Soooo caffeinated...

to the point of distraction. Whee! Shiny things!

Scarf #5

Scarves #3 and #4 have yet to be photographed, but I had to get a record of #5 because I mailed it to its new home in Ottawa this weekend. Photos have been embargoed until now.

Ain't it purdy?


It's a cable knit scarf using this pattern and four 50g skeins of this yarn. It was my first time knitting cables and I was determined to use a pattern that was cabled on both sides (so that both sides were presentable, though clearly one side is prettier). Turns out I picked a pattern that required eight cables for every set of eight rows. Let's just say that I am now adept at cable knitting.

The "prettier" side:


The "still pretty" side:

I love the slight variegation in the yarn, which is a lovely shade of blue with occasional sections of white. Hopefully it wears well and doesn't shed too much.

Feminism won't kill me

Imagine me giggling in agreement while reading this article by Zoe Williams in the Guardian on specious attacks on feminism and feminists:

It interests, but doesn't surprise me, that the people who most keenly hate women also seem to hate men.

The article is a lovely piece of rhetoric, written in a clear voice and with real energy and verve. It's refreshing to read something that has a clear point and makes that point entertainingly.

Best Sentence

Tonight I finished cleaning up a short article that will be published online this summer. In the meantime, because I love it so much, here is the best sentence of the article (inspired by this blog):

"In fact, it is heavily ironic that Elizabeth is proposed to in the home of a man whose proposal she rejected."

And yes, you need to have read Pride and Prejudice to understand it.

Makin' the blogroll big time

Congratulations to DarNat, who just made the blogroll for Man vs. Clown! a few months after I inexplicably did (how, I know not, but I do know that Mr. Man (or is it Mr. Clown?) tracks his blog stats).

Screen shot of a small section of the blogroll is here:









And yes, I did click on the "Darnat" link, just to be the first to do so. Not to nitpick (okay, totally to nitpick), but the "n" should be capitalized. It's bad enough that Daorcey gets to be first and poor Nat is relegated to second, although I guess "NatDar" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Samuel Richardson = George Lucas?

I read up on George Lucas's first movie, THX-1138, this week for my TA work, including some info on the changes he made to the recently released Directors' Cut (which include some rather silly looking CGI monkeys). In his defense, Lucas's film was recut by the studio and he was prevented by the lack of technology from fully realizing his dystopic, futuristic world. However, there is a certain charm to the 1971 version; it's not as slick, it's more claustrophobic, and the special effects are better integrated (as you would expect). And really, once a director releases a movie, he/she must be able to just let it go. The movie, like any piece of art, takes on a life of its own and will produce meanings that its creator never intended or considered. That's part of being an artist. (On the other hand, I do sympathize with any director whose movie is recut behind her back by the studio head).

But film directors were certainly not the first artists who could not let go. Samuel Richardson, author of Clarissa, was notorious for not being able to leave well enough alone. His first novel, Pamela, was immensely popular, but Richardson continued revising even after it was published. A second edition followed, and then a third, fourth, fifth... all the way up to a posthumous 11th edition edited by his daughters. The editions, by all accounts (no, I haven't read every edition of Pamela), differ in the representation of the eponymous heroine. In the first edition she's definitely a servant girl with a sharp, witty tongue who speaks with a lower-class accent. The heroine's rough edges are gradually worn down as the edition numbers increase, and some of the more titillating bits are removed. Richardson also corrected some of his factual errors regarding persons of rank (titles and whatnot), which he learned about because, ironically, Pamela's success enabled him to rub elbows with persons of rank. Also, Richardson wrote two sequels to the novel, partly in response to someone else's unauthorized sequel.

There are also some notable differences between the first and third editions of Clarissa. I've read only the 1st edition (twice), but my understanding is that the third edition makes Lovelace even more villainous because, to Richardson's shock, some readers still wanted Clarissa to marry her rapist.

Of course, the only reason Richardson was able to release multiple, different editions of his works was because he was his own publisher and editor. Now that's vertical integration.

Chinese food and fiction

A story broke this morning about a study that found the food in "Chinese" restaurants in the US is unhealthy, particularly in terms of sodium content. I use the quotation marks because to refer to the food in question as Chinese is generous at best and unfair at worse. The dishes studied bear little or no resemblance to the food found in Chinese homes around the world, with General Tao's chicken being the main offender, but also including Lemon Chicken and even Beef with Broccoli (because this is not the same as this).

Of course, the CP story writer doesn't seem to know this, querying whether 1.3 billion people (presumably the population of China) could be wrong. Newsflash: there is nothing wrong with Chinese food, if by Chinese food you mean the food Chinese people prepare and eat for themselves. The difference between Chinese and "Chinese" was particularly striking in the CBC Edmonton 6 p.m. newscast, as Chinese Chinese-restaurant managers and cooks defended their buffet (yes, I said buffet) items while white patrons ate in the background.

As ironic consolation, the studies notes that the nutritional value of "Chinese" food has not gone down since the last time it was analyzed, "which is something that certainly cannot be said about typical American-style restaurant food." Now hold on there, tiger. I counter that the "Chinese" food studied here is typical, American-style restaurant food. We've all seen it: bright red sauces, meat deep fried in so much batter as to be unrecognizable re: animal of origin, and chop suey glistening with oil. More importantly, we've all seen it in restaurants.

Of course, Chinese immigrants do have to share some responsibility for this conflation of "Chinese" food and Chinese food. After all, they're the ones who un-Communistly bowed to market pressures and "Americanized" the cuisine for customers in the first place. That said, I wonder why they made it more unhealthy in the process. Was it merely because it was the quickest, cheapest way to cook? Or was it to contribute to the gradual decline of the typical American's health? Was it all part of a large conspiracy in which China takes over the world? Is it possible that America (i.e., Hansel and Gretel) is slowly, unknowingly being fattened up by China until one day China comes over and consumes it like a giant amoeba? Or is China just waiting for America to keel over of heart disease before stepping into the power vacuum?

Only time will tell. Until, then, a word to the CPSI: If you're going to muck up "Chinese" and Chinese food, at least refrain from using stupid puns in the study's title.