Poetry Contest 2012!

Get your poet hats on—the contest starts tomorrow!

You may wonder about this whole poetry contest thing.  "Is Loralee just totally gaga for poetry?"

Well, not gaga—although I do like it.  No.  It started when I posted that Monday's Child is fair of face poem and asked my loyal readers to guess which child I was (for my birthday).  As I thought about it, I thought that some of the daily children got a bad deal, so I had a contest to create happier children in that rhyme. (You can see the results of that contest HERE.) 

One April day, while my "Monday's Child" contest was running, I was listening to classical radio and I learned that April was National Poetry Month. I realized that I had unwittingly—oh, um, no . . . I had cleverly started a poetry contest during National Poetry Month.  Well, I couldn't resist making it an annual thing after that.

So now you know.  And this year's contest starts

¯¯to-morrrrooowww! ¯  So play along with me! :-)

p.s.  If you've been watching the poem of the day in the sidebar, I've been giving you a hint about this year's contest.
;-)

2011 Poetry Contest!

Well, it's just around the corner: April—National Poetry Month—which means that it's time for Loralee's Fancy Poetry Contest! Aren't you so excited?

This year's contest is to write a limerick. I love limericks—they are so silly!

For those who may not remember this from high school English class, a limerick is a poem with five lines: lines one, two and five rhyme with each other; and lines three and four rhyme with each other, but not with lines one, two and five. Here is a classic example:

There was an old man of Blackheath
Who sat on his set of false teeth.
Said he, with a start,
"Oh, Lord, bless my heart!
I've bitten myself underneath!"

The meter (the way it sounds) is usually something like this:

Ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM
Ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM
De-DAH dee-dee-DAH
De-DAH dee-dee-DAH
Ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM ta-ta-TUM

(If you read a limerick out loud, you'll hear how it should sound.) Here's another example:

There was an old man of Ibreem
Who suddenly threatened to scream.
But they said, "If you do
We will thump you quite blue,
You disgusting old man of Ibreem."

As you can see, limericks are also rather ridiculous.

So here's the contest: Write a clever limerick.

The contest will run for two weeks, from today, March 30 to Saturday, April 16.

• You can post your poetic entries as comments to any of my posts between now and April 16.
• Participants may enter as many poems as they want to write—BUT children do read and participate on my blog—please keep this in mind, as you create!
• Poems will be judged on rhyme, meter, and overall silliness.
• There will be one winner in each of two categories: Children (up to 12 years old), and Everyone Else (older than 12)
• The winners will be posted on Sunday, April 17.
• The winner of the Children's Division will receive a Loralee's Fancy Poetry Contest certificate, their poem will be posted in the sidebar as the poem of the week, and they will receive their choice of a large package of M&M's or a large package of Skittles! *
• The winner of the Everyone Else Division will receive a Loralee's Fancy Poetry Contest certificate, their poem will be posted in the sidebar as the poem of the week, and they will receive their choice of either Decadent Mint Brownies or a Strawberry Bouquet! *

*Winners who live more than 25 miles from Salt Lake City will receive a Loralee's Fancy Poetry Contest certificate and a package of M&M's or Skittles, plus the recipe for the mint brownies (and I don't just pass that around to anyone!). ;-)

So wax poetic; be clever; get silly! And good luck! ;-)

(To see past winners, click here (2009) and here (2010).

I just don't get it

What is the deal with facebook?


After months of prompting from my two oldest sons, I decided to join facebook. At first it was really cool . . .
. . . because about two days after I joined, my sister-in-law had her baby and so I got up-to-the-minute (well, almost) updates on the baby's arrival. That was really cool!

But everything else has been, for the most part, pretty darn boring. I suddenly have all these messages from "friends" that I only just barely (the barest of barely's) know. People who know my name from school, whose names I remember, but that I was never more than aquaintances with. But I am their "friend" now--like a new charm on their bracelet. And I've heard about all their daily stuff--from having to go to the doctor several times in a week (although I don't know why) to being so sick with a stomach bug that the bathroom can't stay clean, to how angry they are with their husband, to which type of dog they like the best. And not only that, but I get to hear from their friends too, through comments on their one-line posts.

Then there's all these quizzes (how sexy is your name), and games (food-fight!) that are, basically, phenomenal time-wasters. I already waste enough time on the computer without the help of facebook.

I do have to admit, I kind of like the "Kidnap" game. Mostly because I play that one with my family--my kids, my cousin, my in-laws. And I don't mind hearing from my relatives--kind of like it, in fact. But even from them you rarely get much information. I guess mostly you get to see that people are still alive.

The whole thing is only marginally interesting.

I suppose I am just too self-centered for facebook, because I find my life far more interesting than learning that the girl who moved out of my ward four years ago has been having diarrhea and throwing up all weekend.

Go figure.

A Lovely Evening

Well, the Relief Society Birthday Social turned out great! :-)

I worked on desserts all day Monday, getting the ice-cream roulade, the double chocolate cheesecake, the strawberry candies, and the raspberry trifle all made that day. (Is your mouth watering yet?) My kids were out of school Monday and Tuesday, and every time I started on a new dessert, one of them would ask, "Who is that for?" or, "Is that for us?" I felt a little guilty saying that none of the goodies were for my family, but I promised to bring them back anything that was left over.


Yesterday I spent the entire day cooking as well. I started in the morning with a lemon-meringue pie, then the chocolate mousse pie. Yesterday afternoon was a jumble of making the garlic chicken, the rolls, the salad dressings, dipping strawberries in chocolate and arranging the strawberry bouquet (which looked absolutely spectacular!). I was whipping cream and garnishing the pies by 5:00 and made it to the church by 5:20—just in time to reheat the chicken before the social started. We got the dessert bar and salad bar set up and then the ladies began to arrive.

Some men from the ward served the main course to us at our tables. Everyone liked the meal and they raved about the desserts. The only bummer was that almost no one ate the strawberry candies—I think they thought they were those styrofoam, glittery fake-fruit-things you can buy. (One of my good friends actually said that she thought the bouquet was really roses; she had forgetten her glasses.) But after I took a candy and ate it, they all got the idea.

Dessert Bar

About 45 women—and the bishop—showed up for the party, and we had a great time visiting during dinner. Then there was a short, but very nice program. It was a lovely evening.


And now, the moment you've all been waiting for: I will post the recipes on my cookbook blog. So check it out every now and then, over the next little while. Enjoy!

p.s. Unfortunately for my children, there weren't enough desserts left over for them to all try some. Fortunately for them, I am a nice mom and promised to make them their choice of dessert this weekend.

I've Been Tagged

And I've never been tagged before either. Yes, Tami, I read your blog; in fact I check for something new every day. Keeps me from having to do the dishes. :-)

1. Did you date anyone from your high school? Yes; I married someone from highschool.

2. What kind of car did you drive? My mom's Subaru wagon

3. Were you a party animal? No.

4. Were you considered a flirt? Nope.

5. Were you in band, orchestra or choir? Orchestra, my senior year.

6. Were you a nerd? Well, I don't think so.

7. Were you on any varsity teams? No.

8. Did you ever get suspended or expelled? No.

9. Can you still sing the fight song? Yes, but I won't.

10. Who were your favorite teachers? Mrs. Mansfield, Wally, Mr. Denison. and all my Seminary teachers. Tommy Teacher was nice too.

11. Where did you sit for lunch? Who sat for lunch?

12. What was your school's full name? Kearns High School

13. What was your mascot? Cougars.

14. If you could go back and do it again, would you? Probably not.

15. What do you remember most about graduation? The dress I made, and playing Pomp and Circumstance with the orchestra.

16. Where did you go on Senior Skip Day? Who had a "Senior Skip Day?"

17. Were you in any clubs? Does Orchestra count?

18. Have you gained weight since then? Yes. :-(

19. Who was your prom date? Bruce; but for Junior Prom, not Senior Ball.

20. Are you planning on going to your 10 year reunion? Missed that one; went to 20 (can you believe that?!) and wished I hadn't..

21. Did you take any school trips? One; to St. George with the band. I was faking an instrument so that our band would look bigger. The uniforms were terrible--relics of the 70's, maybe even the 60's; you know, double-knit, with the tall, furry hats..

22. What are your best memories from high school? Orchestra, AP Music, and getting to know Bruce.

tag, Becky.

About Books . . .

I've decided that reading is a very bad thing. Yes, yes, I know that all educators and just about the rest of the entire world would disagree with that statement, but there it is. I suppose I could modify it a little and say that reading new books is a very bad thing for me.

In the first place, when I have a new book I pretty much ignore everything else until I've read the whole thing. Well, I do take care of the bare minimums: feeding the kids, using the bathroom. But everything else suffers; it seems I am really into escapism these days. That doesn't actually bother me as much as it probably should—which kind of bothers me.

No, the real problem is that even though I enjoy reading the books—even Twilight—they just leave me feeling dissatisfied. This is true even of the fun books that I understand, and in which I don't find problems with the characters or plot. Things just work out so perfectly, and it's all happily ever after, and it's so neat and tidy. And then I put the book down and look around at the mess I've been ignoring, and consider real life—and it's just not like that at all! So I find that even the books I like kind of annoy me (which makes me wonder if I should tame my scathing book reviews a little).

On the other hand, I do like "happily ever after." So maybe I just can't be pleased.

Maybe it's just that fiction is bad. Maybe I should only read non-fiction, but I don't know if my simple mind could take that. Blech!

I think I'll just stick with "reading is bad." Of course, I won't stop reading new books. We all have our vices. ;-)

Confession

Yes, I admit it. I read Breaking Dawn, the fourth book in the Twilight series. I couldn't help myself; I had to read it because it was the only book in the house that I hadn't read yet. I do love reading! I did not bother to read the second or third books—it wasn't really necessary; I did not get lost for having missed the events in those books. Once again, the book was so fraught with angst (trouble; anguish; torment) that I had to wonder, "How can these characters take everything so seriously, all the time, without a break?" Everything—and I mean every event, thought, feeling, you name it—is High Drama. Somber; crucial; anguished; grave.

Oh, all right. Michael says it's not that the characters were never happy. He says they just didn't dwell on their happiness. Well, maybe we should all dwell on our happiness a little more, instead of always fighting it and trying to prove that we actually shouldn't be happy—like Bella, and particulary Edward do. Heck, they even fought on their honeymoon—give it a break, please!

The bigger wonder is this: "How can the author bear to be so heavy?" I think maybe she tried to include a little humor, but it was hard to detect, and short-lived. Maybe Ms. Meyer is a depressed person, and this is her outlet. Yeah, we're talking about vampires and werewolves, but still . . .

Twilight

After hearing so many people rave about it, I finally read Twlilight by Stephenie Meyer. I believe I am about to express an unpopular opinion: I think Twilight is rather drivelly. I know everyone loves the Twilight series; I can definitely see the appeal to teenage girls. But I don't understand why so many grown-up women are so excited by it. I found the book disappointing.

To be sure you understand me, I'll say that Ms. Meyer writes well enough to keep me wanting to read more; I was interested enough to finish the book—and even finish it in one day. I kind of enjoyed it—except that I was unable to completely suspend my disbelief. In plain English: I found it less believable than your average story about a vampire and a normal, human girl falling in love. But as I thought about the characters and situation after I finished reading it, I became even more dissatisfied.

I really couldn't see why Edward would fall in love with Bella; she was kind of a whiny teenager. Yes, they say that she is grown-up for her age; but you know . . . Edward, although he appears to be seventeen, is over 100 years old. I'm only 41 and, even though teenagers are nice enough, I can't imagine falling in love with one now. Our life experiences are too completely different; we don't see things in the same way at all. I don't even see things in the same way that I saw them as a teenager. But factor in the idea that Edward, besides being a century older, is also a vampire—their life experiences are completely, totally, vastly different. As far as I can tell, he is simply intrigued by this pretty girl whose mind he is unable to read. Edward even tells us (through Bella) that he is unfamiliar with and unable to understand human emotions. Why would he fall in love with her?

As for Bella, all I could see on her side is that Edward is the most unbelievably gorgeous boy she (or anyone else in the world) has ever seen: He wasn't nice to her; in fact at first he seems to be repelled by her—maybe even hate her—with no provocation on her part. Granted, he did save her from a tragic car accident; but she can't figure out why he saved her since he so obviously dislikes her (which is, in itself, weird. Why wouldn't anyone step in to save her, if they could?). Bella gives us no reason that she would fall in love with him except that he's soooo gorgeous. It seems more a matter of lust than love to me.

OK. So much for credibility. How about content?

I'd have to say that a good thirty percent of this book is spent by Bella telling us how totally gorgeous Edward is, from his perfect, rock-hard figure to his amazing smile and melt-you-into-a-puddle voice. I think I really understood that after the first few tellings. Another ten percent of the book is spent by her saying that she's going to be in love with him no matter what he does to discourage her (which is, basically, him saying, "You shouldn't like me."). And another ten percent is Edward telling her that it's really a bad idea for her to fall in love with him. * bored sigh *

Besides all that, they all take themselves sooooo seriously. It's like, "I love you, dang-it. And this is serious stuff!" She did attempt to lighten it up a little bit with a vampire baseball game, but that event was quickly broken up by the evil, bad-guy vampire. Oh well.

However, I admit, I did read it all the way through to the happy ending. And I cared about it enough to find out what will happen next. I asked Michael, who's read through the third book, and that's enough for me.

My overall rating? I'd have to agree with a (40-year old, married, male) friend of ours, who said: "Those Twilight books really bring out the twelve-year-old girl in all of us."

Fireworks

Last night we took the kids to see fireworks for the first time in about ten years. My older children have seen big fireworks displays--a long time ago, but the younger ones never have. We didn't take our camera because I think photos of fireworks are kind of dumb--they just don't convey what you're seeing (case in point: see above). And we figured wouldn't be able take good pictures of the family because it would be too dark. But I wish we could have gotten pictures of the kids--especially the little ones. Ryan's wide-eyed, jaw-dropped delight; Rachel calmly lying on her back and sucking her thumb while she enjoyed the show; Jessica huddled in my lap with her hands over her ears, even trembling a little sometimes, but watching the display nevertheless. It was a lot of fun--my kids are so darn cute!

Arrrrrrrr!

I look o'er our collection o' movies an' I canna help but note that thar be an awful lot o' pirate flicks. This here may say somethin` about me lubberly family; I ain`t rightly sure. We dasn't own many movies--about 50, mebbe 55. An' o' them 55 movies, se'en o' them be swashbuckler movies--that`s makes 13 percent o' th' movies we own pirate movies, ye scurvy dogs!

Or, in plain English: I look over our collection of movies and I can't help but notice that there are an awful lot of pirate flicks. This here may say somethin' about my lubberly family; I'm not sure. We own very few movies--about 50, maybe 55. And of those 55 movies, seven of them are pirate movies--that's makes 13 percent of the movies we own pirate movies.

Actually we own eight if you count The Princess Bride (which brings it to 14.5%) but that's a stretch.

We have all three of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies; I definitely like the first one the best.

We have The Pirates of Penzance, which is just ridiculous fun set to great music.

We have Disney's Peter Pan. I have no use for Peter, Wendy or the Lost Boys, but Captain Hook and Tinker Bell are delightful.

We have the 2003, live-action version of Peter Pan, which is amazing! If you pay attention to what the characters say there's some food for thought. (To live would be an awfully big adventure!) But if you're not looking to feed your mind it's just a wonderfully told story.

But one of our all-time favorites is Treasure Island, starring Charlton Heston as Long John Silver and Christian Bale as Jim Hawkins. Unfortunately it is also the most violent movie we own, and has the worst language. But I've never heard my kids damning anyone's eyes so, I confess, I overlook those little facts.

And if I ever remember, I'd really like to rent Captain Blood some time as well.

The real question is, "Why do pirates appeal to us so much?" I mean, really, they were not nice people; and that's putting it mildly. But we (and I mean movie-goers, in general, not just my family) love those pirate stories. Per'aps we "got no more sense than a sea turtle!" (Long John Silver, in Treasure Island)

You can't deny that pirate movies are rather delightful. Almost as delightful as "to be young and have ten toes." (also Long John Silver). It could be the adventure--pirate movies always mean excitement on the high seas. It could be those fantastically choreographed sword fights--we love that swashbuckling adventure! But I think the real reason is that we just love the language. Who can resist a guy who says, in all seriousness, "Shut up, Israel, damn your eyes! Ye'd think ye never seen a man with 'is throat cut b'fore!"