Bob when he could have choked on his own vomit! How come our stuff was taken, and not his!?” Unfortunately, the Universe doesn’t care if you say these things to it, and it wouldn’t do much for the relationship with Bob. I think part of the reason there’s so much anger (in addition to losing highly valued pictures and a valuable but replaceable object) is that if Bob replaced the camera, well, they wouldn’t have the pictures back, but they’d feel better about having done the Right Thing all along and having gotten screwed as a result. I suspect they also feel they took better care of Bob than he wants to take care of them. Nobody wants to believe that the lesson of the Universe is that “No good deed goes unpunished,” because therein lies the unravelling of civilization. In this instance, the camera is more than just a camera.
I can’t go along with the parallel upthread to “A” getting in a fender-bender while on the way to help “B” move a couch, and so of course “B” feels bad but sure isn’t going to reimburse “A” for the car damage. The situations are too far apart.
My own couch/fender-bender scenario comparable to Thousands’ issue: Petunia needs a couch moved. Wilbur is a good friend but makes bad choices in the company he keeps. Petunia knows this. Petunia calls Wilbur on his cell for help with her couch, and Wilbur says he’ll come over in an hour, but doesn’t mention that he’s sitting around smoking pot with four guys he barely knows — one of whom (oh…Francois) will be giving him a ride. Francois drops Wilbur off at Petunia’s and, quite impaired, steps on the gas while in drive instead of reverse, smashing up the rear end of Petunia’s car. Instead of taking his lumps, Francois peels out of there in a blur, not to be seen again. Wilbur has no contact information for Francois, and neither he nor his “friends” even know Francois’s last name, or exactly where he lives or works. Wilbur thinks Francois’s car was an older black Civic. But he’s not sure. It was a black something. Or dark gray, maybe. What’s that car Ford makes that’s like their answer to the Civic? It could have been one of those. Mainly what he remembers is that they listened to Nickelback on the way over, and there was one of those scented pine-tree things hanging from the rearview.
Now, true enough, Wilbur wasn’t behind the wheel, but Petunia deserves more from him than “I am *so* sorry that happened to your car,” to which she is supposed to say, “Well, you shouldn’t apologize; it was Francois’s fault, not yours. And lots of people get rear-ended — I’m just the latest.”
If I were in Bob’s position, I’d have apologized like mad (*and* meant it), and I’d pay for the camera. In full. Unless my friend strongly and unequivocally refused to accept my $1000 check. Now, I recognize that $1000 would set some people back more than others, but if he has to pay it off in installments, he should. And I’m not swayed by specifics about about whether Thousands’ expensive camera was in the living room, the kitchen, the bedroom, a shoebox in a closet, etc. As Sarah notes in one of her follow-ups, that’s the sort of thing you consider more in hindsight. The point is (*unless* it was lost elsewhere, which doesn’t sound to be the case), it was behind their locked front door. Bob was one of the three people who could unlock that door and give any stranger access to their shared living area, and he did so. Obviously, he was not in the condition to be at his sharpest and most critical in his screening process, nor at his most vigilant once he let the guy in, but he still fell down on the job as friend and roommate. In my book, that makes him responsible.
I agree, obviously, that there’s nothing anyone can do about the lost pictures, and if that’s what bothers Thousands most, she is going to have to decide whether the lost memory card is enough to drive a permanent wedge between her and Bob or whether she can forgive and…uh, forget. (You see what I did there?)
Linda, that’s an interesting comparison, but I don’t think it’s the same thing. I get into a fender bender coming over to help you – things happen. I wasn’t in your home at the time, you weren’t responsible for my car. But in Thousands’ case, one of the people staying in the apartment was bringing in strangers every night; he was drinking a significant amount, and his judgment was impaired. If Bob hadn’t been behaving rather recklessly with his safety and the safety of his two travel partners, the theft would not have happened.
So I feel that, yeah, the apology wasn’t really sincere. It comes across as, “Oh, gee, sorry my actions caused the loss of your property. I feel awful. Well, see you later,” as opposed to, “I brought someone here last night who stole your property. I was responsible for bringing that person here. Let me make that up to you.”
No, I wouldn’t sue anybody because I got into a wreck coming to visit them. But I’d be furious if someone brought a stranger into my home at random, and then that stranger stole something from me, and the person who brought them didn’t see fit to at least offer to replace it.
But hey, that’s me. I guess we’ll all handle it or deal with it in our own way.
“Bob was one of the three people who could unlock that door and give any stranger access to their shared living area, and he did so.”
And then the stranger stole the camera. Not Bob. And apparently giving any stranger access to the shared living area was not a problem until this incident. This isn’t Thousands’ fault — as I said before, my own hindsight on that issue would most likely be the same, to wit: “Guess I should have expressed some concern to Bob about bringing strangers home, or stored the camera in my own room” — but the thief is responsible for his behavior and Thousands is responsible for her belongings.
I’m not saying Bob is just a bystander (and let’s not forget, he did tell the guy audibly to get out), but this (and other more serious consequences) were a risk everyone in the shared space had apparently assumed all along without qualms. That being the case, I don’t think an expectation of recouping full damages is appropriate.
“For those without friends in law school, let me tell you, it is a horrifying grind. But at least it’s expensive. Then they get out, and the lucky ones pass the bar (or bars) and get into a law firm. (The unlucky ones don’t get into a law firm, and they get to work as temps, or paralegals – even if they’ve passed the bar.) Lucky or unlucky, the majority of them have huge debts to pay off as they start out. Like it or not, they’re now stuck working as lawyers.”
I got all wrapped up in Bob and didn’t even notice this, but FYI, this is not true at all. Many, many people leave lawyering, including those in debt. In fact, a good percentage of the young lawyers I went to law school with and graduated with and initially worked with are no longer lawyers. Including those who have loans. Law school is difficult (it was not a “horrifying grind” by any measure, however), and you need to think through what you want to do with your degree, and you have to be very, very careful about the amount of debt you take on, but it’s not true that you can’t leave.
Also not sure where the idea comes from that it’s either get into a law firm or work as a temp or a paralegal. There are gazillions of jobs for lawyers that don’t involve working in firms. Leaving lawyering may require sacrifices that some people aren’t keen to make, but it can be done, as can living a happy life as a lawyer outside of a firm.
Must agree with Linda re: law school/lawyering. Law school was, largely, really fun. I met truly great people there (also dinks, but more nice folks), enjoyed the classes, and had three sweet years as a student again before returning to the working world. I went the firm route, but a lot of my friends did public interest, prosecutor’s office, clerking, politics, etc. And they weren’t all debt-free. On the flip-side, yeah – I couldn’t afford to quit now if I wanted to, but largely because I’m aggressively paying off my debt. It’ll be gone in 2 years, and then my options are pretty wide open.
I think starting *any* grad program in order to have more time to make up one’s mind is pretty dumb. If you don’t know what you want to do, it’s better to get paid while you decide rather than to be paying someone else for the privilege. I did meet a lot of people in law school who seemed like they were better suited for social work school, or something that more closely fit their goals. A JD isn’t moleskin for your career, but it definitely opens a lot of doors.
Linda is right, there are lots of options out there for lawyers (and law school is challenging but incredibly interesting, if you have the right personality). For example, government jobs don’t pay nearly as well as big firm jobs, but the lifestyle is fabulous. (Leaving at 5 PM on the nose every day? Join the crowd. Billable hours? What are those?) If any miserable lawyers are reading this, take a look here: http://www.usajobs.gov/
@Linda: Well, yes; you are correct. The only gun being held to people’s heads is an economic one, and there are indeed plenty of lawyers who leave lawyering; we just celebrated the departure of one last week who is going off to be a veterinarian, and that was a very happy “Good luck!” and good wishes all around. And, per Government Attorney, I had another boss decamp from private practice to government work for the very reasons you mentioned. And there are plenty of people like Bossyboots who aggressively pay off their debts and get out. However, there are people who can’t pay their debts off as quickly as Bossyboots, but who wouldn’t be able to meet the burden of payment at all if they left just because they’re unhappy.
Oddly enough, I didn’t mean to suggest that becoming a lawyer is actually a bad thing (believe it or not). If you have an inclination for it, you can enjoy your work pretty much for the rest of your life; I’ve seen those folks, too. And if you’re flexible, , or plan ahead, you can, as Bossyboots points out, use a law degree in other sectors. I’ve also met several folks who came to law late in life and were very dedicated; two of them had been nurses first; two others had been engineers.
I suspect that I mostly heard from the folks who found law school hellish – one does, I think, hear complaints more often than “I had a great time!” because there’s not quite the dramatic impact. Same thing with the folks who’ve had to take the bar multiple times to pass. I’ve worked in various law firms for over 20 years, and I like what I do, and what I’m involved in. The thing is, I have had a chance to see a lot of people who didn’t like where they found themselves (law school horror stories), the associates who had the shock of adjusting, etc., and some really pretty horrifying circumstances under which they worked.
It’s my sympathy for the people who have been so unhappy as lawyers that prompted me to suggest that folks who have no current idea what they want, and the freedom to take their time, take their time, per Risk, instead of falling back and going to law school by default.