I was rummaging through my nineteen boxes of books last night trying to find a slim volume that contained an item of interest to snopes.com (said book was in the fourteenth box I looked in; the eighteenth would have made for a funnier story, but I'll be honest and say it was the fourteenth) and I came across Danny [or, as the jacket says, Daniel] Drennan's The New York Diaries: Too-True Tales of Urban Trauma. It was published in 1998, and shortly after I bought my copy my life went all topsy-turvy and it ended up in a box in the back of a U-Haul bound for Redwood City, I forgot about its existence, and it did not see the light of day again until yesterday, which is why I didn't mention it in the earlier meta-thread.

The book is nothing more than a lightly-edited reiteration of Danny's online diary, and I was happy to buy it even though I had already read everything therein because Danny's a great guy who deserves the lousy dollar or two he got from me. Back in 1994, Danny and I WERE the online journalling community -- at least, we didn't know anyone else who was, at that point, doing what we were doing.

I just thought that this would make an interesting coda to the flap over Jim Valvis' essay, which said [as I read it] that journals are unpublishable and unmarketable. Journals that have a consistent style and theme [in Danny's case, hyperactively self-aware is the style and the manner in which New York induces neurosis is the theme], and show a good command of the language are as eminently marketable as any other genre. It's not the form itself that makes most journals unsellable, but the content.

And, of course, an online journal is still a valuable thing to keep even if the keeper has no desire to write professionally. I'm just taking issue with the notion that no publishing house would want to purchase a cohesive, well-written journal. Ballantine [a divison of Random House] thought otherwise.

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

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Answers

Kim,

It's okay now. You can let it go. Really.

-- Anonymous, February 23, 2000

Kim, I do apologize for my flippant response yesterday. It's just-- you know-- you've been a little obsessive lately--(oh, like the past two years)-- throwing the name Valvis around a lot, and, well, frankly, it's getting a little spooky.

But onto your great discovery!

Really, Kim, every review on the book I could find at Amazon decribes his writing as "stories," not journal entries. Now, if you'll remember, I did say that if someone is going to write memoir, they should write a salable memoir. Well, I haven't access to Mister Drennar's book, but it appears he wrote a salable memoir.

Still, even looking at this at its best and deciding it's a diary gone big, my point doesn't fold on the basis of one exception you've been hunting for five weeks. One book. That's all? That represents what percentage Random House's yearly titles? Less than one hundredth of one percent? And that's just one year. How about all the books Random House has ever published as compared to the amount of journals? Not very impressive when you think about it.

I'll tell you what? Let's play a little game. For every diary you can name that got published by a National House, I'll name two novels. (I could easily make it ten or a hundred, but why belabor a point?) Okay? I'll start with the two I got today from the library. The Deader the Better, by G.M. Ford; and Humans, but Donald Westlake. Not journals, novels.

Okay-- see you in five weeks when you find your next one!

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Jim,

As you say, "why belabor a point?" Why then ARE you belaboring this point of yours about journals? And more to the point, if you find them so uniformly useless (for being "unsalable"), why do you keep hanging round them (or at least the forum at this one)? I'd really be interested to know.

Tonight We Sleep In Separate Ditchesto which Mr Valvis is cordially invited, as indeed is everyone else

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Because, my friend, like most of my critics, you make the mistake of thinking because I think writing a journal is a waste of time that I also think that people who write journals are a waste of time. And that's not what I said. That's what other people said I said.

And because Kim Rollins argues against my thesis as much for a dislike of me personally as for any belief the act of journal writing will help a beginning writer-- and I find this a silly and irresponsible way to go about your business. Kim has no interest in helping new writers-- if she did she would tell them, like I have, how they might get better instead of just declaring most suck-- and instead wants only to get back at me for the various times I've criticized her way of attacking innocent people.

And because, since my name is constantly brought up, I have both a vested interest and a perfect right to defend both my character and my ideas.

And that's why.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

1994? You and Daniel Drennan (of whom I have never heard, not that that means anything) were OLJing in 1994? I thought Carolyn Burke was the First, and she began in 1995? I thought Carolyn Burke was the first for a whole bunch of reasons, like that the earliest OLJers I knew of--Willa, Bryon, Kat/notKat, Mary Anne--mentioned her as coming before? And JournalCon has her on the agenda as the pioneer. I know you were online in 1994 and before, Kim, because you've mentioned your sordid past on bbs and other Bronze Age cyberspaces like that, but were you journaling?

Do I sound dubious? I'm incredulous, but I figure I'm just ignorant. Ignorant and curious.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Does anyone else think that Jim Valvis was always picked last for everything when he was in the sixth grade?

Jim Howard

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Carolyn was one of the first, but I don't think she was THE first. I'm pretty sure Jay started his diary back in '94, and by the time I started at the beginning of '96 there were already quite a few journals online that I was aware of, although most of them have since faded into nonexistence.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

I've always heard that Carolyn was the first, and certainly she seemed to think she was the first.

But I didn't start reading journals until 1996, when I found "Ophelia"'s Diary, so I don't actually know the answer.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Speaking of Carolyn, I had no idea she was keeping a journal again.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

And she still doesn't have a spellchecker.

And I'm posting like Mike Leung today.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

I guess it depends on whatever your definition of online journal would be. Danny Drennan was posting autobiographical stories semi-regularly on his kick-ass site, www.inquisitor.com (which, back in the day, had a much different URL), back in 1994; I found them when I stumbled across his _Bevery Hills, 90210_ wrap-ups. Based on what I've seen on her site, Kim was posting similar autobiographical vignettes (*my*day*thus*far*). Neither was formatted in the online journal format I've come to expect as a reader - dated entries on a calendar, for example - but both seemed journal-like based on the subject material.

And if you haven't read _New York Stories_, by all means, do. Then read the Salon article "the Spirit of '96" (http://www.salon.com/media/poni/1998/10/13poni.html), in which media writer James Poniewozik examines the relationship between online writing and its ana

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Lisa H.: You can see my ancient my*day*thus*fa r entries here. The HTML is really primitive, but back then, that's all we had, you wet-behind-the-ears whippersnappers! (Huh. At some point I seem to have gone back and redone the index page with a single table.) I don't consider myself a pioneer or anything because I made no real effort to seek out or organize a community, and I didn't stick with it for more than a few months. I'll gladly cede that title to someone else.

Lisa S.: I'll bet you're using IE, aren't you? The reason I always stick a line of periods at the end of my posts is that IE cuts off a seemingly random number of characters at the end of each of my Greenspun forum entries. Pamie told me that multiple carriage returns ought to solve the problem, but that didn't seem to cure it. You might want to do something similar until Beth finds a new home for the forum.

Jim: ....whatever. I've responded only to the substance of what you've said here and not your character; I would have written exactly the same replies no matter who had inspired them. You and I may have locked horns in the past, but I do not consider you an "enemy" -- I don't think I have any enemies -- nor am I "obsessed" with you. Before you posted your anti-journal diatribe, the last time I spoke to you or thought about you was, I think, sometime around December 1998, give or take. It was shortly after I'd moved to the Bay Area, at any rate.

I'd love to hear your accounts of my attacking innocent people. Insofar as I know, your beef against me started when I posted some hate mail I'd received on diary-l with the headers intact, including the sender's email address. The writer, if you'll recall, turned out to be the lead singer of a band that I had reviewed negatively in my journal, who was concealing her identity by writing from a friend's account and resorting to ad hominem instead of dealing with the substance of what I'd said. She can hardly be construed as "innocent"; I'd say spiteful and cowardly. While I admit that posting her address was an error, and I would never do so again, I did not respond to what she'd said in kind, and giving out an email address [with no incentive to respond, and it isn't as if the population of diary-l were flying monkeys that I, the wicked witch, could send out to do her bidding] is not on a par with handing out someone's real name, telephone number, or directions to her house.

I have never used my journal as a springboard to attack people I dislike, as you have. I've never flamed anyone on diary-l, with the exception of that one girl (Claire?) who was starting a betting pool on whom I was sleeping with. I am slow to rile and quick to apologize, explain, forgive. I think you just have a chip on your shoulder against me because my journal was light and funny and I was pretty and popular and rich and that got under your skin somehow. Sorry. At least I'm not rich anymore.

I also reacted so spectacularly out of character when you goaded me last that I think you're hoping I'll do it again; but I'd like to remind you that that last altercation occurred shortly after I'd quit my job, moved out of my hometown of fifteen years to a strange place, broken up with the man I'd been living with for nine years, lost about half my friends, etc. and so forth. I'm unlikely to be in a place low enough for you to get under my skin so effectively again. I guess on top of all that you posting your "List of Eleven Reasons I Can't Respect Kim Rollins" on diary-l -- during a period when I wasn't even online to defend myself -- was enough to push me. Mea culpa.

On the OLJ subject, before this becomes my own vanity thread: OLJs are a new genre, while novels have been around for thousands of years. I think your challenge a wee bit rigged.

And I've gone over this before, but: editors are really bad at telling writers why pieces have been rejected. I don't agree that seeking publication is the path to "better" writing, as editors are not in the business of teaching English. And we'll simply have to also disagree on whether or not anyone can write professionally. It's partly gift, partly craft, partly art, and not everyone can be good at it. But it's just one skill among thousands, and a rather common and useless -- in terms of human survival -- one at that. I know it's hard for writers to believe that saying to someone, "Look, your writing is not very polished and you don't have a natural flair for it," is not a crushing insult that amounts to telling someone she is a waste of oxygen, because as a writer, that is calumny of the highest order when aimed at yourself. But whether or not someone can write well doesn't affect, in my eyes, their worth. Some of my best friends are lousy writers. I just communicate with them via telephone.

You consider it mean for me to say that most online journals are not very well-written; I consider it cruel to try to make people feel wrong or guilty about a harmless activity that they greatly enjoy. We just can't come to terms, but that shouldn't bother you, since I'm a nasty, stupid, spoiled person anyway.

Since you find it so spooky and stalkerish for me to refer to you -- even in a debate where dozens of others are participating and my remarks are impersonal -- I promise never again to refer to you publicly or privately. It's not my intention to make you feel hunted or uncomfortable.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

I don't quite get this obsession with the quality of writing. Does one look at a painting and judge its worth solely by the brush strokes, or the quality of the canvas used?

It seems to me the skilled writers among us want to make online journalling all about the writing so that their journal can be the best.

This is what I always say to the admirers of pretty prose: When was the last time you stayed up all night reading a book and going, "I just can't stop reading this excellent prose." It has never happened, because it's the *story* that matters, not the writing.

The majority of journals are poorly written. So what? Who cares? What does that have to do with anything? Why does this fact need to be endlessly pointed out?

Do you see Bruce Sprinsteen pointing out all the bad singer/songwriters? Do you see Meryl Streep insisting she's not an actress because there are so many bad actresses? Do you see Tiger Woods getting all upset about all the bad weekend golfers?

And what would you think of them if they did?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Dave: vis-a-vis the Bruce Springsteen/Tiger Woods comparison....

(Applause.)

Very well done.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

uh - *I* stay up all night reading excellent prose.

I drop "good" stories if the writing pisses me off.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

But do you stay up *because* it's excellent prose, or because you want to know what happens next? I'm not saying excellent prose isn't good, what I am saying is that it isn't necessary for a page turning book.

And isn't the fact that you miss out on good stories due to the prose your loss?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Dave wrote: >This is what I always say to the admirers of pretty >prose: When was the last time you stayed up all night >reading a book and going, "I just can't stop reading >this excellent prose." It has never happened, because >it's the *story* that matters, not the writing.

Do the admirers of pretty prose ever turn to you and tell you that you are mistaken? In fiction, and indeed most forms of creative and personal writing, the style is the substance.

Otherwise, there would be no distinguishing Tolstoy from Tolkien, Austen from Atwood. One might as well feed the five or twelve or thirty-whatever universal plots and an English grammar to a computer and wait for it to produce deathless works. You'll be waiting some time.

In twenty-plus years of reading, during which I have read a very considerable number of books, many of them fiction, I have never yet run into one whose story was SO GRIPPING that I was willing to overlook bad grammar, poor spelling (really! You'd be surprised how much of that one finds in professionally published books in these degenerate days!) or sheer bad writing. Life is too short to read lousy prose.

I do not include in any of my bookmarked journals those by people who cannot be bothered to at least try to spell correctly, or to learn the elementary rules of English, or who feel that they are too cool to use capitalisation or punctuation. I find them, almost literally, painful to read, and have neither the time nor inclination to decipher whatever it is that they are trying to say through all the static.

Writing is communication. If one is going to choose this particular medium to communicate, even for fun, then one should perhaps spend the time learning to use the associated tools. Likewise, a weekend golfer, even if he will never play the professional circuit, will probably enjoy himself more if he takes a few lessons and gains a basic understanding of the game.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Sorry, I read for the prose. I can handle good prose with a so-so story a lot better than I can handle a decent story that's badly written.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

"Excellent" prose is part and parcel of a good read. The greatest story ever told will be the greatest story never read if the writer can't construct a readable sentence or spell correctly or punctuate properly. When's the last time you stayed up all night reading a book you had to keep re-reading to make sense of what was said?

Missing out on stories due to poor prose is a loss, yes, because it's the writer's failing.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

I built a house. This house has many imperfections that bother me no end, almost to the point where I hate my house. Yet everyone tells me my house is beautiful, because they cannot spot even the most glaring imperfections that annoy me no end.

I tell myself to stop being so silly. It's a nice house.

Yes, the admirers of pretty prose often tell me I am mistaken. The interesting thing is they're pretty much all English majors or writers....

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

...so maybe they know what they're talking about, eh?

How many carpenters have praised your home, flaws and all?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Sometimes a really good story can transcend poor writing. For almost a year I read nothing but true crime even though by and large such books are quickly produced and poorly written (a few exceptions spring to mind: Vince Bugliosi, Joe McGinnis... but even the queen of the genre, local gal Ann Rule, is really a hack.)

However, most online journals are not about robbing banks or Mafia connections or real-life accounts of two brothers machine-gunning their parents to death and facing down the public scrutiny afterwards with concocted tales of sexual abuse. Most people's lives -- and I by no means exclude mine -- are banal. We get up, go to work, exercise, talk with friends, watch movies; occasionally we take road trips. None of this is intrinsically interesting. What makes it interesting is the way it's conveyed. I get very frustrated with journals that don't understand the cardinal "Show, don't tell," rule: the ones that say, "Bob phoned me tonight and we talked for a couple of hours. He's kind of a jerk," instead of relaying some of the contents of that conversation that illustrate his jerkiness.

With only our lives to work with, our workaday, jejune lives, the presentation of information becomes paramount, becomes *more* important than it would be in a newspaper article or other work that exists only to convey information. Even Anna Karenina, which Tolstoy called "a small book" at 800 pages, meaning that it was about the ordinary lives of ordinary people [as opposed to his previous book, the history opus War and Peace], is somewhat dull in its mere outlines. Tolstoy's deft prose makes it the greatest novel ever written.

By good writing I don't mean "That which is like mine," either. One of the hallmarks of good writing is that it has a distinct and endearing personality. Jane Smiley is no Martin Amis, but their works are equally [incredibly] good.

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

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Beth, I'm with you. Nothing happens, much, in some of my favourite books (Henry James for example is a great one for setting up amazing characters, one plot hook, and spending 500 pages on it) but I've dropped a book halfway because of dire grammar, annoying sentence construction or punctuation impotence. And a cliche'd example - Waiting for Godot. Nothing happens, at all, but what glorious words.

I'm current reading a biography of an extremely fascinating character - Michael Alexandrovich, brother of Tsar Nicholas II (and who, depending on your viewpoint of politics, may or may not have been the last Tsar of Russia). He married a woman who had been twice divorced and as a result was banished from Russia until the outbreak of World War One, when he returned to command something called, wonderfully, "The Savage Regiment".

Fascinating stuff - they weren't particularly interesting characters but they lived in such a pivotal time of history, and went to amazing places and socialised with aristocrats, and ballet stars, etc - but it is so. direly. written. that I cannot bear it. It cries out for an editor - the author swaps tenses, refers to events out of order without making it clear that she is doing so, and relates large wads of detail which add absolutely nothing to the story except for the fact that she researched all this guff.

Ghastly. I'm giving it one more night.

a.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Do you see Bruce Sprinsteen pointing out all the bad singer/songwriters? Do you see Meryl Streep insisting she's not an actress because there are so many bad actresses? Do you see Tiger Woods getting all upset about all the bad weekend golfers?

I wasn't upset when I wrote my first essay. I only became annoyed after I'd been insulted. There was a full week between my essay and my next post. During that time Beth's board was rife with such words as idiot, loser, pompous jackass. Stee decided to compare my writing to pornography and Beth decided that was reason enough to propose marriage. Chuck's website made sure everyone knew I was a monkey. And then there were the private emails-- where people feel ten times the freedom to say whatever idiotic thing they want to say.

Can I see Tiger Woods giving some pointers to weekend golfers. Yes, I can see that just fine. Especially children, since I believe he does.

Now, can I see Tiger Woods getting upset for someone calling him a stupid pompous idiotic monkey for doing so.

Yeah, I can see that too.

And your point is what, Dave? If I were so cool, I wouldn't pay any attention to you because you can't write as well as I can? Is that your point? Wouldn't that the exact kind of snobbery that has so often been attributed to me?

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Now, Dave, haven't I given public writing advice numerous times before this essay on the value of keeping a journal, haven't I given you encouragement with your writing and indeed dozens of other journal writers too, haven't I tried to help you out with your constant entanglements, and didn't you come to me seeking writing advice in the form of which books to read?

If the answer to these questions are yes, and they are, what is so different now between my essay on journals and, say, my essay on conflict and character? Don't both aim to do the same thing-- help a new writer get better? And, what is so bitter about a writer who offers a lesser writers encouragement? And, if you want to know from me which books to read to become a better writer, doesn't that an imply a desire to improve your writing? And, if you have that desire, doesn't it make you a hypocrite to say, and I quote, I don't quite get this obsession with the quality of writing.

--Do you see Meryl Streep insisting she's not an actress because there are so many bad actresses?

I do agree with this. But certainly you'll agree that there are different kinds of actresses, and one may be a leading actress while another may be a character. There's nothing wrong with pointing out those differences. I write poetry and fiction. You write-- what?-- flame war?

--It seems to me the skilled writers among us want to make online journalling all about the writing so that their journal can be the best.

Dave, really now? Are you saying I need to push forward my superior style and writing skill so I can be a better storyteller than you? You can't really believe that.

In fact, we both know you don't.

Kim, your comments will take more time. I'll get to them as soon as I can.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Okay, first let me hopefully dispense with the house analogy. My house is, for the most part, no more or less perfect than the neighbors'. Let's just get that straight. ;-)

The whole point is mute, however, because when I go to sell my house, the buyer will not be a carpenter. Who cares what a carpenter thinks?

Now let's be careful here. I am not trying to derogate English majors. I am very fond of English majors. I generally hold English majors in high regard.

When one studies a craft it alters their view of the product of said craft. They become less concerned with the product as a whole, and more conerned with the craft itself.

Next thing you know they are calling Tolstoy's Anna Karenina the greatest novel ever written, merely on the strength of its prose.

Maybe it is. That doesn't mean your average person wants to read it.

The same goes for online journals. There are beautifully written journals that are about as interesting to me as watching grass grow on a moonless night. In my view a good story makes a good journal, not excellent prose. Adequate prose is good enough. It is certainly true that pretty prose makes a good story better, as long as it doesn't get in the way.

Let me put it this way: There are a lot of journals out there written by people who think they're pretty good writers. In most cases they are. Unfortunately their journals are often dull and boring, despite their writing competence.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

My apologies to Jim for evidently not expressing myself clearly enough. At no point did I wish to imply that "because [you] think writing a journal is a waste of time that [you] also think that people who write journals are a waste of time." I wasn't attempting to say that you have a low opinion of the people who maintain journals, and I can't figure out how you drew that inference.

Your right to defend yourself is, of course, granted and undeniable. So I'd appreciate it if you'd care to defend the idea (as presented in "In Response to a Question") that the only worthwhile reason for writing anything is so that it will be published. You do rather overtly criticise Bob and Betty Blah Blah for not producing salable work, after all. Is salability now an official condition of writing? Yes, publication is nice; having had some minor article publications in the past, I know exactly how nice it is to see my name in print. I won't say that I don't dream of having a five-foot shelf sagging under the weight of my collected works one day. But it's not the be all and end all of my writing habits.

You tell me, Jim. You defend this idea that publication and salability are the only valid reasons for writing. Or perhaps I'm misconstruing you this time, as everybody else apparently is. Either way, please enlighten me. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong.

Tonight We Sleep In Separate Ditchesa potential cure for insomnia

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Dave, I really don't think you're giving enough credit to non-English majors. Preferring to read something that's well written is not the same as being obsessed with craft. If the writing is good enough, the reader shouldn't be thinking about the craft.

I think your first analogy was off base, when you talked about brush strokes and the quality of the canvas. When you look at a painting or a really good photograph, are you admiring the artist's work, or are you only interested in the subject? Is the Mona Lisa only worth looking at because that Mona is one hot babe?

There is at least one journal I can think of where the author's life has recently been -- well, for lack of a better word, I'll say "interesting" or "exciting." But the journaler expresses him/herself so poorly that I'm not getting any sense of the emotion or drama involved. It's leaving me cold, even though logically I know there's a good story there. Frankly, I'd rather read Patrick writing about going out to dinner.

Judging by relative hit counts, I don't think it's only the English majors who feel this way, either.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Jim:

Were Tiger Woods to offer a beginning golfer unclear advice, presented in a demeaning manner, with an air of superiority and a derogatory tone, I would hardly be surprised if the beginning golfer told Tiger to get stuffed.

You write-- what?-- flame war?

I used to. There's a big market for flame war. Unfortunately two people got hurt, so I quit.

As far as wanting to improve my own writing, that is hardly at odds with my position that writing should take a back seat to storytelling.

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Beth:

I agree that "if the writing is good enough, the reader shouldn't be thinking about the craft." The question is, what is good enough?

I see the work of authors like S. King and VC Andrews continually disparaged. Their sales are clear indication, however, that their writing is "good enough."

I don't think the painting analogy is as far off as you think. Without the art world's expert guidance, how many people would choose to hang Mona Lisa in their living room before a $500 piece of wildlife art?

-- Anonymous, February 24, 2000

Thank you, James. Now we are getting somewhere. If we can put aside a while the mindless name calling and the ancient grudges, then perhaps we can see if what I said does or does not have any validity. I am perfectly willing to discuss things under this framework and I always have been.

You being up Betty and Bob Blah Blah and say I overtly criticize them. I dont, at least not as people, but I do point out that theyre thinking is flawed. (Of course Im talking about hypothetical people and not any one individual.) In both cases, you will notice, they start out trying to achieve one thing and then, due to frustration or distraction, give up their dream and "settle" on something else. Now, we all do some settling with our writing. We start out hoping we will be the next Saroyan or Atwood, but over time we realize that this is not going to happen. Or, if its going to happen, its sure not going to be easy like we imagine it was for them. In any case, my message was to say not to settle so easily. Certainly you shouldnt settle before giving your dream a chance to succeed. You shouldnt settle right at the beginning.

This goes right to the very heart of my point. Will a journal get you where you want to goand at what point do you admit that it wont? Now, from what I have seen, there are two arguments against my premise. One, the lesser case, is that a diary will help you become a better writer. The second, the better case, is that writing a journal will make you a better or happier person.

I dont agree with either of those and lets see if you can understand my logic.

First the lesser case. It is common belief that a journal will make you a better writer. This belief is advanced in nearly every university creative writing workshop in the country by far more talented and successful writers than myself. I know I am up against the wall here. But the evidence proves otherwise. (And I wont rehash the evidence that I gave in my two essays on the subject.) I will say this. Most writers advocate the journal for the purpose of "finding your voice." But finding your voice is only one of many problems a new writer faces. He must also find his form. He must also find his audience. He must also find his characters (unless he aims to write only about himself all his life.) He must also find a way to make a living (and, yes, that is a consideration to the aspiring writer.) Now, a form that instructs just one need is not a very good tool. A person could very easily write other things in that same time and get far more instruction. Ive read lots of books on writing and very few of them mention the journal. The ones that do tend to be those writers who are not prolific writers at alli.e. Natalie Goldbergbut instead teachers. A teacher holds on to the journal as a teaching tool because a creative writing teacher can teach precious little elsemostly just technique. He can not teach you how to write a good story. He can not give you more talent than you possess. Not really. So they have a vested interest in telling young writers the lie about journalsthat that, and that alone, will turn someone into Tolstoy. It's simply not so.. Not much will turn a writer into Tolstoy, but if anything can do it it's surely writing the novel.

But the bigger argument, the one most seem to be harping on, is that a journal will add to a persons happiness. But I see no evidence of this. In fact, journal writers, over all, seem to be the most miserable demographic of them all. They dont get along with people, not even each other. They constantly bicker about the lack of a decent audience for journals. They write and write and write, with a neurotics zeal for self-examinationand three years later they are still just as miserable or still just as happy as when they started out. If they are less happy or more, that can usually be attributed to some other aspect of their liveslike a son dying or finding a nice man to date.

Well, theres a problem, as I see it, with the me, me, meism of diaries. The more you focus on your problems, the greater those problems seem. The writer who writes about other things than the self, be it what it may, has the added benefit of losing himself into his subjects. It makes him an all around less self-centered personand that typically makes him happier. Also, since he is moving toward writing goalsand perhaps achieving them here and therehis self-esteem increases, he feels he is growing, becoming an artist rather than someone talking to himself.

Well, those are my honest opinion on the pitfalls of diaries. Remember, I have done both, so I understand both sides of the argument.

Now, in the interest of saving time and because I am not against those questioning my essay points, let me give you the one criticism of my essay that would hold some weight. I claim that journals are a waste of time, and they are, but who says wasting time is a bad thing? Now, everyone has been so busy proving journals are not a waste of timethat they will make you this or that or add to your potential or good looks or whatever-- they have missed this very easy criticism. Yes, a journal is not the most productive thing in the world, but who says wasting time is not okay?

Well, having given this best of all possible rebuttals myself, let me now try to answer it. No one is saying wasting time in and of itself is a bad thing. We all waste plenty of time all the time. We watch television and thats a waste of time. We throw socks against our walls and catch them and thats a waste of time. We smoke and thats a waste of time (not to mention health, money, and clean breath.) Nothing wrong with it

Until

You start thinking its something other than a waste of time. Now, watching Frasier is all right, if you can endure it, but it wont turn you into a psychiatrist. Nor will it turn you into an overall happier personexcept perhaps while you are doing it. It will only be of any use to you while you are involved with the activity. Once set aside, youre on your own again.

I say a person should write a salable manuscript because I think it will do them some goodmuch more good than a diary. Its not just about money. Its about self esteem, reaching goals, and growing as a writer and a person. James, being a published writer, you know theres nothing like holding that acceptance contract in your hands. Im trying to get other people to experience that same joyor at least to take a chance on it. Its my full contention that, if they keep writing only in a journal, they never willand thats a shame. In time, because they feel they are not growing as writers and they are not part of a larger writing community and because they are continuing to be ignored by the vast majority of readers, they wont just quit their journals, theyll quit as writers. You know the old adage about not putting all your eggs in one basketespecially a basket with holes in the bottom. Well, when the journal disappoints them, and sooner or later it will because its a dead end form and one that appeals only to a small minority of readers, what will be left for them to turn to? What should have happened to me if I were only a journal writer? Having most of this particular audience upset with me and vilifying meI should likely have quit altogether had I not the good fortune to have some place to turn. Namely, the poets.

Now, if I offended anyone with my "tone," I apologize. That was not my intention, certainly not before I myself was insulted. It is noteworthy however that most of my regular readers had no problem with my essay. They know my shenanigans by now and know that I talk to the poets, the fiction writers, and my own mother in the same straightforward manner. I try to cut through the bullshit of hemming and hawing, in order to save time, but you will notice no individual was slandered in any of my posts. I have not done anything like that in over a year and I sincerely apologized to that person.

I also repent the approach I took in the essay. Had I known that so many strangers would read it, I would have focused more on the positives of doing what I do rather than the negatives of keeping a diary. (Although, ironically, I doubt then as many would have read it.) But I had no idea it would be read by thousands. And a strange phenomenon happened. Like I said, my regular readers knew I meant them no harm. I am in contact with a good many of them and others have had the opportunity to read my stories and to get a taste of what kind of man I ami.e. I fight against child abuse, etc. The people who found most fault with me had never read anything else I had writtenor just those things that were controversialand took the essay largely out of context. I was not unclear. I was just clear over many different occasions. I would not suggest this particular essay as a first and last impression. That would be highly inaccurate. I write a hell of a lot more than just essays about diaries. And I have beenand will continue to bea strong supporter of many journal writers, trying, where I can, to help them achieve their goals.

I do not know if I have changed you mind on the journal issue and I am not bothered much if I haven't- but I hope I have changed your mind on my intentions for the essay. I meant to do some goodand I have not given up hope that I havent. Perhaps some silent but listening soul out there will put aside their journal for a while and get back to work on his or her dream because of what I said. And someday he or she will be a huge success. If such a person exists, all of this crap Ive endured will have been worthwhile.

I think thats all I have left to say about this topic. Kim, I will email you privately.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

The writer who writes about other things than the self, be it what it may, has the added benefit of losing himself into his subjects. It makes him an all around less self-centered personand that typically makes him happier.

Then how is it, sir, that after all these weeks, you are still wounded from all of that name-calling (which I grant was unjust), or why you were wounded at all? It kind of looked like you took it about as well as the self-centered journaler.

(Don't look now, Lynda, but I think Jim is offering psychological advice, based on what he's seen in peoples' journals...)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

I said it made him a less self-centered person, Mike, not a robot. But, by now, I see you'll question my claim the sum of one and one is two.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

The writer who writes about other things than the self, be it what it may, has the added benefit of losing himself into his subjects. It makes him an all around less self-centered personand that typically makes him happier.

Yet, you don't hesitate to let anyone know that the name-calling has caused you much u*n*h*a*p*p*i*n*e*s*s, even in your replies to people who haven't called you names, and to those who have admitted too wrongdoing, and apologized. If your way works, how do you explain your situation?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

But, by now, I see you'll question my claim the sum of one and one is two.

The reason I ask is that that is the distinction you place between the confessional journal, and anthology. Your claim that the anthology writer is less self-centered personand typically happier seems arbitrary. Hemingway wasn't happy. Fitzgerald wasn't happy. I like Harlan Ellison, but he doesn't strike me as particularly happy. Poe. Bierce ran off to be a soldier in his seventies... Hell, it's been documented how Charles Schulz suffered depression all throughout his life.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Mike, and I swear this is the last time I answer you. By showing the exception you are proving the rule. How many writers out there lived wonderful, peaceful existences-- as compared to the few who didn't? And most who didn't-- like Sexton, Plath, Hemingway, Brautigan, had long histories of psychological illness. I'm talking about the average healthy person. For the truly sick person, no writing at all will help them. They need counseling.

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

It's too bad you aren't answering my questions anymore, because my next question would have been, at what quantity of exceptions do they then become the rule. (seems like a rule that requires a lot of exceptions to prove it, if you ask me. wouldn't happen to know any other rule that has these many exceptions, would you? ...d'oh that's another question you ain't answering...)

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

Thank you, Jim, for your extended answer to my query. Well said.

Tonight We Sleep In Separate Ditchesstill staying where I am, though

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

AND of course, another question Jim won't be answering is Is there any value to being an exception to his own Valvis Principle?

-- Anonymous, February 25, 2000

What's wrong with writing just for the joy of writing? As someone already alluded to, as soon as you start writing for an editor you are faced with compromise. It becomes less of a joy, and more like work. And I can't think of anything more tiresome and depressing than dealing with rejection after rejection as you try sell something. Why bother when you don't have to?

The beauty of the web is that we don't have to. We can bypass the editor, and go directly to the reader. We are free to express ourselves however we choose, without worrying about selling it.

Real art is about expression, it's not about making money.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

You know, Mike, youre a prime example of someone whos very smart without knowing much of anything.
--Jim Valvis

I was pasting Jim's quote onto my homepage, when I realized, as far as I know, the statement I don't know is the foundation of all of Socrates teachings. Thus you have the adjective Socratic, to describe the method of arriving at the truth by asking questions. Then I remembered Jim's little analogy:

Make no mistake, my client is a criminal, and your verdict is wise. Like Socrates, that imposter, he has tried to corrupt our youths, not to mention our old timers, telling them to usurp the norms and think for themselves.
--Jim Valvis, Excerpt from the Trial of the Competent Man He also wrote: I believe in asking questions. Different questions. Questions people arent asking.
--Jim Valvis, A Retraction of Sorts

I guess another question Jim won't be answering is Why should Jim's similarities to Socrates (whatever they may be) make him a martyr, but my similarities to Socrates make me wrong?

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

Well, theres a problem, as I see it, with the me, me, meism of diaries. The more you focus on your problems, the greater those problems seem. The writer who writes about other things than the self, be it what it may, has the added benefit of losing himself into his subjects. It makes him an all around less self-centered personand that typically makes him happier. Also, since he is moving toward writing goalsand perhaps achieving them here and therehis self-esteem increases, he feels he is growing, becoming an artist rather than someone talking to himself.

I claim that journals are a waste of time, and they are...

I say a person should write a salable manuscript because I think it will do them some goodmuch more good than a diary. Its not just about money. Its about self esteem, reaching goals, and growing as a writer and a person. James, being a published writer, you know theres nothing like holding that acceptance contract in your hands. Im trying to get other people to experience that same joyor at least to take a chance on it. Its my full contention that, if they keep writing only in a journal, they never willand thats a shame.
--Jim Valvis, from his best of all possible rebuttals

The unexamined life is not a life worth living for a human being.
--Socrates, attributed in Plato's Apology

Damn, Jim, it's too bad you ain't answeringing any more of my questions, because these quotes have me really confused! The same person who advised me to "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," doesn't seem to realize that an authority he cites advocated the exact opposite of his argument.

How can you paint me in negative terms, my refering to authorities to support my position, when an authority you cite, who you don't seem to understand, seems instead to have expressed opinions opposite to your position?

Or so would be my question if you were still answering them.

-- Anonymous, February 26, 2000

I guess when Socrates was talking about living the examined life he was advocating ten thousand pages about your obessession with your own toe jam.

Here's the problem as I see it. If you really didn't care about what I have to say about writing a journal, if you were happy with the act of doing it, you wouldn't be here bitching about some essay I wrote six weeks ago.

You live in a house of cards. I didn't even have to blow hard to see it fall.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

If you choose to exile him or kill him, that would be fine, fair, and merciful. Then, we can have peace at last, without the convicteds constant and ridiculous assertions that we should strive for perfection, or at least competency, in the things we choose to do.
--Jim Valvis, Excerpt from the Trial of the Competent Man

I guess when Socrates was talking about living the examined life he was advocating ten thousand pages about your obessession with your own toe jam.
--Jim Valvis

Jim, I'd be hard pressed to know where you've seen one thousand pages by me about my toe jam, much less ten thousand. Now, I apologized publicly to you when you called me for putting words in your mouth. Will I get the same courtesy from you, now that you've put words in my mouth, or is putting words in my mouth somehow more of a competent act than when I put words in your mouth?

How could you have seen something blow which you say I live in? Are you sure it isn't one of those cool, expanding, plastic tumble-weed-like toys?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Could Mike Leung shut the fuck up?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Uh, let's play nice, please. Mike does post a lot, but anyone who feels the need to tell someone else to shut up on this forum should probably just, you know, shut up.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Make no mistake, my client is a criminal, and your verdict is wise. Like Socrates, that imposter, he has tried to corrupt our youths, not to mention our old timers, telling them to usurp the norms and think for themselves.
--Jim Valvis, Excerpt from the Trial of the Competent Man

I believe in asking questions. Different questions. Questions people arent asking.
--Jim Valvis, A Retraction of Sorts

I was also wondering why, when Jim asks questions. Different questions. Questions people arent asking, he's encouraging the usurpation of norms, and independent thought, but when I ask questions people aren't asking, it's bitching?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

My last post is not intended to imply that I don't think that it's time for Mike and Jim to take this to private e-mail. I just don't think we need to tell each other to shut up.

If the double negatives above were too confusing, how's this: Jim and Mike, if it's not too much trouble, could you possibly take this to private mail? At this point your argument seems to be a semantical discussion that probably isn't of much interest to everyone else.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Could Mike Leung shut the fuck up?
-- Starang Wundah

Cut it out, Mom. I know it's you. Does Dad know you found the keys to the liquor cabinet again?

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

First of all, I didn't write the shut the fuck up line.

Secondly, Beth, Mike doesn't want to take it to private email or he would have a long time ago. This has always been about publicity for Mike and it's not about to change now.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

First of all, I didn't write the shut the fuck up line.

??? Secondly, Beth, Mike doesn't want to take it to private email or he would have a long time ago. This has always been about publicity for Mike and it's not about to change now.

hypocrite n. a person given to professing beliefs or virtues one does not possess.

A hypocrite isn't someone who has professed a belief or virtue one does not possess, as you have been misusing the word in other forums. A hypocrite is someone given to professing beliefs or virtues one does not possess... much as I have revealed in your behavior. I merely replied to a post you made, and referred to this forum to support it.

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

Your not my real Mom, Jim!

-- Anonymous, February 27, 2000

I hesitate to add static of my own and thereby further worsen the already abismal signal to noise ratio in this thread, but Mike's behavior has gone unchecked long enough.

I would like to see Mike apologize to Jim and to us for his childish behavior. There is just no need for it. Believe it or not, Mike, you aren't impressing anyone. Your endless quibbling, nit-picking, and semantical wriggling are bad enough, but these single person attacks, which amount to nothing more than personal vendettas, absolutely must stop. Enough!

I hasten to add that I know Mike is capable of being intelligent and insightful.

Mike, you owe Jim an apology.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

• I'm sorry Jim abused the word hypocrite, by applying it to people who didn't fit the word's definition.
• I'm sorry I pointed out how Jim's behavior fits that same definition of hypocrite. (To everyone else, I'm sorry I made so many posts to do this.)
• I'm sorry Jim compared himself to Socrates, a man whose teachings advocated the exact opposite of Jim's opinion. I'm also sorry that I pointed this out after he accused me of misrepresenting the authorities I cited, giving no particular reason.
• I'm sorry that I pointed out that Jim wasn't my real mom.

-- Anonymous, February 28, 2000

The real issue here is not that of how journal writing affects all the other forms of writing. There is much to be said about journal writing, both positively and negatively, and probably all of it is true at one time or another for all writers who face changing circumstances over the course of their writing lives. Sometimes journals can help our other projects, sometimes they can't. Each person's situation is best handled by themselves. The real issue here, the issue that has people so stirred up, and rightly so, is the fundamental arrogance displayed in both James Valvis' original essay and his later replies to any and all responses proffered to him. Arrogance of the intensity he displays has always been a substitute for actual wisdom. This truth is one of the fundamental truths of human nature, and I am not the only person to realize it. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell) That, Mr. Valvis, is the central issue you should concern yourself with.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

I agree with Bertrand Russell's basic sentiment, but I do not think it follows that only fools are sure of themselves. Or maybe it's generally true, I don't know. I guess I'm just so full of doubts.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

(Speaking of fools who are sure of themselves, here's another long-winded Mike Leung post.)

Tips on driving Jim Valvis nuts.

For 6 of the last 7 weeks, a lot of people have expressed noisy disgust at Jim's essays concerning online journaling. So noisy, that people are now expressing noisy disgust at the noisy disgust. For most of the last week, Jim's position, and the noisy disgust with Jim, have quieted down, and I think some of my posts have had some influence on this result. As far as I can tell, my replies are the last ones that Jim is eager to respond to. I take that as a sign that I am able to strike a nerve in Jim that no one else has yet been able to strike. I believe that is more true for the more recent posts I made, learning from my mistakes as I went along. If that is the case, in hopes of cutting down on the noisy disgust, I thought I would attempt to draft an outline on what it I think it takes to drive Jim nuts:

1. Semantics

   Jim hates semantics. Semantics is defined as the study of meaning in language. The reason Jim hates semantics is because, to Jim, meaning doesn't lie in language. As far as I can tell, Jim believes it lies in how your product compares to other people's product. Jim's essays roughly translate to check out the writers club I'M in that the other journalers aren't in! If Jim were to consider meaning to lie in language, that would take all of the fun out of being a member of his club.

   There is a danger in having what you present perceived as nonsense, but I think to arguing meaning in terms of how journalers compare to the rest of civilization only brings the conflict to Jim's strongest front. Remember, to defend journaling from values like Jim's, you must remember that it's the process, not the product, that you are defending. Let Jim rip on the product. Defending the process depends on keeping the conflict about meaning. I know a lot of people look down on debating semantics. So you must ask yourself: do I want people to look up to me, or do I want to drive Jim nuts?

2. Chill

   As far as I can tell, Jim thinks like he's like Captain Kirk. Look at his Excerpt from the Trial of the Competent Man If you stick Captain Kirk where there are Klingons, his foot will start kicking for your ass. There are no Klingons in the real world, however, so people like Jim tend to see Klingons where there are none. If you send angry e-mail to him, you will only make him feel cornered, and that feeds the Klingon-ass-kicking part of his brain. Don't call him names. Don't make fun of his writing. Don't nourish him by getting mad at him. If someone stands up to defend Jim, ignore them. Responding to them has nothing to with Driving Jim Nuts.

3. You have to like driving Jim nuts

   I disagreed with Jim specifically to encourage people to arm themselves by documenting their lives online. This only allowed Jim to dismiss my ideas without considering them. All that accomplished was letting Jim use me as an example of what happens to you if you disagree with Jim.

   When disagreeing with Jim, start out with your secondary ideas. Jim will attempt to summarily dismiss them, but in doing so, Jim will start making mistakes in the Captain Kirk Klingon-ass-kicking mode. Most likely, he will accuse you of doing something he's done 10 times before. If you've stepped in the ring with your primary ideas, he will trample your primary causes, hurting your feelings, and you will not have noticed that he is already a master of the incompetence he has accused you of doing. Put whatever cause you've come to champion away, and start cracking on your central mission: to drive Jim nuts.

To recap: 1) Don't fight on product, which is Jim's strongest front. Fight on process, and remember that this is why Jim hates semantics. 2) Name-calling only makes Jim feel cornered, and reinforced his Klingon-ass-kicking self-image. Chill. 3) You have to learn to like driving Jim nuts. Don't start out disagreeing with him on an issue that is important to you. Disagree with him on something you hold true, but can be sacrificed, and he will automatically rebut with as much obnoxiousness as he thinks he can get away with. Then you can count on acquiring the appetite for driving Jim nuts.

Arm yourself, not just to counter Jim, but for anyone who feeds off of the discord of other people, like in that Twilight Zone episode, where the aliens invade by causing the human suburbanites to start distrusting each other and start hunting their neighbors. It's better to hold a mirror to that kind of gluttony than to denounce it.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Mike, you're behaving like someone who's been high on bennies for three days straight.

Find his email address already and use it.

-- Anonymous, March 02, 2000

Looks like the little boy packed up his toys & went home because the other kids wouldn't do it his way. Typical.

-- Anonymous, March 20, 2000