Sunday, January 10, 2010

Wherein I might have figured out how customer service works over a decade after I started working customer service

The salesman is very much a salesman. Intellectually, I know every trick he's doing. His face lights up with friendly recognition when I walk in, just like my face has lit up for every customer who interrupted the work that I absolutely had to get done by the end of shift. When he says "Don't you own another pair in this line?" he isn't actually thinking he remembers which shoes I've bought before, he just recognized me as a return customer by the way I phrased my request and was trying to elicit that very information from me. And yet I fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

Normally I don't fall for these things. So why did I this time? Because I was feeling insecure. By objective standards, I'm not cool enough to shop in that store. By acting as though he recognized and remembered me, salesguy was validating my presence, making me feel like I'm totally allowed to be in there.

My first customer service training was when I was a fast food cashier, and it was presented as trying to make customers feel like we're their friends. I thought that was ridiculous and insulting to the customers. Like they're really going think that we're friends just because I call them by name after reading their name off their debit card? Like they're so lacking in friends they'll feel good when some random fast food cashier treats them like they're friends? But now I'm thinking it might be more validating. Yes, you personally are totally allowed and welcome to be buying food here. Seriously, come back again soon, you're exactly the kind of person we're here for. Since my days of working in fast food I've received a wide range of customer service from a wide range of places, and the good customer service was always characterized by validating me and making me feel like I'm allowed and welcome, whereas the bad customer service always made me feel like I wasn't actually supposed to be there.

But if customer service actually works this way, that would mean that everyone is as insecure as I am. If that is the case, how on earth does society function?

How on earth do people arrive at seeing heterosexuality as morally imperative in the first place?

The fact that I am congenitally monogamous often confuses people. I am not religious, I have no intention of raising children, I don't in any way see monogamy as morally imperative (assuming you're not leading anyone to believe you're being monogamous with them), so often people don't understand why I am monogamous.

An answer I've found helpful is to describe it as my sexual orientation. Monogamy and commitment are what I find sexy. Polyamory and/or casual sex are simply not sexy to me and there's just...no point in my wasting my time with them, the same way that (if you are monosexual*) people who are not your target gender are simply not sexually attractive to you and there's just no point in engaging in sexual and/or romantic relationships with people who aren't your target gender.

Because monogamy is my sexual orientation, it would never occur to me to deem it a moral imperative. I don't even get to the point of thinking about it terms of broadly-applicable morality. It is simply what I find sexy, so I proceed accordingly.

So thinking about this, I really can't imagine how the people who consider heterosexuality morally imperative got to the point of thinking of it in terms of moral imperative. So you think people of the opposite sex are sexy. How do you get from there to thinking that everyone in the world should only ever have sex with people of the opposite sex? If you think redheads are sexy, would you at all ever possibly arrive at the point of thinking about it in terms of broadly applicable morality, and come up with a rule that everyone should only have sex with redheads?

*I know some people don't like the word monosexual, but I can't figure out how to construct the sentence without it. If you object to this word choice, feel free to rephrase the sentence for me in the comments.

Currently on my mind

- It sure is cold outside.
- How's my job security?
- Will that change I suggested improve productivity or just annoy the admin team?
- Prorogation: WTF?
- What's up with my rent increase?
- When are they going to correct the N2 exemption error in the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act?
- Should I buy a condo? If so, WTF do I do?
- Is a certain elderly person I know losing her mental faculties?
- What do I do about friends who I know are perfectly intelligent but aren't keeping themselves politically informed?
- How do I make my injured toenail grow back without becoming ingrown?
- Why has flakiness increased since my last scalp treatment?
- How many errands could I reasonably get done today?
- Should I buy a duvet?
- How should I go about updating my wardrobe?
- Is that a zit coming in in my ear?
- Why has the quality of my undereye makeup deteriorated recently, and what can I do about it?
- Is the blog entry I have in mind of sufficient interest?
- What would happen if Eve Dallas met Dexter Morgan?
- How do I get Eddie Izzard to bring his tour to Toronto?
- What does it mean when Zonealarm says "Protection up, UI is initializing", and why does that generate tons of temp files in my C:\windows\internet logs folder?
- Cheese would be yummy right about now.
- What kind of computer mouse should I get to fit my giant hands? Where's a good place to go shop for unconventional computer mice where you can look at them in person?
- How can we as workers reverse the socioeconomic trend towards contract hell and restore Good Jobs in all fields of work like my grandparents enjoyed in the 1950s?
- I wonder whatever did happen to Mariam Makhniashvili?
- Was that Minnie Driver I saw walking down the street?

This sort of thing is all floating in the background as I go about everyday life. I'm sure it's the same for you.

That's why I'm really surprised that some people say "People don't care about [political issue], they're too busy worrying about their jobs and families!"

Saturday, January 09, 2010

The argument for using the garbage chute for organic waste disposal

I previously blogged that when organic waste collection comes to highrise buildings, the buildings without tri-sorters should use their garbage chutes for organic waste, and have people bring recyclables and landfill waste to the garbage room or the dumpsters. However, this idea doesn't seem to have caught on. I keep reading about allegedly innovative and forward-thinking buildings trumpeting the fact that there's an organics collection bin in the garbage room or out back, as though this is at all pleasant or convenient or going to result in optimal resident behaviour.

So here once again, broken down into simple concepts, is the argument for using the garbage chute for organics.

1. Organics are the most virtuous of all waste. Organic waste comes from healthy, wholesome foods. The better you eat, the more organics you have. Produce results in organic waste. Packaged, processed foods result in regular landfill waste. If logistical realities require disposal options of differing levels of convenience, the more virtuous eating habits should be rewarded with the more convenient disposal method.

2. Disposing of organics is more urgent. We've all had days when we're cold or sick or busy and don't want to go all the way down to the garbage room or outside to the dumpsters. If you leave your organics sitting around in your apartment, they'll attract bugs. If you leave your landfill waste sitting around your apartment, it won't. And bugs will not only affect the apartment where the organic waste is left sitting around, but also the neighbouring apartments. It should be as effortless as possible to properly dispose of the waste that is most likely to attract bugs.

3. The organics bin is the grossest. If any of the bins in the garbage room or dumpsters behind the building are going to smell or have bugs or be oozing mysterious gunk, it's going to be the organics bin. As I mentioned above, putting stuff in the organics bin is the most virtuous method of disposing of the most virtuous category of waste. All this virtue should be rewarded by letting people do it from as far away from the grossness as possible, not by making them touch the gross bin.

4. Organics are best disposed of at night. Most organic waste comes from food preparation, most of which tends to happen at dinner time. People are most likely to want to dispose of it before they go to bed, so it doesn't sit around stinking up the place and attracting creepy-crawlies at night. However, garbage rooms and dumpsters behind buildings are scarier after dark, because nefarious creatures of the two-legged and the six-legged variety are more likely to be skulking about then. The importance of and the unpleasantness of disposing of organics at night is disproportionate when compared with the time-sensitivity of the disposal of other types of waste. People will feel much safer if they can take care of this chore in their own well-light hallway.

5. Some people are going to throw the organics down the chute anyway. Because of the anonymity of garbage chutes, some people are going to throw stuff down the chute just because they don't feel like going out of their way to dispose of it properly. As mentioned above, organics are most urgent to dispose of than other types of waste, the organics bin is the grossest of all the bins, and organics are both best disposed of at night and most unpleasant to dispose of at night. It therefore stands to reason that organics is the category of waste most likely to be thrown down the chute improperly. Why not turn this improper behaviour into optimal behaviour simply by redesignating the purpose of the garbage chute?

Help identify the mystery lace headpiece

I saw this woman on the subway with this white lace thing on her head. It was about the size of a maxi pad (without wings) and was pinned to her hair with the same kinds of pins that people use to keep yarmulkes on. The lace was kind of loose, kind of crocheted-like. The thing was too small to be called a cap, but too big to be called a headband. It was clearly entirely decorative, too loosely-woven and delicate to be functional.

I have the idea that this headpiece has some religious significance, but I don't know in what religion. The woman appeared white to me, and her hair was a medium to light brown, suggesting European ethnic roots. The rest of her clothes were unremarkable and I didn't catch any clues to her religion or ethnicity. I didn't hear her speak, so there are no linguistic clues.

Anyone have any idea what this lace headpiece is or what its purpose is? I know I've heard of such a thing before, perhaps in a novel, but I don't remember what it's for or what it's called.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Things the TTC Should Invent: non-binding ETAs on subway delay announcements

The other day I was in a subway delay due to smoke at track level. They announced there were shuttle buses, so everyone hurried over to the bus garage. I wasn't anywhere near close enough to make the first shuttle bus, but it looked like I might be able to jockey my way onto the second shuttle bus, so I waited around. We waited rather a long time with no second shuttle bus in sight, then there was an announcement saying service had resumed. The whole delay took maybe 10-20 minutes, making it hardly worthwhile to get on a shuttle bus. I wish I'd known that it was going to be so short - I would have grabbed a quick bite of breakfast instead of swarming the bus platform.

I asked TTC communications director Brad Ross if they've ever considered giving ETAs on subway delay announcements. I know it's not especially easy, but even just a rough idea would help us plan our next move. Under half an hour? Grab a coffee, do an errand, come back when the subway's ready. Over an hour? Get in line for the shuttle bus, call work and tell them what's up. Three hours? Go work from home for the morning. He replied that they do give ETAs when they have them, but it's difficult to tell. And I totally see where they're coming from on that. You don't always know exactly what the problem is, you don't always know how long until it's fixed, you don't want to underestimate the delay because people will get pissed off at you, you don't want to overestimate the delay because then you have the bad optics of frequent announcements saying "There will be a one hour delay on the Yonge-University-Spadina line" when it really ends up being only 15 minutes...

So what I think we should do, as a general social agreement among the people of Toronto, is ask the TTC to give us their best estimate based on the information they have, and in exchange we agree to accept their estimates as non-binding. It's like the download countdown on your computer. You know it isn't going to be accurate, you know the ETA is going to change weirdly multiple times, but that's okay. Really you just want to know if this is a good time to get up and go pee.

I think it would be helpful if the TTC could give us whatever information they have in terms of ETA, e.g. "We are currently experiencing a delay due to smoke at track level. This type of problem typically takes about 15 minutes to resolve, but our workers are still on their way to investigate so we aren't certain yet at this point." (Note to googlers: I completely made up that 15 minutes number and have no idea how long smoke at track level typically takes to resolve.)

And in exchange for this transparency, we, the people for Toronto, won't complain if it ends up taking 20 minutes or half an hour, or even an hour as long as they inform us once they've discovered it's more complicated. Because what we really want to know is should we line up for shuttle buses, or should we grab a coffee? Should we walk the rest of the way, or should we just wait for service to resume? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd go for this arrangement.

What do you think, Toronto? Could we make this work? Would you rather have a possibly-inaccurate best guess?

Currently wondering

Suppose I have an opinion on some political matter, so I send an email to the Minister responsible for that portfolio. This Minister is not my elected representative - they represent another riding - but they are the elected official responsible for the issue in question. I am not a person directly affected by the political matter in question. I am writing in my capacity as a generally politically engaged concerned citizen, but I do not fall into any particular group that the government would have a legal or moral obligation to consult.

And suppose the Minister's political party does not consider me their target audience. Their party's leaked election strategy makes it clear that they are not interested in voters of my demographics, and outspoken members of the party have publicly stated that they consider my demographic to be a fringe group.

Would my email to the Minister actually be taken seriously? Or would they disregard me based on my demographics? Yes, I know that theoretically they're supposed to take concerns from every citizen seriously, but would they in reality?

Or what if they see that someone in my demographic opposes their widget policy, and then conclude that their widget policy must be on the right track?

I have never before called something evil in my blog

(Except in jest or when using hyperbole and other literary techniques.)

But it seems that H&M and Walmart not only throw unsold clothes in the trash, but sabotage them to render them unwearable in case anyone tries to salvage them!

I can see where they're coming from on throwing them out instead of donating them. It's horribly wasteful and poor corporate citizenship, but we've all at one time or another just thrown something out rather than go to the effort and logistics of finding an appropriate charity and schlepping the stuff to their collection point.

But to actually put time and resources into destroying them so anyone willing to abase themselves by digging through trash can't make use of them?? To think of the idea of putting time and resources into destroying them??? And to have enough people think it's a good idea that it actually gets done????

I think that is actual genuine evil. No ordinary sinner would think of such a thing.

Thursday, January 07, 2010

Things They Should Invent: glasses-adjusting classes

My glasses always need to be adjusted about three separate times before they'll fit me properly. I have to kind of walk away in between and spend some time sand see how they annoy me rather than being able to do it in one go. Fortunately, every optician I've ever bought glasses from offers free adjustments. Unfortunately, ever optician I've ever bought glasses from is always slightly out of my way. I've never been in a situation where the optimal pair was available in my immediate neighbourhood.

As I've blogged about before, I feel like adjusting my own glasses should be within my grasp. But I don't know how to do it and can't entirely figure it out on my own. I'd need someone to teach me. In fact, I would totally pay money for someone to teach me.

Business idea: opticians should offer glasses-adjusting classes where they teach their customers the full skill set required to adjust glasses. They could totally charge a moderate amount of money for it - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd be willing to make a one-time outlay to avoid having to go in to get my glasses adjusted for the rest of my life - which would surely be more profitable than the current model of unlimited free adjustments.

Apparently Hugh Jackman can juggle fire

A number of people I know (some of whom are reading this) are totally fangirl for Hugh Jackman. While they present a sound thesis supported by well-structured arguments and copious documentary evidence, he doesn't quite do it for me.

However, you have do to admire someone who can just randomly and gratuitously juggle fire.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Monday, January 04, 2010

Anyone know the nitty-gritty of Ontario tenant law?

If my landlord does not give me a notice of rent increase, does that mean they can't increase my rent when my lease ends?

What I'm really asking: in previous years, I've gotten a notice of rent increase on Jan. 1 for a lease ending March 31. In previous years, there has been a large rent increase if I choose to go month to month, but a much smaller increase if I sign a new lease by the end of January (for a year-long lease starting April 1.) This year, I haven't gotten anything yet, so I'm starting to think about what I might do if I continue not to get anything.

On one hand, I'm thinking maybe I should say something so I don't lose my chance to renew at a lower rate. On the other hand, I'm thinking if I say something, they might go "Oh yeah, we forgot to increase her rent!"

My previous landlord did issue a notice of rent increase even when the rent increase was zero. I don't know if this is required.

Saturday, January 02, 2010

Things They Should Invent: guitar karaoke

In regular karaoke, words appear on the screen so you can sing along. In guitar karaoke, tabs appear on the screen so you can play along. It's like Guitar Hero, but for real guitars.

Toronto Star Public Editor survey

The Toronto Star has a survey to see what readers would have done with certain decisions the Public Editor had to make in the past year. The problem with this survey is they asked yes or no questions, but provided a reason for the yes or no. Sometimes I had a different reason for my yes or no, and sometimes my answer was more nuanced. Here are some thoughts that didn't fit in the form.

2. Two women involved in an intimate relationship are charged with the first-degree axe murder of a man one of the women was also involved with. Would you publish numerous headlines labelling this as a "lesbian axe murder case."?

Yes. It's accurate and fits limited headline space.
No. Would you refer to a heterosexual axe murder case?


If I wanted headlines like "lesbian axe murder case", I'd read the Sun. The Star isn't the Sun, and I'd much prefer that it behaves accordingly.

3. A woman is photographed in Guatemala City standing topless on a street after being beaten, doused with gasoline and set on fire during a lynching. Passengers of a public bus accused the woman and three men of participating in an armed robbery. According to local media, 219 people were lynched so far this year and 45 of them died. Would you publish this Reuters news agency photo?

Yes. The photo tells much about vigilante justice in Guatemala.
No. It's highly disturbing and sexually exploitive.


I do see the point of publishing the photo specifically because it is highly disturbing. However, this woman has already suffered the indignity (on top of the lynching) of being seen topless by a massive crowd of people. I wouldn't want to add the indignity of being seen topless by a bunch of people in Canada. The ideal solution (perhaps logistically unfeasible) would be to get the subject's permission: do you want the world to see what happened to you?

7. Ken Lewenza is elected national president of the Canadian Auto Workers replacing long-time president Buzz Hargrove. Do you publish this headline: "New CAW boss has a hard act to follow"?

Yes. The president is the boss.
No. Union "boss" is an offensive stereotype.


What's the offensive stereotype? I'm completely unaware of this connotation. Without waiving the option of choosing to revise my opinion once I learn what the offensive stereotype is, I do see how the space limitations of headlines would be a factor in choosing this phrasing.

9. Three of Toronto's top chefs are asked for some back-to-school recipes for meals that fit in a thermos. A recipe for chili calls for a cup of beer. A corn chowder recipe requires two cups of white wine. Do you publish these recipes?

Yes. Yummy lunch fare here.
No. Alcohol does not belong in recipes for kids.


The question to which I don't know the answer: is the alcohol burned off in the preparation process, leaving only flavour? Or is it still present in the final meal? The question not asked here but that I think is relevant: how many parents are willing to purchase beer or wine for the specific purpose of using it in a recipe prepared for their kid's lunch?

10. A 21-year-old vacationer from Poland was one of three men who died after diving into the churning waters of Muskoka's Moon River. Your photographer and reporter are on the scene when police divers pull the man's body out of the river. A distraught woman who identifies the body kneels beside the dead man and kisses his hand before numerous onlookers. Would you publish this photo?

Yes. Though the Star rarely publishes photos of dead bodies, this heart-wrenching photo powerfully illustrates the human impact of this news.
No. It's an intrusion on a private moment of grief.


I don't think it's fair to publish it without the subject's permission. I don't ever want to be photographed in grief, and I think other people should be granted the same dignity.

11. While covering the royal visit of Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Star columnist Rosie DiManno describes the duchess as "a tad dumpy" and quotes from a biography that says, "It's widely known that Camilla is great in the bedroom." In another column, she recalls that the late Princess Diana dubbed Camilla "a Rottweiler." In another, DiManno gives Camilla a C-minus for her Canadian debut. Would you publish these opinions of the Duchess?

Yes. Columnists have wide latitude to express their views.
No. It's disrespectful to a member of the Royal family.


It's not that it's disrespectful to a member of the Royal family, it's that it's disrespectful to a person. The Duchess of Cornwall is a 62-year-old woman. Even if she is a public figure, she should not be spoken of judgmentally for having the characteristics of a 62-year-old woman.

Friday, January 01, 2010

Calculating the HST tipping point (for Ontario)

Numbers come from this article, primarily because it landed in my lap. If you have any primary sources on hand, I'd appreciate any links in the comments.

In return for that day-to-day pinching of the pocketbook for consumers, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government is offering the income tax cut today, reducing the tax rate on the first $37,106 by one percentage point to 5.05 per cent from 6.05 per cent.

So this means that, for everyone who earns more than $37,106, you will save $371.06 in income tax.

Under HST, an additional 8% sales tax will be charged on items that were previously subjected only to GST. According to Revenue Ontario, that list is:


* Electricity
* Gasoline
* Heating Fuels
* Internet Access Fees
* Personal Services (e.g., Hairstyling)
* Professional Services (e.g., Legal, Accounting and Real Estate Fees and Commissions)
* Tobacco


So based on the information so far (I'll get to the factors I'm missing in a moment), the HST tipping point is whether you will be charged more or less than $371.06 in additional sales taxes over a year. The $371.06 would equal 8% of your total pre-tax purchases on items from the list above. So let's calculate:

$371.06/0.08=$4,638.25

So do you spend more than $4,638.25 on things from the list above? If not, no need to worry. If you do spend more than $4,638.25 on the items on that list, then the amount of money you will be down is 8% of any amount over $4,638.25. Where N = the amount spent on things on the list:

(N-$4638.25)*0.08

In other words, if you spend $5,000 on things from that list:

$5000-$4638.25=$361.75
$361.75*0.08=28.94

So you'd be paying an extra $28.94 a year in tax.

If you're happy with a rough estimate, you can stop here. If not, read on as I make it more complicated (likely with only marginal impact on the final number).

There are three factors I haven't taken into account in this calculation:

1. The transitional tax rebate. I haven't taken this into account because it's only temporary. If you would like to take this into account, add $300 if you're a single individual, and $1,000 if you're a couple and/or have dependents.

2. What if you earn less than $37,106? Then replace the $371.06 in the calculation above with 1% of your income. Or replace X in the following equation with your income and plug it into Google:

(X*0.01)/0.08=

3. HST not only involves increasing sales tax on items previously subject to only the GST, but also eliminating sales tax on items that are not subject to GST. Problem: I can't find a list of items currently subject to only GST. But here's how you'd calculate it. Where Y equals the amount spent yearly on things currently subject to only GST:

($371.06+(Y*0.05))/0.08

The result of this equation replaces $4,638.25 above as the tipping point.

Want one giant overall equation?

N = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to GST but not PST
X = either your annual income or $37,106, whichever is less
Y = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to PST but not GST
Z = what HST will cost you. If it's a negative number, it will save you money.

Z=N-((X*0.01)+(Y*0.05)/0.08)*0.08

Wherein I find the obvious solution to procrastination problems that have been plaguing me for years

Two things I keep procrastinating:

1. Housework
2. Watching videos I've downloaded (yes, I'm one of those people who procrastinates fun things too. I typically game or use the internet while watching TV or a DVD, so I keep not watching downloaded videos because I can't multitask them.

I just found the solution: watch the videos while I'm doing the housework! I'm now watching an ITV documentary on the making of Spamalot while cleaning my kitchen. I can't believe it took me so long to think of this!

What if the solution to ignorance isn't found in formal education?

You often see people interpret any ignorance they observe as a failure in education. "They should teach this in school," they say, "they should make it a required course."

I wonder if this might be doing us all a disservice?

As I've blogged about before, I didn't learn everything I needed to know about anything in high school, but rather got a starting point for learning things myself as the need arises. I'm wondering if, by treating ignorance as a failure of education, we're collectively absolving ourselves of our own responsibility to keep learning? If people don't know what prorogation means, even if they should have learned it in school and didn't, their job now as adults and functional members of society is to recognize that they should know what it means, and find out what it means. Not having learned it in school isn't nearly as bad as sitting there going "Waah, I don't know what prorogation means because I never learned it in school!" instead of spending 30 seconds googling.

I also wonder if, by deeming it a job for formal education, we're inadvertently giving it a mystique, framing it as something that needs to be taught instead of something that you can figure out yourself. And I'm worried that this will, in turn, alienate people who aren't so very into formal education. I read in Big Sort (and have observed hints in real life) that sometimes people who have not gone through formal education tend to perceive formal education as Other (and sometimes as a bit suspicious). If we view ignorance as a problem to be solved with formal education, would we be marking it as Other for people who don't have formal education, giving the tacit impression that understanding these things isn't for them, and/or that learning them is only for people who have formal education.

I'm not opposed to adapting our formal education system to meet our ever-evolving needs, but I am worried about giving the impression that formal education is the only way out of ignorance, rather than that people should be bringing themselves out of their own ignorance.

Missing Scene In Death

From Naked In Death:

[Eve:] "It's a lot of house for one guy."

[Roarke:] "Do you think so? I'm more of the opinion that your apartment is small for one woman." When she stopped dead at the top of the stairs, he grinned. "Eve, you know I own the building. You'd have checked after I sent my little token."

"You ought to have someone out to look at the plumbing," she told him. "I can't keep the water hot in the shower for more than ten minutes."

"I'll make a note of it."


What the book really needs is a scene where, the next time Eve takes a shower at home, she has epic hot water and water pressure. We know, based on the characterization that develops as the series go on, that Roarke would in fact actually have someone fix the plumbing, even if he'd heard of the problem from someone less important to him. I think showing this so early on would make him a much more sympathetic character, and would make it far more believable that Eve falls in love with him.

Nearly everything Roarke did in his early courtship of Eve came across as arrogant and pushy. Every favour or kindness he did for her came in a context where he forced his way into her space in a way that would trigger alarm bells in anyone who read Gift of Fear. He is made more nuanced, more likable, less assholic as the series goes on and we learn more about him and actually spend some time in his head, but at the point of the scene above I hadn't seen any of this and found it completely unrealistic in a trashy romance novel way that Eve found anything appealing about him. I continued reading the series because I enjoy spending time in the universe, find Eve inspiring (at this point despite the fact that she fell for Roarke), and already had the second book on my library holds list, but I don't think I would have added it to my holds list if it hadn't already been there.

But a simple half-sentence mention that there's now plenty of hot water would show Roarke being kind to Eve (and to everyone else in the building) in a way that does not aggressively push forward his own agenda, thereby leading the reader to a much more sympathetic interpretation of the character. Roarke hasn't yet at this point won over either the reader or Eve, so it's better to show us why he will rather than assuming it's inevitable.

I love New Year's Day

It's nothing to do with a fresh start or anything optimistic like that. The reason I love New Year's Day is that there are no actual or implicit expectations. There's nothing specific that I should be doing (or that it's "sad" if I don't "get to" do), no family or religious connotations, not even the social idea that we should be having fun. Plus it's one of the more widely-practised statutory holidays, which means hardly anything is open and I'm perfectly justified in not getting any errands done. I can sleep late and stay home and do whatever I want without any guilt. More statutory holidays should be like this.