Stuff that happened this Christmas

Kate and Ed drove from Michigan with tree and ornaments inside their car.

Elliot fell in love with the Christmas tree. 

Kate and Ed stayed downstairs in the apartment of our landlords and downstairs neighbors. 

Cameron worked full days on Dec 24th to 26th, less after that.  

Anna stayed over on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day  

We had cheese fondue on Christmas Eve.

Anna had to open her first gift before dinner, because it was the fondue pot. 

We had delicious chocolate mousse on Christmas eve made by Kate. 

Cameron got a Kindle from Hannah.

H&C gave K&E TV.  They said it was “too big” and they did not mean the dimensions of the TV.  Secretly they loved it. Ed had a mischevious grin on his face as he talked about where they would put the TV. 

Minutes before midnight on Christmas Day, we read A Child’s Christmas in Wales by Dylan Thomas because it is one of Anna’s family traditions.

Blizzard was on Dec 26th.  

Car was snowed in.  Snow was as high as windows on car because of wind blowing snow into piles.  

Generalized outrage over poor plowing and clearing of streets (not limited to West-Page household)

On Dec 27th, Cameron and Hannah walked four blocks for Mexican takeout and it felt like four miles.  But everyone on the roads was smiling at each other in camaraderie. 

On Dec 27-28, Elliot really started standing up.  Seriously, not just saying that as a parent.  This kid is precocious.  Okay, he had some help. 

Cameron started calling Elliot Pookie.  Unclear why. 

Elliot started talking a lot more.  See videos for details. 

What Elliot Will be Wearing the Rest of Winter

The Christmas Series

Down + Swing = Unstoppable

real close up

Don't Mess with Us

The Mama Series

These photos represent approximately 0.0001% of the time Elliot spends in Hannah's arms...

An analogy

Here’s a classic rock climbing story: two people, a man and a woman, start learning to climb at the same time.  At first neither of them is very good, but the man is better than the woman.  He climbs faster, he climbs farther, he scales faces she can’t. 

Over time, they both get better.  But the woman gets more better than the man.  (That’s right, I said more better.)  Six months or a year later, the situation is reversed: she’s climbing faces he can’t.

What happened?  The man has bigger muscles than the woman.  So he learned that he could just heave himself up with mountain with his strength.  And since he’s climbing with someone who’s not as good as him, there is no need to develop skills.  

The woman, on the other hand, is constantly trying to keep up with her partner.  So in order to climb the same routes as him, she has to develop actual rock climbing skills.  She gets good at the little tricks: spotting that fingerhold two feet over her head, transferring 

And he’s the better climber at first.  The woman, in order to complete the same climbs as her partner, has to develop actual rock climbing skills.  She learns to transfer on a tiny toehold, she develops the eyes to spot that fingerhold two feet above her head, transferring on a tiny toehold.  

As they both climb, they both get stronger.  But the woman’s strength is built on skills, whereas the man never had to learn any skills.  So she eventually gets better than him. 

I think the same analogy could apply to quieting infants.  Fathers, lacking the sedating power of breast milk, have to develop their own set of soothing skills.  they watch baby closer, learn his habits better, and experiment more with various soothing techniques.   At first it appears that Mom is better at calming baby, but over time it becomes clear that Dad is the one who can really get the job done.

Of course, this is what you might call an aspirational analogy.  I’m hoping it will happen, although right now I’m definitely still in the “learning the skills” phase of the analogy.  Time will tell whether this translates into an ability to sooth Elliot.

Elliot on furlough

close up

Mobiles

Elliot is 8 weeks old today.  And he just fell in love with his mobile.

We have one of those crib mobiles that's designed by child development specialists: a series of interchangeable cards with various designs printed on them, each perfectly chosen to stimulate a different twist of neurons in our budding genius' brain.  Since, as everyone knows, newborns can't see in color (although it turns out there's plenty of scientific debate on the subject), there are cards printed only in black and white, and others with squiggles and lines, silhouettes of insects, circles and dots.

For the first few weeks of his life, Elliot wasn't all that excited about the mobile.  We have it mounted over the table where we change his diaper, so he's been getting regular but brief exposure to it.  And he used to glance it but also look at our faces, or look at the canary yellow wall next to his head.

In the past week, though, the mobile has developed a rhapsodizing effect.  As soon as he is placed on the changing table, his eyes lock on the little squares of plastic floating 8 inches over his head.  There are four images, and he seems to devour each one completely with his vision before moving on to the next.

Sounds great, right?  Visual stimulation occurring.  He's rapt with attention, so it must be good for his brain.  Neurons firing, connections wiring.

But here's where it gets interesting.  He's also started crying when we take him off the changing table.  And not just a little "sad to see the mobile gone" cry.  He's really upset, inconsolable for a five or ten minutes.

Which got me thinking about what it is that mobiles are supposed to be doing for children.  After all, since they're designed by child development specialists, they must be good, right?

But mobiles were invented many years before child development experts were.  And the people who invented them were not trying to improve the wiring in their kids' brains.  They were trying to get them to shut up.

And since when does rapt attention mean the child's brain is improving?  Watch a five year-old in front of a TV showing cartoons --- visual stimulation alone is not necessarily a good thing.

Am I saying that crib mobiles are the TV cartoons of the under-1 set?  That does seem a bit extreme.  Infants are still trying to learn how to see, so simple visual stimulation might be good for them in a way that it's not when a child gets older.

But I think there's something to the notion that these little squares, floating 8 inches away with clear images printed on them, are easier for an infant to look at than the complex, depth-perception-filled world where he has to live the rest of his life.

It doesn't mean throw away your mobile.  Just be aware that your infant may be using the mobile to rest his eyes.  He's staring at it not because it's more interesting than the rest of the world, but because it's less interesting, and therefore less exhausting.

But then, I'm not a child development expert.

dad time

Thanks Aunt Joan!

A very handsome sweater for the cold New York winter.

Nicknames for Elliot Thus Far

Monkey

Monks

Little Man

Little Guy

Bun

Peanut

Peanuckle

Peanuckles

Knuckles

Peanutbutter

Squoosh

Squooshface

Rashy

Pumpkin head

Pumpkin face

Chubbers

Baby Art

My brother Ian's arty onesie is giving Elliot profound thoughts.

(btw, we still have a few blank white onesies-- and several hundred fabric markers--- if you're feeling creative....)

photo

For Nora

All babies have pretended to feed when they weren't really hungry, but all mothers are convinced it never happened to them.  So you do the math.