What defines an online journal? Is it quality, content, or style? Does the author get to define it for him/herself? Does Scalzi's essay set out a legitimate distinction between what he does and what the rest of us do, or is he just a snob who doesn't want to be lumped in with the masses?

Any other thoughts on online journals, journal awards, etc?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Answers

as a newbie i am still shaking the sand off my feet from the landing. as near as i can tell, on line a diary is something you write for yourself primarily but don't mind others looking over your shoulder to read. my understanding of a journal is something you write primarily for the audience it attracts. No ? i am sure willing to listen for fine points which will come from this forum question.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

He said it right at the start. He's a snob. If he was a musician, he wouldn't play at peoples' parties. If he was a painter, he wouldn't paint the walls in house. If he was an actor, he wouldn't play pictionary or charades. He's not interested in doing what he does for pay for the free entertainment of the unwashed, undereducated masses, nor is he interested in sullying his own artfully-arranged conception of how good he is by looking around to see what's new and interesting.

Screw him if he can't take a joke.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I don't just think Scalzi is a snob, I think he's a jackass. What I got from his essay was, everyone should write to please HIM. If you are emotional or silly or boring or whatever, you have no right to write anything. I haven't had a journal for long, but what I do write, I write for me. Of course I want to be interesting, and I want to be entertaining. But that's really secondary. And while I may amuse some people sometimes, I'm certainly not going to amuse everyone all the time. I just figure that anyone who happens upon my journal and is bored by it will use the handy "Back" button on their browser, and go visit a site that will make them happy.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Well, he certainly sucked his own dick in that essay, didn't he?

I am subbed to diary-l, but most of what comes through gets deleted unread, however I've been following some of this little controversy, and I agree... if Scalzi doesn't think he's got a journal, then maybe he shouldn't have been participating in the Awards, eh?

And for gods sake, it was best EXPERIMENTAL journal. Who cares what you call it, obviously someone thought it was good for something, can't he be honored and leave it at that?

If it looks like a journal and it reads like a journal...

I dunno, I've heard many, many other things about the awards this quarter... I think this is the least of it.

I hope it doesn't cost us some of the best sites out the

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

All I know is that I feel the exact same way about diary-l. If I'm bored, I'll resubscribe for a few kicks... and then I run away screaming in about a day.

Online writing is online writing and we're all part of the "mass." I hate that all of these distinctions need to be made between journals, diaries, weblogs, "real" writing, blah blah blah.

I think one of the nice things about this site is that it manages to encompass all of these subsets quite well. Personal issues, newsworthy topics, bits and links... very nice.

And have I mentioned that I hate Charity on Passions? blah!

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

he didn't convince me that he doesn't write a journal. he said that he writes like he talks, and he writes about what he's thinking about each day. if he isn't an emotionally expressive person, his journal wouldn't be, either. whether his style is entertaining to others or not isn't really relevant. the fact that he doesn't find different kinds of journals entertaining doesn't make his type of writing a non- journal. if his writing is not being edited or paid for by someone else, and the subject matter is based on his personal activities and preferences, it looks like a journal to me. if he's trying to distinguish between his style and other styles, fine, but i disagree with his conclusion that he isn't writing a journal.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Also, I've never really liked this paragraph:

"I'm somewhat ashamed to say that the vast majority of the journals I'd call readable on a daily basis are written by men. Perhaps it's because men are famously less emotionally accessible than women; as a consequence, their journals tend to not to be naked recitations of personal turmoil or need (and when they are, they are doubly discomfiting). It may also be that men are more easily distracted by the daily detrius of life, looking for silly or trivial bits of experience the way a crow looks for tin foil and glass buttons. It may also be, of course, that I just identify with them more. I am a man, after all."

I hate most distinctions based on gender. While occassionally they have truth, I still hate them. We all know exceptions to the rule.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I think Scalzi's is what I would consider a journal---a daily outpouring of thoughts---but I think it's permissable to make a distinction. He, like Pamie, does a more column-like journal (I think of my own journal like a daily column on whatever interests me, but they are better at it.) Now, why is his a journal and an actual column on-line somewhere---like Salon--NOT a journal?

The real truth is the lines are blurred. Jim Valvis does a journal which is basically a writers' journal, full of stories and speculations, but by no means a diary, usually. (He called it an anthology once.) I seperate out my fiction from my journal (usually, although I crossed the line with "Millenium Man") to a seperate site, but Jim is right in that his is as as much a journal as anything else, and the fact that he doesn't join journal webrings doesn't disqualify him. Nancy Firedrake for a while did a photograph-only journal, yet I still considered it an OLJ, albeit an eccentric one. Scalzi and Pamie do journals which are basically a column, and Pamie considers hers an OLJ and he doens't. Columbine's "journal" also strikes me as much more of a column than many people's.

Is a journal only a journal because it's self-published? If another person paid you to publish your journal, or at least hosted it on their ezine, would it cease to be a journal and be a column?

Got me.

I personally would define an OLJ as a self-published periodic outpourings of one's thoughts. If one does that in visual rather than written form, fine. By that definition, Scalzi IS an On-Line Journal- --but I don't want to force him into a mold that's uncomfortable for him.--Al of NOVA NOTES

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I feel compelled to add now (and not just because he just sent me nice mail) that I really like John's "Whatever." If it's a journal, it's a good one.

I like the journal; I just don't like the essay, even though I agree with several of his points.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

John Scalzi claims what he does is not a journal.
- He has registered it with www.diarist.net
- He is an active participant on diary-l.
- He has nominated people for awards, and the rules state: "Those submitting nominations must include a valid URL for their own web journal. I wonder what URL he used?

Hmmm... and then when he makes finalist for an award he declines on the grounds he doesn't do a journal?

The awards committee emails each and every finalist well ahead of their being announced finalist. Why did Mr. Scalzi not decline the honor then?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I don't really understand, or want to understand, the piggily little distinctions between "journal" and "anthology," or whether someone writes to "be noticed" versus to "entertain." Classifying things like this, as Scalzi does, just seems like a bizarre form of time-slaughtering busy work. What compels me to read isn't the genre or the motivations of the author, it's interesting topics and/or interesting writers. So whatever on that front.

What I found particularly cringeful about this particular essay is how, in a not particularly entertaining piece of writing, Scalzi demands to be entertained by what *he* reads. Writers who go on and on about how good they are, and how they're actually *paid* to write, are just opening themselves up to irony. But, like a drunk co-worker that goes up to the boss at the company party to tell her "exactly what a bitch she is," it's pretty amazing to watch, and it's fuel for an admirable amount of gossip and snipery, as these very words have surely QEDed.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Having just now read John's "Why I Don't Write An Online Journal" I couldn't agree more. The whole thing is laughable. The basic premise seems to be that journals are bad and what he writes is good, therefore he doesn't write a journal.

From John's essay: "[I write] somewhere between 600 and 800 words about what I'm thinking that day. Sometimes it's world events, sometimes it's about what the baby or the pets have done, sometimes it's thoughts about movies I've seen or books I've read"

One dictionary definition of a journal:
journal: a record of events, transactions, or observations kept daily or at frequent intervals

If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

Clearly John is in denial.

Like you said, it's pretty amazing to watch.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Does Scalzi's essay set out a legitimate distinction between what he does and what the rest of us do, or is he just a snob who doesn't want to be lumped in with the masses?

All creative work involves something of a scam. Man is the measure of all things is the foundation of pre-Socratic philosophy. DuChamps (I think it was DuChamps, please correct me if I'm wrong) did his famous painting of a pipe, and underneath it wrote this is not a pipe. Andy Warhol did paintings of soup cans, where the only distinctions between them were the words on their labels. The Tao Te Ching goes on for 81 chapters on how the Way that can be verbalized is not the true Way, how speaking the word water will not quench your thirst, and how pointing a finger at the Moon is not the Moon, and will not pull the Moon closer to you.

People still pull these scams, and most people still fall for them. Online journalling was predicted decades ago (as a positive influence) by people who are smarter than I am, yet Jim Valvis is able to solicit such hateful reactions to his 3-card monty attempts at disparaging the medium. I think Jim Valvis and John Scalzi are vying for their positions as this medium's early pop artists. Good for them.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Of course, the examples I used were of creative works with the intention of revealing the scam along with their executions. There are 2 kinds of creative works: works that try to create as convincingly real a scam as possible (like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park), or works that give clues to their scam (David Letterman has made a career out of, basically, getting up in front of a TV camera, and telling outrageous lies--what a great job!).

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Why are we getting so hung up on the whole "definition of a journal" issue? If John Scalzi doesn't want to define his writing as a journal, then that's certainly his perogative. I've had the good fortune to talk with John on several occasions, I consider him to be a friend, and I can say from that perspective that he is not a disingenious or scheming person. I have no doubt that he means what he says when he explains why he chose to decline the nomination.

John's not a snob, he's a professional writer and a damned good one, too. If he chooses to attempt to exercise some measure of control over the public perception of his work, then more power to him. I think it's probably in vain, but he's certainly free to try...

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

"I'm a writing snob." - John Scalzi, Why I Don't Write An Online Journal

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I think it's pretty obvious what he means when he refers to himself as a snob. If only we all held ourselves up to the standards that John applies to himself and his writing. There would certainly be a lot less shit online masquerading as writing.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I sort of understand Scalzi's claim, on one level. His daily writing isn't a journal because it isn't self-revelatory and doesn't make him personally vulnerable. That makes some sense.

A professor in a classroom may speak about poetry, or even speak poetically, but he/she isn't acting as a poet. There's something about poetry that is by definition more self-revealing than would be proper for the professor. If Scalzi's point is that he presents an exterior view of himself, as a columnist does, then I see why he doesn't want to call his writing an OLJ. As for the snobby aspect of Scalzi's position, that's been covered by previous posts here.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Well, let's once again consult John's work and our dictionary.

John: "I'm not really much interested in sampling wares that are appreciably below my own level of competence. The writing doesn't have to be like mine, but it has to be good. Real good."

Dictionary: snob: one who tends to rebuff, avoid, or ignore those regarded as inferior

(emphasis mine)

Rob's defense of his friend is admirable. It is pretty clear however, that when John said he is a snob, he meant he was, in fact, a snob.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I think that the creator of a Web site should in fact decide for himself or herself whether or not his or her site is a journal. If someone thinks his work is journal-like, and it is that person's original work, then it is. If someone does not want to label her site as a journal, that wish should be respected.

However, I think that once you write on your personal page "This is not a journal," you should not be allowed to nominate/vote in the Diarist.net awards. (Hmmm... wasn't Catherine of "Naked Eye" involved in the awards, and yet she's been insisting lately that her site is Not A Journal?) I am sure that it would be a major pain for the Diarist.net Award people to keep tabs on this, but surely they must check some of the URLs to ensure that the sites people give them exist, when voters must prove that they keep journal sites. Perhaps they should check the sites of voters to confirm that the voter is keeping what he or she considers a journal, and that the site does not include one of those Not A Journal rants.

You can't have it both ways. I also agree that Mr. Scalzi should have declined the nomination privately in email, rather than in a way that publicly appears to belittle the awards.

I don't care if he's a snob, I just think he should be a consistent snob. Admittedly his treatment of this issue has lowered my respect for him somewhat; whether it's lowered enough that I discontinue reading his material, I have not yet decided.

Thoughts on journal awards: Well, my site has never been nominated for any of those there fancy-dan Diarist.net awards. But I did get a DJR award, so I guess I can be a snob if I want. Of course, that also means I can't claim that journal awards are silly, doesn't it? Damn. You can't win 'em all.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

(First let's fix some bad html...)

Dave's ability to look things up in his dictionary is also admirable, no doubt. Why, I imagine he could do it all day. I sincerely hope he won't.

Look, I'm saying that John's use of the term "snob" was obviously (at least to a discerning reader) meant to convey a disdain for sloppy, hackneyed writing. Is showing slight regard for inferior writing the same as class snobbery? I don't think so. Appreciation for the craft of writing, particularly from someone who makes their living as a rwriter, is a form of snobbery I can accept.

This is particularly true when the "inferior" writer is capable of better work. There are enough lazy writers out there talking about what they had for breakfast as it is.

But no doubt another trip to the dictionary will prove me wrong...

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

The word "journal" is defined in the dictionary. The word "online" means, in this context, on the web. John can try to define those words in other ways, he can make up his own little language for "whatever" - but that doesn't make what he's posting any less a "journal" for those of us who share a more common interpretation of the word.

So yeah, he writes a journal, but he doesn't want to call it that. I don't read his journal and I don't read diary-l (I tried both for a few days, months ago, but didn't enjoy either), so I am just responding to what's being said here about what his site consists of and what the word "journal" means in common usage.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I fixed the HTML the old fashioned way, but thanks, Rob.

I have a question for you, though. Are you saying that you judge a writer based on his or her chosen topics? Is the idea that Scalzi is a better writer than some journalers, or that writing a column is better than writing a journal, grounded in the fact that he generally writes about newsworthy events instead of what he had for breakfast? Because I don't buy that distinction, not at all.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I'm finding it funny, the synchronicity happening in diary-l. On the one hand, we have what is being labeled a journal by the writer, wrapped up in a porn-site package, and folks are taking issue with that - "That's not a journal! It's for commercial purposes!"

On the other hand we have a ...whatever... that we claim is a journal, though the writer (a professional) says it isn't - but he fills in the url when asked for the address for his 'journal' in order to vote and to register in a list of journals in order to get hits.

Two examples of 'business' tactics and the sole difference in why there is a push away of the one and an insistance on drawing in of the other is who wants to be associated with whom, here. It's alright if we deny the 'privilege' of journal status to one we deem not worthy - but heavens, don't let anyone declare us not worthy in return!

I just find it funny. (and I mean that sincerely, both the humor and my inclusion in the word 'we')

That said, I've seen so many of these 'It's a journal/not-a-journal" declarations from writers at various times, that I don't take the declaration seriously - instead I look at what the piece appears to be, and what actions the writer takes to promote it as a journal.

Joining the Registry, diary-l, and voting in an award contest where only those with journals fully satisfies me that this whatever that looks like a journal is in fact a journal, whether the writer likes that word or not.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Appreciation for the craft of writing, particularly from someone who makes their living as a rwriter, is a form of snobbery I can accept.

So quality gives one the license to be a jerk? Snobbery (John's and Jim's) shows a lack of respect for the individual which is too creepy for me. Hope you enjoy being a cog in a big machine (or whatever machine excludes midgets).

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

So quality gives one the license to be a jerk?

...as opposed to being an egalitarian jerk like me?

I've found one of those logic flaws which causes those doomsday computer programs in the old Star Trek episodes to self-destruct. Just disregard anything I've said.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Although, I must say, being an unapologetic jerk is much easier than looking for a license to be a jerk, like all these fancy-schmancy writers bitching about the quality of writing on the web. "You all have my permission to be jerks," said Mike, and so the nation was liberated...

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Mike: the upper class generally can't stand the sight of the ghettos. That's life.

Rob: Okay, we'll just agree John is guilty of "a form of snobbery you can accept."

As for the award anomalies...

I, for one, find the inclusion of Perforated Lines in the Best New Journal category to be a gross injustice. It clearly does not qualify as a new journal under the stated rules. If it wins it will have, in effect, robbed an award from one of the legitimate category finalists.

Had the judges noticed Perforated Lines' ineligibility they would have been forced to include either a lessor quality journal, ie. their fourth pick, or, potentially, no journal at all. Either way the other two category finalists are facing unfair competition.

Apparently the anomalies were pointed out almost immediately and the judges chose to let them stand. What a shame.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Uh, make that "lesser" quality.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Mike, you're down to arguing semantics. All right, let's argue.

The New England Journal of Medicine. Is that a journal? Well, it has "journal" right in the title. And most literary magazines are called journals. Are they journals? They are.

And yet, when it comes to online journals, we know very well what kind of "journal" we are talking about. We're talking about a diary, an account of one's days.

So it is possible to both keep a journal like the former and not keep a journal like the latter.

Now, I don't know if John Scalzi is a snob and I don't care, because that's his business. But I know why I have made a distinction between what I do and what the rest of you do. I write fiction-- and I don't want anyone believing that my fictional stories are true accounts of my life (or Katrina's), as sometimes has been the case. Therefore, I reached for the best word I could find-- anthology.

So I say I don't keep a journal-- even though I damn well do.

It's not snobbery. It's just necessary. If you can come up with a word that we'd all feel comfortable using, one that will cover all branches of writing under one nice little umbrella, I'd like to hear it. If not, watch who you're calling a snob. Because, my friend, it certainly looks like every time any writer says he's not writing a journal, all the "hooray for us" club gets together and decides that person's a piece of dung.

If that's not snobbery, what is it?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Mike: the upper class generally can't stand the sight of the ghettos. That's life.

Ghetto?

When the Japanese celebrate the anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they are notoriously famous for their lack of protests against these events. They honor the victims of these events, because such horror gives values to life, in and of itself.

We don't see too much of stuff like that in America. Mostly we only know who we are by who we can all a loser. You don't need me to present such examples from the mass media. Jim Valvis and John Scalzi must be pretty important, if they can call everyone else who does what they do losers, mustn't they?

Ghetto, indeed.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

The New England Journal of Medicine. Is that a journal? Well, it has "journal" right in the title. And most literary magazines are called journals. Are they journals? They are.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Journal n. ... 3. a specialized periodical.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I write fiction-- and I don't want anyone believing that my fictional stories are true accounts of my life (or Katrina's), as sometimes has been the case.

That's a very good non-snob reason for denying the status of journal. Too bad John had to give the snob reason.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Oh! Oh! I found another contradiction!

Scalzi says "I'm somewhat ashamed to say that the vast majority of the journals I'd call readable on a daily basis are written by men [Actually, I'm surprised that this statement isn't being taken to task as much as his general attack on journalists.]. Perhaps it's because men are famously less emotionally accessible than women [wow...what?]; as a consequence, their journals tend to not to be naked recitations of personal turmoil or need...."

OK. Didn't he imply that since his site doesn't feature all kinds of emotional outpourings, it isn't a journal? Yet here he says that the only journals he likes to read are those written by men, who tend to avoid "naked recitations of personal turmoil or need." But wait...his very definition of online journals is that they feature distasteful emotional outpourings. Maybe what he's *really* saying in this essay is that real men don't write online journals?

Tsk! Such sloppy reasoning for a PROFESSIONAL WRITER SNOB!

And bless his cotton socks...if it wasn't for him, this totally amazing thread full of ghetto, wife murderer, and Hiroshima references would never have been. Huzzah! Scalzi=King! (Now, if only he'd take all this pent-up aggression toward his site being labeled "journal" and let us at a few naked recitations! *Then* I'd read his site.)

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

if it wasn't for him, this totally amazing thread full of ghetto, wife murderer, and Hiroshima references would never have been. Huzzah!

Ah, a reply from the poster who never has to speak by analogy or metaphore! You say the word "water" and cease to be thirsty. You point at the moon, and it suddenly delivers itself to your hand. Or do you turn into the moon itself? I can only imagine. What need is so irrisistible in one so great as you, that you condescend to contradict one who is so contemptible as to use an analogy?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

You say the word "water" and cease to be thirsty.

Sometimes I tell myself I don't have to pee and the feeling passes. Does that count?

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Shit, I am afraid that my provocative side is challenging the forum to go into directoins I never intended. The point I'm trying to make is smarter than I am.

Even though I must bow out, with my tale between my legs, I do want to leave the idea that if you have something you feel you want to post online, you should ignore anyone whose opinion, directly or indirectly, make you ashamed to do so.

You shouldn't have to take my word for it. You can hunt the TV listing for any James Burke TV documentary, or maybe Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery, who have demonstrated more brilliantly than I can how innovations occur more in an open society than a closed society, because in an open society social engineering takes place piecemeal. That's why there's more innovation in capitalists countries observe more innovation than communist countries. That's why Marx's idea that society should be engineered to shape the individual is a bad one.

Sometimes I tell myself I don't have to pee and the feeling passes. Does that count?

I believe that is a sign that you have a healthy prostate gland.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

Mike! You cynic, you! Defaulting to reading everything as sarcasm without giving a girl even the benefit of a doubt? For shame! I wasn't poking fun at metaphors. No no! I HEART metaphors. (Didn't you even read my previous post? where I said reading Scalzi is like watching a drunk coworker? Hi!)

Please note: The world is not out to get you. I have your back, even -- that "This Is Not a Pipe" reference of yours totally got me thinking (though I think comparing Scalzi to Duchamp is stretching things a bit, I do see your point).

Friends 4ever!

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I have so many typos because I wanted to post that before Jim Valvis comes back and starts slamming me. There are things to be courageous over, and I don't want to make this forum one of them.

Thanks for watching my back, Evany, while I scuttle and make my retreat.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

I think I was unclear. I don't judge a writer based on their topics, not at all. It's the presentation of those topics that is the key. Hell, tell me about your breakfast, but make me want to read about it.

After Mike's midget-free machine remark, I have a feeling that there's not a lot that I have left to contribute to this topic. Sorry if I upset anyone. Perhaps I'm a bit of a snob myself.

-- Anonymous, February 16, 2000

For those of you keeping score, Jim called me on putting words in his mouth, and I apologized. I guess in all fairness, I owe John Scalzi an apology for the same reason, if he's reading this. Sorry.

Still, they have claimed that there is little or no value to such activities as I have been defending in this forum. That disagreement still stands.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Never having previously read "Whatever", I'm not going to make any calls as to what it is or isn't. If John Scalzi doesn't want to call it a journal, that's up to him, and I'm prepared to accept his designation. The lines here are evidently somewhat blurred. I wouldn't entirely disagree with everything he says, either. But I do take exception to his idea that male-written journals are somehow more acceptable than female-written journals because they're somehow less overtly emotional. I notice he says he likes Rick McGinnis' "The Diary Thing", but I'd hardly call that an unemotional bit of work. Quite the contrary. Evidently I'm going to have to send him some of my own more turbulent and baleful extracts

Tonight We Sleep In Separate Ditchesrunning the gamut of emotions from A to B

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Hi, my name is Krystyna and I'm a snob.

[There's a roar of acceptance and clapping from the snobs' anonymous members]

I am also an Interior Designer NOT a decorator please don't refer to me as one.

[Because you know I HAVE a REAL education, know the definition of "load bearing wall" and I know when too many stripes, florals and chintz all in one room is just too much. I do not decorate damn it - I DESIGN - there is a difference you know. Hell, I even get PAID for being a moody, stuck up visual snob and I like it.]

Hi, my name is Krystyna. I am a snob and I'll be damned but I even write a journal. Well, that is when I actually do write and update said journal.

Disclosure: If you didn't already know the above is merely for comic effect. The writer of this is not a comic in real life nor does she get paid to be funny but she can be a snob and for the love of good design and the ability to breathe please don't refer to her as a decorator. Because you know what, she really HATES that.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

John doesn't define The Daily Whatever as an online journal, as far as I can tell, largely because of how he came to perceive online journals at the time he began writing it. It would be about the same time I began writing mine, and there was a preponderance of very emotional, achingly first-person journals around at that time (and there still are, I suppose.)

I consider John a friend, so my defense of him is personally motivated, but he obviously found something irritating about the explosions of angst on view, or merely reacted against the way in which the explosions were articulated, because of his training and taste as a professional journalist. (There's no way I could make the distinction John's in hot water for myself -- calling my journal "the diary thing" pretty much rooked me into the corner from the beginning.) That is, of course, his decision to make.

It was obvious that the position he took in "Why I Don't Write an Online Journal" would probably land him in hot poop sooner or later, and I suppose a nomination for an award would be it. I tend to think of John's position as an elaboration on the Groucho Marx "I wouldn't want to join a club that would have me as a member", but without the irony. It was a personal stand, nevertheless, and like most personal stands tends not to be purely consistent.

(By the way, I'm surprised and flattered that someone regards my journal as not unemotional. I tend to think I conceal more than I reveal, especially when I babble on about politics, so I'm feeling quite complimented just at this moment.)

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Scalzi comes across to me as pompous jerk. I only read a little of his stuff, but I didn't encounter anything resembling an original thought. In general his writing seemed unprofessional, emotional, and childish.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Geez, people.

Bitter, much?

And no one has answered the earlier question: the people who claim to not write journals (and I've done my time as one) don't dispute your claims to be called whatever you want to be called - so why why why do the diary/journal crowd FLIP OUT when the "not a journal" phrase pops up? And why is it ALWAYS interpreted as a slam against journallers - not the journals themselves?

Prozac for everyone.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Jim wrote: Because, my friend, it certainly looks like every time any writer says he's not writing a journal, all the "hooray for us" club gets together and decides that person's a piece of dung.

If that's not snobbery, what is it?

And Gabby said: ...so why why why do the diary/journal crowd FLIP OUT when the "not a journal" phrase pops up?

I think for many folks it's not about whether someone calls themselves a journal or not, but the way they go about it.

Almost every This Is Not a Journal essay I've read -- and I seem to have read a fair few -- comes down to the following:

(a) nearly all journals [insert articulate phrases meaning "suck"] (b) what I'm writing [insert long, flowery description of site aims which tallies with "does not suck"] (c) ergo, what I write is not a journal.

Honestly, I don't care what you want to call your site. It's a journal? Fine. A diary? Great. A daily columm, an anthology, a personal thought narrative, a neurological journey into the depths of your synapses? Brilliant. Just don't swipe at everybody else in your attempt for label individuality, that's all I'm asking.

(For the easily offended: that was a general "your" in there, not a specific one.)

Gabby, you asked why those kinds of statements are seen as a slam against journalers, not against journals.. I think it's because the medium and the creator are so intertwined. When we create anything, we're putting a part of ourselves into it, to be sure; but there's a lot more "me" in a typical journal entry than there is in the short stories I write, even though some of them are partly autobiographical. Thus, if someone makes one of those charming blanket statements about how all journals are whiney, self-indulgent crap (or whatever) it does hit the mark in the way that a comment about less personal writing out not, and people are more likely to react with the heart rather than the head.

That's my reading of the situation, anyway.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Ugh, sorry for the formatting there. I didn't realise I would need to put a br in for new lines -- I guess greenspun doesn't recognise those.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Could someone post a link to Scalzi's essay?

Reading through all your comments, without reading the actual essay, this sounds like the same debates I've seen over the years in the fanzine community. "What I write isn't a fanzine because it's high quality, not like the rest of what you people do!" Well...how bout if we just agree that what you write is a "high quality fanzine"? Or journal?

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Lizzie: I linked to it in yesterday's log, but here is the note declining the nominatino, and here is the original essay.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Thanks - somehow I missed yesterday's log.

I don't see a legitimate distinction between what he does and what other online journals do. I think his is an online journal. Maybe it's better than the rest - I don't know, haven't read it - but it's still a journal.

It doesn't make sense to me that the author gets to define it. It's interesting to hear what they intend it to be, and it's interesting to discuss it, but in the end, the product has to speak for itself.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Jeb the garbage collector felt the job he did was so superior to other garbage collectors that a distinction should be made in his title. "You all are garbage collectors," said Jeb to his peers, "I'm a sanitation engineer."

Much snickering ensued, instilling in Jeb a need to elaborate. "No, really! The way you people collect gargabe is pathetic. It's so pathetic I don't want to be called the same thing as you. After all, the job I am doing is far, far superior to what you're doing."

For some strange reason, unfathomable to Jeb, the other garbage collectors found this position offensive. Jeb suddenly found the other garbage collectors inexplicably hostile.

"Why are you people getting all upset just because I'm saying I'm not a garbage collector?" poor Jeb asked. "Don't I have the right to call myself what I want?" Poor Jeb felt most beset upon, and could not understand what he had done wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

geez.

reading some of these responses, i'm starting to understand why scalzi would want to distance himself from the online journalling community.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Au contraire! Mr. I-Don't-Write-a-Journal is an active participant in the online journal community.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Can I just say that I have a headache from reading this thread?

Yikes!

PS: Great site Beth.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

A minor correction: the work with the subtitle N'est ceci une pipe is by surrealist Rene Magritte, not Marcel Duchamp. Mike's interpretation of the work's meaning (that it is a scam, the artist pretending he has the power to rename objects that we can all readily identify) is interesting; I always took the label to mean that an image is not the same as the thing it represents. The pipe depicted isn't a pipe, in other words, but merely a picture of a pipe. I guess I always assumed this because of the title, La Trahison des Images (The Betrayal of Pictures.) Magritte's work is endlessly fascinating to me because ten intelligent people can come away from a single canvas of his with ten interpretations that are all readily defensible. (As opposed to what I consider indefensible interpretations, such as one critic's insistence that a Mark Rothko oil of a fuzzy rectangle recalls Rothko's African heritage. Uh...)

John Scalzi's contention that he doesn't write a journal doesn't bother me. I agree that this insistence is based on undisguised snobbery; the only reason it ought to bother anyone is if you think the snobbery is undeserved, e.g. that he isn't actually a more polished, accomplished writer than the vast majority of online journalists. I don't see what's wrong with knowing that you're good at something, particularly if you only claim to be good at one thing. If you routinely boast you're not only a Pulitzer-caliber writer but also a gourmet chef, flawless stunt pilot, and neurologist, you're probably a wee bit overbearing.

After reading Dave Eggers' A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (and everyone I know is getting righteously tired of listening to me blathering about how spectacular this memoir is, but really, it is it is it is) it's clear to me that Eggers thinks himself one of the greatest thinkers to ever have graced the face of the planet. He finds himself outrageously innovative and delightfully self-aware. It puts no dent in my enjoyment of his writing. Why should it? We agree with one another.

.........................................

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

I agree that this insistence is based on undisguised snobbery; the only reason it ought to bother anyone is if you think the snobbery is undeserved

There is more than that one reason. John is free to speak as he pleases, but if in doing so devalues the efforts of others to articulate their individuality, I feel obliged to counter. (But I think I'm repeating myself...)

Thanks for the Magritte correction.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Mike's interpretation of the work's meaning (that it is a scam, the artist pretending he has the power to rename objects that we can all readily identify) is interesting; I always took the label to mean that an image is not the same as the thing it represents.

I thought I was essentially saying the same thing, only with the caption revealing the scam, rather than perpetrating it. That's why I attempted to clarify in the following post. Scam is just the word I like to use because I consciously construct subjectively. But don't just take my word for it. Alan Watts was famous for commenting When two Zen master meet on a road, there's no need for introduction: thieves recognize each other instantly.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Snobbery is generally considered vulgar, whether deserved or not.

Further, one cannot expect the subjects of snobbery, those looked upon as inferior, to not take offense.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Yeah, but Dave, no one's saying that you didn't make the grade. If John were saying "Dave and Sue and Joe write crappily ergo I am divorcing myself from the public impression of them," that would be one thing. To my knowledge, not only he never named names, but he has never articulated any griping that could possibly be construed as referring to anyone specific (e.g. "A certain bottle-blonde journaller from Seattle with a big mouth said...") It seems like a lot of people are reacting out of inferiority complexes that have nothing to do with anything John ever said. It's obvious from the fact that he links certain journals and participates in diary-l that he thinks some writers have merit, are worth reading. If you are secretly sure John despises you, it's not because he said you are, it's because you're paranoid and you hate yourself.

more later, gotta fly

.........................................

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

I'd just like to shout "Testify!" in Kim's direction, hop around and wave a hankie.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

It seems like a lot of people are reacting out of inferiority complexes that have nothing to do with anything John ever said.

I disagree. I've stipulated that my point is smarter than I am. I'm open game.

As I've said before, Americans, mostly, only know who we are by who we can all a loser. You don't need to take my word on that. My understanding is that there are little league baseball games that demonstrate this more clearly. The Columbine killers were videotaped saying that at least a movie of the week will be made of their lives. Donald Trump, an effective businessman, is convinced that John McCain is no one special for surviving his captivity. Though John may not intend it, his essay is food for that kind of thinking. Maybe you can count on his audience being enlightened enough to circumvent such thinking, but I cannot. So I speak up.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

John did give a general description of what type of journal he considers inferior. People who think that description fits are bound to get upset.

For the record I am not at all upset with John's position. Frankly, it makes me smirk. But then his doublespeak isn't fooling me for one second. Have you read his latest? And the point is...? For a professional writer he sure seems to have trouble making a point.

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Also, Krystyna's designer vs decorator analogy is good, but it doesn't apply. Interior design isn't as fundamental to piecemeal social engineering as is the free exchange of ideas (through which the individual nourishes society).

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

what i make of the definitions in the dictionary of diary and journal it appears to me that a journal can be called a diary but a diary can't be called a journal. and then we have modern common usage to consider . . . . . which means that this whole thing depends on what your definitions are as opposed to someone else's. this might just end up in a debate over how many angels can dance on the point of a pin......... or maybe better yet, the blind men and the elephant. many supremely brilliant people have been "kickin" this thing around, i think, in a big circle and in danger of contradicting themselves. i also think that there a lot of people in this world are living in a greenhouse with rocks in each hand - - - - so be careful, it's winter time. i am sure that scalzi will never be a top diplomat . . . . but it is his perogative to not be one. also in the dictionary i have there are no good interpretations of the word "snob" and i feel as others do there is some male chauvinist philosophy at work in his little bit of output on this matter. so what's is the point of burying the body, digging it up and reburying it over and over again ? doesn't look as if this hullaballoo is going to change anyone's mind. but this sure was one hell of a good subject to put in the forum, wasn't it ?

-- Anonymous, February 17, 2000

Sorry about earlier, the grammar and abrupt takeoff. I was at a friend's waiting for a third person to show up for dinner, using a loaner computer, and didn't have any way to save my work when said third person turned up and I was assaulted by two starving people who insisted on leaving that very minute. Now you all know what my unedited sentences read like: effluvia.

Anyway... yes, John described a type of journal that he doesn't like. Written by a chick, preoccupied with emotion, need, etc. But among his regular reads he lists nine lives, which fits that description like a Jell-O mold. Karawynn's written "voice" supersedes the format AND the subject matter that she has chosen for herself, in other words, and there's no reason to think that you [for any definition of "you"] are one of the people who fall into the opposite category, unless you strongly suspect that your writing reeks.

All this reminds me of that one episode of The Larry Sanders Show where Larry writes a scathing ad hominem attack to a TV critic who made fun of him. Beverly, Larry's secretary, and he get into some kind of altercation that prevents Larry from asking her to fax the letter for him, so Larry, a techno-nimrod, faxes it himself and accidentally sends it to his on-air sidekick Hank instead. Hank reads the letter, is deeply wounded, takes everything to heart, agonizes, finally confronts Larry. Larry acts like Hank's lost his marbles, saying, "Hank, this wasn't addressed to YOU!" at which point Hank cries, "Oh yeah? Then why does it say "Dear Dumb Fuck"?!"

I met Garry Shandling once. That has no bearing on the story, I just wanted to brag.

I guess I see this as quantifiably different than JV's recent squalling is that Jim's argument can be reduced to "Online journals are a waste of time (unless they're just like mine)" and John's parses more like, "The majority of online journals suck, except the ones that don't. Those are pretty good." And it's TRUE. The vast majority of online journals are not publishable-quality material. That's why even with what? a couple thousand? of them out there, the same core group resides in most journal-junkies' bookmarks. Tell me you haven't noticed a certain sameness in people's "Other Diaries I Read," list. It ain't conspiracy, it's that there's not much good fare out there.

As to the labelling dilemma (journal or not?), there's two ways to respond to a label that develops negative connotations. One is to discard it; the other is to reclaim it. John has chosen the former (like handicapped people who no longer wish to be referred to as "crippled") and some journallers choose the latter (like handicapped people who, as has John's and my fellow alt.society.generation-x poster Doug Lathrop, denote themselves "gimps" with a sense of forbearance and pride.) What John is doing may be a journal by definition, but he doesn't want to call it that. Why does that bother you so much? I think that if John's Whatever really sucked bongwater no one would give a rip what genre he denoted it belonging to, but because journallers see it as a segment of the community that they want to be a part of (wry, educated, professional writers, perhaps) it becomes important to haul him into the flock regardless of whether he wants to paddle with the ducks or not. Can you really blame the guy for not wanting to be associated, however remotely, with offal such as seksay.com?

It's like if you met someone from Scotland, and you said, "Oh, so you're Scotch?" and she said, "Actually, I prefer 'Scots'," and you replied, "Well, look, I just surfed over to www.m-w.com and right here the very first definition of Scotch, the VERY FIRST, is 'Scottish,' so they mean the same thing, and you're in denial, and you're insulting other Scotch people who like being called Scotch or who at the very least don't mind it, and I'm going to call you that anyway." Way to be, sport.

........

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

As to the labelling dilemma (journal or not?), there's two ways to respond to a label that develops negative connotations. One is to discard it; the other is to reclaim it. John has chosen the former (like handicapped people who no longer wish to be referred to as "crippled") and some journallers choose the latter (like handicapped people who, as has John's and my fellow alt.society.generation-x poster Doug Lathrop, denote themselves "gimps" with a sense of forbearance and pride.) What John is doing may be a journal by definition, but he doesn't want to call it that. Why does that bother you so much?

Again, the analogy is good, but it doesn't apply. The handicap/"gimp" status isn't as fundamental to piecemeal social engineering as is the free exchange of ideas (through which the individual nourishes society).

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

It's like if you met someone from Scotland, and you said, "Oh, so you're Scotch?" and she said, "Actually, I prefer 'Scots'," and you replied, "Well, look, I just surfed over to www.m-w.com and right here the very first definition of Scotch, the VERY FIRST, is 'Scottish,' so they mean the same thing, and you're in denial, and you're insulting other Scotch people who like being called Scotch or who at the very least don't mind it, and I'm going to call you that anyway." Way to be, sport.

Also a good analogy, but, again, it doesn't apply. The ethnicity status isn't as fundamental to piecemeal social engineering as is the free exchange of ideas (through which the individual nourishes society).

But not as good as the others, because its harder to picture a Scotch denying he/she is a Scot.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Oh come on. John did one hell of a lot more than simply say, "Actually, I prefer 'Scots'"

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

John's parses more like, "The majority of online journals suck, except the ones that don't. Those are pretty good." And it's TRUE. The vast majority of online journals are not publishable-quality material. That's why even with what? a couple thousand? of them out there, the same core group resides in most journal-junkies' bookmarks. Tell me you haven't noticed a certain sameness in people's "Other Diaries I Read," list. It ain't conspiracy, it's that there's not much good fare out there.

Ah, this is very enlightening.

Whereas I worked from the premise that most journallers are talented individuals-- or could be with enough effort-- and only their chosen form lacks, Kim works from the premise that the form is fine and you, the journal writer, have no talent.

And this is to be judged merely by who and who does not link you. In other words, in order to be good, you must be popular with other journal writers-- and if not you suck.

And I was slammed for saying send your work to editors and let them decide. Not so, according to Kim. If you're not on Beth's or Kymm's link list, you're already garbage. And your material is unpublishable. The journal community will determine your talent and decide your fate as a writer.

Who links who couldn't have anything to do, perhaps, with the fact that people tend to flock to the more successful journals and seek the approval of them and that is why they are linked so often. No, not that. According to Kim, if you're not down with the cool crowd, or, more importantly, the cool crowd is not down with you, you're a no-talent and you should hang your head in shame.

Yes, very enlightening indeed.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I've been carrying on the discussion with John via e-mail, and I just wanted to make something clear. Any impression I may have made that I thought John was a loser, because he took a position that I disagreed with, was wrong and unfair on my part. He said that that's how he saw what I was doing, and if that's what I've done, I was wrong, and I'm sorry. Anyone who reads my journal knows there's no bigger loser than me.

I've tried not to make it my place to place my word as more credible over John's, so I cite authorities on applicable subjects when I can.

I couldn't convince John that his words, which have even been interpreted by his supporters as the majority of online journals suck, is discouraging of the free exchange of ideas. He couldn't convince me otherwise. The world wouldn't have changed tomorrow if either of us had yielded, so I doubt either of us are going to take things out on our pets. If I can come up with something more effective than ranting like a madman in the forum, I will pursue that then.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

That should have been: "I've tried not to place my word as more credible over John's, so I cite authorities on applicable subjects when I can."

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Heh. Hey Beavis. Snobs are cool. Heh, heh, heh.

The vast majority of journals suck. Heh, heh, heh. They truly suck. Snicker. I mean, look at them. Heh.

Uh, what? You think I meant you? Heh. Heh, heh, heh. Man do you have an inferiority complex. Heh. Get over it.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Hey, Jim, long time no see.

a) I'm sure that the majority of people who keep journals are talented individuals. However, most of them are not good writers. They're good at something, and it might even be more useful, for utilitarian qualities of the word useful, than writing. (If a neutron bomb were to take out most of Seattle, I think I'd rather have a doctor, a botanist, and an electrician survive the blast with me, if given the choice between that and three other writers. I mean, we'd all have poignant things to stay about our tragically reduced situation, but eventually we'd all die of disease or famine or freezing.) I don't consider it horrible to acknowledge that a person is not apt in a single field. I, for example, cannot dance, draw, cook, repair computer hardware, or sing all of Madonna's "Express Yourself" without my voice giving out, and I will laugh alongside anyone who points these inadequacies out to me. So I can't do everything well. My worth as a human being doesn't depend on my doing everything well, on being a Ben Franklin who can harness electricity, start a national postal system, invent a centralized coal-burning furnace, draft the Declaration of Independence, and be a wildly popular ambassador to France. Such individuals only come along once a century, if that.

b) By "bookmarks", I was referring more to what people simply read than what they publicly adulate; I only specified link lists because these are the only publicly available insights we have into which journals people actually read. I tend to believe that people read what they think is interesting and well-written, and encourage more readers to follow their paths via linking these interesting and well-written journals out of the same good will that makes people recommend tasty recipes to one another, whereas you seem to be proposing that who gets linked and who doesn't is actually a complex reward-and-punishment system based on a junior-high desire in every journaler to appear popular and cool. I read Kymm because everyone reads Kymm, and perhaps if I say good things about her she will like me, too, and then everyone else will follow suit like the mindless sheep they are and I'll finally have a date to the Junior Semi-Formal Homecoming!

Are you really saying that most journallers are so desperate for approval that they will calculatedly not promote fellow writers that they think are good if those fellow writers are not already among the elite and with-it (or, conversely, publicly butter up popular writers that they sincerely feel do not deserve it, for their own selfish reasons)? Do you really think that Rob has 322 people on his mailing list because every single one of them is hoping feverishly that Rob will pay their oeuvre some modicum of attention and thereby validate them in the eyes of all his hip friends? That's really sad.

And I wasn't even discussing only the A-list's links. The issue is not whether or not the in-crowd reads you but whether anyone does. Even minor [for lack of a better word] journalers tend to read and presumably enjoy the same journals. I think that my theory on why they do so is far kinder than yours. And you make it sound as if I'm insulting people. Holy cats.

...................

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

(Whoops! Sorry for italicizing your whole comment.)

If Rob has 322 people on his mailing list it can only mean he has roughly 300 hotmail accounts, the dog.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I'm too sick and not sufficiently interested in the topic to address everything that's been said here, but I do want to disagree with one point that's been made, i.e, that the only reason to take issue with John's comments and distinctions is low self esteem. John sent me an e-mail the other day in which he said that he liked my journal, so I obviously don't think he's talking about me -- but I still don't think his distinctions make any sense, and I think the entire essay was unnecessarily rude.

Let me put it this way: I don't think that his distinction between what he does and online journals (i.e., his is not a journal because it's better than an online journal) is valid, because that's not how literary genres are defined. (You wrote a novel. I wrote a masterpiece.) I also think -- and please remember that I really do like John -- that the basic point of that essay was to say, "What you're going to be reading here is different than most of what you'll read in online journals, because frankly, I just do it better."

And I think that if I were to include a statement like that in my "about this site" section, potential readers would think, "What a stuck up bitch, damned if I'm reading her lousy journal." John came up with a slightly more socially acceptable way to say just that, and I don't think you need to suffer from low self esteem in order to be turned off by the sentiment.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Oh, yeah, I fixed the italics. That's your second strike, Dave; forget to close one more tag and I come to Canada to lop off one of your typing fingers.

That was a joke.

As for Rob's mailing list, I suspect he probably does have 322 people on it. I have about 280 on mine, and I'm sure he gets more hits than I do, because he's been nominated for more Diarist awards, and we all know that's just a big popularity contest, right?

That was sarcasm.

(I'm including these reminders because I'm sick, and I have no idea how I'm coming across today. Ah, fuck, I'm going back to bed.)

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

If Kim says Rob has 322 people on his mailing list then he does. I was joking.

John's argument of why he doesn't write an online journal can be summed up in four words: less angst, better writing. As such he completely fails to convince and comes off as just another narcissistic wanker.

This is neither here nor there as far as I am concerned, as I generally do not begrudge people their delusional happiness, but then I operate under that assumption that any reasonable person can see what he wrote for what it is. On the other hand I can well understand how people can find his essay upsetting, and if John is put off by their reaction he should probably think more carefully about what he is doing.

What I find somewhat offensive is John's rather schizophrenic view on the whole issue of whether or not he writes a journal. Some days he's willing to accept his journal is a journal, when he registered it with diarist.net, for example, other days he insists that view is invalid.

Hypocrisy always annoys me.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

It's probably not, entirely, an issue of self-esteem. It is, rather, about journallers needing approval, constant reassurance that they're okay, they're journals are okay, everyone thinks they're swell, etc. Online journalling is a crazy mix of arrogance and insecurity.

Scalzi's essay is not rude (and god, how sick I am of that word being tossed around in the community more and more) - it would have been offsides had he named names and pointed out specific faults of journallers as opposed to the journals themselves.

FWIW, Scalzi registered with diarist.net because he, wisely, saw it as a way to draw readers. He has admitted, repeatedly, to walking a fine semantic line with all of it.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

and god, how sick I am of that word being tossed around in the community more and more

Dear Gabby: the community did not toss around the word "rude." I did. I am not the community. I do not form my opinions based upon the ideas of this community, and I'm rather tired of you insinuating that I do. That, my dear, is rude. I think it might be more accurate to suggest that you form your opinions by stating the opposite of whatever the community is saying, but I would never suggest such a thing, because I don't pretend to know how you form your opinions. Please stop suggesting that I form mine by looking to what others are saying.

I think Scalzi's essay was rude. I said so. The community has nothing to do with that.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Okay Gabby, I get it now. John will call his journal a journal when he sees it "as a way to draw readers." Why did he pretend to decline the finalist honor then?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

It's probably not, entirely, an issue of self-esteem. It is, rather, about journallers needing approval, constant reassurance that they're okay, they're journals are okay, everyone thinks they're swell, etc. Online journalling is a crazy mix of arrogance and insecurity.

My understanding is that the testimony of the arrogant and insecure still beats see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Beth, Dave, et al: My "insecurity" comment can be analogized thusly: If you turn around on the street every time someone behind you yells "Hey, stupid," I will tend to think that you think yourself stupid, or at least that the general impression the population at large has of you is that you are a total dullard, esp. if that guy wasn't even looking in your direction and there are thousands of other people within earshot.

John's never said anything publicly or privately indicating that he likes my journal (actually, I don't think there was a lot of overlap, if any, between the time mine ended and his began) but I'm confident/arrogant/eggsy enough to think that oh, he must not mean my work. Hank assumed that Larry's letter was directed at him because of the salutation "Dear Dumb Fuck", but if Hank hadn't already suspected that Larry, and most everyone else, thought he was an idiotic second-stringer, he would've known it was a mistake. Oddly, on my links list, I included a list of traits that I thought made most diaries really crummy, and no one ever faulted me for it. Perhaps it is because of my glowing, goddess-like stature in the community. Mmmm.

An addendum to what I said earlier:

I do see a difference in saying, "Most of what's happening in this field isn't particularly well-done," and "The majority of the people in this field need to give it up." I have never seen, for example, my being a bad dancer as a barrier to dancing. When I get up and dance it's because I dig the tunes and want to get down with my bad self. (Yes, one must get up to get down. It's an enigma.) My dancing is not there to entertain you. And even if I think you can't dance, either, I might drag you out there, because it's fun and you shouldn't feel shame about your body or your lack of coordination or how you're dressed or anything, because all that shame is weighing you down and I think you ought to be free of it.

Whether I dance or not is absolutely not contingent on my having a crowd of admirers around encouraging me and telling me Oooh, Kim, you move with the grace of a springbok [or] Shake it, girl, you all that and a Lay's chip factory. So it should be with diaries. Those who tell me to sit still will find themselves cheerily greeted with my middle finger.

[Oh, and let's not get into the parable of the man who comes into the club, yanks the jukebox plug out of the wall, and tells everyone that dancing for fun is a waste of energy and what we really should be doing is making videotapes of ourselves dancing and sending them to American Bandstand...]

Come on, Jim, you can't simultaneously claim that writing is demanding and difficult AND that most of those who attempt it are talented enough to take it up professionally. That dog won't hunt.

.............................

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

If I find the disparagement of midgets to be unpalatable, that hardly implies I consider myself a midget.

Further, John did a lot more than simply call out, "hey stupid."

Aditionally, are you saying people are not allowed to show insecurity? Are you saying every opinion born of insecurity is automatically invalid?

Anyone who feels the need to point out the greatness of their writing is betraying a basic insecurity, namely that their writing will not speak for itself.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Dancing is a good analogy, but it doesn't apply. It isn't as fundamental to piecemeal social engineering as is the free exchange of ideas (through which the individual nourishes society).

Such an analogy does not hold weight against the testimony of the insecure.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

"If I find the disparagement of midgets to be unpalatable, that hardly implies I consider myself a midget."

Are you really that desperate to draw me out, Dave? If it makes you feel any better, I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count. There. I hope your persecution complex is sufficiently well- fed. I know how hungry it gets.

And it is that desire to feel persecuted, to take every statement that someone like John makes and insist on applying it directly to themselves, that is one of the least attractive attributes of this so- called "community". The same thing happened when Jim Valvis posted his thoughts on the online journal as a writing tool.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

What John did is more analogous to addressing a group of people, "I think most of you are stupid, especially those of you with the following qualities..."

Under those conditions I would expect a number from the crowd to take offense.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I have to say that I completely disagree with that assessment of the reaction to the essays by Jim and John, Rob. You're not the only one putting forth that idea; Kim and Gabby said something similar.

It's really bothering me that no one can disagree (casually or passionately) with sweeping criticisms of online journals without being labeled insecure. If you will recall, I mostly agreed with Jim's first essay, but I thought it left plenty of room for valid criticism (and the less said about his most recent tirade, the better). John's essay sets up a false distinction that's easily open to criticism.

So why can't anyone point out the flaws in the logic, the rudeness in the tone, or the inexplicability of why anyone would go to all that bother, without being told, "Oh, you're just insecure and you can't take any criticism"? Makes no sense to me.

And I hate to say it, but I think Dave's midget analogy was right on point. I don't doubt that you've lost a number of readers over the midget thing, Rob, and probably most of them were of normal height. People do get offended on behalf of others, or sometimes just by a general tone. I am mystified as to why anyone would assume that only jealousy, insecurity, or personal offense would be at issue. But in the online journaling world, that seems to be the assumption: accept all criticism as equally valid, or you're just a big baby.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count.

Damn, I'll admit I thought Dave's baiting of Rob was weak, but, Man... to use Martin Buber's famous example, an individual addresses the world as either an it or a thou. We can see can see how Rob relates to the world with the basic human dignity he addresses his fellow human beings.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

No doubt that is true, Beth. I'm sure I could avoid losing those readers if that were my aim. If I sanitize my remarks enough, I'm sure I could avoid offending just about anyone. And I just can't imagine who would want to read something like that.

Dave's analogy was correct, but incomplete. The next step might be to decide which journals you feel comfortable reading in the first place. If reading about my feelings (warts and all) about any given subject cause a reader offense, then I would encourage them to stop reading. Any readers who stopped reading me because of something I wrote were making the right decision. Why someone like Dave or you or anyone else who finds fault with my discussion of my personal hangups would continue to read is a bit of a mystery. Again, perhaps it comes back to that hypersensitivity, that NEED to be offended, that seems to infect so many people.

Having said that, I have never had a rush of unsubscribtions after any of my entries, so I can only assume that the legions of offended readers must have made some sort of peace with my devilish writing.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Yes, Mike. You no doubt can see right through me.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Why someone like Dave or you or anyone else who finds fault with my discussion of my personal hangups would continue to read is a bit of a mystery. Again, perhaps it comes back to that hypersensitivity, that NEED to be offended, that seems to infect so many people.

Hmm. I wasn't going to go here, but ... need to be offended? I'm not sure you want to go that far out on this here limb defending your midget commentary, Rob. I generally don't unsub from people's lists when they write something that offends me, but you lost me after you made fun of the Billy Barty Foundation in what struck me as an indefensibly mean spirited way. I don't think of myself as someone who runs around looking to be offended, but it was too much for me, and it didn't exactly read like a discussion of your personal hang ups.

I don't buy the idea that a journal is only worth reading if it shows the writer "warts and all," without any indication of reflection on those warts. I would not, for instance, have any interest in a journal that consisted of gleeful descriptions of the author's nose picking habits, or joyous recountings of extramarital affairs. Now, if it were something along the lines of, "I'm trying really hard to get over this nose picking problem," it might be another story.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count.

If I sanitize my remarks enough, I'm sure I could avoid offending just about anyone.

Again, perhaps it comes back to that hypersensitivity, that NEED to be offended, that seems to infect so many people.

Yes, there are issues worth antagonizing others for. I just hope picking on people because they are different by birth from you is worthwhile.

Having said that, I have never had a rush of unsubscribtions after any of my entries, so I can only assume that the legions of offended readers must have made some sort of peace with my devilish writing.

I stand corrected. Large readership is as much license as you need to carry on as you have.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Indefensibly mean spirited? Well, that is certainly one way to look at it. I rather thought that it was absurd enough of an entry that it would avoid being interpreted that way, but you are certainly free to see it any way you like.

And if that caused you to unsubscribe, if that was enough to counterbalance the things that you previously thought good about my writing, then by all means, you are not someone who should be reading my site. There are plenty of writers out there who are inoffensive and never say a rude thing about anyone. You will no doubt have plenty to read.

I guess those rules apply to anyone. I'm not here to defend anything I've written. It stands as what it is, with whatever value you choose to find in it.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

If reading about my feelings (warts and all) about any given subject cause a reader offense, then I would encourage them to stop reading.

In and of itself, Rob's picking on midgets IS defensible. Up until now, Rob was merely acknowledging the limits of his own perceptions. There is a distinction.

His I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count comment, however, does not acknowledge the limits of his perceptions, but sets Rob up as the standard to measure other people.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Yes, Mike. You no doubt can see right through me.

No. I don't see right through you. I am only telling you what what you've written looks like. I've tried to do so fairly. If I haven't, I don't mind being shown where I'm wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

"Now, if it were something along the lines of, "I'm trying really hard to get over this nose picking problem," it might be another story."

I AM trying really, really hard to get over my nose picking problem, Beth. You don't have to tell the whole world about it... *sob*

Okay, sorry, I couldn't resist.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

"His I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count comment, however, does not acknowledge the limits of his perceptions, but sets Rob up as the standard to measure other people."

God, all that from one sentence. You are truly an astonsihing judge of character.

You know, I have to say that this whole discussion has given me remarkable new insights into a lot of people for whom I have in the past had some regard. I write a lot in my pages. If I wrote something that you didn't like or found disagreeable to your own beliefs, and you choose to take that and paint the rest of my work with this sanctimonious brush, then there's nothing I can do for you.

I don't know what else to say.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

God, all that from one sentence. You are truly an astonsihing judge of character.

I can't judge your character. I am only telling you how what you've written looks like. I've tried to do so fairly. If I haven't, I don't mind being shown where I'm wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I would recommend rereading the comment of mine you've copied and pasted before concluding that I'm judging you. There is a distinction.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

13 lines from 94 posts:

"Dave's ability to look things up in his dictionary is also admirable, no doubt. Why, I imagine he could do it all day. I sincerely hope he won't. "

"Are you really that desperate to draw me out, Dave? If it makes you feel any better, I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count."

"No doubt that is true, Beth. I'm sure I could avoid losing those readers if that were my aim. If I sanitize my remarks enough, I'm sure I could avoid offending just about anyone. And I just can't imagine who would want to read something like that."

"Yes, Mike. You no doubt can see right through me."

"Indefensibly mean spirited? Well, that is certainly one way to look at it. I rather thought that it was absurd enough of an entry that it would avoid being interpreted that way, but you are certainly free to see it any way you like."

"God, all that from one sentence. You are truly an astonsihing judge of character."

(Y'know, when I was a kid my father and the faculty of Arts and Literature at Podunk U would have all-day fights about parking spaces. And it gave both town and gown a sense of superiority beyond their paltry paychecks. Okay, everyone, let's keep building online community and y'all please have a great weekend. Me, the wife and the Chinese nation sure will!)

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Perhaps you and the wife, but I wouldn't count on the Chinese Nation.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Opps! forgot what time of year it was.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I treat Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years the same way, if you need to hear that. (Gawd, I'm so embarrassed...)

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Wait, wait, wait. If someone wants to take exception to Scalzi's essay or Jim's essay, then they're just a big baby who can't take criticism ... but if I take issue with your comments about midgets (and I'm sorry, Rob, but you practically begged for someone to disagree with your assessment of how those comments are received), then you throw a hissy fit and deem me "sanctimonious"?

I guess the distinction would be that Scalzi and Valvis made general rather than specific criticisms. So, my bad. But if the original argument was about whether it's just all those other journalers who can't take criticism, then I guess we have our answer.

I do find it amusing that neither John nor Jim has reacted nearly as negatively to the discussion of their respective essays as have all of their self-appointed defenders.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I wish there was an award for online journal readers. I'm sure I would win. My bookmark list is "not to be believed". I subscribe to Diary-L, but never say a damn thing. I am finding this discussion very entertaining. Oh, and I read ALL OF YOU...really! However, my first read is always Willa. She consistently delivers a well- written, thoughtful entry and somehow manages to stay away from this sort of fray...something to think about!

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Well, I think that the difference between the general and the specific is not a fine distinction. While I would not regard Bob Smith as hypersensitive and reactionary if he were hurt and offended by the statement "Bob Smith is a bastard with smelly feet," I think that these adjectives would apply to Bob if Bob heard "Boy, a lot of guys in this town are smelly-footed bastards, eh?" and Bob saw fit to whip out a copy of his parents' marriage license and the receipt for his new pair of Odor-Eaters.

It's not always all about you, you know?

.................................

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

And it would also be a different thing if Bob Smith said to the speaker, "You know, Joe, not everyone can help having stinky feet, and your parents' marital status isn't really something you can control."

Sometimes the person taking exception to the criticism isn't trying to make it all about them. Sometimes they know damn well it's not all about them. Why is that so hard to understand?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

A clarification: I received mail from Jim Valvis suggesting that I had unfairly lumped him in with John Scalzi, when their respective essays are quite different. I do acknowledge that there really isn't any similarity in their criticisms of online journals. There is a remarkable similarity, however, in the responses of their respective critics and defenders -- particularly their defenders, who are mostly relying on the "online journalers can't take criticism!" argument.

But that really has nothing to do with Jim or John, so I just wanted to make that clear.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

While I would not regard Bob Smith as hypersensitive and reactionary if he were hurt and offended by the statement "Bob Smith is a bastard with smelly feet," I think that these adjectives would apply to Bob if Bob heard "Boy, a lot of guys in this town are smelly-footed bastards, eh?" and Bob saw fit to whip out a copy of his parents' marriage license and the receipt for his new pair of Odor-Eaters.

If Bob were of such a town, and such was said of his town, why would Bob's response be inappropriate? Why would it be more inappropriate than the guy who commented on Bob's town? I say let Bob testify.

Considering that those things were said about Bob's town, I would think that would make Bob preparation extra-cool.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

In general, it isn't hard to understand, but in this one instance, I'm not following the chain. What has John said that singles out, even indirectly, a particular journal?

To me it just seems axiomatic that most of the writing of non-writers is going to be substandard, just as someone with no education or experience in sewing is going to make a substandard blouse compared to an educated and/or experienced seamstress.

I also don't consider criticising someone's product on a par with insulting their person, and journals are products just as blouses are. People who are not prepared to regard their work as "product" are not yet ready to present it to the public.

The rules of social engagement (e.g. before you say anything at all, ask yourself Is it kind? and Is it necessary?) don't always carry over to public discourse. Product is panned all the time in the media (and baby, this is the year 2000 and we ARE the media.) A chef's cooking, a director's movie, a politician's platform, a reporter's coverage -- these are all fodder for public commentary, whether good or bad. If you cannot separate yourself from the reaction engendered by the public presentation of yourself, then you should avoid the public eye.

In general, I do not find sensitivity to be a fault; but published writing is and has always been considered open to critique, and those who seek the public eye but not the public's [sometimes smartass] mouth, expecting us all to exempt them the same criteria we apply to other writing, has unrealistic expectations.

.............................................

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Clothing, Entertainment, and published writing, should be held to standards of quality. Online journals should not. Online journaling has eased the free exchange of ideas astronomically.

Clothing, entertainment, and published writing aren't as fundamental to piecemeal social engineering as is the free exchange of ideas (through which the individual nourishes society) represented by online journaling. I keep saying it, but I can't tell if anyone understands. If I can paraphrase James Burke, at the end of his first Connections documentary series, all of the big changes in our lives are influenced most strongly by those who speak up, rather than those who keep quiet. So participate in the free exchange of ideas.

If I can paraphrase James Burke, at the end of his first The Day The Universe Changed documentary series, if, at any given time, the world is what you say it is, speak up, or else someone will tell you what the world is, and adopting someone else's vision of the world may ot be to your advantage.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Actually, as far as I know, there was only one The Day The Univers Changed documentary series.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I think we've gotten way off track here, so I'm just going to say what is absolutely going to be my last word on this topic.

1. I have never said nor intended to imply that I think online journals ought to be immune to criticism. I do think that a lot of criticism that's handed out is self-serving and mean-spirited and would have been better left unsaid, but I agree that if you are extremely sensitive about your writing, you probably shouldn't put it online.
   
   
2. I am very tired, however, of the fact that every time an online journaler disagrees with a particular example of wide-ranging criticism, the immediate reaction is, "Oh, you online journalers, you just can't take any criticism," as if the critique itself were somehow holy and not open to criticism. This is the point I have tried -- and apparently failed, judging from Kim's last post -- to make all day. I disagree with the substance of John's essay. I think the distinctions he makes are invalid and that his judgments of journals (particulary those written by women) reflect a lack of familiarity with what's actually out there. I think that the particular method he chose for delivering his critism -- i.e., online journals as a group are so bad that I don't want to be classified amongst them -- was unnecessarily rude. (Compare Diane's "Why Web Journals Suck" essay, which makes the same point without being offensive.)
   
   
3. I resent the fact that I can't make what appears to me to be a perfectly valid criticism of John's essay without hearing the inevitable response that the online journaling community can't accept criticism of its precious journals. That particular knee jerk response is old, tired, and beside the point.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

It's all so contrived, Beth. Why do you buy into it? Why did you pose the original question in the first place?

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

I don't know if the gotten way off track here comment was refering to my posts, however, I do believe that my comments directly address the consequences of discouraging people from posting online. After all, John's supporters themselves interpret John's comment to mean that the majority of OLJ's suck. The natural conclusion of that is that people will have an easier time avoiding looking like a loser if they avoid activities that will determine our future as a species.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Mike: I understand. On the flip-side it could be argued that those with nothing to say should remain silent, so that those with something to say might be heard.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

You just reminded me of a Paul Simon comment, filmed when he was giving a lecture on songwriting. He said that everyone has something to say, even if they haven't figured out how to say it yet.

No one receives information like anyone else. From each unique journey comes a different perspective. Or, as Joseph Campbell said, the axis of the world goes through you.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

On the flip-side it could be argued that those with nothing to say should remain silent, so that those with something to say might be heard.

The signal to noise ratio is a fair concern, however, I think that it's more important for the right message to be available for when the individual is ready to receive it. I mean, how many people could predict that Oliver Sacks could write such excellent books on neurologically dysfunctional patients, an otherwise silent segment of the population?

My brain hurts, and I think I've said what I wanted to say as clearly as I'm going to say it. Bye-bye.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Whoa, Beth. Lay off the cough medicine.

My comment re: the (over)use of accusations of rudeness in the community was a tangential remark - hence its position inside parentheses. (And I have, indeed, seen the word used over and over and over again in various forums and entries and lists and I am sick of it and it's losing all its meaning) However, as time has passed, I am no longer surprised that you take my remarks to be a personal attack on you - although I remain at a loss as to why.

-- Anonymous, February 18, 2000

Very nice response, Gabby

Amazingly, there are quite a few people who don't read you anymore, Gabby.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

I must say I agree with Lizzie when she says "It doesn't make sense to me that the author gets to define it. It's interesting to hear what they intend it to be, and it's interesting to discuss it, but in the end, the product has to speak for itself."

Ver often a reading public will see different meanings & values in writing than the author did. Much discussion occurs in every first year lit. class as to whether we must take the author's word for how to interpret a work. Generally, the authors words will shed interesting light - it is always interesting to know why a piece was written and what the author intended, but there can often be more to it than that too.

In the case of an Scalzi'z work, I am happy to respect his interpretation of it, but I do not believe that offering this respect should prevent me from discussing other interpretations. And in fact, it does seem to me that his writing is something i would consider a journal - his thoughts for the day, be they regarding his pets, baby or world events. This is what I write in my journal and have always written, online and off. Sometimes I am focussed on a particular event in my life. When I was in highschool I spent a lot of time writing about the boys I liked. Sometimes i write about the way i am feeling and other times about how much I loathe the current government of Australia. Any of these can be included as a journal.

The question is, I guess, is it the *form* that's important, or the authorial *intent*?

I was also irritated by the male/female comments, but that's a differnt issue I think!

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

When an artist presents a work and finds nobody interprets their work in the manner in which it was intended, it would be foolhardy of the artist to blame the consumers.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

"journals" and "not journals"

One should aim for something above both I guess.

-- Anonymous, February 19, 2000

Scalzi could have employed some diplomacy but he chose not to. He could be very sociable and diplomatic person if he wants to do. But he decided this Jounal commmunity (with the exception of few) he does not want to be sociable or diplomatic with them.

He just did not care if the whole journal world get offendedhe just do not want me be associated as one of them.

Perhaps it is more like this, perhpas he sees writing as I view arts. I am an artist, and whenever I see bad graphic design I get very allergic: dark purple over black? How can I read the text? Awwww I used to get so upset with Nova Notes design (no offense) I wrote to Al and he is so humble to change over the months (thanks Al).

I get so irritated when I first read Scotts Media Sin. Red Letters, centered? (breathing in). Now I am used to it but almost always want to say how about be like New York Times columns? First letter in Red and rest of letters in more readable fonts?

So John Scalzi being above all the regular journal writers who are not paid to write, he must see every writing with critical eyes and be critical and at the same time have this satisfaction: I am above them, "I can write better, I dont belong to this whinninggroup, I dont want anyone think I belong to this group, my journal- like whatever is just to sharpen my skills. I am above you all.and one day I will really, really famous. And he looks at his REALITY and feels really depressed.

I wonder where he writes about them.

-- Anonymous, February 20, 2000

Anything that gets published on the Web is open to critique; any writer who makes their work public is open to criticism. Carry on all you want about just writing to write and just putting your ideas out on the Web; publishing something online with amateur intentions does not protect it from criticism or evaluation. The Internet is a marketplace of ideas, and let's face it, not all goods in the marketplace are e

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

The Internet is a marketplace of ideas

Marketplace? Well, if AOL/Time/Warner keeps saying it enough, it must be so, mustn't it? I guess we all shouldn't bother unless we're taking a page from this guy's book.

Yes, if you read something someone has made public, I think you should feel free to suggest to that person how they can improve the presentation of their ideas. However, if you give someone the idea that they shouldn't express their opinions publicly, because you think most of the people who do so are presenting an inferior product, you simply are not doing that person a favor.

In another of Beth's forums, one covering the Myer-Brigg's personality catagorization, someone of an extraverted personality type was wondering what was the use of knowing her personality type. She already knew she was outgoing. The use for an outgoing person to know that she is an extraverted personality type is that, for example, she becomes parent to the next James Joyce, maybe instead of reading his early work and concluding it's nonesense, she will understand that he is an introverted personality type, and give him some breathing room to explore the parameters of his consciousness, perhaps leaving some eternal comfort to future generations.

In much the same way, another introverted person may need the breathing room to go through some growing pains online. It will help you tailor your critique of that person's work so that it is received as you're almost there, have you considered improving your presentation with these suggestions? instead of the writer feeling cornered, because he/she sees your critique as You suck.

-- Anonymous, February 22, 2000

1. In this forum, Rob tried to paint the deficiencies he sees in Dave by saying, I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count.
2. Then, in his 23 Feb entry, Rob tried to hide behind his readers who correctly interpret his writing as addressing stupid racial and ethnic stereotypes and biases and such, using "little people" to represent any group that finds itself unfairly targeted. That's why, four days later, he says all criticism against him are humorless, screeching judmental statements.

I don't think Rob is dumb or evil or a bad writer. But I think his comment to Dave demonstrates that he judges people (something Rob always complains other people of doing), not by who they are in and of themselves, but by how they compare to how he thinks people should be, and if you're a midget, you're deficient, and that's reason enough to never let his readers forget it.

I see smart, talented people put so much effort, and invest so much time, into protecting their delusions, with what we can get away with, apparently, being our first priority. Hell, if I'm wrong, I'd like someone to make it clear to me (or tell me how I can live in this world; or tell me why I should suck it up). I can only point out what someone does, what he says he's doing, and how they are different.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Marketplace is not automatically synonymous with monetary value or large corporations. Read _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_ sometime to get an idea of one example of a marketplace of ideas. Alternately, you can read the court reasoning behind ACLU vs. Reno, where a Philadelphia court ruled that Internet censorship would block the "marketplace of ideas," or hark back to the original establishment of said concept, Abrams v. United States in

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Mike: For the truth of the matter, all we have to do is look at Rob's last entry that included midgets. Can somebody please explain how that can possibly be interpreted as "addressing stupid racial and ethnic stereotypes and biases and such." That excuse just does not wash.

The point is mute, however. Allegorical or not, it's still offensive.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Lisa, do I have to hunt out and read the entire The Cathedral and the Bazaar and ACLU vs. Reno to find just get an idea of your position on the marketplace of ideas? What about these documents backs up what you have to say?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

I think the idea is that although it's a marketplace, the ideas are free. People set their ideas out on display, and hope you'll "buy" them. The right we have to display our ideas in the hope you'll "buy" them is pretty fundamental.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

A post of mine seems to have been deleted from this forum. As well as one of Beth's in response to it. Leaving my "Lay off the cough medicine" post to wallow in obscurity and lack all context completely.

If one is going to censor, one might as well do a thorough job of it, if indeed this is the case.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Or, if one is going to accuse one of censoring, one should be sure they did. Try using your browser's page seach feature, searching for 'gabby'. I'm fairly certain the post you are looking for and Beth's reply are still up there.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Finding any of these documents isn't hard; simply go to Google and type in the phrase "marketplace of ideas" or "cathedral and bazaar." Since you'd rather I explained them to you, here goes:

A marketplace of ideas is one in which everyone has the right to express ideas; the merit of those ideas - their originality, their usefulness, or whatever other qualities they possess - are decided in the minds of the people who get to listen to, read, or absorb those ideas.

The court cases I cited all built the argument that free expression in this country is one of the parents - metaphorically speaking - of a true marketplace of ideas, and when you cripple the marketplace, you deprive people of the right to see those ideas and judge them for themselves. The essay I mentioned talks about how an exchange of ideas permits the best ones within a system to emerge - in this case, the development of Linux is the example.

If one were to apply the marketplace of ideas metaphor to the online journal genre/field/community/whatever, then it seems reasonable to say that every journaler has a right to put their work out there - communicating their ideas in the marketplace, but every reader has the right to assign an idea a market value they feel is fair and appropriate.

-

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

and in the great spirit of ex post facto editing - that should be "merit - insert phrase here - is," not are. Damn those clause/subject/verb agreement

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

I haven't deleted or edited any of your posts, Gabby. I haven't gone back through this lengthy thread to find the ones you're talking about, but unless there has been a database glitch at Greenspun, they should still be there. In fact, I haven't edited or deleted anything on this topic.

Generally, I only edit for formatting errors, if I happen to notice someone has failed to close a tag or put in a line break. There have been a few exceptions to that, but I wouldn't delete comments in the middle of a discussion thread that were relevant to the discussion.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

when you cripple the marketplace, you deprive people of the right to see those ideas and judge them for themselves. The essay I mentioned talks about how an exchange of ideas permits the best ones within a system to emerge - in this case, the development of Linux is the example.

If one were to apply the marketplace of ideas metaphor to the online journal genre/field/community/whatever, then it seems reasonable to say that every journaler has a right to put their work out there - communicating their ideas in the marketplace, but every reader has the right to assign an idea a market value they feel is fair and appropriate.

I believe what I've posted here is consistent with your interpretation of the authorities you cite. I believe your interpretation also runs counter to the ideas expressed by those posts here interpreting John Scalzi's essay as the majority of online journals suck, as if one is a loser for participating in the free exchange of ideas, and fails to perform to someone else's standard.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

We probably do have a few philosophical agreements.

The reason I wrote to begin with was because there seems to be some sentiment - which I may have imagined some several dozen posts back - that we ought not criticize online journals because they're part of the exchange of ideas (AKA "the marketplace of ideas"). There was some back-and-forth - I believe Kim Rollins made the point that writing is a product in the public domain (speaking of which, I wish more of her product was in the public domain, or that I was bright enough to figure out where the hell it is; I liked her writing. Back on topic onw) and as such can be criticized - and Mike Leung replied that products can be held to standards of quality, but online journals should not because they're part of an exchange of ideas.

This is where I disagree: if online journals enter the exchange, i.e. the marketplace, then they're out in the public and they can be critiqued. That's the whole point to any exchange of ideas - all can be submittted and all are open to criticism. So long as nobody makes the mistake of assuming the online journal with the journaler, I don't see too much of a problem. --------------------------

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

over 200 years ago, Voltaire was famous (perhaps apocryphally) for saying I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. It just creeps me out, when the means of the individual to be heard makes the last 500 years look like we were gagged, that so many people are putting so much effort into the idea that it's better to be silent, than, in trying to speak the truth, to say the wrong thing.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

I meant that to sound like: It just creeps me out... that so many people are putting so much effort into the idea that it's better to be silent, than, in trying to speak the truth, to risk saying the wrong thing.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

You support Scalzi's essay then?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

In what way?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Point taken.

There are a number of problems with the free exchange of ideas on the internet as a means of advancing knowledge. In order for a science to advance, certain things must be agreed upon and then built upon. A theory is postulated, it's merits debated, and it is either accepted or cast aside. (In very general terms, of course.)

What I see on the internet is that people continually pop up and say, "I'm absolutely certain the earth is flat." Whether or not the earth is round or flat is debated ad nauseum. I find this immensely frustrating, and a complete waste of time. I find myself wishing they would remain silent, rather than trying to speak their truth. Their speaking up is counterproductive.

It is true that once in a while something good comes of the free exchange of ideas. However, I far prefer a structured exchange of ideas.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

In order for a science to advance, certain things must be agreed upon and then built upon. A theory is postulated, it's merits debated, and it is either accepted or cast aside. (In very general terms, of course.)

As far as I know, no. Such activities are a waste of time.

Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea that science is revolutionized when new facts are raised to challenge existing paradigms (those agreed upon things you were talking about). That forces the postulation of new theories. If you close your mind to facts that challenge the existing paradigms of, say, the condition of the earth, no progress is made. The James Burke documentaries I mentioned before demonstrated this idea better than I ever will. This is why the piecemeal social engineering of the capitalistic west is able to outdistance the progress of the Communist countries.

Every great story, like Genesis and the temptation of Adam and Eve, always begins with disobedience. Progress in science depends on people doing the wrong thing (ie. challenging old paradigms).

What I see on the internet is that people continually pop up and say, "I'm absolutely certain the earth is flat." Whether or not the earth is round or flat is debated ad nauseum. I find this immensely frustrating, and a complete waste of time. I find myself wishing they would remain silent, rather than trying to speak their truth. Their speaking up is counterproductive.

Of course, it's only a fact that the earth is round to people who have circumnavigated the globe. The rest of us are relying on the witnesses' testimony. If the flat-earthers are unable to provide adequate counter-testimony, there's no cure for their willful denial. I think I've made clear why I don't find championing less talk acceptible as a counter to this. Their silence is not compliance, and you're delusional if you think silencing them makes you more right. This is why I find more talk is the less creepy evil.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

You know, Mike, youre a prime example of someone whos very smart without knowing much of anything. Someday youre going to take all that reading youve done and digest it into some kind of cogent statement, rather than to use as incoherent sidebars to an otherwise weak argument, but in the meantime listen to this.

You cant have it both ways. You cant rant about the "free exchange of ideas" and apply it only to those who agree with your argument, you cant offer criticism on a journal when you are upset at the offering of criticism about journals.

Well, you can, but youre going to look like a hypocrite for doing so.

This is the way I see it. I dont agree with Johns assessment of his website. I think he very much keeps a journal and the only reason that he chooses not to call it a journal is because he doesnt like the association with those people he considers inferior writers. I understand the frustration on your part. You work hard on your journal and want desperately for someone to pay you a little respect. Okay. Thats an okay desire. But this is not the way to go about it.

You cant bully someone into joining a club he has little or no desire to join. You cant force a person to acknowledge a relationship he has no intention on acknowledging. Thats just dumb. You especially cant ward off criticism of public writing or anything else, including midgets. You cant express your support of "a free exchange of ideas" and block Robs free exchange of ideas.

Well, you can, but youre going to look like a hypocrite for doing so.

Now, about Robs midgets. I always took his midget lines to be nothing more than a running joke. I suspect most of his readers see it that way too. Hes not advocating the destruction of midgets in favor of a taller master race. Hes just poking fun at a segment of society that by now is probably used to gags at their expense. Its cheap humor, probably a little beneath him at this point, but its not anything to get upset about.

In fact, its so unrelated to this thread that I wonder why it has been brought up at all. Well, Ive seen it countless times myself recently regarding my essay. Having little or no tangible argument with what Rob said, you have chosen to latch onto something that you feel you can defeat the man on. If you cant defeat the point, youll slander the man.

Mike, journals are going to have critics, just like everything else. Period. Theres going to be people like John and Kim who say the vast majority are no good. Theres going to be people like me who say that journals are not good tools. Theres going to be people like Rob who think midget jokes are harmless fun. In fact, judging by how many midgets go to Hollywood and play basketball games with the Harlem Globetrotters and wrestle eight on one with Andre the Giant, Id say a good portion of midgets think theyre pretty funny themselves.

Are you going to save journals and midgets from the big, bad world? You must surely think little of them if you believe that anything John, Rob, or myself says about them can stop "the free exchange of ideas" or a midget feeling good about himself. But perhaps, in your heart of hearts, you know that the criticisms of journals are valid and you are trying to head off what you see will be a mass flight from the form youve chosen to work in. If thats the case, have no fear. Journals are here to stay. But it will need better defenders than you to convince writers like myself that they are no more thanlike midget jokesharmless fun.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

But it will need better defenders than you to convince writers like myself that they are no more thanlike midget jokesharmless fun.

Well, Duh!

You've heard what I've had to say. My understanding is that incoherent sidebars to an otherwise weak argument beats there's nothing you can do about it. I've been saying not to take my word for things, and have been citing authorities on the subject when possible.

As for Rob's midget comments, I've merely pointed to the differences between what he does and what he says he does. I am making an observation, with no consideration of aesthetic quality. If that somehow blocks Rob's free exchange of ideas, than I am wrong, and I am sorry. However, I don't consider that any more a hypocrisy than a beer for being a pint and cold.

If you consider anything I present, please consider this:

I'm not afraid that journals are going to disappear. I fear journals like I fear guns: that only one kind of people will have them.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

[There must have been a glitch in the database or something, because I did indeed do a search this afternoon and noticed that posts were missing. But now they're here. My bad. Blame it on the cold medicine.]

Mike opined: >>I'm not afraid that journals are going to disappear. >>I fear journals like I fear guns: that only one kind >>of people will have them.

Please tell me you're not serious.

I haven't yet seen any sort of argument pop up that would sway me to the anti-Scalzi's essay side, that didn't involve casting aspersions on the man himself (he's a snob, he thinks he's better than us, etc.) or drowning in absurd paranoia (he wants to keep us from writing because we're not professionals!) - all of these are signals that, yes, insecurity, fear and jealousy are what's driving the anti-Scalzi, anti- Valvis essay free for all. A cogent argument would address Scalzi's points one by one and offer proof, from his own Whatever archives, that his work fits his own defintion of a journal - rather than hollering from the rooftops, "It's a journal! It is! It is! It is!"

Instead, the essay(s) are being taken personally by any number of people and thus rendering it impossible for a serious case to be made.

At this point, I'm beginning to favor rules which would prevent hysterics from keeping journals if it would just mean an injection of common bloody sense into the debate.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Please tell me you're not serious.

Why wouldn't I be serious. Does your asking such a question somehow make what I say less true? I haven't yet seen any sort of argument pop up that would sway me to the anti-Scalzi's essay side, that didn't involve casting aspersions on the man himself

American Heritage Dictionary:

aspersion n. a slanderous remark.

I believe I've withdrawn any aspersions I made the man himself (which Mr. Valvis was good enough to point out), and I believe I've continued to press my position without casting any more aspersions. You ask me if I'm serious, but you haven't addressed anything I've said. I don't know what to tell you, Gabby. Does not reading my posts somehow make them less true?

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

At what point does someone who uses the phrase common bloody sense qualify as a hysteric? A hysterectomy is the removal of a uterus. Is bloody common sense what men have, in place of where the uterus would normally be? I thought that was the prostate gland.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Or is that what the kids are calling it these days: he suffers from... premature injection of common bloody sense...

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

:If you consider anything I present, please consider this:

:I'm not afraid that journals are going to disappear. I fear :journals like I fear guns: that only one kind of people will have them.

I'm interested in considering this, but I don't understand it. How can one person's opinion, or ever a number of them cause a situation where only one kind of people (whatever kind that might be) to have journals?

By nature, journalers tend to be blessed or cursed with mighty strong opinions, and if they were so easily prone to give them up based on someone else's opinion, they'd be keeping their journals safely tucked under their beds away from scrutiny, or not writing them at all.

I don't see that as being any danger of at all - there is a marvelous range of points of view out there and even a well utilized forum like this only scrapes the barest surface of all of them - and I sure don't see anyone *here* as the sort who is going to fold based on any particular opinion.

There's only a couple of ways to endanger the free exchange of ideas - either people voluntarily stop expressing theirs (and see above as to why I don't think that's going to happen on a large scale), or it is forced.

An opinion expressed isn't force. Scalzi can't come through the wires and delete a journal at will - Jim can't take away anything he sees as a poor tool. They can only express opinions, which can and will be debated as long as people are interested in it.

And given the volume of exchanges on the matter, the last thing I see is people clamming up as the result of exposure to an opinion they dislike.

Unlike guns, an opinion can only put a hole in you if you choose to accept the blow.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

By nature, journalers tend to be blessed or cursed with mighty strong opinions, and if they were so easily prone to give them up based on someone else's opinion, they'd be keeping their journals safely tucked under their beds away from scrutiny, or not writing them at all.

I think you've just made my point for me. You've just described the kind of people who are currently writing journals. But silence is not compliance. Those opinions tucked under the bed aren't any less valid, simply because the person writing them doesn't view himself or herself enough of a bully to put them online.

I don't see that as being any danger of at all - there is a marvelous range of points of view out there

Yet look at the catagories of the diarist.net awards. "Best Romantic Entry?" Why should the romantic entries get special treatment over, say "Best Example Of Problem Solving?" There isn't a marvelous range.

There's only a couple of ways to endanger the free exchange of ideas - either people voluntarily stop expressing theirs (and see above as to why I don't think that's going to happen on a large scale), or it is forced.

I would say that I disagree.

An opinion expressed isn't force. Scalzi can't come through the wires and delete a journal at will - Jim can't take away anything he sees as a poor tool. They can only express opinions, which can and will be debated as long as people are interested in it.

Unlike guns, an opinion can only put a hole in you if you choose to accept the blow.

No, opinions aren't force, but stereotypes are very paowerful, and those who speak up have more influence over stereotypes than those who are silent.

I remember during the height of The Cosby Show's popularity, an interview Phil Donohue did with Bill Cosby. Cosby commented on the decline of socially responsible entertainment on television, and Donohue challanged him, asking him what socially responsible merit did Cosby's participation in I Spy have. Cosby quickly replied that the show portrayed his character as a Black man with a gun who was a good guy. The answer didn't seem to satisfy Donohue, and fifteen years ago, I didn't see how portraying a Black cop on TV was so socially responsible.

Well, Spike Lee's Malcolm X was aired over the last Martin Luther King Jr weekend, and Cosby's answer to Donohue resonated in the story of the movie. Before he was Malcolm X, he was Malcom Little, a drug addict who was thrown into prison for burglary. While in prison, he was introduced, by a follower of the Nation of Islam, to a stereotype of a pure Black man.

In his youth, Little had demonstrated aptitude, and an interest in the law, but he was told that he couldn't pursue higher education because he was Black. The only stereotypes he was exposed to were servants, and criminals. Given no other alternatives, Little chose to follow the latter.

Like I said, stereotypes are very powerful, and if those of you who identify with the positive ones easier than I do, well of course you aren't going to make the analogy of a journal to a gun. But maybe you should start. I see journaling a new means to influence perceptions and stereotypes. I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

[caveat: If this reply sounds a bit prepared, it's because I lifted some of it from an entry from my journal.]

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

There's only a couple of ways to endanger the free exchange of ideas - either people voluntarily stop expressing theirs (and see above as to why I don't think that's going to happen on a large scale), or it is forced.

I meant to say I wouldn't say that I disagree.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

But this is the reason I find Rob's midget obsession so pernicious. What if one of Rob's readers is a hiring manager at a company. He interviews a 4 foot tall bachelor degree graduate of computer science. He feels uneasy, perhaps because he's never had commerce with a midget before. He's a regular reader of Rob, and he figures it's ok to give the guy an excuse an excuse for not hiring him. He doesn't fit the profile of the company. This guy could have a family to support, but it's not MY problem, and I'm not a midget anyway.

Now, Rob's reconsidering his treatment of midgets in his journal, even though, according to him, he isn't wrong. So he's thinking of doing some token Great Midgets In History. Who wants to be on the receiving end of that? But they're midgets, so it's ok to throw them a bone. It's creepy, so I say so.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

But this is the reason I find Rob's midget obsession so pernicious. What if one of Rob's readers is a hiring manager at a company. He interviews a 4 foot tall bachelor degree graduate of computer science. He feels uneasy, perhaps because he's never had commerce with a midget before. He's a regular reader of Rob, and he figures it's ok to give the guy an excuse an excuse for not hiring him. He doesn't fit the profile of the company. This guy could have a family to support, but it's not MY problem, and I'm not a midget anyway.

--Mike

But how does this mesh with "the idea that science is revolutionized when new facts are raised to challenge existing paradigms"? If you think Rob is wrong and against the existing paradigms he must be doing society a favor in his wrongness, as I must be doing a favor in my wrongness, and John must be doing a favor in his. Since we challenged existing paradigms, we are the true holders of the "advance society" flag. Not you. You are proposing the continued exitence of the status quo-- namely journals will continued to be seen within the journal community as beyond reproach. You can't be an insider at heart and don the attractive feathers of the outsider.

You also say: I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

But you defended nothing. You didn't say John has every right to question the value of journals and you're willing to die over it. You called him a snob and a jerk. And, me, I've been called far worse. Hell, almost nobody save Lynda and Gabby defended my right to express an opinion.

Well, you failed to live up to John's standards and he said so. And the journal failed to live up to my standards as a writing tool and I said so. Now John and I have failed to live up to your standards and here you are bitching about it. Same with everyone else-- everyone who called us snobs, idiots, whatever. You are guilty of the very same thing that say you condemn. Far guiltier than me in fact-- for I called no one an idiot or a snob or anything else.

But, really, Mike, in a more practical sense, how stupid would one of Rob's readers have to be not to hire someone because Rob cracks a joke. Who put that idiot in charge? In that case, the midget's probably lucky not to have the job. Who knows what other kinds of bigotries are right around the corner.

You think too highly of journals. You think they're going to change the world. Surprise! They're not. Almost no one reads them. What, four thousand people? Yes, tops, and that's being very generous. And the highest for any one journal is like 1000. What percentage of the population is that? 1 in 6,000,000. You'd do better to write letters to your local paper. You'd have far more influence.

Stop the insanity, Mike. Go back and reread the books. Make sure you understand what they're saying before trying to use the information in a contested argument.

I'm not trying to silence you, I'm just trying to stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself. I'm not trying to get you to quit your beloved journal, I'm just trying to get you to look at its value. If you have any proof, ideas, thoughts, anything about how a journal will make a person a better writer, I'd be happy to listen. But if you want to sit there and throw mud at free speaking people in the name of the free speech, don't waste my time.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

But how does this mesh with "the idea that science is revolutionized when new facts are raised to challenge existing paradigms"? If you think Rob is wrong and against the existing paradigms he must be doing society a favor in his wrongness, as I must be doing a favor in my wrongness, and John must be doing a favor in his.

it doesn't mesh. The Rob issue is a separate issue.

But you defended nothing. You didn't say John has every right to question the value of journals and you're willing to die over it.

Jim, you've served in uniform, just as I have. We both took an oath to defend the US Constitution. Then we quit.

So you are right, my use of the apocryphal Voltaire quote doesn't apply anymore. How about I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend within whatever annoys Jim Valvis your right to say it? Is there no room for modifying a credo?

Nobody is in the business of doing good. The good we do comes from how we conduct our business. For me, the possibility that someone may consider arming themselves with a journal is a defensive act, no matter how small you think it is. I'm sorry it's not enough for you. To me, it's something.

You called him a snob and a jerk.

I'm sorry for calling him a jerk. If you check what I've posted, you'll see that imminently after I made the remark, I confessed to being a jerk myself, and withdrew what I had said. If there is some way to help you get over this, please let me know, and I will consider it.

And, me, I've been called far worse. Hell, almost nobody save Lynda and Gabby defended my right to express an opinion.

Jim, I disagreed with you yet I've pointed out that you were unfairly attacked, and even notified you that I had done so. I'm sorry I haven't found a harmonious solution to satisfy you.

Well, you failed to live up to John's standards and he said so. And the journal failed to live up to my standards as a writing tool and I said so. Now John and I have failed to live up to your standards and here you are bitching about it.

And which of my words constituted the bitching. You should know most of my English education comes from School House Rock. Would that be in my use of And, But, or Or that constituted the bitching?

Same with everyone else-- everyone who called us snobs, idiots, whatever. You are guilty of the very same thing that say you condemn. Far guiltier than me in fact-- for I called no one an idiot or a snob or anything else.

Well, good! You should feel good where you take the higher road. Isn't goodness its own reward?

But, really, Mike, in a more practical sense, how stupid would one of Rob's readers have to be not to hire someone because Rob cracks a joke. Who put that idiot in charge?

Damn, I would think the writer of There's A Rule For You, And There's A Rule For Me wouldn't demand proof of the stupidity that manifests itself as racism exists in positions of authority. I defer to the source I used before, the Spike Lee movie I cited

In that case, the midget's probably lucky not to have the job. Who knows what other kinds of bigotries are right around the corner.

Damn, you pretty generous with the future and fears of uncertainty of other people.

You think too highly of journals. You think they're going to change the world. Surprise! They're not. Almost no one reads them. What, four thousand people? Yes, tops, and that's being very generous. And the highest for any one journal is like 1000. What percentage of the population is that? 1 in 6,000,000. You'd do better to write letters to your local paper. You'd have far more influence.

Maybe. But you haven't given me any reason to reconsider my position.

Stop the insanity, Mike. Go back and reread the books. Make sure you understand what they're saying before trying to use the information in a contested argument.

You haven't given me any reason to doubt my understanding of any of the authorities I've cited, now, have you? Stop what insanity?

I'm not trying to silence you, I'm just trying to stop you from continuing to make a fool of yourself. I'm not trying to get you to quit your beloved journal, I'm just trying to get you to look at its value. If you have any proof, ideas, thoughts, anything about how a journal will make a person a better writer, I'd be happy to listen. But if you want to sit there and throw mud at free speaking people in the name of the free speech, don't waste my time.

Let's see... for one journaller I've pointed to the differences between what he does and what he says he does. You haven't made it clear to me how that is slinging mud. If you can do show me my hypocrisy, I have no problem with admitting I was wrong.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

But how does this mesh with "the idea that science is revolutionized when new facts are raised to challenge existing paradigms"? If you think Rob is wrong and against the existing paradigms he must be doing society a favor in his wrongness, as I must be doing a favor in my wrongness, and John must be doing a favor in his. Since we challenged existing paradigms, we are the true holders of the "advance society" flag. Not you. You are proposing the continued exitence of the status quo-- namely journals will continued to be seen within the journal community as beyond reproach. You can't be an insider at heart and don the attractive feathers of the outsider.

But if you want to sit there and throw mud at free speaking people in the name of the free speech, don't waste my time.

Jim, I took umbrage with Rob's depiction of midgets as deficient I think that you are a midget in all the ways that count, in the same forum where I claim that Rob has a right to do so. I can see now that this has confused you. You see, I can have a position in two different conflicts. I will see what I can do to clarify this more for you.

In my defense, I must point out that I cannot waste your time. I can post here, and you can be distracted by what I post here, but the actual decisions in how you spend your time is, in truth, your responsibility.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

At the risk of prolonging this thread (which has well and truly passed its use-by date), I'd just like to remind Jim Valvis that he seems to be the only one operating on the assumption that the point of keeping a journal is to make one a better writer. I don't know what Mike's motives for keeping his journal are but I'm pretty sure they're not that limited and narrow.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

I don't get it. I've tried, and I've failed.

Why are so many so determined to continually and willfully misunderstand the points of either the Valvis and Scalzi essays? Why are their valid and well-thought-out points repeatedly reduced to "snobbishness", "elitism", "wanting to keep other writers down" and so on? Why does anyone bother to argue that such shallow reductions are rooted in anything else other than self-serving pity parties?

And, Mr. Russell, Jim's point was that if your goal in keeping an online journal *happens to be* becoming a better writer, then you're using a poor tool at best for achieving said goal. He did not say that it's the only goal, or everyone's goal. . . oh hell, why bother?

No one seems to listen to anything unless it is their praises being sung to the heavens.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

And why do you want to argue that Scalzi's self serving exercise in pomp has any merit?

Why do you continue to argue that your dismissal of our valid and well-thought-out points is anything more than bucking the trend?

Scalzi had a point, namely that he doesn't keep a journal. Sclazi tried to prove his point. Scalzi failed. Scalzi insulted a lot of people while trying to make his point. These people say Scalzi bad. Deal.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Why are so many so determined to continually and willfully misunderstand the points of either the Valvis and Scalzi essays? Why are their valid and well-thought-out points repeatedly reduced to "snobbishness", "elitism", "wanting to keep other writers down" and so on? Why does anyone bother to argue that such shallow reductions are rooted in anything else other than self-serving pity parties?

Lady, you can't be refering to anything I've posted. The only thing you've said to address anything I've posted is Please tell me you're not serious. I get the impression you can give lessons in shallow reductions. I wrote: I'm not afraid that journals are going to disappear. I fear journals like I fear guns: that only one kind of people will have them, and then, when asked to explain what I meant, I gave an example of a famous historical figure whose life demonstrated the power of stereotypes over the individual. Now, for those of you who identify with the positive stereotypes easier than I do, well of course you aren't going to make the analogy of a journal to a gun. But to someone whose only alternative is invisibility to conducting his or her day to day transactions on their knees, well, excuse us for arming ourselves.

I've said this before, yet you seem to be under the impression that your own willful misunderstanding makes what I say less true.

No one seems to listen to anything unless it is their praises being sung to the heavens.

I'm sorry, did you just say that all I've been replying to is praise for myself? Lady, show me where I acknowledge any praise to me (I'm sorry that that will require you to look through all of my posts where I've apparently been ignoring everyone else).

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

And, Mr. Russell, Jim's point was that if your goal in keeping an online journal *happens to be* becoming a better writer, then you're using a poor tool at best for achieving said goal. He did not say that it's the only goal, or everyone's goal. . . oh hell, why bother?

Considering that Jim claimed that the idea of keeping a journal, in and of itself, is an idea that makes him smirk, and he wrote:

hobbyists don't last. Not even a month. Writing is not whittling. It's too hard and too laborious, both mentally and spiritually, for anyone to pick it up for shits and giggles and keep going any length of time. There are easier and less frustrating ways to blow time. People who write do so with the intention of being read, preferably by a lot of people and Oprah Winfrey. I have yet to see any of these "hobbyists" turn down an award, fail to join a webring, or otherwise shun the limelight.

We all try to avoid hard work, and writing well is hard work. But you simply won't get anywhere calling yourself a hobbyist or a revolutionary or a monkey with a pen. Stand up and be a writer.

...are you sure that you don't get it, and have failed, because you've really tried?

Which one are you, Gabby, writer, lazy writer, revolutionary, or monkey with a pen?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

You are welcome to decide that for yourself, at your leisure: http:// fellaheen.net.

Of course, no one actually reads me anymore, so who can argue with the brilliant and enlightened masses? Not me.

You see, Mike, I think you'd have a much better time of it if you removed that massive chip from your shoulder. That you thought my post was referring specifically and only to you makes my head spin. I can't begin to unravel the thread of your thought processes and I don't want to try.

Here's something I read a few weeks ago that gives me pause this evening. "Writing is about learning to pay attention and to communicate what is going on. Now, if you ask me, what's going on is that we're all up to * here* in it, and probably the most important thing is that we not yell at one another. Otherwise we'd all just be barking away like Pekingese:"Ah! Stuck in the shit! And it's *your* fault, *you* did this. . . " Writing involves seeing people suffer and, as Robert Stone once put it, finding some meaning therein. But you can't do that if you're not respectful. If you look at people and just see sloppy clothes or rich clothes, you're going to get them wrong."

(Anne Lamott, _Bird by Bird_, p. 97)

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

You see, Mike, I think you'd have a much better time of it if you removed that massive chip from your shoulder.

Check my posts, Gabby. I'm not addressing any chips that someone else hasn't brought in here.

That you thought my post was referring specifically and only to you makes my head spin.

I never said you were refering to me. I called you on not reading Jim's essay before championing it, and your claim that no one is listening to anyone else, when I point out how you don't seem to be paying attention to anyone in particular.

I can't begin to unravel the thread of your thought processes and I don't want to try.

So much for not getting it, because you tried, and failed, eh, Gabby?

Let me know if you decide to give anything in that quote you posted a try.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Ok, Gabby, let me give you some help in disagreeing with me, and perhaps other people, too. What I'm doing is, where I disagree with you, I quote you, and explain why I disagree. Mostly, where you claim to see me with a chip on my shoulder, all I'm doing is quoting from you something I disagree with. 'kay?

If you make a general accusation (people are doing something wrong!) and people raise his or her hand, and say, "Not me!" and you insecurely start pointing a finger and start saying, "insecurity!" it isn't apparent to the rest of us why what we're doing that's bad. That seems like a good place for you to start, since that seems to be a big issue with you, and no one else seems to understand why.

We aren't made of stone. People operate from appetites and needs most of us have no interest acknowledging as appetites or needs in the first place. Almost everything that we put in our mouth to nourish us was once alive. We live by eating life. I would think a little insecurity wouldn't be too shameful to live with after that.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Uncle, already. Uncle.

Mike, I cannot understand a single thing you write. None of it makes any sense to me. I'm not talking basic ideas because I can't even eke out what those are for you. You make my head spin. I surrender.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Gabby,

I took a spin on your site. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get a general sense of dread from you over doing the wrong thing. You're just under 30, and you don't know what to do with your life.

You think that if you are smart enough, you can just lift yourself up by your bootstraps, and you will be able to find your best destiny. Unfortunately, this creates increasing pressure on you, because if you make a wrong choice, you will lose that magical destiny. The problem is, you are screwed if you think that you can get your life right, as you come out of the gate. It's all in the Quantum Mechanics:

One of the laws that come from Einstein's work is that time is not linear, but is a function of velocity. Depending on where you are and how fast you are traveling, the calender week isn't Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, but Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, or Tuesday, Monday, Wednesday. The future is already a fait accompli, someplace, and some speed, else. You're destiny is already written.

An annoying law that takes all of the fun out of that is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Observation of an object influences its activity, so you can never really track it with absolute accuracy. If you throw an electron microscope, the instrument influences the subatomic particles in such a way that you know what the atom would have looked like had you not pointed your instrument at it. But since you did point your electron microscope at it, you've caused it to move, in way that you can't observe without training you microscope on it again, and thus altering it again. or so that is my understanding.

So in short, unless you arbitrarily dismiss two of the most influential scientific discoveries of the 20^th Century, we all have an unalterable destiny which we can never know.

That brings us back to what we should do with our life. You can medicate yourself from the dread of the inherent uncertainty of life, by doing nothing. But that doesn't mean that you will accomplish this nothingness. The human individual soul is driven by the needs of the soul, as well as the needs of the body. As far as I know, every enduring culture acknowledges the individual's need of the body and need of the soul. In the quest for the grail, the Fisher King loses the grail because he becomes blinded by its glory. Percival loses the grail, because when he recognizes the Fisher King's craving from his wounds, he doesn't address them, because of awe of rank. In India, the Buddha became enlightened when he turned his back on his bodily cravings, yet Indra chose not to turn his back to the material world, when given the option to do so. The Satan of Islam refuses to bow before Man, because his love for God is so strong, he makes no room for Man. This is in contrast to the Christian Satan, who is motivated by the opposite of love.

The only sensible path is to do something wrong. And I don't mean the mundane wrongs that Jim Valvis presented. Join a circus. Join the army. Tell a stranger you love them. Do something wrong, then do damage control, and you will find your destiny.

But that's just my suggestion from what I've been able to observe. You are free to take from what I write whatever you wish, even if its nothing. I'm sorry I put you in a position to surrender. I have ideas, and someone makes an entry counter to those ideas, and I test them. I really do wish what I say to help. If not today, then maybe tomorrow.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Wow, Mike. That's an excellent and classic example of the sort of email most of us get privately at one time or another from Clueless Readers. Good show, you've got it all in there - rambling incoherency, references to Satan, the notion that a brief read gives you all you need to make a psychological diagnosis AND offer a cure (if only the professionals could manage that!), and of course the one thing absolutely necessary to all such bizarre notes - the part where you say you're only doing it because you want to help.

Very good! Now please tell me that WAS just a sample of the genre?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Wow, Mike. That's an excellent and classic example of the sort of email most of us get privately at one time or another from Clueless Readers. Good show, you've got it all in there -

rambling incoherency,

Damn, you've been reading me all this time, and you're just letting me know now that you think I ramble incoherently? Any particular sentence stick out as incoherent to you?

references to Satan,

I guess Joseph Campbell and Alan watts are clueless too? the notion that a brief read gives you all you need to make a psychological diagnosis AND offer a cure (if only the professionals could manage that!)

I picked up an impression of the writer from her writings. Is there a writer you read that doesn't do that for you?

and of course the one thing absolutely necessary to all such bizarre notes - the part where you say you're only doing it because you want to help.

Ah, helpful people must be crazy... of course...

Very good! Now please tell me that WAS just a sample of the genre?

You didn't like my post? I'm very sorry you were put in the position of suffering through it.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Myself, I think her emphasis was on "privately", but that's just me.

Having read through Mike's message, my sincere response is to apologize to everyone for its existence. Messages which are clearly addressed to me do not belong on someone else's board. I obviously had no control over Mike's posting it here but I feel responsible for it all the same.

Anyone wishing to correspond with me further should take care to note my email address which is attached to every post on this board.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

To answer the question posed:

An online journal should be a reflection of the person writing it. It is the author's choice, period. Whether it's "high art", high treason or high school-ish, it's their life being shown on the Internet. If it's a dissertation on why most of "them" suck, and why most of "us" are craftsmen, so be it. But if you dislike what's written, there's no gun being held to anyone's head to read it, and also no reason to become pretentious about it.

I've read the essay in question. If Mr. Scalzi thinks his work isn't a journal, fine. It is what he thinks it is. If he thinks his work is better than the rest, more power to him. It has no bearing on what I write, since I can honestly say I don't give a tinker's damn what he thinks is or is not good writing. Mr. Scalzi has his work, and I have mine. He's never heard of me (I wouldn't expect him to), and vice versa, which is probably how it should be.

As for awards, speaking as someone who, by his own admission, will never win any awards for his journal, I don't see the point in them. You lived (or perhaps you reacted to something), you described in great emotional and intellectual detail what happened, you placed everything in its proper context, and they gave you something to place on the splash page of your site. So fucking what? I'm satisfied with what I've got, and I don't necessarily need the extra validation.

This is my one and only posting in this forum. I think if you care to discuss online journalling as an art/literary genre, that's your privilege. That said, I think most of you take this entirely too seriously. It may mean I will never join the elite, but having seen some of the postings here from said elite, the mourning period will last as long than Alan Keyes in the primaries.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Lest anyone lay into me for rotten grammar, yes, I know my last sentence should have said "...last as long AS Alan Keyes in the primaries." But since I have no intention of checking out reactions to my little diatribe, that's neither here nor there. :)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Oh, Jesus. No one is allowed to call anyone else pretentious, not after that precious little screed.

And I think that ends the topic. Normally we wait for someone to bring up Hitler, but in the online journal context, I think we can make the same ruling as soon as someone uses the word "elite."

I just love people who post self-righteous sermons and then assure you that they won't be back to see how you respond because you just disgust them too much ... don't let the door hit you, Tom.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Having read through Mike's message, my sincere response is to apologize to everyone for its existence. Messages which are clearly addressed to me do not belong on someone else's board. I obviously had no control over Mike's posting it here but I feel responsible for it all the same.

So, posting a message to someone in a public forum is offensive.

Please feel free to join me in scratching my chin and going, "hmmm..."

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Since Beth has officially closed off the topic, let me take a moment to thank everyone for contributing. The responses here have been interesting, to say the very least.

--JS

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000