I took a photo of this robin's nest because it is so beautifully constructed, and because the eggs are such a gorgeous color-- but it makes me sad every time I look at it.

Sferruzzare Mondiale!

Thank you to everyone who purchased a Knititude pattern between January 15th and February 15th!  I just made a donation of $272 (50% of net pattern sales during this period) to Partners in Hea

How sweet it is to have my first pattern published in Vogue Knitting magazine!  I'm certainly keeping good company, with my #30 Aran wrap alongside Mary Lynn Patrick's #29 cabled jacket in VK's "English Garden" story.  A pause while I say "Aahh," and bask in the moment I've been waiting for since I first learned my design was accepted, more than nine months ago (photo at left courtesy of Soho Publishing).  Ah, yes.  Dare I admit a few thorny details which are marring my rosy day?  First, the prickliest:  the text on the photo page states, "...the sleeves are worked separately and sewn in."  Um, NO THEY'RE NOT!  At first I thought the editors had radically altered my Original Pattern, but no, the pattern still calls for the sleeve stitches to be picked up around the armhole and then worked down to the cuff.  Maybe this is my inner neurotic designer speaking, but that seems like a fairly important bit of information regarding the sweater construction.  It's also a fun way to work the sleeve (secondo me) and nicely maintains the continuity of the cables across the back and down the sleeve.  Another cool thing about the design is that the front edge (which is really the top edge) cable is reversible, meaning it can be folded back and still looks like, well, the right side instead of the wrong side of the fabric--something which is not mentioned.  And finally, I guess I never really noticed this before, but with only one photo of each design, it's not possible to get a good idea of how it looks from various angles, which I think is a problem for anything with an unusual construction or special detailing on the back or the sleeves.  After considering this, I thought to myself, "At least knitters can look at the schematic and get a better idea of the construction,"-- but again, no, there is no schematic for my design.  So, if you look carefully at the 2nd photo, at least it gives a good idea of the construction:  you work the upper part side to side, binding off stitches and then casting on again to form the armholes; pick up stitches around the armholes and knit down to the cuff for the sleeves; and then pick up stitches along the lower edge and knit down to form the wide vertical ribbed hem.  Simple?  Maybe not.  Fun?  Yes.  (But be warned, it is the size of a lap blanket, and quite heavy if worked in the suggested alpaca yarn.) And now, please indulge me as I post a few morephotos; the top of my son's head managed to find its way into the last one.

I always planned to work Selva in the round, especially since I had not originally included a slit.  Since the skirt was quite fitted, I realized this would require that it be above knee length; but after calling to tell me that Interweave wanted to use the design, Eunny Jang, the editor, told me she thought it might require both a slit and a zipper closure.  This got me wondering whether I should work the skirt flat and then seam it up the back, thus easily allowing for a slit and a zipper-- but I decided against this, mainly because I thought it would be significantly slower knitting. A bit of good news:  Eunny wanted me to use Filatura di Crosa Zara, the exact same yarn I had used for the swatch (very unusual, in my experience!).  Unfortunately, not expecting this, I hadn't bothered to take any notes on the gauge of the Hearts of Oak swatch I had sent to Interweave, so as soon as the yarn arrived in the mail, I swatched again.  After blocking, the swatch seemed a little too loose to me, so I did another one on smaller needles, and decided to use the smaller needles for the skirt to get a slightly denser fabric (trying not to calculate how many extra stitches I would have to knit to finish the thing!). My 2 cents on swatches:  I've decided that patterns which include stitch patterns other than stockinette stitch should give gauges both in stockinette stitch, to make it easier to find substitute yarns, AND in one or more of the pattern stitches used in the design, since working cables or lace or garter stitch, or whatever, might cause changes in yarn tension among different knitters.  In future all my patterns will include at least two gauges (I can't imagine myself creating a design using only stockinette!). Back to Selva:  First, I decided I didn't want to have a facing around the slit; this meant that I would have to find a way to make the edge of the knit fabric itself look finished.  With no facings (meaning that working in the round and then steeking was not an option), the skirt would have to be worked back and forth for the length of the slit, and then joined to work the rest in the round.  After some experimenting I came up with a modification of the Hearts of Oak pattern which looked adequately finished at the edges; I also found that having a 2-stitch stockinette edge was important, to keep the edge fairly straight.   I started knitting, only to realize after several inches that I had no idea whether the Hearts of Oak pattern worked on circular needles would show a jog at the beginning of each round!  At this point, I just kept my fingers crossed until the skirt was about 7 inches long, joined for working in the round, and...no jog whatsoever!  In fact, I found that the increases and decreases in the stitch pattern caused the beginning of the round to move in and out along the edges of the "overlapping scales" (as described by Interweave), which is why I set up the chart for rounds (at left) the way I did. Next and final post on Selva:  waistband issues and sizing.

I'm editing a translation of my Chinese grandmother's memoir; my grandmother is now in her eighties, but shortly after my grandfather died, over 20 years ago, her children (8 of them, pictured with her in July) asked her to write down her memories of her youth and the earlier years of her marriage.  My mother and two of my aunts just got around to translating the memoir from Chinese into English a few months ago. Sto curando una traduzione della memoria della mia nonna cinese; mia nonna ha superato gli ottant' anni, ma fra poco dopo mio nonno e morto, piu di venti anni fa, i suoi figli (8 di loro, nella foto con lei) le hanno chiesto di scrivere le sue memorie della sua giovinezza e gli piu prim' anni del suo matrimonio.  La mia mamma e due delle mie zie hanno appena tradotto la memoria dal cinese all' inglese, alcuni mesi fa. A couple of excerpts/Un paio d' estratti: [Early 1940s, Shanghai]:  "Even with a servant, I was busy.  When there was free time, the servant would help me make cloth shoes for the children.  Four pairs of shoes were needed for each child not counting slippers.  This was done during spring and summer.  Fall and winter seasons were taken up with knitting sweaters." [I primi 1940s, Shanghai]:  "Anche con una domestica, ero occupata.  Quando c'era tempo libero, la domestica mi aiutava fare le scarpe di tessuto per i bambini.  Quattro paio di scarpe erano necessario per ogni bambino, non incluso di pantofole.  Questo era fatto durante la primavera e l' estate.  L' autunno e l' inverno era consumato della lavorazione a maglia, per fare i maglioni." (No wonder Grandma always knit so fast, and never bothered with patterns!/Ecco perche' Nonna lavorava sempre cosi velocimente, e non si dava mai la pena di usare i modelli!) "My second daughter...was a very quiet and obedient child.  When her brother was born, she already knew how to knit woolen diapers for him." "La mia figlia seconda...era una bambina molto tranquila e ubbidiente.  Quando suo fratello era nato, sapeva gia come a lavorare a maglia i pannolini di lana per lui. (And I thought knitting dishrags was a wasted effort!/E pensavo io che lavorare a maglia gli strofinacci fossi un sforzo perso!) All I can say is, what a luxury it is to knit for entertainment, for curiosity, for the love of special fibers and beautiful and unusual garments, and finally for the pleasure--and not the necessity--of crafting things with your hands.  Devo dire, che lusso, cioe il lavoro a maglia per divertimento, per curiosita', per l'amore delle fibre particolare ed i vestiti belli ed insoliti, e finalmente  per il piacere--e non la necessita'--di fare qualcos' a mano.

I doubt that anyone but myself has noticed that I wrote a post chastising the writers of Big Girl Knits for subtitling their book "Projects Shaped for Real Women with Real Curves," and then turned around and happily accepted a commission to design a garment for the sequel, BGK2.  Still, I feel a need to justify this decision--if only to myself.  I wrote my earlier post because I was offended by the implication that I'm not a real woman, simply because I'm not a Big Girl.  I submitted a design for BGK2 because it was a great opportunity for me to get my work published; I mean, what comes first, putting food on the table (figuratively speaking--if my income was feeding my family, we'd be pretty darned hungry right now), or salving my wounded pride ("You won't get a sweater design out of me, Jillian & Amy--so there!")? And then, when my design was accepted, I bought Big Girl Knits, to have a clear idea of their design philosophy and to make sure my finished pattern fit their style.  And I have to say, it's a damn good book.  In fact, you should buy it!  (I'm not just saying that to boost their sales and make sure there is in fact a BGK2--really.)   Okay, if you're not a big girl, perhaps you don't need to add it to your knitting library, although sections about proper fitting and choosing flattering shapes will apply to anyone.  But I was impressed:  it's humorous and no-nonsense, and it contains a variety of attractive and original patterns.  This "Sandy Cardigan," for instance, designed by Emma Crew, is constructed ingeniously to allow you to use your favorite self-striping yarn, while at the same time creating a slimming silhouette. And finally, I have to admit that if I was a Big Girl, I'd be pretty annoyed at the preferential treatment given to thin girls in our society.  (But I'll repeat:  real women come in all shapes and sizes!) 

Well, Oliver's first problem was that he was too short; pictured is his center back panel, with the bottom edge on the left.  Since I left the top stitches for the neckband live (which makes for a more stretchy neck edge than if they're bound off), I could normally have just knit a little further, but by the time I reached an attractive stopping point--the end of the larger diamond--it would have been too long.  So I changed the repeat on the pattern chart so that it begins with the large diamond instead of the small one; the new chart is shown at left.  If I stop at the top of the third large diamond, the back panel should be about an inch longer than before.  Panels like this are another reason pattern directions should give length in rows!*  If Debbie Bliss had done this in her pattern for the Cotton Aran Sweater I knit for my son, it would have been clear that a certain number of rows had to be worked for the pattern repeat to end as pictured in her book.  And then I wouldn't have had to change the neckline from a crew to a V so the repeat ended at least semi-attractively. Anyway.  On this photo of Oliver's front, the entire border ribbing area is circled.  The border rib doesn't stand out from the body of the sweater, which is as I intended; however, I don't like the way the border ribbing meets the mirror cable panel, which affects both the center back panel and the center front edge.  I'm going to try a garter stitch border instead.  *So far the response to my rant has been less than enthusiastic; okay, so it's been nonexistent.  That doesn't mean I'm going to give up.  My next step?  Letters to the individual members of the CYCA's Standards Committee.  (It's not too late to jump on the bandwagon!)

Yes, I'm still stuck on the subject of writing pattern instructions using rows instead of inches.  Please, bear with me a little longer!  Poor Oliver, who has been a little naughty--no, that's not fair; his problems are all my own fault--he's been bumped to my next post.  The photo at left is his front; I inserted it mainly because 3 posts in a row without pictures is surely the kiss of death in the knitblog world. Anyway, I got so fired up by this subject that I fired off an email to editors at Interweave Knits, Vogue Knitting, knitty.com, and Knitter's Magazine.  Since this was at 1 a.m. (my mind was racing and I couldn't sleep), my email was a little wonky, reading in part: I believe that the present convention for pattern-writing does not go far enough to ensure accurate sizing, and could be greatly improved by: 1) Amending the typical "TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE" to read, "BLOCK GAUGE SWATCH USING SAME FINISHING METHOD  (i.e. wet thoroughly, squeeze out excess moisture and dry flat; steam; press; tumble dry; pr none) YOU PLAN TO USE ON COMPLETED GARMENT, AND USE BLOCKED SWATCH TO DETERMINE GAUGE"; 2) Changing pattern instructions* so that dimensions are given in rows and stitches, not inches/centimeters. *Please note that I say pattern instructions; dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters. That whole gauge thing--ouch.  No wonder an editorial assistant at Interweave (which BTW already uses "check gauge after blocking"--credit where due!!) responded: Thank you for your input.  We will certainly be taking your suggestions into consideration.  The problem we often face is the issue of space available in our magazine, and a certain established style of pattern writing.  We appreciate hearing from our readers as it helps us serve you better! Translation:  You're a crackpot, but we try to be nice to anyone who takes the time to write to us.  So this morning, after I'd had my coffee, I composed and sent the following: Thank you for your response.  I apologize for sounding perhaps tongue-in-cheek; of course it is not realistic to print the entire "Gauge" statement I proposed for each pattern, and as I noted, your magazine does already use "check gauge after blocking," which is a great improvement over no mention of blocking at all. But I am quite serious about the latter suggestion.  The fact that your magazine uses "check gauge after blocking" suggests strongly that you and your fellow editors agree with me that blocking changes gauge, sometimes significantly.  Once you have made this assumption, it is just not possible to deny that measuring a garment in inches while it is in progress--unblocked--is inaccurate.  While in many cases a difference of an inch or two is unimportant, or the knitter instinctively compensates for the directions, (i.e. stretching slightly to measure), in some cases this inaccuracy can cause an unsatisfactory result, especially (but not only!) for an inexperienced knitter.  As the pattern provider, your magazine and designers should be motivated to provide the most accurate patterns possible:  more satisfied knitters make better customers.  And it is never simpler to convert inches to rows than when the designer has a completed sample, and/or a fully charted design and a good-sized blocked swatch, sitting in front of her (or him)--nor does it take any more space to state dimensions in rows rather than inches. Of course I realize this suggestion does not fit with the established style of pattern writing; that is why I am writing to you, and to other knitting magazines.  I quote Nancy Bush (Knitting Vintage Socks):  "[In nineteenth-century British sock patterns]...there was no information on yardage, on the weight of specific balls or skeins, or, most importantly, on gauge."  We've come a long way since then!  Why not continue to improve pattern conventions? Now, I ask YOUR help--knitbloggers and blog readers--so that patterns can be better for all of us.  If you agree with my logic, then please write to knit magazines and the Craft Yarn Council and let them know (and please implement these changes in your own original patterns).  Here is an improved version of the changes I recommend: 1) Amend the typical "TAKE TIME TO CHECK GAUGE" (or simply "GAUGE") to read, "CHECK GAUGE AFTER BLOCKING" 2) Make gauge swatches in pattern stitch, not just stockinette (which many patterns already do) 3) Write pattern instructions so that all dimensions are given in ROWS and stitches, not (or at least in addition to) inches/centimeters.  Dimensions of finished garments should still be given in inches/centimeters.  P.S.  In the meantime, when using an already-printed pattern, you can always multiply inches given in instructions by the row gauge provided (assuming the gauge was done in the pattern stitch)--or maybe the BQ isn't such a flippant idea, after all.