Sunday, July 19, 2015

Outtakes

Giving myself and Carl a set of scrabble blocks and instructions to caption a photo of baby shoes doesn't always end with necessarily mature results.

As an example:
My big brother thinks this photo will haunt all three of us. I refuse to believe that. He's hermaphroditist. (Like sexist, but only toward hermaphrodites.)

Then there was Carl's contribution:
When I showed the same brother these gender-neutral brown shoes, he accused me of being "progressive," complete with quote marks that I'm not quite sure how to interpret. 

That resulted in: 

And to a degree that's true. I've always planned to have a dinosaurs and spaceships themed nursery regardless of the gender of the occupant. 

But if you think I'm not going to stick my girly in a froofy dress, you are dead wrong. 

So, these are the gender reveal photos that didn't make the cut. 

I hope you enjoyed them. 

Twin Gender Reveal!!!!

You know, Pinterest is an amazing resource for creativity. I've been all over that site, looking for an idea for a gender reveal photo for my twins.

There's just one problem. 

When it's Pinterest's idea, it's suddenly not creative anymore, and every idea I've thought about using from that site has made me feel like a poser, a total copycat. 

In addition to that, the cute little pink and blue balloons, or pink shoes by scrabble pieces that say, "It's a girl!" are adorable and all, but you have to admit... they're a little cheesy. And I have a really hard time accepting cheesy into my life. A very hard time. 

Maybe that's why it's taken me until 22 weeks into this pregnancy to announce the genders of my twins, despite having found out at 16 weeks. 

Anyway, I finally decided I'm well past that 20 week mark, and I couldn't hold back any longer. I have made my official gender reveal photo. So Pinterest, thank you for the inspiration! 

Tada!!!!!!!!


Boy AND girl!!!!!!

Names to be announced and/or decided on at a later date... possibly not until after they pop out of my uterus. 

Saturday, July 11, 2015

A new date to count toward...

It seems a huge part of the pregnancy experience is pain.

There are awesome bits - I love feeling my little minions roll around inside of me, and trying to guess from the location of the movement which one it was that I just felt.

Hunting for names has been a mixture of great fun and panic as I realized, about 8 weeks in, that there wasn't a single boy's name I liked that wouldn't get him beat up on the playground, and what if I had two boys, and had to come up with first and middle names for both of them??? (Fortunately I know the genders now... and will reveal that in a later post... so there's no more "what if" to it, and I'm set to be serious about name hunting.) But flipping through name websites and books and asking for people's opinions has been, more than anything, oodles of fun.

And my all time favorite part is baby shopping. Tiny shoes, baby clothes, books! I found this adorable tiger suit at DI the other day, and it was only $3, and shockingly clean for used baby clothes. And I'm putting together my registry and looking for the lowest possible prices on car seats and cribs and everything else I'm going to need in just a few more months. I've never been much of a shopper, but give me a baby to shop for, and I'm absolutely helpless.

Oh! And I know it'll be months and months, and maybe even over a year before they're able to make good use of bath toys, but I found this squishy pirate ship that launches foam balls. Put a set of twins in the bathtub with one of those, and it's a surefire recipe for squeals and giggles and a huge mess on the bathroom floor. I can't wait to see them use it! Heck, the night we got it, Carl and I were firing foam balls at each other.

All in all, the pregnancy "experience" is a total joy.

But it's also a constant state of pain.

Some part of my body has hurt - with absolutely no relief - every single moment of every single day, for the past 2 1/2 months. Sometimes the aching of my back is drowned out by the pain of a stabbing headache, and I don't notice it as much. My bladder always feels sore - either suddenly full right after emptying it, or just sore from being used as a trampoline. My lower and middle back take turns being more sore than the other, and don't even get me started on round ligament pain. I have to hold my stomach when I walk to stave off the ache, and it only sort of works. And I know it's going to only get worse.

Essentially, as much fun as the shopping and the name hunting and feeling them grow is, I'm really looking forward to the part where they're out of me, and I have my squishy babies. I've been counting down for a couple months now, using November 8 as my target date.

At my first appointment, my OB told me that they wouldn't let me go past 38 weeks, so even though November 22 was my official due date, I wouldn't be pregnant that long.

Well, this past Tuesday, I got the best countdown news I've ever had.

I went in for my 20 week ultrasound - the big one where they measure everything to make sure the babies are growing right, and check the gender if you didn't get an early gender ultrasound. As she was checking Dinky Squirt A's measurements, the ultrasound technician was giving me advice on prepping for twins.

"The nice thing about twins," she said, "Is that you can cut a whole month off your due date."

My eyes widened. "A month? My doctor said two weeks..."

"Well, that's only because that's the absolute longest they'll let you go. Most twins come on their own around 36 weeks. The uterus gets so heavy, with 12 or 14 lbs. of baby in there, that it just drops them, and you go into labor."

36 weeks.

I checked the calendar, and it came out to be October 25 (which just happens to be my littlest brother's birthday).

So, even though that's the beginning of the "when they'll probably be born" time, it's my new target date. And it's only 15 weeks and 1 day away. October 25 is only 3 1/2 months from today.

I am so much closer than I was last week, when I had 18 weeks left.

3 1/2 months until I have my squishy babies.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

What to Do When Rome is a Jerk

The last couple days, I've been seeing someone comment on my mom's Facebook posts, and this person's name was Iceni Boudicca.

I saw that name, and I was like, "No way that's her real name." I checked with my mom, and yeah. It was an online alias. Her real name is really pretty generic.

But, it got me all excited, because I vaguely remembered the story of Boudicca from a class I took like 6 or 7 years ago, and I remembered her as being... um... something like a powerful Celtic woman who like raised an army and chased Julius Caesar off the island of Briton or something like that because his men killed her sons or something like that. Errr... yeah. Something along those lines.

Basically, she was an awesome sauce Celtic mama-bear who took on the Romans and won. That was what I remembered.

And, after trying to tell my husband how awesome she was, I decided I'd probably better actually research this and see if I was even remotely close to right.

Well...

No.

I was way off.

I mean, she was an awesome sauce Celtic mama-bear who took on the Romans and made them cry to their mommies and stuff, but in the end the Romans stayed in Briton, and she may or may not have died. Also, Julius Caesar had nothing to do with it. This was roughly 100 years after he got assassinated. Also, far as I know, she didn't have any sons. She did, however, very most definitely have two daughters.

So, here's the corrected story of Boudicca, told from researching Wikipedia, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio. And let me tell you what, reading Tacitus and Cassius Dio, who were writing from a Roman perspective, totally makes the reader root for the Britons. Like... Rome was seriously a jerk.

So, in 43 AD, during the reign of Emperor Claudius, Rome paddled across the channel from Gaul (aka France) to Briton, declared that it had been a part of the Roman Empire since Julius Caesar had a couple skirmishes on the beach, and started picking on the locals, as Rome was wont to do.

As their military took over several cities, some tribes held up their hands and said, "No no no! Don't take us over! We're your allies!!!"

Because, let's face it. It's better to be an independent ally to Rome than to have your village burned and your women raped and be forcibly subjected to Rome.

Rome was fairly used to this, and, while they weren't really planning to leave anybody as an independent anything, they were willing to play nice. After all, it's easier to annex a province diplomatically than to waste soldiers in unnecessary battles.

So, the rules of this game went like this:

Sure! You're our ally! Great! This arrangement lasts as long as your king is alive, and then your king will bequeath his entire kingdom to Rome in his will. Yes, he has to. No, his heirs don't get a say, and are completely irrelevant.

According to Wikipedia, this not only happened in Briton, but was also how Galatia and Bithynia (wherever the heck that is... oh... Google says northern Turkey) became part of the Empire.

The king of the Iceni tribe, over by modern day Norfolk, was a guy named Prasutagus, and he was married to Boudicca. He was a mix of very smart and very not.

Smart: When Prasutagus got bullied into bequeathing his kingdom to Rome, he made an attempt to preserve his royal line and the independence of his people by specifying in his will that it was to be joint-rule between Rome and his wife and two daughters. According to Tacitus, the Britons made no gender distinction when it came to rule, and by their standards, Boudicca and her two daughters were legitimate heirs.

Not smart: Upon allying with Rome, he discovered this little thing called "borrowing money," and found he could live really, really comfortably with all kinds of wealth and conveniences. He could just ask for money and people would give it to him!

Moron.

Now, granted, one translation claims that the debts incurred by Prasutagus were actually the work of a guy named Seneca, who gave his people 40 million sesterces that they didn't even want in hopes of gaining a high rate of interest, but that translation is in dispute, and more likely than not, Prasutagus was just really unintelligent about borrowing money.

Anyway, as can be expected, when Prasutagus did, in fact, finally kick the bucket, there was trouble.

Decianus Catus.

This man, Decianus Catus, was the Procurator of Briton, aka the treasury officer. He declared that all debts were to be paid back, and the whole Iceni tribe was liable for it. He confiscated Prasutagus's lands and property, and enslaved his nobles.

And what about that will? You know, the one that gave joint-rule to Rome and Prasutagus's heirs? Well, it was completely ignored. Rather than rule with Boudicca and her two daughters, they had Boudicca flogged and then raped her daughters.

Like I said, Rome was a jerk. And yes, "jerk" doesn't even come close to covering it, but you get the picture.

So, what did Boudicca do about this?

Well, her husband left her the kingdom in his will. That made her queen of the Iceni, and she had a kingdom to defend, and defiled daughters to avenge. She went to the neighbors, particularly the Trinovantes (though others got in on it too), and made herself some allies.

According to Tacitus, they all got together and, I kid you not, "dwelt much among themselves on the miseries of subjection, compared their wrongs, and exaggerated them in the discussion."

Because forced conscription of their sons into the military, taxing a people that were doing just fine on their own before the Romans came, enslaving not only the nobility, but anyone who didn't readily submit, confiscating property, and raping their princesses (all of which was described by the very same Tacitus who wrote the above sentence), is totally just the whining of a bunch of people out to exaggerate and find an excuse to fight.

Yeah. Nice move there, Tacitus. You're a real genius of propaganda.

Anyway, the Trinovantes hadn't managed to be an independent tribe the way the Iceni had, and they were more than happy to accept Boudicca as their leader. Boudicca raised a massive army and marched on the city of Camulodunum (modern day Colchester). This place was the former Trinovantian capital, and had felt the wrath of the Romans to a particularly brutal degree. In addition to enslavement, the locals had been forced to build a temple to Emperor Claudius at their own expense. Hence, it was a rather symbolic location for the Britons, being one of the major sources of oppression.

Boudicca razed it to the ground. Archaeological records show that in 60 AD (the year the rebellion started), the city was methodically torn down.

A Roman general brought the Spanish 9th Legion to defend the city, and while he survived the battle, his legion did not. They got creamed, leaving only himself and some cavalry to run away.

And remember Decianus Catus, the guy who came in and took all their stuff?

Yeah. He ran away too. He up and ditched Briton all together, making a mad dash for the safety of Gaul/France, where even the ancient Romans totally mocked the cowardice of the French, something we are still doing to this day.

After whomping all over Camulodunum, Boudicca led her forces to Londinium (aka London). The governor of Briton, Suetonius, who had been campaigning over in Wales, rushed back to defend Londinium, then went, "Uhhhhhhh.... we are so getting murdered here," and took off running, leaving the Romans inside undefended.

And, I'm sure you can guess how that ended.

Yep. Another city leveled.

Next Boudicca hit Verulamium (modern St. Albans), and scored another major victory. By this point, she had gathered more and more of the people together in their revolt, and victory appeared to be unstoppable. And, according to the historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Emperor Nero, at the very least, considered Britain lost to the Empire.

And Cassius Dio? He said my absolute favorite thing about this whole revolt:
"...a terrible disaster occurred in Britain. Two cities were sacked [funny, Cassius, but I counted three], eighty thousand of the Romans and of their allies perished, and the island was lost to Rome. Moreover, all this ruin was brought upon the Romans by a woman, a fact which in itself caused them the greatest shame."

That's right, Romans. Wither in shame. You mess with a woman's daughters, she will raise an army of over 100,000 and burn you to the ground.

The Romans, however, eventually won out. Governor Suetonius rallied 10,000 Roman soldiers, which was still dramatically smaller than Boudicca's army, but better trained, and gathered them to what he considered to be the perfect battle ground. The tactics of the Roman legions worked best in open spaces, so Suetonius found a narrow plain - an open space for their legions, but that was still somewhat boxed in, preventing Boudicca from unleashing her full force all at once.

And Suetonius was right. It was the perfect battle ground, and according to the Roman account of their victory, they lost 400 men while the Britons lost 80,000.

And what happened to Boudicca? That's pretty unclear. In Tacitus's original account, he doesn't say anything about what happened to her, but attributes the end of the revolt to the rebels' "indolence." 20 years later, after a couple notable people had died by suicide (including Nero), he claimed she poisoned herself. But, Cassius Dio claimed she died of illness, contradicting Tacitus and indicating the latter didn't actually know how she died. The illness claim, however, is also in dispute, because Cassius seemed to be looking for a conclusion to her story, a way to excuse the lack of information, and also didn't actually know what had happened to her.

Personally, I'd like to think she survived, and then maybe moved with her daughters up to Scotland, where the Picts and Scots were as free as the Britons used to be. She obviously escaped capture by the Romans, or else they would have known what happened to her and gloated over it. But, they clearly didn't actually know, so that leaves the end of her story wide open.

I love an open ended story.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Boing!

Today I went to kiss my husband goodbye, and my stomach quite literally bounced off of his.

I think it's safe to say the babies are growing.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Dinosaur Character Development

Alright, let's talk about Jurassic Park.

No, not Jurassic World, specifically. Jurassic Park. Like, the whole franchise. Though, admittedly, there's quite a bit about Jurassic World at the end of this post, including big spoilers, so if you haven't seen it yet, only read this if you have a deep and abiding love for spoilers.

Let's start with the book.

So, reading the novel by Michael Crichton has pros and cons.

Pro: The plot is much more fleshed out, and doesn't have holes. "How the heck did Alan Grant know a T-rex's visual acuity is based on movement? You can maybe infer that from a fossil, but not enough to bet your life on it, and he treated it like a known fact!" Well, according to the book, he actually didn't know that until he got to the park and found out they had discovered that on the live T-rex. Same with the hunting tactics of the raptors.

Con: The characters are poorly developed, have no real arcs, and are so obnoxious you hope they all die. I spent the whole book wishing John Hammond, my #1 very most favorite character from the movies, would die a horrible death. And don't get me started on Lex. She was younger in the book - eight years old - and I've never wanted to see an eight year old get eaten by a dinosaur before.

Pro: The mysterious illness of the sick triceratops is figured out. Also the dilophosaurus is dramatically more terrifying, since it's nine feet tall, like it's supposed to be, instead of five. And the pterosaurs were fantastic. All in all, the dinosaurs in the book were much more realistic, and it addressed concerns like the lower levels of oxygen that their bodies weren't designed to handle.

Con: Ian Malcom will not shut up. You thought he talked a lot in the movie? He has whole chapters devoted to his diatribes about chaos theory, and you really wish that T-rex would have just done him in before he could spend the rest of the book boring everybody.

Ultimately, I'm glad I read it, and that I read it after seeing the movie. It gives me the option to pick and choose what I like from the stories - the characters from the movie, and the dinosaurs from the book. But, if you can't handle seeing your favorite characters get turned into horrible people that you want to die, then don't read it.

But there's one element of that book, and more particularly the movies that came from it, that I want to discuss.

The character of the dinosaurs.

The movie really didn't have time to get into the real world concerns of de-extinction, especially for such an ancient species. They're just there, in all their toothy, terrifying, and magnificent glory. The brachiosauruses are munching on tall trees, the stegosauruses stomp around happily, and the T-rex runs on a brutal rampage, eating everything in its path.

The book talks more about the genetic manipulation done to these creatures, and how much filling in those genetic gaps changed the creatures they were bringing to life. And despite that, they're still designed for a world with higher oxygen levels. We see a stegosaurus lumbering across a field, wheezing his labored breath as he struggles to get the oxygen he needs to walk.

And in the book, the dinosaurs were animals. In one scene the main characters get past the T-rex because it has just killed and eaten a brontosaurus, and it wasn't interested in them, beyond defending its kill.

This is, in my opinion, one of the primary problems with the movies... all of them. The T-rex just never stops eating. Same with the raptors.

Now, when the T-rex first stomps her way out of her pen (which somehow became ground level just long enough for her to walk out of... plot hole!!! She really should have jumped out of it, because that would have been cool), we can assume she was hungry. All she'd had to eat that evening was a piddly, little goat. So, yes. Trying to eat the kids, then Malcom, then successfully scarfing the lawyer, are all totally acceptable behavior for a hungry rex.

A couple hours later Ellie and Muldoon show up and save Malcom. The rex had just eaten a whole lawyer, which, though probably downed in 2 bites, was still a hefty meal. The rex's stomach couldn't have been much bigger than a grown man. The all-knowing XKCD supports this theory in their scientific breakdown of how many people a T-rex would need to eat each day if unleashed in New York. They say about half of a grown adult would do the trick.

Yet, despite the meal she'd just fully consumed, she goes chasing the jeep and tries to eat 3 more people.

Now, there are always other explanations. She could have been defending her territory. But, if that's the case, why did she chase them so far? And when they were clearly gone, why did she still keep running after them?

The next day the T-rex eats a full gallimimus, bigger than a grown man, and then shows up later the same day to eat a 6 foot raptor.

It. never. stops. eating.

And then we have the raptors.

On day two of the debacle, they escape from their pen, and we can infer that they were ravenously hungry. The cow they ate the day before was long gone, and with the park having so many problems with a rampaging, insatiable T-rex, they probably hadn't been fed that day. (This is, of course, assuming raptors eat every day, which is believable since they were more like birds than reptiles.)

There are three raptors. They escape, and it's safe to assume that at some point one of them breaks from the pack, because when our hapless humans encounter them, two are out hunting, and one is stuck in the control bunker. If a grown man is more than enough of a meal for a T-Rex, it's more than enough to feed three raptors.

But between those three raptors, they eat not one full grown man, but two. Mr. Arnold becomes a meal for the one stuck in the bunker, who was clearly too full to finish the whole thing, judging by the arm she kindly dropped on Ellie's shoulder. And Muldoon becomes lunch for the other two.

Now, the raptor attacking Ellie in the bunker is totally understandable. It was in an enclosed space when an unknown fellow-predator-looking-creature shows up way too close to its kill.

But what about the infamous kitchen scene?

We have two very full raptors, no more than a couple hours after their last meal, stalking around, outside their normal territory, obviously hunting.

What?

About the only way to explain this behavior is that in this story, dinosaurs are not rational, normal carnivores who eat when hungry and defend their territory. They are unstoppable killing machines who kill and chase and eat in a never-ending cycle of carnage.

Jurassic Park II, Lost World and all that, tried to give the characters of the dinosaurs a bit more depth. We got into the parental instincts of the T-rex, and all the attacks that happened on Isla Sorno were completely justified and made total sense. The raptor massacre was the work of a full, enormous pack, some of whom probably didn't get in on the meal and were apt to go chase Malcom & co. around.

But as soon as Rexy starts stomping around San Diego, he's eating animals and people left and right, with no rhyme, reason, or sense. He's supposed to be looking for his baby, but he's just running around chomping people and biting stoplights.

And then, in Jurassic Park III, we see the raptors get some character development. Their packs not only communicate with each other, but they also protect each others' nests. And, in the end, when they get their eggs back and hear an indication of danger on the beach right next to where they're at, they do the rational thing and run away.

But the spinosaurus?????????

It witch hunts the entire party throughout the WHOLE movie! Like, it saw them and it wants them dead... even though it's had plenty to eat throughout the course of the movie, including multiple party members. It just keeps popping up over and over.

All of this culminates in Jurassic World.

Ahem, SPOILER WARNING.

SPOILERS BEGIN HERE.

The Indominus Rex.

Fascinating character development for a dinosaur. In this instance it made total sense for the dinosaur to rampage everywhere killing things. She wasn't hungry... she ate two people that morning. But she wasn't interested in eating after that.

Owen explained it perfectly - she'd been raised in complete solitude after eating her one sibling, never leaving her pen, and not only was she completely dysfunctional from it, but she was in a new world that was both fascinating and frightening. She stomped around slaughtering whatever she could, because she was messed up in the head, and it was her designers' fault she was like that.

I liked the Indominus. I thought she was an awesome monster.

And the raptors? So, it took the character development of the past films - their communication and pack mentality - and built on it. It showed the difficulty of accepting a human into their pack, even though they had imprinted on him as babies, and up until the very last scene of the movie, they were true to their monstrous selves. Despite him being a pack member, they still tried to kill Owen when he turned his back to them.

When they go out hunting in a pack, even accepting the human soldiers as part of the pack, they still turn on the humans and massacre them with very little provocation.

Theirs and Owen's struggle to allow Owen to be their Alpha is a character arc for the raptors that runs throughout the entire film, and it has a satisfying conclusion. And in that final scene, we see the three remaining raptors and Owen fighting the Indominus as a deadly pack of four.

And that's really how it should have ended.

Buuuuuuut, no.

You just had to go and get the T-rex involved, didn't you?

Rexy was obviously hungry. All she'd had to eat that day was a goat before the park broke down. And yes, other than this brief mention, I'll ignore the ridiculousness of girl-in-heels outrunning a T-rex, since that's not the point.

Now, the T-rex, true to the character established in the rest of the movies, completely irrationally attacked the Indominus. The Indominus was bigger with more teeth and longer claws, but Rexy still felt that insatiable need to rampage and attacked it anyway.

And the one remaining raptor fighting with the rex? Sure, I'll accept that, if I must. The raptor had been trying to kill the Indominus anyway, and it's not like it was a coordinated attack or anything. It was a little cheesy, but I suppose it did make sense for two dinosaurs to try to kill a third dinosaur simultaneously.

Okay, now here's where I have a problem. The Indominus is defeated, and ends up in the lake where it's not going to be eaten by either Rexy or Raptor.

Rexy is still hungry.

There is still a crowd of humans huddling nearby.

Rexy looks at Raptor.

Raptor looks at Rexy.

Rexy nods at Raptor and then walks off in peace.

Whaaaaaat??????

I mean, come on! What was that? The rex is still on her feet, and for some reason she doesn't feel like slaughtering things?  And the raptor isn't going to irrationally attack the rex?

For keeping the character of the raptors so incredibly consistent throughout the course of the whole movie, that was a sickening break in character for both the rex and the raptor.

I think their "alliance" against the Indominus ending in peace was supposed to be heartwarming or something.

It was not heartwarming. It was stupid.

So, let that be a lesson to anyone and everyone hoping to write dinosaurs. You can make them realistic predators, or you can make them irrational killing monsters, but whatever you do with them, DO NOT BREAK CHARACTER! Even when the character is a monster, it can grow and develop. The raptors did that beautifully. But don't make your monsters experience sudden and inexplicable change because the script writers think, "Oh, this would be cool."

Dinosaurs are characters.

Treat them as such.

And thus concludes my rant on the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park.