I'm sorry to have to show you this: the East River Monster

But I'm doing it. I'm doing it in the interests of SCIENCE.

Things keep washing ashore - oh, not here, mind you, and I'm bloody glad, cuzzadafact that just thinking about all this makes me want to shed my skin and jump right out of it.

Y'see, well. Things wash up. . . not here, but under the Brooklyn Bridge (this time - then there were all the other times too, but we don't talk about them.)

People are saying it's just a pig, a dead pig that someone threw overboard (overboard - over what? A pig boat?). But pictured above is a closeup of its "hand", which looks distressingly. . . human.

Anyone who has seen dead cattle (and I haven't seen any lately) will be aware that after they die, they bloat up and their limbs kind of stick out every-which-way. So we can eliminate that particularly creepy effect as a normal aftereffect of being dead and decaying.

But OH, this isn't a pig. Isn't a pig. Most definitely isn'tapig.

Isn't. A. Pig.

But it's a "something", that much is certain, and theories abound: a very large dead rat; a very large dead racoon. . . some kind of  dead "canine". . . but none of those theories fit this creature's fearsome physiology.

Please hang on to something now, for I am about to show you something even worse, something that washed up on shore in 2008.

I don't know why I do this. Why do I do this? I can't help myself. I look through my fingers, but I look, my scalp prickling with horror.

This is called the Montauk Monster, and nobody knows what-the-fuck-it-is or even wants to.

What I think is happening is this: somewhere, someone is doing experiments. Before you write this off,  just think what is already possible with hybridizing, genetic engineering, gene splicing and dicing, and all that stuff.

This isn't a question of "an animal crossed with a human". "Crossed" is no word for what is happening here. Minute amounts of human genetic material are being insinuated into the genetic structure of certain animals, perhaps pigs, perhaps gigantic rodents like capybaras (except their teeth are different).

No, I don't jest because I think it's happening now and that there exist in labs or hideous farms somewhere, hybrids that contain maybe ten per cent human genes. Just to see what will happen.

So the pig has a little twist of intelligence along with his tail. Might be useful for certain research. How intelligent can a pig become? How human? Will it suddenly begin to talk in a squealy, irritating voice?

What if one gets away from the evil lab some time, such as now? What if one jumps onboard a cruise ship and someone sees it and freaks out so much he chucks it overboard?

Jesus!

Something scares me, scares me so much I won't bother to turn off the italics: someone is going to insist that this "thing" be genetically tested to see what it's really made of, and what percentage of it has been tampered with. What percentage of it might in fact be human.

Human.

This thing? There is no such animal. Yet here it is, right under the Brooklyn Bridge. Woody, don't leave the house.

 

Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my book

    It took me years to write, will you take a look

Order The Glass Character from:

Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001K7NGDA

Barnes & Noble

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-glass-character-margaret-gunning/1117863913?ean=9781927068885

Thistledown Press

http://www.thistledownpress.com/html/search/genre/Fiction/the_glass_character_p580.cfm

Chapters/Indigo
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/the-glass-character/9781927068885-item.html?ikwid=the%

The Sacred Sweater, Vol. II

Shit on a stick, did I ever have a hard time with that last post. Trying to convert the text into something my blog would accept took forever.

But I persevered, mainly because I thought this piece was so astonishing. The actual text goes on for ten pages or so, and covers most of the Bible, even the Old Testament, in which the "teacher" says all the little Hebrew boys were being slain because "those Hebrews were just breeding like rabbits".

This thing reeks of fundamentalism, not to mention racism, with even the most innocent act (knitting!) dragged in to illustrate scriptural precepts. The thing that astonishes me is how long I fell for this. I was "in" this milieu for something like fifteen years before I came to realize that somewhere along the way, it had come to mean almost nothing to me.

It wasn't so much scripture, which can be interesting if contradictory (as is Jesus). It was the people trying to convey the messages. Hardly anyone I encountered in all that time seemed to have anything more than a superficial knowledge of what this was all about.

You see, the old-time message behind the Bible is that we're basically no goddamn good, if you'll pardon the language. We're selfish and hard-hearted and besides that, we have sex! We have sex. Do you know what people actually do when they have sex? And they enjoy it. Could it be worse?

So it's very important either to not have sex, or, if we do have it, not to enjoy it due to guilt, shame and a smothering feeling of sin that will never go away.

We were always controlled by guilt, not to mention shame and a sense of fundamental unworthiness and irredeemable filth that could "only" be cleansed by Jesus. Trouble was, we had to keep doing this over and over and over again, pretty much every Sunday.

We never quite "got there," as if the goal was to become some saintly figure that no one else would be able to stand.  We always had to go against, against, against our true nature, or God wouldn't love us any more. Certainly, the pecksniffs at church wouldn't - that is, if they ever loved us in the first place.

So. We have the Biblical teddy bear sweater, and later on in the 10 or 12 pages of this drivel she uses the term "bear" in the most groaningly punning way. We "bear with" our sorrows, etc. I have to say, though, that though I may just try that little knitting pattern, I found her theology not so much unbearable as a complete sack of shit.

Holy cow (or bear): it's the Sacred Sweater!

Knitting 103 - Teddy Bear Sweater

Contributed by: Trinity Lutheran Church, Eau Claire, WI

Knitting 103 "Teddy Bear Sweater" The purpose of Knitting 103 “Teddy Bear Sweater” is to educate the class about all the steps required in knitting a sweater. The pattern was designed to include all the parts of a regular s ized cardigan, including a small increase pattern on the sleeves, a ribbed crew collar and button plackets. They will learn the importance of determining gauge and blocking. The goal is to encourage the class: if you can knit this teddy bear sweater, then you can knit a person sized sweater, too! It is a four week class. The sweater is small enough that they should easily be able to finish the work from week to week Teddy Bear Sweater, Week One Before people have arrived to this class, they should have determined what size needles they need to achieve the correct gauge. Talk to them about gauge. Gauge doesn’t matter so much  if you’re knitting a dishrag or a scarf or even an afghan. But if you’re making something which needs to be a certain size, like a garment or a pillow cover, then you need to make sure that your gauge in knitting will achieve the proper dimensions. After you’ve explained all that, then it’s time to get started! Hand out the pattern for week one, and get them started. The Bible Study is centered on the topic of measuring gauge, Romans 3:19–26. I. Introduction Questions: •What’s the purpose of a ruler? •Is an inch the same on one ruler as it is on another ruler, or are there different standards for the length of an inch? In religion, what would be our “ruler”? What do we measure ourselves against? (The Law, or the 10 Commandments) We measure our lives against the standard of God’s Law. But a funny thing happens once we start to measure our gauge. Have someone read Romans 3:19–20 II. The Law’s Gauge Question: What is Paul saying here about when we try to make the gauge” against the Law’s standard? (Nobody will measure up.) Paul is saying that we can never make the gauge of God’s law. There are things you can do in knitting to manipulate the outcome of your product. Question: What are some things you can do? (Use a different size of needles; knit more tightly or loosely; use another yarn) But Paul is saying that there’s nothing we can do in our lives to manipulate our  gauge to fit God’s standard! We will not measure up! Let’s suppose: You knit a sweater, but you never check your gauge. And you have a great time knitting it up. But when you get finished, your sweater will be too large or to small. The same think applies with our lives. You may go through life never comparing yourself against God’s “gauge.” And you might be as happy as a lark. But your gauge will still be off! Being ignorant of the truth doesn’t make our true reality go away. In fact....look at verse 20..... it’s precisely in measuring our gauge that we become conscious of our shortcoming. The gauge standard is what points out to us the truth about ourselves, that we can never meet the gauge. III. Another Gauge Sounds like bad news, huh? But it isn’t! Let’s read on. Have someone read Rom. 3:21–26. Verse 21—A righteousness from God apart from the Law. Aha! There is a new standard! Question: And what is this new standard of righteousness? (Jesus) Jesus has measured up to the gauge of righteousness. And the good news is that we’re not measured against our gauge. We’re measured against his. Vss. 23–24—Question: Does anyone make the gauge on their own? No! The product of our own doings will always fall short. All fall short, and all “make the gauge” in the same way: through the product of Jesus’ doings. This is the good news: We don’t make the grade. Jesus makes it. He has “made the gauge” and in him we meet the standard. Teddy Bear Sweater, Week One Romans 3:19-26 Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law,  so that every mouth may be s ilenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For “no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. 21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and t he prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.

An incredible rescue

This is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Note how the elephants work as a team to rescue the baby from the water. He's too slippery to pick up, so two of them gently herd him along to shore. Then he gets stuck in mud, and one of the elephants levels the ground out with its foot so he can walk. Elephants are amazing.

"A dingo ate my baby" (oops, I mean a panda)

Confession: I killed a panda (with scissors)

So we all know what pandas look like. Roly-poly, black-masked, adorable,  with their woolly black-and-white contrasted coat. I wouldn't get in a cage with one, but I can admire their cuddlyness from afar.

So Caitlin said to me not long ago:

Grandma.

Yes, Caitlin.

Could you knit me something?

Sure, what would you like?

Could you knit me a panda?

 

A panda? I had so many panda patterns I didn't know where to start. Most of them were plain lousy, or even frightening.

This poor guy looks as if he was run over by a truck.

But hel-lo-o-o-o-o-o:  what was this? Just about the cutest knitted panda pattern I've ever seen! And he looked easy to make. The pattern came from World of Knitted Toys by Kath Dalmeny,  a book I've used for several successful projects, such as many of the characters in my Ugly Duckling story  which I gave Erica and Lauren for their birthdays.

I showed her the pattern. "I want it! I want it!" Caitlin said, so I told her, alrighty then, I'll knit it for you.

And then.

Well, it got weird.

Then weirder.

This thing didn't look like a panda at all: more like an anteater who was a victim of Monty Python's Owl Stretching Time.

By the time I finished the body, which was knitted in one piece, I knew I was in trouble. It looked like a fat bowling pin crossed with a pig. The head had a strange point on it, and was twice the size of the body. The eye-patches were about 2" too long.

Where did I go wrong???

Trying to sew the legs on was worse: they were long, skinny and tubular, and the animal wouldn't stand up. It splayed on the floor like a disabled anteater.

I  stuffed the body, tried and tried to sculpt it into some kind of shape that wasn't totally grotesque. It didn't work. I tried to open it up so I could unravel it and salvage the wool, which was very expensive.

No dice. It wouldn't happen. I took scissors to the thing, hacking the head off so I could at least have the stuffing back.  My panda lay before me, a mass of unravelled wool and destroyed morale.

I felt like crap. Obviously I had done something very wrong, but what?

Then this morning, something happened. . .

I found an example of the same (finished) panda on a web site called Random Meanderings. This entry is for some time in 2009.

OK then. . . it's supposed to look like  a pig on stilts!

Yes. It has a definite piglet quality, with elongated limbs, as if someone had fed it growth hormone.

And it doesn't look like it would stand up, either, with those floppy legs. For the sake of comparison, let's take another look at the original, then Piggy:

So it wasn't my fault. Moreover, it looks to me as if Random Meanderings followed the pattern exactly. It wasn't bad knitting, at all. In fact it looked very neatly done, which is not such an easy thing with a larger stuffy.

But this is what she got: a "what-is-it?", which I simply could not give to Caitlin.

The only thing I could think of was that I used a yarn substitution. These patterns all call for something called DK, which is not available in Canada and which no one has even heard of in yarn shops (which don't exist any more anyway - you have to dive into sale bins at Walmart).  I used a thinner version of "worsted weight", which makes up 90% of the yarn you can get here. It varies from almost threadlike to so massively thick, it should be labelled "super bulky".

(Blogger's note. No, that's not true. The funny-looking panda was knitted with the correct yarn and STILL came out looking like an English Bull Terrier with anteater genes.)

Whew. These two could be cousins. Is that genetically possible?  Anyway, my poor trashed  anteater-panda didn't look nearly as good as this one because it had weird bumps and bulges and a lot of very visible seams. It didn't look so much like a handsome English Bull Terrior as Eeyore from Winnie-the-Pooh.

 

Let me tell you my best and worst traits:

(a) I never give up.

(b) I never give up.

I just can't. I have to try again, try to win, because failure opens up a desperate plug-hole in the bottom of my spirit, causing all my will to live to drain away.

In my life, I've had about 90% failure, so you can imagine how I feel when something like this happens.

We live in an age where we can order a pattern for a few dollars, and get it via email within the hour. I decided to gamble on Debi Birkin because I think her patterns are brilliant. I was even able to manage Piecrust the Tortoise (below), though it still doesn't look like the original picture.

I made a turtle family which I gave my daughter-in-law for her birthday. The pattern was challenging enough to be interesting, but never once felt the wrath of my scissors or the ripping-out of fibrefill guts.

So now, probably stupidly, I will essay to waste still more money on still more black-and-white wool to try to make Ping Pong Panda. If he turns out at all, he'll be more of a cuddly teddy than a stand-up panda (who never stood up anyway).  But hey - if all else fails, I'll still have that tiny blue sweater. 

(Coda: I found this entry on a site called Stream of Consciousness, dated sometime in 2005. Makes me feel even better, because this panda is a lot closer to the original photo and the knitter STILL doesn't like the result.)

Monday, January 24, 2005

I received The World of Knitted Toys for Christmas. I decided to try a panda bear. It knitted up quickly, but finishing took forever. For me, finishing stuff is not nearly as fun as knitting. Oh well, I'm not terribly pleased with the end product. The corners are too square. And his legs seem awfully long. Maybe next time I'll try something with fewer parts.

Here's the funny looking Panda:

Please. . . don't ask!

How Woody Allen stole Manhattan, Part 2

Can you see T. C. and the gang strolling down the street?

How Woody Allen stole Manhattan, Part 1

OK! It's Monday morning and time for your assignment.

I've been wondering about some things - specifically, about Top Cat, that cult classic cartoon series which ran ever-so-briefly in 1961. Only 30 episodes were ever made, possibly because the characters were all petty criminals with no moral compass whatsoever. Not a good influence on the kiddies.

Watching these again on a Classic Toons channel, I'm finding them hugely entertaining. But there are certain things that make the back of my neck prickle.

My fave character in the Gang of Six, then as now, is Choo-Choo. When I looked up Top Cat in Wikipedia, an entire entry was devoted to the different characters. Here's what it said about Choo-Choo:

Choo-Choo

Choo-Choo, nicknamed Chooch to TC and the gang, is enthusiastic and devoted to TC even when he’s clueless as to what he’s doing. He is a pink cat with a white long-sleeve turtle-neck shirt, he is the tallest of the alley gang cats and often is depicted with the eyes of a Siamese cat. He lives at the fire house as the fire house cat as seen in one episode "Hawaii Here We Come". Choo-Choo is apparently a very skilled poker player, as stated by Top Cat in the episode "The Golden Fleecing". He had a couple of love crushes "Choo-Choo's Romance" and "Choo-Choo Goes Gaga-Gaga", however unlike Fancy-Fancy or Top Cat, Choo-Choo has no courage talking to girls. When he talks, his voice sounds like Woody Allen. In the movie, his voice is a bit narrow and higher and he plays bingo at a retirement. He is voiced by Marvin Kaplan and Jason Harris in the movie.

Yes. Choo-Choo is definitely the best cat, if not the "top" cat. The Woody Allen connection is a little strange however: how many people knew about him then? He was likely doing standup, and maybe he'd been on Ed Sullivan or something, but I don't think he'd been in any movies. But for some reason, Hanna-Barbera wanted a likeness of his voice, maybe for its fundamental New York-ness.

Anyway, concerning the above clip: you have to watch a specific portion, 1:09 to 1:22. It's very New Yorky, full of the funk and babble of the city and its ramshackle urban skyline. But just listen to the music! Doesn't it remind you of something, perhaps a cartoon take on Rhapsody in Blue?

Now watch the beginning of the clip from Manhattan, the first thirty seconds or so. Compare and contrast.

Jesus, I can't believe how similar they are! When Woody begins to narrate, it's like we're hearing Choo-Choo resurrected from the Hanna-Barbera vaults.

I can't help but think that Woody unconsciously borrowed from this cartoon when making Manhattan. This is only one of many episodes that opened in a similar way. I mean. . . with a character in it who was supposed to be him. . .

It's just odd, is all, like so many wonderful things in this not-so-wonderful world.

 

Dear Sir or Madam, will you read my book

    It took me years to write, will you take a look

Order The Glass Character from:

Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B001K7NGDA

Barnes & Noble

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-glass-character-margaret-gunning/1117863913?ean=9781927068885

Thistledown Press

http://www.thistledownpress.com/html/search/genre/Fiction/the_glass_character_p580.cfm

Chapters/Indigo
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/the-glass-character/9781927068885-item.html?ikwid=the%

Alive but alone

I cannot imagine the provenance of this, though I do remember carefully cutting it out of TV Guide sometime in the late '90s, putting it in a book, and forgetting about it. Then, much later, rediscovering it by accident and scanning it.

I cannot imagine what sort of TV show this would advertise.

What happened is, I was photoshopping some pictures, my finger slipped, and suddenly all the photos in the file just vanished.  In the same instant a new file popped up, or should I say a very old one, pictures from the deep past that I had long ago given up for dead. I had either misfiled them, or they had disappeared into another dimension.

Et voila. Somehow, for some reason, they popped back through the portal into the Now. This picture, which I sometimes wondered about and was beginning to treat like someone who was lost in a war, was back in my hands.

Perhaps everything does happen at once, the past is really the present, and Einstein is looking at us all with his enigmatic little smile. I can't figure out the huge-eyed forlorn boy puppet holding the awful grimacing mask, his skeletal wooden joints

and threadbare clothing.

Who does he think he is? Who is he trying to be? And why is he back here looking at me now?