“It's practically Halloween, already”

Years ago a friend advised me that I should think through well in advance what family rules I'd expect my teenagers, once I had them, to follow. I remember looking down fondly at the pack of little children around my ankles and thinking, yadda yadda, whatever, I've got ages – ages! – before I need to establish a grand system of Rules for Adolescents.

At that point, the emphasis was on getting the children to say please, to shake hands (“look the grownup in the eye”), and to refrain from grimacing when presented with a plate of unfamiliar food.

Weirdly enough, a decade later, the teenager and almost-teen still haven't required any special lawgiving. But my friend was right in a way I only appreciate every year at about this time – always too late! — when once again I'm ambushed by the lobbyists of the younger set.

“Yummy! And we're going to get Skittles–“

“–and Reeses! And caramels–“

“Say, what's the rule for Halloween candy, again?”

“We can keep all of it!”

“No, we can't, remember? Only–“

“–aw, why not?”

“Um, well, we'll see,” I say definitively and then subside, hoping that finally a brilliant solution to the annual candy carnage will present itself.

Yet it never does. The truth is, I never can quite remember exactly what the rule was last year, and I'm reluctant to ask the children for fear of ripping away the last remnants of the veil and reveal me as, in a manner of speaking, the man behind the curtain.

“But we need to know soon,” the children plead, “It's October! It's practically Halloween, already!”

Americans are such generous people that they practically rain down sweets and bonbons and packaged yummies on the children who come ringing doorbells on October 31st.

The problem for mothers like me is that we don't want our children stuffed with Halloween candy, yet nor do we want to deprive our children of the enjoyment – and for them, the point — of the holiday.

Had I retained my ancestors' Puritan austerity, this would be an easy conundrum to solve: No fun! No candy! But clearly the stock has softened since then, or at least in this generation, its maternal heart has.

Who can fault neighbors who urge indulgently, “Go ahead, take a couple of handfuls!” to the fairies and witches and Star Wars storm troopers and rubber-faced Munch-screamers who flock to the doors and thrust out already-groaning sacks and plastic jack o' lanterns? The national script calls for adults to give, and give generously. It calls for children to collect, and collect greedily.

But have you noticed that the script is blank just at the point when the children get home, wriggle out of their costumes, and fall upon the loot like sharks upon chum? I mean, what then?

Over the years, we've applied various regimes, none of which has been quite satisfactory. First, the rule was that each child could eat a few pieces on Halloween night, and then next morning all the remaining candy would go off to Daddy's office.

As the children grew, this struck everyone (even me) as unduly meager, so the rule evolved into one that allowed each child to gorge on Halloween, and then give the rest away.

Later it mutated into a scheme wherein the children keep their ages-worth in sweets. Then they got to keep twice their age in pieces of candy, though as the older children moved into double-digits this began to seem so liberal as to be pointless. So now what? I'm at a loss.

Meanwhile the black cats and spider rings and bags of candy corn are making their inexorable march towards the front displays of supermarkets and drug stores, and the children of America are rummaging around in their dress-up boxes.

Mercifully, I suppose there's still time to come up with a clever new way of managing the annual sugar frenzy. What would you suggest?

Examiner columnist Meghan Cox Gurdon is a former foreign correspondent and a regular contributor to the books pages of the The Wall Street Journal. Her Examiner column appears on Thursday.

Op Edsop-edOpinionSenateWhite House

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Jill Bonny, owner of Studio Kazoku tattoo parlor in the Haight, tattoos client Lam Vo on Friday, March 5, 2021. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
No one was fighting for tattoo artists, so they started advocating for themselves

Jill Bonny has been tattooing in the Bay Area since 2000. Four… Continue reading

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted changes to The City's streets including Slow Streets closures to increase open space access and the Shared Spaces program, which allows businesses to use public right-of-ways for dining, retail and services. (Examiner illustration)
COVID is reshaping the streets of San Francisco

Walk down Page Street, which is closed to thru-traffic, and you might… Continue reading

At a rally in February, Monthanus Ratanapakdee, left, and Eric Lawson remember Vicha Ratanapakdee, an 84-year-old Thai man who died after he was pushed to the pavement in San Francisco. (Ekevara Kitpowsong/Examiner file photo)
The criminal justice system can’t fix what’s wrong in our community

My 87-year-old mother walks gingerly, slowly, deliberately, one step in front of… Continue reading

Superintendent Vincent Matthews said some students and families who want to return will not be able to do so at this time. “We truly wish we could reopen schools for everyone,” he said. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
SFUSD sets April reopening date after reaching tentative agreement with teachers union

San Francisco Unified School District has set April 12 as its reopening… Continue reading

José Victor Luna and Maria Anabella Ochoa, who cite health reasons for continuing distance learning, say they have been enjoying walking in Golden Gate Park with their daughters Jazmin, a first grader, and Jessica, a third grader. (Kevin N. Hume/S.F. Examiner)
Some SFUSD families prefer distance learning

Health issues, classroom uncertainties among reasons for staying home

Most Read