There are games like bowling, where the target is obvious and you roll a big ball down a narrow alley with gutters that keep it from going too far afield. You can miss, but not by much. And then there are games like golf, where you can hit the ball in what you think is the direction of the hole ? which, sometimes, you can?t even see ? and the ball can, for mysterious reasons, zoom off in some entirely different direction and disappear into a thicket, never to be seen again.

Anybody can bowl. To play golf, you have to pay attention, invest time, maybe take lessons, and always keep a few spare balls on hand ? and even then you can be terrible at it. Fashion used to be more like bowling; now it?s more like golf. Or worse. At least when you?re playing golf, you can often see the green you?re aiming for.

With fashion lately, you have to infer the location of the target from all sorts of weird mixed messages.

It?s one reason so many women have dialed down their commitment to keeping up with the trends: There are just way too many of them. It almost doesn?t matter why.

A pop culture with the attention span of a mayfly? A society where consensus about almost anything is a dim memory? Too many cooks? Too much information? Aimless, shameless recycling of trends in hopes of hitting a winner? Cynical knee-jerk marketing that, the minute it looks like you have too many skirts and won?t buy more, starts telling you pants are the latest thing?

You don?t need to be paying attention to know there are a zillion trends out there, every single one claiming to be the very latest. The latest ?it? bag. The newest shoe shape. The must-have coat. The hot hemline. The new mood ? boho, governess, sex kitten, lady, preppie, tomboy, dangerous woman, Jane-Austen-ish ingenue, etc.

You hear all this gush about the return of the ballet flat and, before you?ve had time to dig out your old Capezios, the frighteningly high heel is a must-have.

You see somewhere that it?s all about pointy toes and then you flip a few more pages and you?re in a world of round-toed Minnie-Mouse shoes.

You read somewhere that the accessory of the moment is ? Ta-DAHH! ? a bag weighed down with more locks and chains and turnbuckles than Marley?s ghost, and then a minute later it?s all about the bag in a bright colour that goes with nothing you own. News flash: It?s the big, soft, squishy feed bag in natural pebbled leather!

News flash: It?s the structured alligator bag like the one your grandma kept the lollipops in! News flash: It?s a $900 bag named after a French pastry from some genius in Paris! News flash: It?s a bag covered with some stupid giant designer logo! Even the people who get paid to sell us this stuff seem to be losing track. (See all those hot-pink handbags festooned with tire chains on the clearance table? Seriously, couldn?t you have told them that anything that makes a purse weigh an extra 10 pounds has to be a big mistake?)

Lately, I?ve been counting on The Wall Street Journal to keep me updated on what?s what. I?m never sure who fashion magazines think they?re talking to anymore. With the Journal, you know: They?re talking to Wall Street Journal readers: people with good jobs who can?t show up at the office in something that?s all fringe and bare midriff.

Even so, I?m befuddled. On February 3, Teri Agins ? who not only knows a bias cut when she sees one but can also decode the fine print in the Federated Stores annual report ? reported that designers, encouraged by the skinny jeans that ?hip, young women in London and Manhattan? had been tucking into their boots, were making a bid to bring back leggings.

And not only leggings, but stretch pants and opaque tights and even legwarmers. I?d heard about these skinny jeans, even considered looking for a pair, but hadn?t got around to it yet ? and now here they were already morphing into all sorts of other skinny pants.

This ?leggy look,? Agins explained, was ?part of a ?mushroom? silhouette that designers are pushing for next fall ? fuller on top and slim on the bottom.? She reassured readers with bad memories of 1980s-style leggings that ?designers say they are going for a sophisticated look this time around.? But don?t they always?

I guess it stands to reason that, by the time a normal person has gotten around to buying bootcut jeans, the folks out there on the cutting edge are bored to tears by wide legs and dying for skinny ones.

What took me by surprise was the idea that anybody would have to reach back as far as the 1980s for bad memories of leggings. As recently as last year, I blush to confess, I was still wearing them to the gym and to yoga ? and other places as well on days when I had the excuse of having gone to the gym or to yoga, and around the house on days when I might even conceivably go to the gym or to yoga. In other words, all the time.

It figures that, practically the minute I belatedly realised leggings were over ? and not just over but thoroughly unflattering and borderline indecent and a big mistake from Day One ? they?re back. It gets worse.

All of two weeks later, while I was still processing the news that leggings and tights and skinny pants were back, I opened the February 18 Journal and learned that ?Trousers are getting wider.?

A story titled ?Pants With Lots of Flare? by Rachel Dodes announced that ?it?s the year of pyramid-shaped pants.? She reported that ?extremely wide-legged pants are strutting into collections by Nanette Lepore, Diane von Furstenberg, BCBG Max Azria and Tracy Reese, among others.

The style, featuring fuller legs than the boot cut that has been popular in recent years, is inspired by 1920s menswear and the sailor look.? I?m not complaining, exactly. Myself, I?d just as soon have a choice; I like the idea of wearing wide pants some days and skinny pants other days.

But when skinnier pants are the latest thing at the same time that wider pants are also the latest thing, it?s no wonder a lot of people can?t be bothered to keep track of what?s the latest thing.