My understanding is the story "The Lacemaker" is using the title as a reference to the archetype of the long-suffering lacemaker. You know, the one that sits at her pillow fifteen hours a day in a damp basement until she goes blind by age thirty. E.g.: the woman in the movie does everything silently to make the man happy but to no avail.
Which leads me to the question, something I've been thinking about a lot lately - do we really believe the lacemaker was a long-suffering figure? Yes, we know that lacemakers were undervalued and underpaid, and I have done substantial research into the overlap between lacemakers and prostitutes, as there was movement in both directions between these two occupations for impoverished women. But I have also seen frequent reference to complaints in English villages for example, that women so much preferred to stay in and make lace that it was difficult to find female agricultural workers. So the work was "easier," relatively speaking, at least easier than back-breaking farm labor. Then of course, there is all of the recent discussions we had about how lacemakers were able to read patterns and make lace without the use of diagrams - making it a very stimulating activity and not at all akin to the maddening repetition of factory work, for example. (Of course, there are far more examples on both sides of this argument.) To answer my own question, I'm sure the answer is "it depends." But I'd love to hear everyone else's thoughts on the matter! Best, Elena - To unsubscribe send email to majord...@arachne.com containing the line: unsubscribe lace y...@address.here. For help, write to arachne.modera...@gmail.com. Photo site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lacemaker/sets/
