Sequels, Prequels and Hanitizer

Kiddo #2 has been teething for about a week now. Rather, he has his two bottom middle teeth and got them at 4 1/2 months, so now that he's 8 months he's decided to try and get ALL the rest of his missing teeth at the same time.  It's awesome. The little bulbous gums leave a trail of saliva as slippery as the slime left by Jabba The Hut. Truly, I just have to follow the wet carpet to find out where my little crawler has gone.  

So, when he awoke at midnight and wouldn't latch, I had a feeling something wasn't right.  I got out a bottle. No dice. What? No boobs, no bottle? I looked him over and there was a wee red rashy looking thing on his face and groin. Great, he's been sick on top of teething and so he's got that viral rash that kids sometimes get afterwards.

I gave him some relief, snuggled him a bit, and put him back to bed (much to his disliking).  When Husband went in to get him this morning, Kiddo #2 was crabby and again didn't want to eat. 

Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis?  I mean, we nicknamed this kiddo Dozer because a) he's a good sleeper and b) he'll bulldoze through anything, his favourites being food, blocks and chesterfields.  When my little hollow-legged moving machine doesn't want to eat, something is seriously wrong.

So I took him into the Dr, figuring it's probably an earache from teething (Kiddo#1 got them all the time when she was bustin' out teeth).  And when I got there, the rash that Husband could "barely see" that morning, had escalated to ketchup red and all over his trunk, head and well, everywhere.  

Roseola. Ok. Sure. I think Kiddo #1 had that once. Oh schnikeys. Kiddo #1's birthday party is in three days. Are you frickin' kidding me?  Ok. So turns out, Roseola is not contageous, and isn't a big deal. 

But I did have a mini heart-attack thinking of the 2 week old infant we'd seen *but not touched* the day prior, and the scores of little children that would be frolicking at our abode in a matter of hours. Well, like, 72 hours, but who's counting?  When I questioned the Dr she said there was absolutely nothing to worry about, no one would catch this and it would likely be completely gone by the time the party occurs.

Thing is, when I had Kiddo #1, I was totally blasé about her getting sick. I really thought to myself, "Whatever she incubates makes her stronger, so bring it on." And now, with Kiddo #2, I'm so much more cautious. Not that I've turned into compulsive hand-washing/hanitizer (Kiddo #1's word, a combo of hand and sanitizer, which I find rather clever) using/call-me-if-your-kid-sneezed-two-weeks-ago-and-we-have-a-play-date lady.  And not that there's anything wrong with being that lady, it's just not who I am.  

I find it interesting, though, that like a lot of people I know, whatever I did with Kiddo #1, despite being successful for the most part, I'm not doing with Kiddo #2. 

I followed the Babywise sleep method with Kiddo #1. She slept in her crib from the get go, and was sleeping through the night at 4 weeks. Please still be my friend. I'm not bragging, just comparing. 

And with Kiddo #2, I re-read the book, remembered the bits I used and didn't use, and figured I'd just do the same thing. Only, Kiddo #2 wasn't having any of it. He wanted to snuggle. Kiddo #1 only snuggled when she was sick. He wanted to be touching some part of my body at all times; I don't know why I wrote that in past tense, since it's still going on today and he's almost 9 months old. Anyway, Kiddo #1 was happy to do her own thing, and so is Kiddo #2, but everyone must be visible at all times or he panics. So different. 

He slept in his own bed, but if I put him down without feeding him one last time, all Hell will break loose. I could put him to bed if he was already asleep, or wide awake, it didn't matter, but holy crapola, if he wasn't full he would scream like a stuck pig forever until we figured it out and fed him. (if you don't know the Babywise methodology, feeding before sleep is a gigantic no-no)

He was sleeping through the night at 8 weeks (he had Whooping Cough in there, so I figure if he hadn't been sick he would've been on the same schedule as Kiddo #1).  Please still be my friend. I'm not bragging, just comparing.

So why wouldn't I have just done the same thing I did with Kiddo #1 if it worked? Why change things up? I've always wondered why sequels in movies do crazy stuff for the second movie and then go back to the original (best) way with the third in the series. 

Star Wars, I'm talkin' to you. You had us all roped in with the first/fourth one, then you added Ewoks but also a bunch of super scary stuff like a sand thing with spiral teeth and the story wasn't as good, and then you returned to your senses for the third/sixth one. Indiana Jones is the same-- First one, great, Second one: scary as hell, Third one: amazingly best. And it's not just Lucasfilms, either. The Matrix trilogy, Lord of the Rings trilogy (holy frick that second one is terrifying), Shrek was like that until they added the fourth film, so I guess I can't use it. But you see my point. 

All it makes me think, as a parent, is that the first kid is the one that makes you have a second kid, with which you deviate from your methodology and possibly have the scariest one, and then you have a third to redeem yourself and go back to what works. Shite. That's a pretty bleak view of child rearing, isn't it? 

But instead of saying that, I would like to put out there, that a sequel, if planned and written well, can really be an outstanding film that can be watched and appreciated for its own merits. I'm back to Lord of the Rings here, and also thinking Harry Potter. I'd also throw Spiderman's sequel into that mix-- although darker and different, a great film by itself. Oh! And The Incredible Hulk sequel. Amazing Edward Norton. Need I say more?

Frankly, I think the deal is that we've seen the first film, liked it a lot-- enough so to warrant a second trip to the theatre to see another film about the same people in a different, yet zany adventure (more or less). But we shouldn't compare the two films against each other. We should look at them as separate entities that happen to have characters that are familiar, but different.

Same with kids, I guess. Same characters are involved, but they're off on another adventure, and it might be very different than the one we went on with Kiddo #1, but, well shouldn't it? I mean, the best part of parenthood is the completely random acts of children. If all our kids were the same as the last one, there would be nothing to keep us awake during the day.

I need to see Kiddo #2 looking like a professional Baseball player with peat moss running down his lip and a wad of it resembling chewing tobacco in his cheek, to keep me from openly sobbing when Kiddo #1 says, "I don't think I need [my lovie] Pinkie anymore at night."   

I need to Kiddo #1 to say, "Are you gonna get those books, Mama?" when she trips and falls because she's growing and I've threatened that I'm going to put big books on her head so she'll stay little forever.  Hearing that, makes me smirk, and regain composure while Kiddo #2 is screaming his fool head off for no apparent reason. 


Two independent films that happen to have the same characters. I like that idea.  

This might even make me less critical of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Sure, Luke loses his hand and Han Solo is frozen in carbonite.  Don't forget that Princess Leia is mostly naked (a big plus for Husband) and those Ewoks are too dang cute for words.