Our first Christmas card arrived and is an excellent test of the Christmas Card Scoring System, but I’m worried about quoting from it because OMG WHAT IF THEY GOOGLE THEIR OWN CHRISTMAS LETTER? But that’s not likely, is it? Er…is it? But perhaps someone who reads this blog has received the same letter and would know who it was and would tell them. I’m remembering when Sundry‘s dad found her blog because of searching for the recipe for a drink they had during his visit. Or I might not be remembering the details exactly right (recipe? drink?), but that was the GIST, and I spent some time searching for the post so I could get the details right and I kept getting distracted by the archives and anyway my point is that it’s better to be paranoid safe than caught sorry. But I don’t think I can help it. [Edit: Here’s the Sundry post! Thank you, Robyn!]

Normally we use the C.C.S.S. for reflecting our happiness in receiving cards: scores are not LITERALLY given. But every so often, maybe once or twice a season, we use the C.C.S.S. to demonstrate why a card is so amusingly bad. Perhaps the writer forgets that not everyone wants to hear about her neighbor’s gall bladder. Perhaps the writer forgets that a preachy Christmas letter is either preaching to the choir or else preaching to the people who made an informed decision not to join the choir. Perhaps the writer forgets that a parent’s love for and interest in his or her own children is notoriously out of proportion to other people’s love for and interest in those same children, and that adjectives such as “amazing” and “beautiful” and “incredible” and “brilliant” are best used only with the child’s other parent. Whatever the situation, the card sends its readers into tears of incredulous laughter the vast majority of cards are NOT going to provoke even if they quote a few verses and brag a little about the children.

So. This card. They get +5 for sending a card, and it falls within the reasonable idea of “pretty” and so that’s another +3. It includes a letter, which is +5. The letter is not particularly informative or interesting (their children are wonderful!—no details, just an adjective; they took an autumn walk!), but I think it tries, and I tend to award those points for any effort at all, so they can have +2 (out of a possible +3).

In the beginning of the letter they were going to get -3 for saccharine/cheery, but they crossed the line and got +2 instead for mockability.

The best part really was the “blessed/blessings” count, which was funnier and funnier as I kept finding them: eight in the letter proper, including three in one paragraph alone, and THEN, there was a postscript SOLELY for the purpose of offering another blessing. THEN I looked at the CARD, where they’d written it AGAIN. Ten blessings in all, for a grand total of 9 points lost (because the first usage is allowed as a special holiday lenience).

They also used the word “special” three times, and the word “fellowship” once (one use feels like ten). Those aren’t on the points list but I found they added to the amusing impact of all the blessings.

There were four paragraphs, and each one contained 1-2 Bible verses (including one that explained what a torment earthly life is but happily it goes by fast—how festive!), each one accompanied by a plug for the Bible: “Read the entire chapter. It’s awesome. Of course the entire Bible is amazing.” “If you want to read an exciting book this one is it!!” There was also a reminder that all blessings are theirs because they follow The Lord and because our nation follows The Lord also. So that’s -5 for preaching/piousness.

One mention of a colon-related illness, but no entertainment/informational value so that’s -1.

Let me just put on my math medal for this calculation…..their card gets 2 points. It seems like it should get more points considering how very much I enjoyed it. Perhaps crossing into mockability should be +10 instead of +2.

Oh hi, hi. Fine, fine, and you? The weather, I know! Crazy! …Oh that? The ad I’m casually leaning up against, petting in a way that calls your attention to it? Pff, it’s nothing. Just, you know, MY NAME IN AN AD.

(My name is indeed Kristen. TRUE STORY.)

The ad (this one isn’t clickable—it’s just a picture) is what they’re using for the latest paid review over on the review blog. This one involved softening two pounds of butter. I am going to have to spend my pay on bigger jeans. And more butter.

This paid review, like the last one, involves a drawing for a $100 Visa gift card. If only there was something to spend such a thing on, this time of year. Well, go enter anyway.

I would also like to call your attention to an assortment of Etsy Love posts that include giveaways, in case you are short on gifts [note from the future: posts are gone, so links are deleted]:

1. haworth handmade: choice of embroidered wood ornament or embroidered felt rock

2. Small Grapes: six fat quarters of Erin McMorris fabric

3. Relic: choice of coin bracelet or coin earrings

This is the perfect time of year to buy things for oneself. If anyone asks about the packages and bags, look coy and say, “It’s a SECRET!”

I had a terrible dream last night about Henry, and when I woke up I DID feel relieved it wasn’t true, but I also thought nauseatingly of the dream every time I looked at him so it wasn’t a “wake up and hug the children” situation, more of a lingering bad/sad feeling.

And I also dreamed I found the perfect cat for us, and so now I’m kind of sad that we can’t have that cat.

I’ve been Very! Busy! recently, and it’s making it hard to turn my attention to the children. If they need food or potty help or something practical, it’s easier—but if they need to show me a series of magic tricks, or climb on me, or make jokes, or tell me the plot of a TV show, or talk about a series of topics one sentence at a time spaced one minute apart, I’m clenching my teeth and DYING to get back to what I was doing.

I found a trick that helps: I put one hand on the child’s back or shoulder, or I hold the child’s hand, or pull the child onto my lap, or whatever makes sense for the situation—the gist of it is that I find if I maintain physical contact with the child, it’s easier to maintain mental contact.

It is December! As Marie Green twittered yesterday: “Yesterday’s mail brought our first Christmas card of the year… And now we’re looking down the barrel of a WHOLE MONTH of fun mail!” YES!

Well, and so it is time to review the Christmas Card Scoring System. The C.C.S.S. (also called the H.C.S.S—Holiday Card Scoring System) is for those of us who look forward all year to receiving cards. It reflects how happy we are to receive them—and how our happiness increases when there are bonus thrill items such as photos and newsletters and prettiness. Lower scores are not bad: ANY Christmas card is a thrill to receive, and the higher scores of other cards don’t make lower-scored cards look bad: 5 points is like a grade of A, and anything higher is extra credit.

• Card received: +5
• Card received before December 1st: -1
• Card received after December 25th: -1
• Card is pretty, and looks nice on wall: +3
• Card is glittery: +1
• Card sheds that glitter: -2
• Card is shiny / has metallic accents: +1
• Card does not contain card, but only letter, so there is nothing to put up on wall: -5
• Card is e-card: -5

• Card includes photo or is photo card: +5
• More than one photo: +2 each additional photo
• Photo is non-Christmassy so will look good on fridge all year: +1
• Photo is Christmassy so increases holiday feeling of card: +1
• Red-eye causes family to appear possessed by evil Christmas spirit: -1
• Photo was taken on beach this past summer in summer clothing, so family looks chilly against winter pattern of card: -1
• Photo includes dogs with glowing eyes who seem poised to eat humans: -1

• Card includes letter: +5
• Letter is informative and interesting: +3
• Letter describes child as “amazing” or “already an avid reader and accomplished Suzuki violinist at age 3!”: -3 each
• Letter is so braggy and saccharine-cheery, I wonder why I associate with these people: -3
• Letter is so very braggy and saccharine-cheery, it crosses over into comical and becomes fun to read aloud in an unkind tone of voice: +2
• Letter uses the word “blessed” more than one time: -1 per use (not including first use)
• Letter is a sermon/evangelism disguised as a Christmas letter, and contains pious spiritual hopes for our country, for our country’s leaders, for mankind, and for me personally: -5
• Letter mentions details of gross surgery/illness: -1 or +1, depending on entertainment value
• Letter contains thinly-veiled family gossip: +3
• Letter contains information that should have been told earlier: -2

• Card includes check: +5
• Large check: +10
• Card includes announcement of pregnancy: +10
• Card from Christmas Card Friends contains surprising news of baby born since last card sent: +10

This year my own card gets:

• +5 for existing
• +3 for being pretty
• +5 for containing a photo
• +2 for containing an additional photo (a Thanksgiving shot including my parents)
• +2 for containing an additional photo (a divided photo showing 4 outtakes of the Christmas photo)
• +1 for being a non-Christmassy photo

Some people will get just the first photo, some will get two, and some will get three—so my card will score 14, 16, or 18 points at most, with of course the 3 points for prettiness depending on the recipient.

(card available on Zazzle)

Do you remember my late mother-in-law’s Mysterious Rolls of Film? They are back from the developer!

Roll 1: Only 6 photos on the roll could be developed. They were of flowers and flowering trees in her yard/neighborhood.

Roll 2: Couldn’t be developed.

Roll 3: (a) My sister-in-law’s college graduation, which was in 2000. (b) A visit to us, also in 2000: Rob was about 18 months old, and I was just about to find out I was pregnant with William. Some of the photos were damaged with red and yellow streaks.

So! You know what is difficult? Choosing a winner for the box of gift-closet clutter, from a bunch of answers that were partly right, partly wrong. That is perhaps something I should have taken into account before setting the rules of the contest.

In my opinion, there were eight people who got closer than anyone else, with some mental point-subtracting for incorrect guesses among the correct ones and some mental point-adding for particularly detailed correctness.

1. AlienBea: “Three different film speeds (right?) suggests three different cameras, so these could be years apart. I’ll bet at least one is a holiday gathering with family, maybe one will have baby pictures of one of your children, and maybe one roll will be of the time she went on a yen to take artistic nature photos.”

2. Jess: “I think that they are hiding a hidden part of your mother in law that will be revealed and you will be shocked and astounded.

one roll of artsy farty stuff (tree? bridge? flower?)
one roll of a vacation (black socks and short shorts on the males involved)
one roll of a randon high school graduation (who is that kid that keeps popping up in these pictures?)”

3. Emily: “I’m guessing one holiday gathering, one vacation, and one of your kids.”

4. Fran: “I am going to go with
1. vacation with husband #2
2. pictures of her house and yard
3. the oldest roll will be unable to develop”

5. Kylene:
“1. Random landscape photos.
2. Visits with her grandchildren
3. Some event she went to, like a lecture or a concert or somesuch.”

6. Lawyerish: “I am thinking the majority of the photos will comprise (1) garden/flower shots; (2) her craft/knitting projects; (3) a family gathering (probably the 70th anniversary).”

7. Mama Bub: “I’m going to guess a graduation, along with random shots of the house, newly planted gardening, pets and grandchildren.”

8. SaLy: “I think one roll will be double exposed. One will be photos of her garden/yard. One will be photos of you and your family.”

So then I took eight little scraplets of paper, wrote the numbers 1 through 8 on them, tossed them up into the air and tried to catch one. I caught the number 6, so that’s Lawyerish! I’ll be emailing you, Lawyerish, to get your mailing info!