I was one who emailed the editor with the mildest possible 'criticism'
of the dumbed-down articles, 'sandwiching' it the best I could. I was
met with a very defensive, angry response, and all emails after that
were ignored.
A couple years ago this topic (which seems to be about the only one that
gets a lot of response--should be a clue, seems like) sparked a similar
thread, someone emailed Amy Clark, and she joined Fibernet, and actually
posted once or twice. I suggested we each write about what we'd like to
see in the magazine. I haven't seen any results from that.
I don't think anyone denies that SO needs to have articles and projects
within the reach of new spinners. And I personally love the gallery
(well, OK, that's gone downhill for the most part, too, but it's all
that's left to hold my attention for more than 2 minutes), as a way of
seeing *quality* projects other spinners have accomplished. BUT there
needs to be material that nuance experienced spinners' understanding of
SPINNING--not knitting, not even weaving with handspun, but the act of
creating a yarn. It's ludicrous to look at an article that appears to
offer a new idea regarding spinning, and find that 99% of the text is
devoted to--instructions for knitting a standard sock. Gag.
I would also like to see material that stands the test of time. It's
fun to look at a garment that is just finished and beautiful. What will
it look like when it's been worn a few times? Socks in particular. If
I hear one more suggestion in a magazine or catalog that merino will
work well for socks, I may explode. I don't think it's coincidence that
one of the two most popular pages on my website is the one on darning
socks! We can learn from socks with holes if we let ourselves (and quit
buying into the idea that merino is suitable for EVERYTHING). I would
like to see some of the socks pictured in nearly every issue of the
magazine after they've actually been worn 25 hours--assuming the owner
hasn't pitched it before then because it's hopelessly holey.
Old Spin-Offs, which I acquired in my first couple years of spinning,
still offer inspiration today because the quality of the yarn going into
the projects was high and the projects were well designed. This is no
longer true in many SO articles. Beginners can be inspired by quality
far longer than by crud.
In fact, I think beginners can spin better yarn than they're being
taught to spin--but only if the teachers have a good grounding in the
fundamental physics of handspinning, including an understanding of twist
and DEFINITELY better understanding of fiber prep. And no, counting
treadles is NOT a good method of controlling the twist in handspun--been
there, done that, found better ways (and it doesn't work with an
espinner, anyway :)
Which brings up another issue I have with SO. If they're going to put
'beginner' info in there, it needs to be accurate. I've had some
criticism of every 'how to' thing they've done in the last year or so
since they started those. There are many ways to accomplish decent
yarn. There's at least two distinctly different methods of spinning
long draw, for example, though only one was given and explained, and the
reader was left with the impression it was the only method.
OK, rant off, time to go finish the Workshop FAQ and get some breakfast!
Holly
tired of the trivial in SO
To stop mail temporarily mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
with the message: set nomail To restore send: set mail
