Spinster

Yesterday my friend Stephanie loaned me the book The Children’s Blizzard by David Laskin. I just finished it and yeah, I know that I read fast. I got home last night after a 12-hour day and started reading it and I couldn’t stop.

Does anyone remember The Long Winter by Laura Ingalls Wilder? It’s part of the Little House series and it chronicles the Ingalls family’s experience with the blizzards of 1880-81 in the Midwest. The blizzard that Laskin writes about happened a few years later, in January of 1888, and it was amazing.

In Nebraska, the Dakotas, Minnesota, and Iowa, January 12, 1888, began as a beautiful, relatively warm winter day, with temperatures hovering around freezing (instead of twenty degrees below) for the first time in weeks. The warm weather prompted schoolchildren and adults to go outside to school or to do farming work without wearing overcoats, mittens, scarves, etc. In the afternoon, the temperature dropped considerably, the wind picked up, and the “snow” started falling. Apparently, in blizzard conditions, the precipitation isn’t really snow, it’s more like finely ground ice needles–like ice-sand–and, due to the wind, creates whiteout conditions so intense that there is “zero/zero” visibility (you cannot see anything above or around you).

So, when the blizzard hit, the schoolteachers had to decide whether to keep the children in the schools overnight or send them home. Most teachers kept the kids overnight but some decided that, since there were farms nearby, they would be better off setting out into the storm. Hundreds of people died in the storm, and since so many of them were kids, it became known as the School Children’s Blizzard.

Laskin conducted dozens of interviews with ancestors of survivors and consulted records, diaries, and letters detailing the experiences of the families who experienced the blizzard, as well as the records of the Army weather stations that failed to adequately forecast the conditions. There are a couple of poignant things about the blizzard and the people who went through it: one, most of the people were recent immigrants from Scandinavia and had only been living on the Plains for about five years, long enough to realize that it wasn’t the paradise they had been promised–locust plagues and long, hard winters took care of that. But there wasn’t much that they could do–they couldn’t just pick up and move as soon as the going got tough, because that was where they had chosen to settle. They were committed to five years of homesteading in order to get their land for free. The second thing about the blizzard is that it didn’t happen that long ago. This book, and Wilder’s books, don’t chronicle events that happened in the Dark Ages, or in some other unconceivable time. The Children’s Blizzard occurred less than 100 years before I was born.

So much has changed since then… And I think that the settlers in the Midwest and the pioneers who forged the Oregon Trail were so tough. I mean actually tough, not the cynical, jaded, arrogant “tuff” that the postmodern world has created. I mean tough as in pioneer tough, as in build your own house, farm your own land, make your own clothes and your own food, lose kids in childbirth and in childhood, waste not want not, fear God–that kind of tough.

I LOVED the Little House books when I was a kid and a couple of years ago I reread them all for the first time since childhood. They definitely stood the test of time–I found them as interesting as I did as a child. I was struck, when reading Laura Ingalls Wilder’s books, about how even though the Ingalls family lived a kind of life that most of us can’t even imagine, and travelled in a covered wagon, and endured blizzards, and lost crops to locust plagues; despite all of those things, they seemed genuinely happy. Maybe that’s the way she wanted to portray her family in those books, or maybe their happiness was an anomaly in an age of suffering, but maybe not, too. Maybe it’s easy to get depressed about trivial shit like how your hair looks or why boys don’t like you–and I am directing these criticisms at myself, not at anyone else–when life is so easy that you don’t have to fight for the basics. I don’t necessarily want to live in a wagon and build houses, and I appreciate washing machines and the like, but I don’t know if our societies and cultures are necessarily better off for all of our mod cons.

Anyone else want to share an opinion?

I have been working some more on the green top that I showed earlier this week–or was it last week? I don’t remember. Anyway, this pattern has been very easy to work with and the whole thing has gone quickly and well. Last night I was sewing the top to the bottom and it was time to gather the material in the boob area. My first attempt was horrendous. I should have taken a picture, but oh well, I didn’t. Suffice it to say that the whole thing sagged and the gather stitches showed. Then I consulted my sewing book. Turns out there’s a right way and a wrong way to do gathers. I was doing it the wrong way. I ripped out the basted stitches and followed the instructions in the book and, lo and behold, it looked infinitely better. Now the gathers are more or less where they should be, no ugly stitches show, and when I tried it on, it fits. It’s a little loose around the breasts but short of getting implants there’s not much I can do about that. Plus, I figure that since the empire waist fits pretty well and it’s not supposed to be super-tight, I should just leave well enough alone. I’ll show pics of me wearing it when it’s finished.

So, my friend Kristen has decided to join the Knitting Olympics and will be making her boyfriend, Drake, a sweater. When she told me this yesterday I thought, “Ok, cool, I hope her project goes well.” But then I remembered the Sweater Curse. It goes something like this–women who knit sweaters for their boyfriends, no matter how simple the sweater or how perfect the relationship, always lose in the end. The boyfriends inevitably and invariably break up with them days after receiving the lovingly hand-knitted garment. I think that ladies tend to chalk it up to the tendency of men to downplay the seriousness of their relationships, so when these guys receive a gift that reflects the gravity of the situation because it is handmade, they realize that they are in a Real Relationship and they just might be in deep. That scares the shit out of them and off they go.

Kristen and Drake have a great relationship, they’ve been together for like a bazillion years (4? 5? Something like that), they live together, and if they had children the kids would be blond-haired blue-eyed beauties. However! The Sweater Curse knows no limits and has ended even the most fairy tale-esque affairs. I caution Kristen to knit the sweater with one eye on the Olympics and one eye on Drake. Is he acting squirrelly? Does he all of a sudden not want to discuss “our” future (not yours and mine, yours and his)? If so, it might be time to put down the knitting needles and stash the sweater in the closet for a while. You can take it out again when there’s a ring on that finger.

Wikipedia.org is a free, open-source encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone with a computer and Internet access. It embraces the idea of collective information, owned by no one and representative of a myriad of viewpoints. As Wikipedia articles require collaboration to avoid obvious and damaging biases, the site’s developers encourage individuals to contribute their knowledge to subjects that are less-developed than others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia). Also, readers can request articles on various topics, from fashion to manga. Wikipedia began in 2001 and, as of February 2006, contains 966,000 articles written in English; dozens of other languages are represented, including Scots Gaelic and Belarusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About).

Wikipedia has five pages explaining its policies, procedures and guidelines for submitting and editing information:
• What Wikipedia is not
• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability
• Citing sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About).
Wikipedia does not allow any “unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia’s co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a ‘novel narrative or historical interpretation’” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Wikipedia strongly encourages contributors to cite sources, although it does not require them to do so, and does not allow other Wikipedia articles (called Wikilinks) as valid sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources).

As Chief Librarian, you may be wondering exactly why openly embracing Wikipedia in your library is a good idea. After all, it doesn’t directly benefit your staff or your patrons—you may not see an increase in patron satisfaction as a result of promoting Wikipedia. However, there are some basic advantages to using, and encouraging the use of, Wikipedia. First, access to it is free. There is no software to purchase or download, so funds need not be allocated to it. Anyone can retrieve the information on its pages without paying a fee. Additionally, you will not have to spend time and money training your staff to use Wikipedia, as it is extremely easy to navigate and its user interface is clean. Pages are well laid-out, and include tables of contents and clearly defined links to cross-referenced subjects and to external Web sites and pages.

The most important advantage to using Wikipedia is that it is a comprehensive source of information that may not be easily obtained elsewhere. Because it can be edited by anyone, anywhere, it is less susceptible to the “Western-centric bias found in many Western publications” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About), giving readers a more diverse understanding of the subject in which they are interested. While the usual encyclopedia subjects are covered, information can also be found on current topics such as specific technological advances and television shows that would not yet (or ever) be represented in a paper encyclopedia. Furthermore, because Wikipedia can be edited instantaneously, it often contains a great deal of up-to-the-minute information on breaking and unfolding news stories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About). As more and more people continue to look to Wikipedia for information—and as more people trust the site’s contents—it is essential that librarians and patrons be made aware of its presence and are encouraged to contribute to it.

However, you may be wary of the validity and trustworthiness of an online reference source, particularly one that can be edited by anyone. These fears are well-founded—Wikipedia has been and likely will continue to be subject to vandalism. Also, errors and misinformation are likely to be found on an open-source Web site. The developers of Wikipedia acknowledges this—they say, “Indeed, many articles commence their lives as partisan, and it is after a long process of discussion, debate and argument, that they gradually take on a consensus form” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About). Actually, promoting the use of Wikipedia will actually reduce vandalism and increase the site’s trustworthiness: the more contributors there are; the more people who are policing the site, noticing, fixing, and reporting errors and vandalism—these actions all contribute to the validity of collective and diverse knowledge that Wikipedia represents.

Additionally, users are not solely responsible for cleaning up errors. Wikipedia has in place a program that allows its administrators special access privileges. One can become an administrator only after demonstrating their commitment to the site by contributing to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators). Administrators’ privileges include being given permission to edit the main page, which was placed under restricted access after suffering vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators). Wikipedia’s “Administrators” page contains a list of areas in which administrators ensure the flow of accurate information: “3RR violations [‘reverting,’ or changing a page back to a previous state; this is not supposed to be done more than three times in one day, and violations of this rule can result in blocked access], interventions against vandalism, [and] copyright problems,” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators) among others.

In conclusion, though there are some problems with Wikipedia, and though much of it is not ready to be used in the same way as a paper encyclopedia, there are some clear advantages to using it and promoting it in the library. Librarians, as information and knowledge managers, have a responsibility to the profession and the people it serves to provide accurate, appropriate information. Wikipedia is fast becoming a well-utilized resource, and promoting its use will only result in a wealth of open, accurate information.

References
Wikipedia. Wikipedia:About. Accessed February 11, 2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About

Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Administrators. Accessed Febrary 11, 2006, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators

Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Citing Sources. Accessed Februrary 11, 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Accessed February 11, 2006 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I had to work all day yesterday, which is when I discovered that I have a cold. It’s not debilitating or anything, but it is annoying and it has resulted in a perma-headache of the tension variety.

Anyway, I could have gone out last night but I felt crappy so I decided against it. All I wanted was food that I didn’t have to cook and a good OC sesh (thanks, Limewire!). In between, however, I decided to work on a top that I’m sewing.

I tried to sew a top last summer and it was horrendous. The top, I mean. It was a huge pain in the ass and it didn’t fit and I hated it. But this one has been different, so far. Probably cause I chose a much easier pattern with fewer pieces, and the fabric that I’m using is plain old cotton, or maybe–and I like to think that this is true, too–my sewing skills have improved. I have the upper half of the top finished with the exception of the armhole facings and I wanted to show it off. So without further ado, here it is:

And here is a close-up of the pattern:

Well, that’s all I got. Life isn’t that exciting and yeah, I did spend Saturday night with my sewing machine. Here’s to hoping the title of this blog isn’t true!

Now that I have a moment to breathe after the insanity of this week, I can show off my new toys and what I can do with them. On Tuesday, a fabulous package arrived in the mail for me, courtesy of George.

Here is my new ball winder (l) and yarn swift (r):

And together, this is what they achieved last night:

This yarn is soooo pretty. It reminds me of the ocean in Miami, which is why I chose it. I had decided to make a lacey scarf with it, but here’s the thing–I’m not that into scarves. They’re ok, but after knitting lots of long rectangles, I feel the need to graduate to something a bit more complicated. I’m more interested in making sweaters at this point than scarves, and I found a really cool sweater pattern in Loop-d-Loop that I would like to make. As with most of Teva Durham’s designs, it is certainly original. Some of her stuff is a bit too quirky for me but I can take the bad because the good is usually really good, as it is with the Cashmere Lace Blouse that I’m going to attempt. I’m going to try it with the blue yarn and see what I get.

Actually, I don’t hate Research Methods. I think it’s pretty interesting, to be honest, and I feel like I’m learning quite a bit. Plus, it appeals to my critical side. (Yeah, I know, I’m composed entirely of “critical side.”) However, writing this paper is a PITA. If I write the word “researchers” one more time I might kill myself. I feel like I’ve been working on this thing for weeks. [For those of you not in the know, the assignment is to write a 10-12 page 1.5-space paper critiquing a published research article. (1.5 spaced! WTF? Good thing I didn't find that out until last night when I thought I had 8 pages written and it turned out I only had 6. Not to mention that I've been typing assignments double-space since, like, 9th grade.) Turns out the research articles we had to choose from are full of holes. Lots to write about. Joy and happiness, indeed.]

Anyhoo, my procrastination moment must end posthaste if I want to finish this thing tonight. Which I do. Because I have to. And then tomorrow I’m going to go get drunk at Pub Night. Word!

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/06/when_librarians_protect_terrorists/?p1=MEWell_Pos2

If you want to read something ridiculous, visit the above link and read the article entitled “When librarians protect terrorists,” by Richard L. Cravatts.

As a graduate student of an information studies program, a former employee of a bookstore, an avid reader and, in my opinion, a fairly decent citizen, the idea that libraries and bookstores should be required to turn their patrons’ and customers’ records over to the feds is deeply unsettling. I oppose the so-called Patriot Act–I feel that it is nothing more than W’s continued crusade to marshall his forces of evil and idiocy and turn my country into a police state–even though I abhor the idea and the reality of terrorism.

Obviously, September 11th was one of the most unimaginable tragedies of my lifetime–however, that does not give anyone the grounds to attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and remove Americans’ rights to privacy. Whose business is it if I choose to purchase Nabokov’s Lolita at the bookstore, or check out books on witchcraft from the library? As long as I’m not preying on children, as long as I’m not actually performing ritual sacrifices*–essentially, as long as I’m innocent, and until I can be proven guilty–no one needs to know about my reading habits.

Where it grows murky is when I do actually commit a crime that can be linked to my reading habits. At first, when I considered this, my immediate reaction was, “No, of course no one should have access to my library/bookstore records, even if I have done something wrong. That’s an invasion of privacy.” Then I thought about the number of times that I have cited violent video games as “the downfall of society” (I don’t like video games, can you tell?)–or more specifically, that violent video games have been singled out as one reason that those two teenagers killed that taxi driver here in Toronto last week. There was a copy of “Need for Speed” found in one of the boys’ cars, and there was speculation that they were imitating the moves on the video game when the one car crashed into the taxi. If I had it my way, video games would be censored. But I don’t feel that way about books. I would never remove Lolita from the bookstore, or Mein Kampf even, for the sake of censorship. I almost wish I would, because then I wouldn’t be a hypocrite when it comes to video games.

However. I also think that reading, or listening to heavy metal or rap or classical music or tribal chants, or even, though I hate to admit it, playing video games, isn’t going to change the intrinsic nature of a person. There would still be child molestors if Lolita didn’t exist; there would still be genocide if Mein Kampf was banned; that taxi driver would still have died if “Need for Speed” was censored; and, even if that library director had surrendered that patron’s records, there would still be terrorists. I don’t think that something as simple as censoring video games or banning books or operating a widespread surveillance program of your citizens is going to change what is inherently wrong with our societies, our cultures, and our world.

No knitting post today. Well, maybe later today, as in what will be tomorrow when I wake up in the morning.

So. I got a package of sneakers in the mail the other day. Sneakers, you say. How could that be interesting and/or exciting? Well, let me tell you. When you have been walking around for years (years!) in sneakers that are one size too small and you only just now realized that and that your feet have been hurting cause your shoes were too tight, then you will consider sneakers to be a wonderful and exciting arrival. And, too, when you have been shopping at the insane Red, White, and Blue thrift store in Miami (a dangerous adventure, that) and you have seen brand! new! Roos! And your mom wouldn’t buy them for you cause they were too expensive (if you try to sell the woman a book for a quarter, she’ll offer you a dime and not a penny more–it sounds obnoxious but she’s Queen of the Bargain which often works in my favor) and you didn’t want to buy them yourself, and then when your mom goes back to the store and buys them for half off (when you’ve already returned to university)–then, and only then, friend, will you understand the greatness of The Shoe Package:

Ah yes. The Shoe Package. (Contains beat-up scuffed running shoes and grandpa shoes too, but that’s neither here nor there.)

And! The Shoe Package also contained the new issue of Bust, which is my favorite magazine. Debbie Stoller of Stitch n Bitch fame is the editor and it’s all about being female and being fabulous but not in a Cosmo-whore/Mall of America way. It’s about DIY and knitting, all-girl bands, healthy sexuality, clothes that real women would and could actually wear, and the great thing is that it’s not anti-men. Cause I’m certainly not anti-men and I don’t see why I have to be in order to be considered a feminist.

My friend Kristen is knitting the Little Black Top from Stitch n Bitch and I wish her infinitely more luck with hers than I had with mine. There were many lessons learned from that project:
1) cotton SUCKS,
2) don’t change the pattern unless you know what you are doing,
3) sewing a seam, while it is not a fine art, is definitely something worth understanding.

Here is the result:

Apologies for the blur. It would appear that I haven’t entirely figured out my digital camera yet. Anyway.
The tank top is definitely never going to get worn outside of the house. I left it behind in Miami when I moved here, yet somehow my mom found it necessary to include it in a package of requested items. It is haunting me. It’s the specter of shoddy craftswomanship.

Here’s a closeup of a craptastic seam:

However! Lest you think I totally suck at knitting, allow me to present the cardigan I knitted this fall.
I know that it’s missing a button; it fell off a couple of weeks ago and since I got the buttons from my aunt, it’s not that simple to replace.

I used Cascade 220 and I had tons left over, which means that this project actually didn’t cost that much. I think, though, that next time I make a sweater, I’m going to use thinner yarn. I think that Cascade 220 is worsted and while it knit up fairly quickly, I think I’d prefer something that shows mistakes less. And I’ll also do some kind of textured stitch or colorwork or something to give it more interest. But still, I like this cardigan and I wore it all the time until the button fell off.