Lydia, I'll have a picture of the pullover once it's done. (The sleeves seem to take a while). I've still not fully rejected the idea of the little chiffon doohickeys on the sleeve and hem...originally I wasn't going to do them, because working in a lab and chiffon doohickeys really don't mix, but then I realized I'd probably never wear the sweater on a "dirty" day anyway. So I don't know. I do kind of like the little ruffles.

(It will probably come down to whether I can FIND chiffon in the right color in this dressmaker-supply-impaired area).

That was what I mainly worked on last night. Well, after I got done reading the bolus of new magazines that came (Real Simple, American Scientist, and Kni*tters. You can't say my interests aren't diverse). (I did knit on the Neapolitan socks while reading American Scientist....Real Simple is more of a "flip through it" magazine so you can't really knit while reading it).

Kni*tters. A little commentary:

I didn't hate most of the projects this time. I think it's because they ditched the superfat yarns for one issue (they are boasting that "fine" is the theme of the issue. I was geared up for all-sportweight-sweaters, but apparently they include "worsted weight" as a "fine" yarn. That tells you something). They also limited the number of eye-searing color combinations to the knit-for-your-home stuff, and one men's sweater.

I rather like Jade Empire. I can't decide, though, if it would look too much like a maternity top. I like the copper-colored lacy cardigan and might make that sometime, and I liked the orange cabled sweater (Copperplate Raglan).

However, one thing I wish: That Kni*tters would employ a different person to do the "fashion sketches." Oh, I know high-fashion sketches are meant to fill a different role than the prim and proper drawings of ladies on the McCall's dress-pattern envelopes, but I really am turned off by the fashion drawings in Knitters.

I never said anything before because I don't know beans about "modern" fashion, maybe it's supposed to look like that. But this issue, they had a little feature on "historical" styles - and I do know a little about 20th century styles. They had four drawings, purportedly of a Vionnet design, a Chanel suit, a Schiaparelli sweater, and the "New Look" of Dior.

It was sad, it was truly sad. In particular, I would never have guessed the Vionnet if they hadn't told me. And the Chanel silhouette seems wrong to me - the skirt should be slimmer and the jacket should be bigger. And as for Dior's "New Look" - well, there's that parasol there that he had his models carry, but other than that, it looks more like a redrawing of a Degas dancer gone wrong (if you have the magazine, check out the weird perspective of the drawing - her right hand looks elephantine compared to her head. Oh, I know, she's supposed to be looking over her left shoulder, and it IS a "fashion" illustration, but still).

I can't draw, but I think I could make a more recognizable version of the New Look. (In fact, I think I DID, back when I was a young teenager making my own paper dolls)

And actually - I have another thing to ask. Could they get a different graphic designer for the X*R*X ads? They are kind of busy and eye-searing.

Or maybe I'm just too boring and unfashionable. I don't know. But I do think that unless something changes greatly, the next time my subscription comes up for renewal, I'll let this one lapse, and take KnitScene or something else instead.

(Asterisks inserted because I've heard of that certain magazine having e-mailed people who commented about it on their websites in the past, and I just don't want to wind up being searched that way....)