This post is being written by request.
I say this because every time I write a post that implies that I know something about parenting, I receive a mixed bag in terms of response, include a few angry people who believe that if my assertions regarding parenting run counter to their own beliefs, I must be attacking them.
I am not. I just think that I am right.
So today I write this post at the bequest of several readers who are curious about the methods my wife and I use to teach our children to sleep well.
It’s true that both of my children are outstanding sleepers. My three-year old daughter has been sleeping through the night ever since she was three months old and now routinely sleeps ten hours or more a night. My infant son began sleeping through the night (at least six hours at a time) at less than two months old and has topped out at eight hours several times, including last night.
It’s also true that we may simply be lucky. Perhaps our children, unlike their father, are genetically predisposed to sleep.
Genetics may play a role, but I don’t think they tell the whole story. When asked by parents how we managed to train our children to sleep through the night so effectively, I often list strategies that the parent has never heard of before or could never support. This leads me to believe that effective sleep training involves employing the correct strategies, and too many parents are either unaware of the strategies or are unwilling to use them.
These strategies are not our own. My wife read two books, The Happiest Baby on the Block and Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Baby, and the following strategies (except for one) were pulled directly from these texts.
It’s not rocket science. It’s simply following the advice of experts.
Does this mean that these strategies will work for every child? Of course not. But I think they will work on 95% of children, and I think they will help all kids sleep better, if not well. If you have not yet tried to use these strategies on a consistent basis, then you really can’t discount them or complain when your child is not sleeping well.
The following are the four most important strategies that we use. There are others, of course, like a consistent bedtime routine and insisting that our children sleep in a darkened room (our son has blackout shades), but these seem obvious and not nearly as important as the following:
White noise: Both of our kids sleep with white noise. Clara is three years old and still uses it. In the beginning, white noise mimics the sound of the womb for infants and makes them feel at ease. As children get older, it serves as a signal that it’s time for sleep as well as a means by which outside noises (a barking dog, a car horn, thunder) are eliminated. If you are not using white noise with your infant or toddler, you are making a huge mistake. Even Elysha and I sleep with white noise now.
Swaddling: Both of our children were swaddled from day one. This means wrapping them up tighter than a burrito before putting them to bed. There are specially designed swaddle blankets with Velcro straps for people like me who have difficulty achieving an effective swaddle, but my wife can swaddle with just about any blanket. I have spoken to parents who think that swaddling is “mean” and “scary” for kids, but babies like to be swaddled. It mimics the confines of the womb and prevents them from waking themselves up with flailing arms and kicking feet. In fact, the only night that Charlie has slept less than six hours in the last month was the night his swaddle came undone.
Never ever let your children sleep in your bed: This is the rule most often violated by parents, and it is the most important. Children sleep best when they sleep alone in their own bed, and when they are old enough, in their own room. It is critical that children be taught to do this. As parents, it is our responsibility to teach our children to be effective sleepers, and when we place our own emotional needs ahead of this important job, we are hurting our kids. We made the mistake of allowing Clara to sleep in our bed once when she was feeling ill, and it was the worst night of sleep that all three of us have had in a long time.
Never again.
Both of our children slept in a cradle beside our bed when they were infants. Charlie is two months old so he is still there, though for the first night, he actually slept on the floor because the cradle was not ready. Anything but our bed.
When Clara was about four months old, she was moved into her own room. It was not easy. We liked having her in a cradle beside us. It was easier and made us happy to have her near us, but we knew that in order to teach her to be an effective sleeper, she needed to be moved. The longer we waited, the harder it would be. Listening to Clara cry for the first three nights that she was in her own bedroom was incredibly difficult, but by the fourth night, she was sleeping in her room, in her crib, without complaint. It must be done. She is a more rested and happier child because of it.
The self-rocking bassinet: This was not included in either of the books that Elysha read, but after three nights spent rocking Clara to sleep as an infant, I thought that there must be a machine to do this for me. There was. When I bought the self-rocking bassinet three years ago, it was the only one on the market and it was not exactly stylish (the mattress appears to have been imported from a Guantanamo Bay prison camp), but it did the job. Clara spent the first three months in a self rocking bassinet and Charlie is there now. Turn a knob and the bassinet rocks itself, allowing Elysha and I to sleep while the bassinet gently rocks the baby to sleep, switching off after 30 minutes. And when the baby begins to stir around 5:00 AM with the rising of the sun, it’s the self-rocking bassinet that puts him or her back to sleep for another hour or two. It’s indispensable.
It’s also true that Elysha and I are blessed with two children who have been easy to manage thus far. Perhaps they are both waiting for their teenage years to raise hell, but for now, both kids are more than we could have hoped for in terms of their behavior.
Are they genetically predisposed to these easy-going natures, and has this made sleep training much easier? Possibly.
But I also know that they are both well rested children, sleeping through the night and napping on regular schedules every day. If your child is challenging in terms of behavior, ask yourself:
Is your child getting enough uninterrupted sleep every day and night?
As teacher, I can assure you that a tired student is one who is more likely to misbehave during the day.
As a parent, I can tell you that a missed nap almost guarantees a deterioration in behavior later in the day.
Children who don’t sleep enough or spend portions of their night sleep beside parents and drop out of REM sleep every time someone tosses or turns in the bed have a more difficult time regulating their behavior.
I’d love to think that my wife and I produce well behaved, easy-going, naturally precocious children, but in truth, our kids might just be getting enough sleep every night.
I took this picture of my daughter walking past this particular car in order to convince her at some point in the future that the photograph was taken in the late 1970’s.
“Time travel, Clara! Daddy is capable of time travel! So do you’re homework, damn it, or I’ll send you back to 1987 when Rick Astley’s music wasn't ironic but was actually taken seriously. Think about it! ”
Here’s the difference in a marriage proposal for a man and a woman.
When a woman receives a marriage proposal, it means that a man has asked permission to spend the rest of his life with her. He has decided to put everything on the line, drop to one knee, and tell the girl who he loves that there is no one else in the world more perfect than she.
When a man proposes marriage, the best he can ask for is consent.
It’s possibly one of the greatest inventions in the history of the world.
I know what you’re thinking. It’s just a tennis racket. Right?
Wrong. It’s the Koolatron Lentek Biteshield RZ02 Electronic Racket Zapper. It’s a tennis racket-style electric fly swatter that uses electric shock to kill flying insects such as mosquitoes, flies, and gnats. Stick this bit of ingenious technology in your hand and you have instantly been transformed into a human bug zapper.
And even though the manufacturer warns that this is not a toy, I can’t imagine a better toy. A more perfect toy. No longer must I smear mosquito guts on my hands while trying to kill these vile insects. Now I can simply electrocute them in mid-air.
Even the name of the thing kicks ass. Say it aloud. Seriously. Just speaking the name of the product makes you feel good.
Behold the newly-revised Friendship Application (the original one was more than two years old and in serious need of an update).
There have been instances over the past year or so when it seemed as if someone in my life was on the verge of becoming a genuine friend. This is all well and good, but what if the person turned out to be a Jets fan or a militant vegan or lived an hour from my home?
I’m not opposed to making a new friend, but I have standards.
Thus the Friendship Application was born.
If I feel that someone is on the verge of becoming my friend, I will send an email that reads:
Dear _____________,
Over the past couple weeks, I’ve noticed that we may be on the verge of becoming friends. In order to ensure that you are proper friendship material, please complete the attached application. A score of 100 or above will indicate that this friendship can proceed.
Less than 100 and I will be forced to terminate this potential friendship.
Good luck!
Some items of note in regards to my criteria:
The vegetarian question does not imply that I have a problem per se with vegetarians or vegans (I actually have at least two friends who are vegetarians), but considering my limitations in terms of vegetables, it makes friendship slightly more challenging in terms of finding a place where we can both eat.
In asking if an applicant is a teacher, I am seeking to determine if our schedules will closely align. A teacher with the same summer vacation as me is much more valuable than someone who is working 8-10 hours a day throughout the summer months as well.
Even though I am a Yankees fan, it should be noted that a Red Sox fan can score points based upon my recognition that this rivalry often produces interesting debates and lively banter. The same does not apply to Mets and especially Jets fans, who are always annoying and downright unpleasant when discussing their teams.
In terms of golf, you can score points for being a golfer, but actually playing on a regular basis (and therefore being available to play) is much more valuable to me. Some of my closest friends are golfers, but because they only play a couple times a year (for reasons usually associated with the demands of their job or family), it means little to me in terms of available playing partners. I considered adding a question about whether or not an applicant had to ask his or her spouse for permission to play golf, but I didn’t think that anyone who required permission would answer honestly.
In terms of football, flag football scores more points than touch football because flag football implies a greater commitment to the game. You can also easily transition an attempt to strip a player of a flag into a full-blown tackle, often without much complaint or protest.
My question regarding an applicant’s weekend wake up time seeks to determine his or her availability. I have friends who profess to love golf, for example, but are unwilling to get out of bed at 5:30 AM on a Sunday in order to play. The earlier you get up on the weekend, the more likely you are available for early morning activities. Some of my closest friends will routinely call or text me at 6:00 AM on any given day, knowing that we are always awake at that hour.
The question about the all-nighter seeks to determine a person’s sleep tolerance. I am often in search of friends who are willing to stay up exceptionally late in order to attend a Moth event in NYC, a Monday night football game in Foxboro, MA, or even an all-night activity like the Williams Trivia Contest at Williams College in Williamstown, MA. There are few people willing to sacrifice sleep in exchange for attending one of these memorable events. I am always in search of more.
In terms of martial state, unmarried is preferable to married simply because there are fewer demands on a person’s schedule and greater availability.
Similarly, a childless person is preferable to one with kids because of his or her increased availability, but having children similar in age to my own children is also helpful and can score you points.
Last week I received an email from a frequent reader of my blog and a follower on Twitter who had just finished reading my new book (she lives overseas where it is already available). In the course of commenting on my book, she referred to me as a “gentle and kind” person, citing the things I write on Twitter and on my blog as support for this assessment.
I may be many things, but I cannot remember the last time anyone referred to me as gentle or even kind, and I doubt if anyone who knows me well would ever use these two words to describe me.
It led me to wonder how my online personality compares to my actual personality. Are there significant differences between the two? Is my online persona inauthentic or inaccurate, and if so, why would this be the case?
With these thoughts in mind, I decided to conduct a wholly unscientific survey yesterday in which I asked my Twitter followers, Facebook friends and Facebook fans to offer three words that would describe me.
Obviously there are serious flaws in this kind of survey. First and foremost, I had no way of protecting the anonymity of the people who responded, so I assumed that the responses would automatically skew positive. I was correct. Though there were a number of negative responses, the great majority were positive.
Then again, if you follow me on Twitter or are a friend or fan on Facebook, you are probably, though not necessarily, predisposed to positive comments anyway. If you didn’t like me to at least some degree, you probably wouldn’t subject yourself to my thoughts and ideas on a daily basis.
In retrospect, what I should have done is asked people for one positive word, one negative word and one word of their choosing. And ideally, I should have used a service like Survey Monkey to protect the anonymity of my respondents.
Hindsight is 20/20.
My sample size was also considerably smaller than I had hoped. With a pool of well over 1,000 people from which to illicit responses, only 31 people responded, yielding a pool of only 93 descriptive words to analyze.
What I should have done was offer free books to one or more randomly-selected responders. Free stuff will always get people to participate, especially when all they need to do is type three words into Twitter or an email client and click send.
On a positive note, I specifically asked people who have never met me in real life to respond, and all but 6% of my respondents were people who I have never actually met before.
I will learn from these mistakes and repeat my survey in six months, but for now, the data that I received has been fascinating, if somewhat limited.
I have taken the 93 descriptive words offered by responders and attempted to categorize them. I initially came up with 9 categories, but my wife has argued for a tenth, which I will discuss later.
Of the 9 categories, I dropped “Occupational” from the table below because it contained words like teacher, author and parent. I did not think that these descriptors spoke to my persona.
As a result, here are my 8 initial categories, comprising 64 of the 93 responses. The Occupational category contains 6 words, bringing the total to 71 of the 93 words categorized (76%). The words appear in the columns in the order in which they were received.
Disagreeable
Truthiness
Work ethic
Humor
Creativity
Different
Intelligent
Confident
provocative
frank
determined
funny
imaginative
unusual
perceptive
self-righteous
score-keeper
frank
responsible
funny
creative
quirky
smart
independent
curmudgeonly
honest
passionate
hilarious
creative
unconventional
witty
strong-minded
defiant
honest
prolific
funny
creative
random
logical
confident
ornery
honest
productive
funny
creative
intelligent
unafraid
snarky
blunt
intense
funny
insightful
confident
sarcastic
real
energetic
astute
boastful
genuine
driven
clever
honest
hardworking
insightful
blunt
hardworking
insightful
honest
intellectual
blunt
clever
intelligent
The words “honest” and “funny” appear most frequently in the survey (5 times each), followed by “blunt” and “creative” (4 times each).
I should also note that the “score-keeper” response is indicative of my love for the phrase “I told you so”, taking it so far as to maintain an “I told you so” Google calendar.
The rest of the categorized descriptors were relatively self-explanatory.
As I said, my wife has argued for a tenth category, with she labeled “Empathetic” but I am not sure if the words that she proposed for inclusion in this category are close enough in meaning to be grouped together.
I also have little faith in my ability to be empathetic, which may contribute to my hesitancy to include this category in my table.
If I were to include it, it would look like this:
Empathetic
chivalrous
pure-hearted
humanitarian
loving
warm
personable
empathetic
encouraging
doting
caring
loyal
In addition to the issues already stated regarding this category, I also know that 5 of the 11 descriptors came from just two people, and one of those knows me (albeit vaguely) in real life. Extract the responses of those two people from the sample and it begins to look much less like a significant or cohesive category.
This leaves only 11 responses uncategorized.
The word “talented” appeared twice in the data, but I was unsure of what talent these responses were referencing, so I was hesitant to categorize them.
Two others (eloquent, articulate) spoke to my writing and/or speaking ability.
The last 7 words, relatively singular in their nature, appear below:
Uncategorized
endearing
grateful
inspiring
realistic
young-at-heart
strong
sentimental
A couple of these struck me as quite insightful on part of the responders, including “sentimental” and “grateful.” I think I possess both of these qualities in abundance but tend not to broadcast them very often.
I was also unsure what the descriptor “strong” was meant to reference.
So what have a learned from this?
First and foremost, I’ve learned that I could have conducted this survey much more effectively and will do so at some point in the future.
Second, I think I’ve learned that my online and offline personas are quite similar.
Yes, I am honest, quite often to a fault.
Yes, I am hard working. Some might say that I am always working.
Yes, I suppose I am fairly intelligent as well, though I have also lived a life full of shockingly stupid decisions.
Yes, at times I can be funny and creative, though there are many times when I am decidedly unfunny and uncreative. I am just discerning enough to delete those unfunny, uncreative blog posts and tweets before the rest of the world can see them.
And yes, I can most certainly be a curmudgeonly,
defiant, overconfident, boastful,
ornery,
snarky,
sarcastic, unconventional provocateur. Perhaps even more so than this survey indicated.
And yes, perhaps I am occasionally, slightly, marginally more empathetic than I would like to think I am.
Maybe.
It’s also occurred to me that in terms of my career as an author, this survey, in many ways, is reflective of my brand. As a person who writes a blog every day, tweets several times a day, and routinely posts to Facebook (in addition to my fiction), I am in the business of creating a brand for myself, and that brand will go a long way in attracting readers and establishing a platform for myself.
But knowing how my readers perceive that brand is difficult to measure. A survey like this, especially if done more scientifically, could be quite beneficial to anyone who is producing content on a regular basis and looking to build an audience. While my goal is to be as authentic and honest as possible with my readers, a survey like this may uncover certain aspects of my persona that are being over-emphasized based upon the nature of blogging and social media.
I may also learn that there are aspects of my character that I am failing to project entirely, and these aspects may be beneficial to share with my audience.
Thankfully, it would appear, based upon this highly flawed survey, that the person I am and the image I project via my online content are one and the same. There is nothing I despise more than inauthenticity.
If nothing else, my respondents seems to have clearly gleaned this aspect of my character.
I heard great things about this movie, and over the weekend, my wife and I finally had a chance to sit down and watch it.
It’s an excellent movie. The writing is very good, the cinematography, while not visually stunning, is interesting and different, and the acting is excellent. I like Lena Dunham. She’s brave and honest and funny.
My issue with the film is its ending. In fact, it has no ending. It’s one of these movies that make you wonder if the director simply ran out of film or lost the last few pages of the script and decided to yell, “That’s a wrap!” in hopes that the last pithy line of dialogue will be suggestive enough of an ending to allow art house critics and hipsters conjure meaning in their minds while arrogantly assuming that only they are capable of understanding said meaning.
The movie just stops. There is no respect for story arc or even the sense that a story should have some kind of beginning, middle and end.
I can’t tell you how much that annoys me.
Would I recommend that you see Tiny Furniture?
Yes, actually I would. It’s an excellent film.
But do me a favor. Since you will be watching it at home, stop the movie wherever you think it should end. Choose any pithy, suggestive line of dialogue that feels right to you. Or stop it when you need to pee and shout, “That’s a wrap!”
Make your own ending to the movie rather than being surprised like me when the credits begin rolling and you are left wondering what the hell just happened.
I’ve started to use their free trial, and other than the incredibly annoying music that accompanies the program, it appears that a commitment to the instruction and practice that the program prescribes would eventually turn me into a fairly competent one-handed typist.
I just don’t think that my son is going to want to hold my hand often enough to warrant this kind of commitment.
I have a friend whose funeral plans involve floating her corpse in a boat into Long Island Sound while her friends and family gather on the shore. Once the boat is at a safe distance, it will be detonated as John Lennon’s “Imagine” serenades the bereaved.
Best of all, I have been given permission to press the button that will set off the explosion.
I have tried to convince my friend to have her body cremated first, lest portions of her body come splashing back down into the ocean like the pieces of shark that come crashing down around Roy Scheider in Jaws, but so far, she has balked.
For people like my friend who desire an explosive ending to their life, I may have found an alternative to dynamite and a rowboat. For $4000, a company called Angel's Flight will build 210 rockets from the ashes of the deceased and facilitate a funeral firework display in your backyard.
For an extra $1000, family and friends can watch the fireworks display from a yacht.
Despite the 1998 aesthetics of Angel’s Flight’s website, this option appeals a great deal to me as well.
Currently, my funeral plans (if I were to ever die, which is obviously never going to happen) would be for my body to be cremated and my ashes spread on Yawgoog Pond at Camp Yawgoog, the Boy Scout camp where I spent much of my childhood.
But instead of simply spreading the ashes on the water, perhaps a more fitting end would be to explode my ashes over the pond in a brilliant pyrotechnic display.
The Boy Scouts would most assuredly enjoy the display, even if it means they’d be swimming in my remains the following day.
If you’re looking to surprise me with a gift, I have wanted a standing desk for a long time.
This one in particular would be excellent.
The reason I don’t own a standing desk already is that I’m afraid to buy one. I think I’d like to use a standing desk, but I’m not sure. There’s a chance that it might end up as a piece of extraneous furniture in the corner of the room that my daughter eventually turns into a high rise apartment building for her collection of little people, unicorns, and dinosaurs.
This is why a standing desk would make the perfect gift. I would risk nothing, and the potential reward would be great.
Of course, if you really want to impress me, might I suggest ditching the idea of the standing desk altogether and giving me the most amazing desk of all time:
This incredible desk was created by the Dublin ad agency Boys and Girls for their own entryway reception area. After a magazine described their office’s reception area as “small and routine,” Boys and Girls decided to design something a little more fitting for their creative agency, hence the idea for a balloon desk was born. After doing some serious scientific research, the agency teamed up with Twisted Image to start production this past February. Twisted Image created permanent hot air balloons(!!!) that would be strong enough to carry the weight of the desk. By using a rubber composite that would never degrade, they were able to fill the balloons with enough helium/hydrogen hybrid gas to float the desk indefinitely. The ribbons were reinforced with carbo-titanium, and an aerospace-grade titanium cleat was used to attach the strings to the desk. As if that half of the desk wasn’t cool enough, Boys and Girls constructed giant Jenga blocks to act as the other side of the desk.
I had a third person inquire about hiring me as a professional best man this week. Unlike the first two, this potential client lives within the United States but on the west coast, making it impossible to serve the duties of the office faithfully.
Here’s an idea I’m considering:
Write a blog that examines the youth baseball culture in my town and/or neighboring towns, with specific emphasis on assessing and critiquing the coaching style and the overall effectiveness and efficacy of the adults involved.
It’s recently come to my attention that although most of the coaches and parent volunteers involved in these organized baseball leagues are skillful at their jobs, a small percentage of coaches should not be working with young people. These are the coaches who take their team’s win-loss record personally and treat this childhood game as if it were their own version of professional ball. They are the screamers and the demeanors: the men who believe that a child will hit a ball more frequently and farther if he or she is made to feel rotten about each and every strike out.
It occurred to me that parents might want to know who these coaches are. They may want to know which coach berates his players on a regular basis and which coach circumvents the league rules in order to play only his best players in the playoffs.
Apparently there are also a number of backroom deals taking place at the beginning of each season that allows for certain teams to be stocked with the league’s best players year after year while other teams are comprised almost exclusively of less inexperienced, less effective ballplayers.
Not only would this be good information for parents to possess before deciding if their child should join a league or team, but I would love the opportunity to explore the motives behind a man who is willing to manipulate the system in order to ensure that his team of twelve-year old boys competes for the championship each year.
I’d also very much like to expose these jerks for who they really are.
But is this something that parents would bother to read before deciding upon leagues and teams?
While I’m at it, I might also want to address the behavior of umpires working in these leagues, at least if the umpire in the video below in any indication of the kind of men umpiring Little League games. If it were my son who had just struck out and been greeted by this umpire’s third strike call, it would’ve taken all my self control to not walk over to home plate and punch the guy in the face.
The wedding season has begun. Last week my DJ partner and I worked our first wedding of the year. As the reception came to a close, I had a few thoughts on wedding receptions that may help you the next time you are planning or attending one:
1. As charming as it may seem to make an impromptu toast, don’t do it, for several reasons:
Wedding and receptions are often timed to the minute. An unexpected five minute interruption can cause problems that you cannot begin to imagine.
The order in which people are chosen to speak is often decided upon for a specific reason. The bride and groom, for example, may ask the Maid of Honor to deliver the final toast because she is funny and will alleviate some of the weight of the Best Man’s toast, which references the groom’s grandmother who died two weeks ago. Your unplanned toast may defeat this purpose entirely.
Brides and grooms choose the people to deliver speeches carefully. Oftentimes a request to speak is declined for the sake of time or a myriad of other reasons (If we let you speak, we’ll have to let Uncle Joey speak, and that would not go well). Assuming that your toast will be welcomed and appreciated is wrong.
If the bride and groom had wanted you to speak, they would have asked you to speak.
Delivering an impromptu toast or speech is an excellent way of appearing attention-seeking and narcissistic on a day when you are clearly not supposed to be the center of attention.
2. As a bride and groom, if you intend on tipping your vendors, consider tipping them at the onset of the reception. While I like to think that my DJ partner and I work incredibly hard at every wedding, we feel the added weight of obligation when tipped just prior to the reception and will actively seek out ways to go above and beyond the call of duty for the bride and groom.
3. This is a piece of advice that my partner gives to brides who have especially challenging mothers-in-law:
You only have one chance to make your mother-in-law feel included in the planning and execution of your wedding day, and it is a day that will be remembered more than almost any other in your relationship with her. Don’t blow it. Compromise. Your relationship with her will last long after the final song at your reception is played. Keep that in mind when she suggests what that final song should be.
Donna Alexander is the founder of the aptly-named Anger Room, probably the only business in the world that begs you to break everything in inside it. Located in a Dallas strip mall, the Anger Room is just as you’d hope it would be: filled with old furniture and electronics collected from junkyards and public donations, arranged to look like an office, bedroom or kitchen. But everything here is expendable: go ahead, grab a chair and chuck it across the room. Throw a plant at the computer screen. Stomp on the telephone. Grab a baseball bat and show that glass lamp who’s boss.
Alexander is essentially providing her customers with the opportunity to express their anger in a way that is slightly more socially acceptable, slightly more expensive and not unlike the famous copy machine scene from Office Space:
I’m not sure if I would ever be inclined use this service, but I tend to be relatively even keeled in most situations. A close friend recently referred to me as implacable, and I think this is an apt description.
But that hasn’t always been the case.
During the dozen years I spent managing McDonald’s restaurants, I often relieved my stress and anger by throwing 20 pound cases of French fries against the walls of the walk-in freezer, a story that I once told in a job interview when asked how I handle stressful situations.
Probably not the best answer, but I got the job, and I'm still doing it today.
Since your Mother’s Day shopping is probably complete, I thought I’d remind you of what I would like for Father’s Day, in case any of you are so inclined to give me a gift.
Yesterday, a woman asked my very pregnant but perfectly sized wife if she is having twins. When Elysha answered in the negative, the woman then said, “Wow! You’re big.”
Actually, according to measurements taken at her last doctor’s appointment, Elysha is slightly smaller than average at this point in her pregnancy. She is also the most beautiful pregnant woman you will ever see and does not look big.
Comments about the size of a pregnant woman should never be made unless the comment is clearly complimentary in nature.
Even then, I think it’s better to avoid the topic altogether. But if you must comment on a pregnant woman’s physical appearance, it had better be positive.
Most important, there is only one correct response to a comment like the one that was made to my wife yesterday:
What a terrible and stupid thing to say. In the future, you should know that people who make comments like that are despised by anyone with half a brain in their head, which is evidentially more than I can say for you.
Memorize these two sentences. Use them. Don’t allow this kind of rudeness to go unchallenged. Make the world a better place.
I can’t tell you the number of times that a woman has said something to Elysha that implied that she is larger than she should be. Thankfully, my wife is a tough lady who is not easily bothered by the comments of nitwits, but it’s still completely unnecessary and utterly rude.
While speaking on a panel at the Newburyport Literary Festival on Saturday, I was asked to recommend two books.
I recommended my first novel, SOMETHING MISSING, though doing so made me a little uncomfortable, since I was the only author on the panel.
I also recommended THE TALE OF DESPEREAUX, the Newbury Award winning novel by Kate DiCamillo. It’s a brilliant and beautiful book about courage, sacrifice and the dangers of nonconformity, and it’s equally suited for children and adults. Then, in order to make up for my level of discomfort in recommending my own book, I suggested that audience members buy DiCamillo’s book before purchasing my own.
“I’d even be willing to sign Kate DiCamillo’s book if you’d like, if that will convince you to buy it. With my name or Kate’s name. Whatever you’d like.”
The comment garnered a laugh from the audience, but as I was signing books in the outer lobby, one of the audience members took me up on my offer, asking me to sign Kate DiCamillo’s name by proxy.
I have often told readers that I am perfectly comfortable with them signing my name by proxy in my books, since I believe in delegating responsibility whenever possible, but I have yet to see someone actually take me up on this.
But as requested, I signed Kate’s name to the book, adding an inscription that complimented my own wit, charm and good looks in order to ensure that the signature appeared very tongue-in-cheek and unlikely made by the hand of DiCamillo.
Later that night, I received a tweet from the woman whose book I signed. She hadn’t taken the time to look at the inscription at the time of the signing but noticed it several hours later and had a good laugh over it.
I’m hoping Kate DiCamillo won’t mind, since I did manage to sell a book for her. Many, in fact.
But it got me thinking:
At every bookstore appearance, I make it a point of recommending half a dozen other books to my audience in addition to my own. I try to recommend books in a variety of genres, including fiction, nonfiction, graphic novels, children’s books and even a cookbook.
What if I was to ensure that, in addition to my own books, the bookstore had at least one of these titles in stock, adding during the recommendation portion of my talk that if anyone purchased one of these books in addition to my own (or even instead of my own), I would be willing to sign that author’s name by proxy?
Would authors be pleased that I am helping to sell their books?
Would they be annoyed with me for forging their signature?
Is this even amusing enough to make it worth the time and effort?
The idea certainly garnered a laugh on Saturday, and it made enough of an impression in the mind of one audience member to take me up on the offer, but perhaps this is the kind of thing that goes well if done spur-of-the-moment but not so well if it is planned and executed in a regular basis.
New York Times bestselling author Deborah Kogan tweeted a quote by her five year old son last week that continues to haunt with me.
When it comes to my persistent existential crisis, this five-year old has summed up my feelings more precisely than I ever could have myself.
FOR generations, getting married meant solemnly standing before an authority figure charged with upholding the rules of civil society or religious traditions.
But when Amity Kitchen wed Matthew Saucedo in January, a gregarious family friend, Chris Coughlin, officiated. Mr. Coughlin’s credentials for performing the ceremony? He clicked his mouse at a site offering ordination as a Universal Life Church minister, joining the ranks of Web-blessed clergy who are becoming an increasingly popular choice to preside over weddings.
“Neither Matt nor I are very religious,” Ms. Kitchen said. “The thought of just randomly picking someone to perform this meaningful ceremony, that just didn’t make sense.”
I became an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church thinking that someday there might DJ client also in need of a wedding officiant, and I might be able to fill this role for them as well. To be honest, I thought the chances of me being hired as a minster were slim, but since becoming ordained in 2002, I have presided over a dozen wedding ceremonies, including the ceremonies of two close friends, and three baby naming ceremonies.
One family actually considers me their family minster.
When Elysha and I were married in 2006, a friend also ordained by The Universal Life Church married us.
So I fully support the shift from traditionally ordained religious folk to less formal but more personal officiants, but I also advise using caution when choosing a friend or relative to preside over your wedding ceremony. After providing the music for more than one hundred ceremonies over the past decade, I have seen some less than stellar performances.
When choosing your officiant, traditionally ordained or otherwise, I believe that three important qualities should be considered:
1. The volume of the officiant’s voice
As a DJ, I have seen far too many ceremonies marred by a minister or justice of the peace who cannot be heard by the guests.
Sure, the officiant could use a microphone, but then you suffer the disparity of volume between the officiant and the bride and groom and anyone else speaking or reading.
You could also provide a microphone for everyone speaking at the ceremony, bride and groom included, but this adds a level of complexity that almost guarantees a problem. Either you are placing a lavaliere microphone on the bride’s dress (never a good idea), shoving a microphone in her face as she speaks (even worse), or she is holding a microphone during her ceremony.
All bad options.
There are plenty of people who can officiate a wedding. Why choose a wizened old man or a grandmotherly old lady? Instead, choose someone like me who can speak in a voice that can be heard loud and clear.
2. The ability of the officiant to speak extemporaneously
Too often I have seen brides and grooms choose a friend or relative to officiate a wedding, only to see the officiant bury his or her head in the book, never to be seen again. You want an officiant who can speak to an audience with a level of comfort that allows for frequent eye contact, an occasional smile and a relaxed disposition.
As much as you might love Cousin Henry, if he can’t get his head out of the book, it won’t matter if he is officiating your wedding since no one will ever see him.
3. Experience
Choose an officiant with a modicum of wedding experience, even if that experience is as a guest at many weddings. I have seen people officiate ceremonies who have attended so few wedding in their lifetimes that the basic structure and flow of a ceremony is a mystery to them. Not only does this often make for a stilted, uncertain performance, but it does not allow the officiant to act quickly with good judgment when something goes wrong, as it often does.
It’s one of the most important days of your life. Don’t trust it to a complete amateur.
