On Saturday morning we dropped Jane off with friends and spent the whole day rehearsing. We didn't see her again until almost 7:00 that evening. Then yesterday we dropped her off with another friend before church, and didn't see her until nearly 8:00 at night. I was so active and busy during rehearsals that I didn't have much time to think, but when we were driving to pick her up and when we saw how overjoyed she was to see us I simply couldn't imagine how people manage to leave their babies at daycare all day long. Today I am just drinking in as much as I can from my time with her before I drop her off at 5:00 to go pick Michael up and run a full dress rehearsal. We haven't yet run the thing straight through with no stops so we are not quite sure how long it will be with intermission, but it will probably top three hours. With 7:30 kick-off (of course we have to be there at least two hours in advance), picking Jane up afterwards, and the drive home, that means we'll be getting to bed around midnight every night this week. Michael will hardly even see her at all.
BUT! Yesterday we ran through it in costume for the first time and it makes it all seem so real! Suddenly everything falls into place, and though we still made a few mistakes, the director seemed to think that we are coming along nicely. Apparently, for some shows they haven't even come up with a final number until the Monday dress rehearsal before opening night.
Jane is being such a trooper. She seems perfectly happy this morning, playing with her toys as usual and chattering away merrily and primarily unintelligibly. She has become fluent in several foreign languages recently, including German (bitte), French (oui), Spanish (hola), and Swedish (ja).
Monday, July 31, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The pace quickens
As if it ever slackened.
Today I earned a $25 dinner certificate for test-driving a minivan at a local Toyota dealer. We received a mailing advertising the promotion, and after calling to verify the validity of the offer and the lack of strings attached, Jane and I were off to inspect the goods. It was such fun to get to try out a new car and enjoy all the bells and whistles, and because I was clear on my intentions up front, there was no pressure at all (which usually would scare me away from taking advantage of these kinds of promotions). I told them when I arrived that I was there for the free gift certificate, that we weren't in the market for a new car today but might be interested in purchasing a minivan in a year or two, and that I'd be happy to scope out the options so we could be aware of what was out there. The new vehicles these days are really amazing. I wonder, if everyone in America immediately bought a brand-new car AND always fastened his/her seatbelt, what the auto fatality rate would drop to. As the salesman explained all the features and all the hidden airbags/curtains/protective pockets, I wondered how anyone could possibly die in that car.
This week we have a slight breather from play practise. Last Saturday was our last free day (and only in many weeks) before the final grueling lap. On Saturday we have a complete run-through with costume changes; Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday are full dress rehearsals; Wednesday is opening night; Thursday, Friday, and twice on Saturday are performances. And amazingly enough, with the exception of this Saturday (panicking a little bit on that score), we have childcare completely lined up for Jane for both weeks. It helps that family is coming down the second week to take turns watching Jane and watching us. It will be fun! But I will be glad when it is over.
Today I earned a $25 dinner certificate for test-driving a minivan at a local Toyota dealer. We received a mailing advertising the promotion, and after calling to verify the validity of the offer and the lack of strings attached, Jane and I were off to inspect the goods. It was such fun to get to try out a new car and enjoy all the bells and whistles, and because I was clear on my intentions up front, there was no pressure at all (which usually would scare me away from taking advantage of these kinds of promotions). I told them when I arrived that I was there for the free gift certificate, that we weren't in the market for a new car today but might be interested in purchasing a minivan in a year or two, and that I'd be happy to scope out the options so we could be aware of what was out there. The new vehicles these days are really amazing. I wonder, if everyone in America immediately bought a brand-new car AND always fastened his/her seatbelt, what the auto fatality rate would drop to. As the salesman explained all the features and all the hidden airbags/curtains/protective pockets, I wondered how anyone could possibly die in that car.
This week we have a slight breather from play practise. Last Saturday was our last free day (and only in many weeks) before the final grueling lap. On Saturday we have a complete run-through with costume changes; Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday are full dress rehearsals; Wednesday is opening night; Thursday, Friday, and twice on Saturday are performances. And amazingly enough, with the exception of this Saturday (panicking a little bit on that score), we have childcare completely lined up for Jane for both weeks. It helps that family is coming down the second week to take turns watching Jane and watching us. It will be fun! But I will be glad when it is over.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Bigger isn't always bad
I stumbled across this post and, while charmed by the general call to de-clutter and not lay up excessive treasure on earth, felt that the adulation heaped upon the French for their simplicity and small-mindedness was a bit over the top.
It's all well and good to heed the call to the simple life, to make do with less and be unwasteful. Certainly in America we could do with a little dressing down, and I agree that most people today have way too much junk on hand. But it's going a bit too far to assume that since having too much (stuff, space, etc.) is excessive and oppressive, it must therefore be better to err on the side of asceticism. What we want is a happy medium - not too much, not too little: just right.
There is no virtue in making do with less for the pure sake of self-denial. In other words, smaller living spaces/appliances per se are not inherently better than larger ones. It's a question of what you need and what you can prudently manage. Glorifying simplicity for simplicity's sake, as if that were an end in itself and necessarily more virtuous than complexity, harks back to Henry David Thoreau and his ilk.
The western European notion of smallness fits a very definite mindset, and it's not necessarily geared toward functionality, convenience, or practicality. Much of it is simply rooted in tradition and bounded by the limitations of the past: way back then, that was all they had room for, and they've never bothered expanding their horizons since then. Having a half size refrigerator certainly will limit the amount of groceries you can stockpile, which works out just fine for the shrinking family size of western European nations but isn't so handy for the healthy American homeschooling family that may jolly well need - and put to good use - that extra chest freezer.
There is something undeniably charming and quaint about making do with small and even cramped spaces, but why would you willingly force yourself to make do if you don't have to? I've been to Dutch bathrooms, and there is very little charm in trying to squeeze both hands at once under the tiny (cold water only) faucet in the typical powder rooms. Why build like this if you don't have to?
I'm all for using good taste to drive the selection of your clothing, and relying on quality, not quantity. But I'd rather have my decisions driven by taste and preference rather than necessity, and stock my few well-chosen articles in a closet roomy enough to be comfortable. Choosing to live with small closets in order to force you to make the right decisions about your wardrobe seems a bit like stapling your stomach in order to ensure that you don't eat too much.
Having less stuff than you need to operate at full efficiency can be just as disastrous as having so much extra stuff that your actions are hampered by your possessions. If a full-size dishwasher saves you time and effort, then buy one! If you'd rather wash your own dishes and a big dishwasher would just get in your way, then don't buy one! But priding one's self on one's small dishwasher or washing machine is just plain silly.
Mother Teresa gave away all that she had and lived a life of strict poverty, and yet she was no more virtuous in her generosity than was the Good Samaritan. Sometimes it helps to have big houses and ample possessions, if you can use those things to serve others and advance the kingdom of God.
It's all well and good to heed the call to the simple life, to make do with less and be unwasteful. Certainly in America we could do with a little dressing down, and I agree that most people today have way too much junk on hand. But it's going a bit too far to assume that since having too much (stuff, space, etc.) is excessive and oppressive, it must therefore be better to err on the side of asceticism. What we want is a happy medium - not too much, not too little: just right.
There is no virtue in making do with less for the pure sake of self-denial. In other words, smaller living spaces/appliances per se are not inherently better than larger ones. It's a question of what you need and what you can prudently manage. Glorifying simplicity for simplicity's sake, as if that were an end in itself and necessarily more virtuous than complexity, harks back to Henry David Thoreau and his ilk.
The western European notion of smallness fits a very definite mindset, and it's not necessarily geared toward functionality, convenience, or practicality. Much of it is simply rooted in tradition and bounded by the limitations of the past: way back then, that was all they had room for, and they've never bothered expanding their horizons since then. Having a half size refrigerator certainly will limit the amount of groceries you can stockpile, which works out just fine for the shrinking family size of western European nations but isn't so handy for the healthy American homeschooling family that may jolly well need - and put to good use - that extra chest freezer.
There is something undeniably charming and quaint about making do with small and even cramped spaces, but why would you willingly force yourself to make do if you don't have to? I've been to Dutch bathrooms, and there is very little charm in trying to squeeze both hands at once under the tiny (cold water only) faucet in the typical powder rooms. Why build like this if you don't have to?
I'm all for using good taste to drive the selection of your clothing, and relying on quality, not quantity. But I'd rather have my decisions driven by taste and preference rather than necessity, and stock my few well-chosen articles in a closet roomy enough to be comfortable. Choosing to live with small closets in order to force you to make the right decisions about your wardrobe seems a bit like stapling your stomach in order to ensure that you don't eat too much.
Having less stuff than you need to operate at full efficiency can be just as disastrous as having so much extra stuff that your actions are hampered by your possessions. If a full-size dishwasher saves you time and effort, then buy one! If you'd rather wash your own dishes and a big dishwasher would just get in your way, then don't buy one! But priding one's self on one's small dishwasher or washing machine is just plain silly.
Mother Teresa gave away all that she had and lived a life of strict poverty, and yet she was no more virtuous in her generosity than was the Good Samaritan. Sometimes it helps to have big houses and ample possessions, if you can use those things to serve others and advance the kingdom of God.
Back...sort of
We've had a seemingly unending stream of houseguests over the last few weeks, and while it's been enjoyable to host people, it does take a toll on the spare time. Since our primary guest room also houses the computer, snatches of computer time have been rare and short. Therefore emails have not been answered promptly and blogs have been neglected.
Things might reach equilibrium again but for the fact that Dolly rehearsals hit crunch time this weekend. Opening night is in three weeks, so the pace quickens.
In other news, Jane's top words are Uh-oh and Mama, in that order. The garden, for lack of watering, is pretty much dead.
Things might reach equilibrium again but for the fact that Dolly rehearsals hit crunch time this weekend. Opening night is in three weeks, so the pace quickens.
In other news, Jane's top words are Uh-oh and Mama, in that order. The garden, for lack of watering, is pretty much dead.
Monday, July 03, 2006
The license plate game
This is a fun game that my family has played for years. You can also play it as a board game using scrabble pieces, but it's best for enlivening any driving trip. You simply form a word out of the three letters on the license plates of passing cars. The rules are simple:
1) The word must be at least four letters long.
2) No proper names or contractions allowed.
3) If two words contain the same number of letters, the shortest word is determined by alphabetical priority. (So for AGE, Ages beats Sage, even though it has two syllables.)
4) The letters have to appear in the word in the order that they are on the plate. But they can be anywhere in the word.
5) The shortest and the longest words both win. (This is great for playing with your spouse in the car [a non-speaking baby in the backseat doesn't count] because you both win, all of the time.)
It's fun to take this one step farther and make words out of initials. Since most of us (with the exception of certain Italian spaghetti-lovers) have three names, this works out perfectly. The point is to invent the cleverest and pithiest word, not necessarily the shortest. A few quick examples:
MLF = Mellifluous
SLJ = Um...well...her maiden name was a cool Silver...
SEM = Semantics
RLR = Ruler
JRP = Jurisprudence
1) The word must be at least four letters long.
2) No proper names or contractions allowed.
3) If two words contain the same number of letters, the shortest word is determined by alphabetical priority. (So for AGE, Ages beats Sage, even though it has two syllables.)
4) The letters have to appear in the word in the order that they are on the plate. But they can be anywhere in the word.
5) The shortest and the longest words both win. (This is great for playing with your spouse in the car [a non-speaking baby in the backseat doesn't count] because you both win, all of the time.)
It's fun to take this one step farther and make words out of initials. Since most of us (with the exception of certain Italian spaghetti-lovers) have three names, this works out perfectly. The point is to invent the cleverest and pithiest word, not necessarily the shortest. A few quick examples:
MLF = Mellifluous
SLJ = Um...well...her maiden name was a cool Silver...
SEM = Semantics
RLR = Ruler
JRP = Jurisprudence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
