Another good day, I guess. My husband was in much better humour, although still miserable about not getting home. The hospital is fast-tracking his homecoming: he is to have a hospital bed here, and a “samhall” – a wonderful machine; I must look up its etymology – and two carers four times a day, for transfers from chair to commode and that sort of thing. They will be provided by the council and all we have to do now, is wait for them to be arranged. It may take a while; it may not.
The idea, which is of course preposterous, is that I will have nothing to do.
I knit onward with the ribbing of the second Whiskey Barrel sock – past halfway.
And I’ve done a few more rows of the Uncia – I’ve now finished 203 of them. I think it is close to being the most difficult thing I have ever knit. I’m not complaining – it’s beautiful, and I am dizzy with admiration for Lucy Hague. But it’s tough. I was very grateful for your comment yesterday, Bettina. I had sort of been afraid that my problem was more old age than the pattern
In Ravelry – where I spend a lot of time these days, looking for news of the Vintage Shetland Project in the Susan Crawford group which I have recently joined – in Ravelry, the difficulty of the Uncia is rated at 66% or so (there are no actual numbers on the difficulty-line). I would put it in the 90’s. But the rows are short: that helps. I do want to press on as urgently as possible: it is going to be even more difficult when my husband gets home, whereas sock-knitting and hap-edging will be do-able.
The new “Knitter” is here. I am much taken with the Debbie Bliss ad for a cowl on the inside front cover. The pattern looks like good fun, and the yarn, a mixture of yak! and cashmere! must be sheer heaven on the fingers. A Christmas present? In fact, an expensive pre-Christmas present for myself, in the doing of it. The yarn, and the pattern-book, are called “Lhasa”. I’m thinking about it.
I remain obsessively interested in this story, although there’s still no news that couldn’t be condensed into a brisk paragraph. Yesterday – alas! this morning I can’t find a link to prove this – a woman was interviewed on the World at One (Radio Four) who was purportedly a former editor of the New York Times. She said that obsessive interest in Hillary’s pneumonia was a form of sexism.
I have never heard anything so preposterous. If Mr Trump had buckled like that at the World Trade Center on Sunday, I am absolutely sure the world would be astonished and even more interested. This is so absurd that it wouldn’t be worth mentioning except for the position in the frame of the New York Times. The New York Times. Maybe I’ve got it wrong.