By Stephanie Pearl-McPhee.
There's a fair chunk of books I read that I don't review on this website--which probably explains to you why a speed reader can go awhile without updating here at times. I kind of figure that weird books I read while going down a research hole probably don't appeal to the general public doing a search on book reviews on a specific book, which is pretty much my audience. Like I just read The Black Swan, which is interesting for the parts of it I understood, but I am probably not smart enough to get the statistics of it. Reviewing stuff like this is kind of difficult. Another sort of book I don't usually review here are the "niche" sort of ones. Anything by Stephanie Pearl-McPhee, who's (in her own words) "kind of a knitting philosopher" falls in that category to me. I've read a few of her books and was entertained at the time since I knit and understand most of the jokes, but I haven't actually reread any and when I lost some of them in a flood, I never got around to replacing them. The few I read were kind of fun one-offs, I guess.
This one, however, had some surprising streaks of poignancy in them that made me want to mention them here. Okay, so I figure anyone who has no interest in yarn would read this--and indeed, I'd tell you not to because you'll think all knitters are crazy. Which we are. But what the heck, I'll write a review anyway.
For those who haven't heard of "The Yarn Harlot," the author writes books on knitting, some of which are more instructional and some of which are more like musings. This copy is billed as "a sort of David Sedaris-like take on knitting" (which is why my mother got it for me as a birthday present), and...I wouldn't really argue that. Her essay books frequently discuss the following stuff, which you can find in this one as well:
- Futzing with designs, or having issues following patterns one way or another.
- How her family and friends react to her obsessive knitting.
- How complete strangers react to her obsessive knitting.
- Yarn snobbery, i.e. "pay for the GOOD yarn!"
- Socks. Dear lord, most knitters (i.e. everyone but me) are obsessed with the socks.
- Sweaters.
- Baby garments.
- How knitting doesn't get any respect from the general public.
- Things that go horribly wrong when knitting and make you crazy. Some of which are justified and some of which just are written to make the author look like she's mouth-foaming crazy, apparently. (I could have done with a little less of "Dear Designer" and the one where she harasses a yarn company for discontinuing a yarn. Hoo boy.)
In addition to those, there's a few fictional(?) (I think?) stories about people. I was amused at "Dear Nana," the story of a boy writing to say that he has "almost enough" sweaters, so could he get something else as a gift next time. There's also a story about a mom who had some traumatizing experiences in the snow as a child, ("A Knitter's Sense Of Snow") and as an adult, she tries to brave her way through riding a toboggan again. Doesn't end as you might think.
But what really stood out to me in this one was that at the start (and sometimes end) of every chapter, she writes a profile of a knitter. I really liked these, and a few of them stood out to me.
"Annabelle" is the story of a wild 4-year-old child who pretty much cannot be left alone for so long as a trip to go find Kleenex Stephanie is babysitting this child in this essay because her oldest daughter was like this as a child--and was a perpetual stripper.
"I once had three police cards show up because my novice babysitter had made the foolish mistake of going to the bathroom for a tissue. In the seventy-nine seconds it took her to blow her nose, my darling and intrepid three-year-old had dialed 911 and then hung up." In Annabelle's case, Stephanie is teaching her to knit. You'd think a small, super-active child wouldn't be into this activity, but somehow it works. Why does this work?
"It is my considered belief that the number one reason knitters knit is because they are so smart that they need knitting to make boring things interesting. Knitters are so compellingly clever that they simply can't tolerate boredom. It takes more to engage and entertain this kind of human, and they need an outlet or they get into trouble."
Words cannot express how much I totally agree with that one.
"Denny," well, I'll just quote again:
"There's nothing remarkable about her--except, somehow, all of her. She was dressed as she almost always is, in an outfit that defies descripton." Stephanie met Denny in a spinning class and was weirded out by her--
"I didn't know what to do with her. She was much too much for me, and that's saying something, since I'm often accused of the same thing." Denny breaks rules right and left and does what she wants to and gets away with it, which made Stephanie resentful and uncomfortable.
"I wanted to be like that, so firmly me that I didn't let anything stand in my way...." I related. Denny sounds like fun.
"Ken" is the profile of a male knitter and how he constantly gets attention when he knits in public. Stephanie finds it rather insulting how he's treated like "a rare bird or a valuable racehorse" because he stepped out of gender roles.
"They must think him as bright as bricks if they are so impressed that he's able to manage." This turns into a musing about how women have extremely low standards for men and don't even realize it. Hear, hear!
Rachel" is the story of a woman who appeared to have the perfect life, and she didn't. She became depressed, and eventually knitted her way out of that depression by making a giant damn afghan.
"...I think she lost track of what it felt to move forward, to accomplish things, and to be competent, and I think that knitting two full and undeniable miles of garter stitch gave it right back to her." AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Very inspiring.
I'm going to give it three and a half stars. This is pretty much a niche book and most folks that aren't knitters wouldn't get the jokes...but if you're into it, this is a cut above her usual work. Even if I wish she'd lay off of the essays that make her sound kinda mouth-foaming crazy at times.
Books that are hard to review
First up is Return of the Kings. There's several reasons why I feel weird about reviewing it, even though I wanted to mention it:
What I can say about this book is that if you're the sort who likes Cthulhu mythos stories, this will be your jam. This is a world in which corporations are at war, travel is limited, and one of our main characters is friends with a handicapped dragon who's willing to assist her when she finds out that her ex-boyfriend....well, he works under the sea watching squids, and they're Up To Something. Of course, that's Bad News Rising. There's a odd assortment of bad guys, including shapeshifting swinging Tourists, there's alien porn, and, well... Elvis's reanimated singing colon. (Honestly, I somehow always was brushing my teeth when I got to reading about this, and...well, ughhhhhhhhhh, damn.) It's all about the weirdness. If you like weird, this is up your alley. But it's not the usual sort of novel, so read on with a grain of salt.
And then there's Fair Game, by ex-spy Valerie Plame Wilson. Even after getting forcibly outed as a spy, i.e. cat's kinda out of the bag already, the CIA gave her some shit for trying to publish a memoir. Which is to say that they went through the manuscript and bleeped out a lot of it. We're told it's mostly related to her terms of service, which is something that's pretty well discoverable by anyone and everyone by now. But just because someone else outed her doesn't mean that SHE is allowed to out herself on this information, apparently.
The author and the publisher did the best they could with a manuscript in which full on pages are blacked out. They include a 100+ page afterword by another writer in which she recounts what happened to Valerie by using public sources--i.e. all the stuff that we already know and could find out by searching through the media stories. They even include some documentation--the original paperwork saying that she not only can't tell how long she was in service, she can't refer to personal events like meeting her husband because they might pinpoint those things in time. paperwork about Valerie's difficulties with getting an annuity (Valerie herself is not allowed to mention that even though she served for 20 years, she's still too young to get her annuity until she's 56 years old. But hey, the paperwork saying so isn't classified....but the Agency bitches anyway....), her lawsuits about this, etc.
In the end after reading it, I'm debating rereading it after having read the afterword, just so I can place things in time better. As well as one can under the circumstances, anyway. The Amazon page says to read the afterword first, and I think I will concur with them on that one.
Here's the thing about reading this: the author is a good writer. She describes her experiences well and I'd love to read more about it, especially the sexism issues she dealt with and juggling life in two worlds. However....there's the deleted scenes. There's some areas where entire pages are deleted--for example, you don't get to hear a lick of how Valerie ended up with Joe Wilson and the narrative now skips from the "Island of Misfit Toys" org she worked at to suddenly having twins. And then there's plenty of moments where only one word is deleted. I understand having paragraphs and pages and the occasional sentence bleeped out. But sometimes whatever they bleeped out just looks...weird. Like, what was so offensive about describing a meal had during training, other than apparently saying it was southern cooking was ok? Then there's the hilarious sentence about one of her potential recruits, Nicholas.
OH MY. MY BRAIN WENT TO BAD PLACES WITH THAT.
I'm going to take a whopping guess from a later meal mentioning that eating yogurt at it was traditional that Valerie was probably stashed in Greece. And I knew jack shit about any of that. (According to the afterword, I am correct in that guess.)
Mostly I found myself being frequently distracted by the bleeping. I found myself playing CIA Mad Libs and making up words that could possibly go in the deleted spots.It kind of made it hard to follow and concentrate on the awesome-to-nightmare story in between awkward bleepings, you know?
Other CIA Mad Libs:
So...I don't feel like I can fairly review it, per se, given the issues that this book has had put upon it. One can't comment on how the author chose to shape her tale when you're not allowed to read a good chunk of how she meant to do it. I can understand the CIA wanting to have first bleep on it, but it seems fairly clear that even by 2007, the author is getting weirdly punished on some level for shit that was not her doing whatsoever. Sheesh. What you can find out about her tale is done well, and you feel sorry for her having to go through this shit.
Posted on April 03, 2013 at 10:05 AM in Non-Review Commentary, Nonfiction, Science Fiction/Fantasy | Permalink | Comments (0)