There has been the beginnings of a brouhaha in the comments in the August 2 entry of the Knitty blog over the title of the upcoming Big Girl Knits: 30 Big, Bold Projects Shaped for Real Women with Real Curves.
Before the skinny, allegedly unreal women get their thongs in a further twist, in the interest of full disclosure you should all be aware of the other titles the publisher had proposed, but that Amy and Jillian rejected:
- Chunky Yarn, Chunky Bodies
- Two Fat Ladies Knit
- Big Girl Knits: 30 Big, Bold Projects Shaped for Girl-Shaped Girls (check the end of Rachael’s August 10 entry)
- Big Girl Knits: Designs for Women Who Aren’t Pregnant, But Just Look That Way
and…
- Big Girl Knits: Designs Especially for Diane
(got your own idea for a non-skinny-chick-offending book title? leave it in the comments)
I suppose I can imagine the point of view that finds it offensive to call a subset of the female side of the species “real” on the basis of a physical characteristic, but I don’t agree with it and I have a hard time recognizing it as reasonable or logical unless that viewpoint also finds that a title like, um, “Amputee Knits: 30 Projects Shaped for Real People without Real Limbs” is similarly offensive.
Perhaps it’s because I understood “real” in the book title to mean something different. Instead of equating “real” with “plus size” and defining “real” to mean “worthy of attention” or “the only kind in existence,” I read “real” in this context as meaning “not the fictional creatures defined by industry standard sizing.”
Or, “not the fictional creatures defined by Vogue Knitting.”
Gods. ENOUGH ALREADY. Here Amy is trying to bring more GOOD patterns to the world, regardless of what size/shape of body they’re meant for, and you people are getting your panties in a bunch over the TITLE. Go wave a poster in front of a political assembly or something, I’m sure Amy has WAY more important things to do than waste her time defending herself to people that likely won’t even buy the book.
Amy, many many kudos to you for having the chutzpah to not only submit your book for publication and scrutiny by the crabby masses, but also for standing up for your point of view. If ever need a short-tempered Texan to help you chew bubblegum and kick butt, holler. I’m around here somewhere.
Sorry for being snarky here, Jenna. And sorry for not ever reading your blog again if there is this much negativity being thrown about by your other readers.
IT”S A BOOK!!!!!!I really honestly do not get all of the vitriolic criticism. You are smaller than the sizes it is for? You don’t think the title is nice enough? Don’t buy it! Since when did any advertising, including book titles have to be formatted as politically correct and polite? what world do you guys live in? aside from all that, whatever happened to not judging a book by it’s cover? i would think that the quality of the patterns it offers would be of far greater importance than the title itself. It isn’t like you are going to be staring at the cover while you are reading it anyway.
Amy, I think when the “one word” is in the title and is repeated twice, it does merit a bit more scrutiny. I understand it’s not you’re fault and that the publisher picked the title. I just think they made a bad choice. I’m sure you’re right and they *didn’t* intend any insult, but they make a living from words, and it’s not unreasonable to expect them to carefully scrutinize the ones they use.
Patricia, I get annoyed when I perceive people picking nits over the use of one word and attributing meanings to it that were not intended. I get defensive when being accused of being racist.
When I first saw the words “real women with real curves” had been added to the title, at first I was startled. I hadn’t expected that. Then I thought about it a while and realized it was meant as an embracing term, supportive of women of a variety of body shapes, and not an exclusionary one.
From that last comment, it seems that it’s being implied (by “authors do normally listen to a bit of criticism”), that authors are expected to accept all criticism silently, and not respond if they don’t agree with that criticism.
Gosh, I hope I’ve misinterpreted that comment.
I do see Patricia’s point about the repetition of the word “real”, though.
And p.s.: yes, publishers can come up with stupid titles, but I’d be really impressed if a publisher could have suggested a title containing a phrase that I grabbed from Rachael or the name of the harpy that insisted that photographs published in Knitty shouldn’t include anyone with more flesh than a size 4.
“As for my defense (good lord, I can’t believe I have to do this), I just shake my head.”
Gee, Amy. In the REAL world, authors do normally listen to a bit of criticism. Sorry to burst that bubble of yours.
This discussion has nothing to do with where the title originated. For me, it has to do with the defensiveness and disingenuousness that you, an editor, are displaying about the effect of actual. genuine. words. In this, the real world.
And speaking of jokes, I sure hope this is another joke: “I just shake my head. If the word “real” were italicized, it would clearly imply only the women served by this book were real. But there are no italicized words.”
Um. Are you saying that italics would be used to imply emphasis, as in the folk use of italics?? Or to imply irony, the gramatically correct use?? Coz that sentence is really unclear. For an editor.
I refer you again to Jenna’s obviously jokey titles — women who aren’t pregnant but just look that way? give me a break.
As for my defense (good lord, I can’t believe I have to do this), I just shake my head. If the word “real” were italicized, it would clearly imply only the women served by this book were real. But there are no italicized words. It’s just a statement. You don’t have to agree with me.
I repeat myself in hopes of being heard: authors have NO SAY in the titles of their books. They may have wishes that they can express to the publisher, but the publisher decides. So rather than writing your comments here where they just fade into the ether, if you’re really upset, write Random House.
And to clarify one last point: Jillian and I titled the book “Big Girl Knits”. Just those three words.
I’ve read all the knitty blog comments and all the comments on here. I agree with this last one by Patricia wholeheartedly, having been an editor myself. I don’t want to harp on it too much because I think you’re doing a great thing putting together the book, BUT if you can’t find a better way to defend the choice of words, maybe it’s time to think about what those words mean, Amy.
Real women have curves is a stupid advertising cliche and stupid advertising cliches don’t reflect who we REALLY are.
Huh.
I think the book cover saying “real” more than one time is annoying. I have my handy-dandy dictionary right here, which defines “real” as (more or less) “genuine – actually having the reputed qualities”, i.e. of being a woman. Repeating key words is often done to make a point of some kind.
But what is more interesting to me is Editor Amy’s touchiness, when faced with a little bit of criticism: “oh, for heaven’s sake. you’re kidding, right?” “guys, you DO know that Jenna’s alternate “titles” are just a joke, no?” Um, no, I didn’t know that. Because I hear the publishing world can be like that.
And: “Um, can I ask where it says “the only real women are fat women” on the cover?
It doesn’t. It says we’re real women too. Are you going to disagree with that?”
Well, I will disagree with that. The title says: Shaped for Real Women with Real Curves. Obvious implication: any other type of woman is fake. It doesn’t say “Big Women are Real Women, Too”. For an editor, Amy, you have a very unsettling blind spot when it comes to words.
Anyhoo, it’s just one woman’s opinion. Cheers!
I’m one of those who hate the use of ‘real’ for large, curvy, plump or overweight. Maybe in this case it wasn’t meant like that, but I’ve seen it used to insult skinny or light-framed women plenty of times(not me personally, I’m a pear). It’s some sort of fake feminism that equates thin with “fashion victim”, “insecure”, “illoyal” (because you can’t talk diets with the ‘real’ girls) and just generally “Not One Of Us”.
guys, you DO know that Jenna’s alternate “titles” are just a joke, no? they are, really. Jenna’s a funny girl, like I said in my first comment.
and if you’re really upset about the words in the title, the only people who can change it are at Random House. Write to them re: “Big Girl Knits” and let them know. They make the decisions.
Okay? Okay. Now go knit something already.
I don’t care about your topic today! More important issues to consider! I just printed off your Knitty article about gauge! I can’t believe I had missed it. After all the years of knitting, I still waste time for not working out the gauge properly ahead of time.
Thank you, thank you!
I like your last definitions though I also agree with dichroic that taking out all the ‘real’ works. In the UK there was a statistic that over 50% of women wore a size 16 or greater (that would be equivalent to a North american size 14). If have the women isn’t legitimately ‘real’ then I don’t know what is.
also being a larger size isn’t necessarily about being fat. I’m a bit overweight now (at size 18) but even when I’m not, I’m only down to about a 14.
We can always count on you to have something intelligent to say about the rampant stupidity in the knitting world. Thanks, Jenna.
I am one of the people who “think that way”, and I’ve been irritated for a long time at the use of “real” to mean “larger”. I’ve seen catalogs tat say, “our pants now have longer rises to fir real women”. Those rises come halfway up my ribs, so what does that make me?
I just don’t think that reacting to prejudice with opposing prejudice is a productive way to think. I think inclusivenss is a better way. I’m small and I’m real, dammit. My sister in law is tall and model-shaped and she’s real. My MIL is plump and she’s real. My mother has been working out and has an odd distrubution of fat in some places and muscle in others, but however she’s shaped, she is real.
Anyhow, just in terms of scansion, I think the title would be punchier with the ‘reals’ removed: “30 Big, Bold Projects for Women with Curves”.
That’s really funny – I’m designing a sock for my mother’s amputated leg. At the end of a long day learning how to walk it needs the sweet love of a homemade sock to keep it warm and soothe it.
She’s a real woman in every sense of the word – stubborn, immovable, solid as a rock. I think if women started understanding the word real as being solid and true we wouldn’t sell ourselves out so much. Bravo.
I *heart* Two Fat Ladies Knit.
Ok, cat outta the bag. I designed the sweater on that faux cover. I’m also one of those ladies in between “normal” and “plus”. (Oh, I buy t’shirts at Eddie Bauer – they fit better than the Gap.) And, I’m also not so fond of the “real” moniker. Many of my knitting friends are larger and they use the term “real” to mean “people who look like me and my friends and not the skinny girls on TV”. I think we’re all real, but like Amy said, this book is for a figure type way long overlooked. Can’t speak for the other designs, but my sweater in this book was sized for ME. Size 12-14ish, big boobs, noticeable waist, wanna look cute but the itty bitty things at the mall don’t quite cover what I wanna cover. I hope it pleases…
One way to make it less potentially offensive would be to take out the first Real in the title. I’m a skinny-minny, and although I’m a real woman, I’m perfectly willing to admit that I don’t have real curves, just vague approximations thereof.
But I can’t get my knickers in a knot over the title. As you show, the other titles would have been not just offensive but incredibly dumb, which is sometimes the worse crime
It’s just that your definition of real isn’t the first one that comes to the minds of the Oxford dictionary writers, or anyone who hasn’t seen the Vogue Knitting patterns. It’s specialised, therefore open to misinterpretation.
Heh. I’m on the large end of the ‘regular’ sizes at present, after being even larger in my mid-20s (right now have a 38″ bust, long arms, too-wide shoulders), and my youngest sis is on the small end (was a size 0, now a size 2). She’s genetically inclined toward being thin; you can see it in our family, where one sibling will get the ‘skinny’ genes and another one will struggle with being overweight. Anyway… My sis told me the nurses at the hospital she used to work at would give her hell either way — “How can you eat that chocolate bar and not gain weight?” or “No wonder you’re so skinny, eating salads!” and accused her of being anorexic (she wasn’t). And our mom is the same way — gave me hell for being overweight, gave her hell for being skinny. You just can’t win. It’s not fair.
But fat girls are definitely more socially stigmatized. People who disparage women for being fat have obviously never had a weight issue themselves. And no empathy. Wish there was a way they could be made to “walk a mile in the other person’s shoes”, as it were.
Oh, Jenna. Your wisdom here and elsewhere is always appreciated! (also — good thing I wasn’t drinking coffee when reading the last comment about VK! would’ve had it all over the keyboard…)
And Lizzi — I’m also caught in that weird gap between “regular” and plus sizes…things that fit one section of me don’t fit the others, etc. I can’t wait to read the book because I have the feeling I’ll learn new & exciting tricks for solving these dilemmas…
That’s a beautiful book cover. I’m out of “big girl” sizes at this point, but I remember not being able to knit anything from a Rowan magazine. Hell, that was 4 months ago. So I know exactly what “real woman” means in that context, and yay for that.
Snork, especially that last one.
I’m writing a book too:
Little Girl Knits: 30 Tiny and Trite designs for Imaginary Women with Prepubescent Boyish Figures.
Now, see, if I had the mindset of these occasionally nasty women who take issue with the book and its title, then I would be saying, “Where’s the book for me? I’m too fat to shop at The Gap/Hollister/A&F and the like (which is, unfortunately, 90% of my local mall) but not big enough to hit the plus sizes! So I’m not real either!”
But honestly, who thinks like that? Bravo to Knitty on the book, and bravo on passing over the far more offensive titles.
I’m not preordering it, but I will consider getting it if I find designs I like…even if they won’t fit me, I have a very busty friend that loves the tank top I knit her last summer!
you funny.
but honestly, i think “real” here DOES mean “worthy of attention”. we’ve written a whole book just for specific group of body types. we think they/we are worthy of attention after decades of being ignored or worse — draped in shapeless knitted sacks. feh.