What do you think of this round? I think it's cool that there are some choices outside of the usual suspects.

I still think, though, that the site awards are given too often. In fact, maybe four times a year is just too much. It's hard to get very excited about the awards when it seems like they're always happening.

What do you think? Are these good selections? Are you going to vote? Do you care?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Answers

I absolutely agree, Beth, that quarterly is too often for these awards. In the past, I have nominated people and voted for the awards, but my problem is that I don't change the diaries I read on a quarterly basis, so now I've run out of people to nominate (I don't have the time and patience to actually go through the webrings finding great new diaries every quarter).

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I like the variety; I've discovered some cool new journals this way.

However, I agree about the site awards, and especially about the legacy awards. At this rate, we won't have any real legacy-type folks left to give awards to!

I'd rather see quarterly entry awards, site awards and legacy awards given out once a year. I mean yes, there are a lot of journals out there, but not so many that we can just go wasting a bunch of awards just so that each round has winners in every category.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I actually disagree about the Legacy Awards; I don't think they've begun to recognize the people who are truly deserving. I know longevity is only one factor in that award, but when there are folks like Tracing, Ceej, Maggy, Alexis, Scott, Ryan, Justin, Gregory, THE GUS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, etc., who have yet to be recognized, I think it's really, really sad that we're still focusing on folks whose journals started in late '97 and mid '98. That's no offense to the people nominated this quarter; I think they've all got great journals and any one of them could win the best overall in a heartbeat (Pamie already has, of course). But Tess and Katie started in November/December 1997, respectively (which is when I started), and Pamie started in the summer of 1998. People were keeping great journals in 1995 and 1996, okay? And they haven't been recognized.

Pamie, Tess, and Katie are all third or fourth wave journalers, which is great -- I think some of the best journals started in that time frame, because the genre had been around long enough to establish itself, but was still pretty fresh and exciting. It just feels like the newer journalers have no interest in learning about the people who started all this, and I would really have hoped that the legacy award was about recognizing the folks who started doing this back when it was still a pretty freaky, scary, unknown thing to put your diary on the internet.

On a related note, I wish that someone who has been around longer than I have would write up kind of a history of online journals someday. So much is just gone forever.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Ooh, that is a good point. It seems like I just won a diarist.net award, but now looking back, it was two quarters ago. Plus, with all the drama that surrounds the awards... who needs that much drama in one year?

As far as the entries being good selections or not, it does seem (including my own nominated entry) that the funny stuff isn't quite as funny, the dramatic stuff isn't quite as dramatic... (though the guest entries are really good... especially one in particular... lol) I think that we're all entitled to have an off season, and apparently the journalling community as a whole had kind of an off season this quarter. THat would be another good reason for going semi-annual or annual on these awards things.

If "everyone were loved" in the sense that it weren't the same old people getting nominated every time (and yes I admit I am one of those same old people, being a finalist in three of the past four quarters), that four times a year would be great. But it's the same people getting awarded for the same stuff over and over, and it probably doesn't give new journallers much hope that they too can make it into the "elite club" that is diarist.net finalists. And no, I won't share the club initiation secret, either. so Nyeah. hehehee

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Quarterly seems too often, I agree. But if the people you name are being passed over for legacy awards, maybe peoples' memories are so short that the awards need to be quarterly.

I think you should start writing up the history you know and post it - people who know more will quickly write you to correct you!

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Yeah, Beth.... Why on EARTH has Ryan never won the legacy award? He runs freaking diarist.net for christ's sake.

If I ever got so desperately bored as to volunteer for the diarist awards panel, I would only do so to make sure that Ryan won the legacy award. Oh hell yeah I'd "miscount" the votes and be very corrupt about it. It's ridiculous that he hasn't been recognized for his efforts.

(Guess this post will keep me off any democratic journalling efforts in the future... ah, so be it)

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Quarterly entry awards are all cool. There are so many journals, with so many entries per quarter, that it makes sense to do entry awards four times a year. But site awards... I mean, yeah, I have my group of journals that I read regularly, and while I do try to add new ones on a regular basis, my list isn't going to change THAT frequently. So every quarter I wind up nominating some of the same journals no matter how hard I try to hunt out new ones. I'd rather see the site awards as a yearly thing. Or at least twice-yearly.

By the way, I disagree that this quarter was slack for interesting/ funny/dramatic journal entries. I think that, as usual, there was a lot of really good stuff out there. One of the entries up for "Best Dramatic" almost made me cry at my desk, and one of the ones for "Best Comedic" made me laugh out loud. Which of course is not even mentioning all the funny/dramatic/comedic/etc entries that didn't make the final cut.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

A history is something I have been thinking a lot about, especially right now because so many people are either four years in or just coming up to four years (Jackie's anniversary is any day now, Diane's is really soon, I started my first journal four years ago tomorrow). Or they have been around even longer.

What I think would be great is if people who started in '95 and '96 could write about what it was like, how they got started, who did they read etc. Then have those entries collected someplace. A sort of informal history.

anyone have any ideas?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I also think a history is a great idea, and I agree, Cara, that it should be a collaborative effort. I think the project would definitely need someone to coordinate it and set up a website where the information could be collected. I would love to do it if I had time, but unfortunately, I don't.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

re: early journals

http://surfin.spi es.com/~diane/journals2.html

Diane maintains a list of journals that have lasted at least a year. it's not every journal that was around in 95 and 96 (she requires that they still be posting, and that archives be available).

Anita of Anita's BOD and Anita's LOL

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Very happy for you, Stasi, and very happy for Patrick, because his writing is fantastic.

However, Dave Van's best romantic entry nomination is hilarious considering how rude he is about his wife 99.99% of the time in his journal.

I still think it sucks that we mere readers can't vote, and I think I'll have to have an url next time round so I can join in.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

re: a history

I have the time, and I have a spare domain that's just sitting around gathering dust. (Or it might be something that diarist.net or metajournals would be interested in having on their site.) So if there seems to be interest in the idea I'll set something up.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Cara, that would be great! I'd certainly be willing to help out any way I can.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I don't participate in the Diarist Awards anymore. I decided finally that I didn't want to give awards for journals, which are often kept for personal reasons, not to compete for awards or readers or fame and fortune. I don't want to get sucked into that mentality, which would ultimately end with my being sulky and cross because my journal site doesn't win awards. That's not why I'm supposed to be keeping the journal site. I want to stay focused on my goals instead of feeding that competitive streak that I'm trying so hard to shed.

I did look at the latest list of finalists and realized that even if I didn't feel this way, I wouldn't want to vote. Some categories have competing finalists who are friends of mine, and I should pick one as being superior to the other? I couldn't do that. This isn't the Oscars, you know. (Not that I like the Oscars either.)

On the other hand, as Beth said, it's pleasant to see that people are recognizing and reading some of the smaller journals like Go Figure.

I do like the idea of a "history" that would list various journals, how they developed, perhaps including some excerpts. This seems much more valuable than frequent competition.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I just visted one of the sites to see a little Fuck You dont votefor me message from the nominee. Why do people do that? Why don't they just turn the award down before it is announced. It bugs me.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Scott, there's no way to "turn down" the nomination. Once you're notified that you've been nominated, your nomination is already listed. (I think.) This was the only way this person could "turn down" the nomination, so to speak. And she didn't say "Fuck you," she said "Thank you."

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Damn. Now I feel bad I got rid of the RIP section of my Going and Going page, because I used to store all of the journals that had stopped in there...and being able to read over some of those names would have really helped jog my memory. Anyhow, I'm in on writing up a little history.

Re: the awards: yeah, I think the site ones are given too often. I like going through the nominees and finding new journals, though, so I wouldn't mind having the entry ones gives quarterly.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I believe that's true ... I think John Scalzi tried to turn down his nomination "officially" last quarter, but his request was ignored. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

I love the collaborative history site idea, by the way ... I haven't been around for very long, but I'd love to be involved.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Let me to add that I truly have no idea what I'm talking about in terms of "turning down" a nomination, and that I'm talking completely out of my ass, so please keep that in mind if I'm incorrect. Does anyone know if it's even possible to "withdraw" your own nomination? (Not that I would, because I am vain and I relish attention -- just wondering.)

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

A history of OLJs is something I've tried to write a few times. I've written a few casual paragraphs in response to people who've found my journal through random browsing and want to know what is going on. (I don't spout forth my long "Well it all started when I found Bryon Sutherland..." unless they ask.) I was startled a few months ago to learn that Carolyn Burke wasn't the first from some perspectives, that Kim Rollins and someone else whose name I forget had posted journal-type stuff (if not ongoing posts) before her. I would love to know what happened before 9/96, when I arrived, two months after the founding on Open Pages. How many people were on it originally? I believe Tracey Lee has said there were eleven, but Kat/Ryan would know best. Also, I always like to know how people found out about the genre, and whom they read first, and so on.

(Although I'd like to ask those two questions in a forum thread, I hate getting all the email--is there any way to turn off that notification thingie, Beth?)

Oooh, and then we could talk about Shelly/Jessa in 11/96 and Sage and Tracey quitting in 2/97 (possibly the only thing they ever had in common) and the big Gus/Ellie brou-ha-ha summer of '97 and Kat quitting in 11/97 and Beth starting in 11/97 and then what were the big scandals before Ryan was outed a year ago? A year and a half without craziness? I must be amnesiac. And then someone could say they know where Bryon and Lara and...and...and...well, everyone else who left, are.

Back on topic, I like that I don't recognize almost everyone in most categories. I think the different best entries could be quarterly, but that the legacy award should be given be less often and that a journal must be at least three solid years old to qualify.

I voted, but allegedly incomplete entry forms will be discarded. Does that mean that if I don't know all the journals in all the categories well enough to make an informed choice, my vote for Best New Journal won't be counted?

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Lisa: when you post a new question, there is a check box that you can change if you don't want to receive replies in the mail.

So someone finally noticed that Kat ended just as I started. When will you all realize that we're the same person? Ryan is just my front.

(Actually, I'm Ryan, too.)

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I just started a mailing list for planning the diary history project. Go here to sign up.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Beth, thanks for pointing out the obvious. My mother would say if it were a snake it would have bitten me.

Jen, Diane, Cara, I am not as long-standing a contributor to the genre as you all, but I am an avid reader. I plan to be fascinated by whatever everyone comes up with.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

well, I can answer a few of the questions posted.

You can still contact Byron - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2646/index.html - his site is still up and he answers email but I've tried prodding and been unable to get him to post an update ;) perhaps others will be more successful.

Lara, however, I have never come across again. And how about the guy who wrote Banter from Australia - Eddie - what ever happened to him?

Did I quit in 97? jeez,I don't really recall, since I never really quit,(how can anybody really quit this?) I just went underground. Whoops - just checked - my main journal started Sept 95 and stopped in Feb 97 so sure enough, you were right. (so, cause my archives are still available, I can get an award?)

Open Pages. I don't recall how many people were on it at first, just that *I* was #11 or #14. Diane, Mary Ann, Nigel and a handful of others beat me to the punch. And of course Ryan/Ophelia ;) I do remember when there were enough journals to go over to a second page it was cause for big excitment.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I don't remember what my number was, but I do remember that Doug Franklin was on one side of me and Tracey Lee was on the other.

I also remember nobody bookmarked sites because you could just use Open Pages, but then the web ring server would go down and we'd be stuck scrambling around for URL's.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I think the site awards probably are given too often; I'd think twice a year would be plenty.

There were lots of great selections this year; I've already voted, and I care in a half-hearted kind of way. I mean, it's not like *I* am up for anything; if I were, you can bet your butt I'd care a WHOLE lot.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Lara is still around though not doing a journal. I just emailed with her about 3 or so months ago.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Xeney Wrote:

"I believe that's true ... I think John Scalzi tried to turn down his nomination "officially" last quarter, but his request was ignored. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)"

No, that's pretty much correct. When I was nominated, I let them know I preferred not to be considered for the category in which I was nominated, and after I won, I also wrote in to let them know I declined the award. In both cases, I never heard back on either declination. So in my experience you can't do anything about a nomination, once it's been made (nor about winning, should that happen). I certainly don't bear the diarist.net folks any ill will over it, but I do think they should let the folks who choose not to compete have a way out.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I adore the Diarist Awards...and not just because I was nominated this time. I love going through and reading all the finalist entries especially the ones from journals I don't read yet.

The site awards could definitely be less frequent and still make me happy. It's harder to judge the sites if they're not ones you read regularly, so the whole process is less fun, for me at least. I'd hate to see "Best New Journal" become yearly or semi-annually, though, because there are so many new journals starting each quarter. The Awards have been one of my favorite sources for really good new reading material. I couldn't handle waiting that long between fixes.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Just wanted to point out a mistake I made above -- Tess also won Best Overall, in the very first quarter that the Diarist Awards were around. I wasn't paying much attention to the awards then (I didn't have a journal and I wasn't reading very many of them, either), hence my mistake.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Nope, not going to vote. Again.

For one very simple reason: there's too much to read each quarter and since _everything_ is on the two forms, and you can't submit an "incomplete" form, it takes too long to fill the damn thing out.

I'd prefer to vote by categories -- a form per category. That I can get a handle on. Read three entries and compare them. That I can do. Read a twenty-odd entries, plus skim through journals that I don't read regularly to get a feel for their writing just to see if they deserve best writing etc. etc. ... that I can't do. It would take hours and hours and days and days to get through it all.

I'd rather see voting less often and a more discrete voting process, so that you can choose to only vote in as many categories as you have time to read.

As for "are these good selections?" -- that's a difficult question to answer. I'm always happy to see a journal that I read nominated, but that doesn't change the fact that I have no idea about the others whom I don't read.

I'm more likely to vote for those I read regularly than those I don't, as a result, slanting the vote towards a popularity thing, rather than an honest critical vote.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I like the awards as it gives me a chance to find new journals each quarter. What I don't like is the entry form must be completed part. Especially for the site awards - if you haven't been reading someone's journal it's hard to get a feel for the whole thing. So I end up not voting for the site awards.

Quarterly is good for entry awards though - one thing I noticed this time around is how many of the entries nominated were from March. People do have short memories.

I don't think they do any harm - unless people take them too seriously. We're all doing this to be read -otherwise why are we posting our journals? I think the awards are a nice way to let other journallers say 'I think that was great.'

The site awards probably could drop back in frequency a bit though.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Oh and I forgot to add my bit about the Legacy awards -- only a handful of the nominees and winners seem to be true legacy folks at all.

I agree that some of the folks who really got the genre jump-started just aren't represented.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I was, and still am, #12 on Open Pages. And I'm still between Jen Wade and Bill Chance. Speaking of two people that should be, at some point, up for a Legacy. Along with Tracing, too.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Are you guys sure that your votes don't count if you don't vote in every category? I wasn't under that impression. I'm going to ask someone. I was under the impression that your vote didn't count if you didn't give your name, URL, and e-mail address.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

I'm #2 on Open Pages.

Kat wrote me one day about this great idea she'd had for a webring, what did I think? I thought it would be a small list and wouldn't really be very useful, since we already knew all the journals out there.

(rolls around on the ground laughing, wipes tear from eye)

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

At the risk of the (justified) criticism that I haven't ever volunteered to be part of the panel and therefore am not backing up this query with action - what do people think about the eligibility of members of the panel for the awards in the current quarter? This is *not* a personal criticism; it's merely pointing out that in most endeavours of this type, if you're judging it, you can't win it.

(And having said that, I know that the panel members can't vote for their own entries, but that's rather beside the point, no?)

Transparency is a Good Thing.

Back to the question - I think quarterly is fine, I like feather ruffling effect. Again, though, I must say I didn't really like being the subject of ruffled feathers last quarter, when the panel mistook my entry URL of http://www.lucidity.au.com/00/january/13a.html for one that qualified for Q4/1999 ... whoopsie.

I've suspected for some time, however, that there is a confusion in the minds of voters between the concept of "best" and "most" - thus, "most romantic entry", rather than best written, best conceived, best executed. Although show me an award unaffected by popularism and I'll show you the Oscars - no, wait, the Nobel Prize - no, hang on, um, the Booker? The Pulitzer? Damnation.

cheers anna

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

On behalf of the diarist.net awards panel, let me say that stasi is indeed correct. A complete ballot is one that includes your name, e- mail and url. You DO NOT need to vote in every category.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Oh phew, I was worried about that. You know, Jackie (or whoever's in charge of that stuff), you might want to think about slightly rewording the thing that says ballots must be complete, because that's what I thought it meant too.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Thanks Jackie... I still haven't heard back from my insider source for the diarist.net awards.... she must be out with her new baby galavanting around town... LOL! So thanks for clearing that up. I think that would help a lot of people to get partially involved if they knew they could just vote for one or two categories if they so desired.

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Don't quote me on this, but I believe Ryan O. is looking into making that information clearer on the ballots!

-- Anonymous, May 10, 2000

Don't quote me either, but I do believe that Jackie is correct. Ryan has been revamping a couple of things this quarter, and AS USUAL (I sound like a broken record sometimes) this process is always in need of fine-tuning.

Personally, I feel somewhat stuck. Having been in the thick of this process for the past six months, it is very difficult for me to say anything for fear of crossing the confidentiality clause of the Diarist Panel. I'd run back and check the archives every time, to see if such and such was talked about on the panel, but that just seems so very counter-productive, so I usually keep my mouth shut.

However, there are three main things that I like to spout off about the awards (and feel fairly safe in doing so), they are as follows:

1. If you don't think any given panel did a good enough job, PLEASE get involved. It is a Shload(tm) of work, and I think that many of the people that criticize the work done by any given panel would learn a good bit if they joined up one quarter. Or, if they already know everything and are super organized, they'd make an AWESOME chairperson and could keep everyone else in line. (=

2. If you don't like the nominees that come through, please NOMINATE MORE! I don't remember if it was here or on Rob's forum where Jackie mentioned the lack of nominations this quarter. It's true. There were fewer than there have been in the past. Bookmark your nominations, people! Then when the time comes, you can just whip them right out and rest assured that you've done your part. (=

<Rant> 3. Why the hell can't Ryan win the Legacy Awards?! Geezus. He is the most OVERLOOKED person, in my very so humble opinion. He should have won it the very first quarter. This is a call to the future panels of the diarist.net awards. When you see all of those folks that are listed in the Legacy category... please remember why the Legacy Award is even there! Where did these awards come from, for Pete's sake?

</Rant> In regards to the declining of the nominations? All I can say at this point in time is that changes are being made to allow folks the time to decline the nominations.

One last thing: Don't forget the Advisory Group. This is an OPEN list that ANYONE can join to get involved in changes to the awards. Before this quarter took place there were three polls put up regarding changes to the process. Out of 70 people on the list, only 20-something people voted on those changes. Again, GET INVOLVED.

The address for the advisory group is: here.


-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

What Jackie Collins said.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Columbine, I nominated you. I think your design is functional and elegant. There's a lot to be said for simplicity, above and beyond the flashiness of other designs that often detract from navigability, etc.

Wow. I'm little miss convoluted these days.

Anyway, I definitely think people should be allowed to decline the nominations. And I also think its a travesty that Ryan hasn't made it to the finals. Personally, I nominate him every freaking quarter.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

As a (relative) journalling newbie, I was wondering why people without journals can't nominate. My guess is that quite a few of the readers out there don't keep their own journals (probably the majority). They probably just like spending their lunch break reading about other lives, but don't have the desire/time/boldness/ability/whatever to do it themselves.

But non-journallers are people too! They may have better perspective regarding what a good journal is, simply because they don't do it. They can step back and just nominate from a simple "I like this" perspective rather than an "I like this because it's different/better/wittier/more elegant than my journal" perspective (or conversely, the "I DON'T like this because it's...than my journal")

Also, adding new blood to the nominating process could help get rid of (what seems to be) prior complaints about the same old-guard getting nominated, while giving the panel more nominees to choose from.

Any opinions?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I recall there was some discussion somewhere (metajournals?) about having an award that non-journalers could vote on. But I lost interest in the discussion after a while.

I guess I have to admit that I don't really like awards at all, and don't see the point. But of course I still check on who won and complain about it.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

http://www.egroups.com/group/readers-choice

The Readers Choice awards which have long since been dead in the water.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

As an original participant in that list and at the risk of pissing someone off, I would suggest that the Readers' Choice Awards died not because it was a terrible or unworkable idea, but because the person who deemed herself to be in charge of that group took on the work herself, stopped communicating with the group or telling anyone what her plans were, and ultimately just dropped the ball. It was hard to get very excited about it when you didn't hear anything for weeks and then, upon inquiry, were told, "Oh, I thought I'd just do x and y and z and then launch it sometime in February ..." and then never heard another word.

But I agree, it does appear to be dead as a doornail. Sorry about that, readers.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I would like to thank Beth for saying what I should have.

Rachel flaked. Because she is a control freak and overly concerned with being in charge of a project rather than whether or not that project succeeds or makes sense.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I hate to throw water on everyone's Ryan tantrums, but...

Wasn't Ryan actually Ophelia?

Wasn't Ophelia nominated for the VERY FIRST diarist.net legacy award?

He is certainly worthy of an award for the contributions he has made (both as himself and as a fictional character) to the journalling community, but I believe that the current batch of journals are just as worthy. If you think the contributions that Pamie (in bringing people who normally wouldn't seek out journals into our sphere) has made since starting "Squishy" aren't worthwhile, I think you're kidding yourselves.

And by the way, the more times y'all mention that this was a thin, sad, awful, pathetic group of nominees to choose from, the better those of us who were nominated feel about ourselves and our writing. Really. Thanks.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Darnit, I already said what I thought, which is that this quarter's nominees are GREAT. They made me laugh, they made me cry.

Seriously, I never really got into the Diarist Awards much before this quarter, but now I'm glad I did. I think they're a great way to feature good writing, and I do NOT think they're elitist or cliquey or whatever. I found a lot of new journals that I hadn't been reading through the awards, and really I just think that having awards like this are a fantastic idea. It's a way to recognize good writing, and the sites and entries that are nominated right now are definitely examples of good writing.

In my opinion. Of course.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I don't think anyone said "thin" or "awful," Patrick, although various members of the committee have mentioned that nominations were down this quarter. I don't recall journals in general going through a period of suckiness last quarter, so I think it's fair to assume that general apathy may have resulted in some deserving journals and entries not being nominated.

Yes, Pamie has contributed a lot to the community. She continues to do so and is still eligible for other awards. The pioneers in the genre who are no longer keeping journals -- but who may have kept journals for as long as Pamie has, and with just as great or a greater impact on the genre -- are no longer eligible for anything other than a legacy award. I still think it's a mistake to award those folks who are relatively new to the beast while so many old timers have yet to receive any recognition from the Diarist Awards.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

One can ask why Susan Luchi(sp?) didn't win all those times. Of course, she finally did win.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Oh no, Patrick - the disappointment is in the numbers, NOT the quality of those that were left! It's just an obvious problem if the number of journals are increasing but the number of available nominations go down. That's a problem with the awards (or wider support for the awards), NOT a problem about those nominated.

I know it'd be more work if there were more nominations... but that's fine by me, if the end result is a matter of it being a very strong, tough decision between finalists that are outstanding. I want so much for these awards to be a real reflection of variety that composes the journaling world - to do that, it needs a large sample- space.

I assure you there was no half-heartedness from anyone selecting these nominees.

Oh... and to clarify, Anna, in the case of categories where someone on the panel turns out to be a nominee, that panelist abstains from that entire category - it's more than simply not voting for oneself. That was one of those things that was voted on in the forum referenced earlier, following the last quarter.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

i know the thread is morphing, but I do love the idea of an online journal history. Egads...it's enough to make me want to contribute! But what I'm wondering is whether the 'big guns' like Maggie Donea will be noted for their contributions. It seems that there still seems to be a wide divide amongst them and those of the open pages ilk (even though i believe she was or is still listed with OP), at least in regards to how they were able to intially gain media attention. Or is that like too ancient history to even bring up?

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

The online journal history thing certainly seems like an interesting idea, but I have to admit I start laughing when people start talking about the "pioneers." It's not like these people had to cross the stormy seas in a sailing ship and then tame the jungles. Sheesh!

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

And by the way, the more times y'all mention that this was a thin, sad, awful, pathetic group of nominees to choose from, the better those of us who were nominated feel about ourselves and our writing. Really. Thanks.

Well, not to be contentious, but as one of the nominated, I must say that if my feelings were so fragile that I couldn't face that sort of criticism, then I'd have to seriously re-evaluate my reasons for writing online in the first place.

I'm glad I was nominated, it's an honor. I'd like for it to remain an honor, and to be quite frank, the quality of the nominated material has got to remain much higher than is represnted in this round's selections.

I said it on the similar discussion going on in my forum, but I'll repeat it here. If recognizing new writers with talent means that I don't get nominated, well, too bad for me, but good for the journal community (whatever that is) and also for the awards themselves.

Sorry, but in my opinion, this round had some stinkers, and that's that. And as the people responsible for the nominations, we have no one to blame but ourselves...

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Rob, I am curious...if you are so hellfired up about some of the nominees stinking, and so clear about that fact, just which nominees did and didn't belong on the finalists lists?

Dont be shy. You have already insulted all of them by saying that so at least let some of them off the hook.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Because I wasn't trying to stir up shit, Jan, but was rather making a point. Being one of the nominees, I guess I can forgive myself for my insulting tone.

Settle down, have a ritalin milkshake, and stop looking for a fight.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Why is it such a forbidden act to criticise another journal's writing? It's a personal thing, insofar as the critic is saying they don't particularly care for your work, or think that it's the best the genre has to offer. As long as the critic isn't taking digs at you as a person -- anything unrelated to your work -- then you should just suck it up and take it. Anyone who puts their work up for public consumption is going to have to face the fact that not everyone who reads it is going to think you're all that good. That's just the way it goes, and if you're happy to accept the kudos and all the nice things people say about your work, then with that will surely come some negative opinions.

I'm not trying to speak for Rob in any way, but it's really annoying how journallers can be so precious about what they do and what people have to say about it. If you assume that someone's talking about your work when they say that the nominees this quarter aren't all to a high standard, then you might want to ask yourself why you make such an assumption.

And write an entry about it, so all your online friends will send you email confirming your wish/opinion that you rock and everyone else sucks. It works for some.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Gee, Rob, I wasn't trying for a fight.

you said this "I'd like for it to remain an honor, and to be quite frank, the quality of the nominated material has got to remain much higher than is represnted in this round's selections."

I was just wondering if you had the balls to back up that sort of statement and actually tell us which of those you didn't feel were worthy of sharing the spotlight with *you*.

C'mon - who isn't worthy? Tell us or take it back but dont play the 'some of you arent worthy but I wont say who' game since most of us gave up that sort of passive agressive backhanded insulting back in high school.

If you make the statement,be prepared to back it up, or retract it. Like a man.

Did you see this. http://baylissfan.simplenet.com/051100.html Read the last paragraph.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

As I said in Rob's forum, the only way to have a bigger pool of nominations to pick from is for more people to nominate. And it makes sense that the same journals may show up a lot--the repeating journals are for the most part journals with larger readerships. More readers=more chances to be nominated, frankly. No, that doesn't mean I'm saying that the higher readership journals are only nominated because lots of people read them...before anyone decides to get oversensitive.

When I nominated this time around, though, I bookmarked entries the entire quarter so I'd remember them. And when I had to narrow down (I had eight dramatic entries bookmarked!) and I liked them both equally, I went with the lesser known journal. I was surprised when some of my noms didn't make it to the final round, but that's the way it works, you know?

There are new faces this time 'round, though, which *is* cool, so it looks like maybe some people did the same thing I did. But damn it, I really don't need new journals to read, and now I'm hooked on three more. When am I supposed to work?

And not a damn thing anyone says about the small pool of nominations will make me feel less honored for the one I received (which is my first) or doubt its quality (which I was pleased with), especially since it's for an entry that's very, very important to me.

Melissa Plannin g A Sky

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I'm sure I'm just rehashing what's been said about the awards already, but I've got some ideas for how to improve them. (Thanks for the link to the advisory board...) These ideas are all my opinion!

They come too often. It's too hard to find new journals to nominate each quarter. I just don't read enough to seek out new ones. Plus, I don't have the time to read through all 20-some nominated sites to evaluate their writing, design, etc etc.

However, the entry category is just about right with regard to frequency. Some journals have super-excellent entries once a WEEK, let alone once a quarter.

My recommendation: Keep doing quarterly entry awards. Make the site awards yearly. Give nominees the chance to back out. Allow for a longer voting and nomination period. (This last nomination round flew by so fast I never got a chance to pick out anything to nominate!)

There's more brewing in my devious little brain, but I have to organize it into something meaningful.

she's actual size

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Jan, does it take balls to INTENTIONALLY hurt people's feelings? That wasn't my intent, which is why I didn't say WHO I thought was worthy or whatever. Jesus, who's playing stupid junior high games now? My point was about overall quality of the nominations, not some stupid pissing contest. Anyone who wants to hear my specific thoughts on this is more than welcome to write to me.

Balls? Cute. You are no doubt a class act. Anyone wanting any further followup to this from me should probably go to email...

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Rob, you are the class act. I love that you dont consider many of the nominees to be as good as you are. How thrilled they must be to share a ballot with the allfuckingmighty you. You of course deserve your nomination according to you and all the rest of those poor schmucks are just lucky to bask in your reflected glory according to your statements.

Did it occur to you that all your comments did was insult every single nominee? How are they supposed to know if you are including or excluding them? So according to your statements naming names would be insulting? Better to just insult everyone I guess. I say it is childish in the extreme to say something so inflammatory and cruel and then pretend that kindness of all things is keeping you from being honest.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

I wasn't going to say anything, except crying in my journal (since, you know, the journal is for crying) because I'm not looking for sympathy, or a fight, or controversy or. . . well you name it. However, since I did say something in the journal, and it has been mentioned here, I figured I should elaborate.

I was surprised to be nominated, and thrilled, but when I wrote that entry, the last thing on my mind was awards. That entry was the first time I ever told the entire truth about what happened the day my brother died. I needed to say it, and I started the journal for that express purpose- to say the things I finally needed to say out loud.

I know that publishing in a public forum obviously opens me to criticism, and had people critiqued the writing, I still would have been hurt, but then I could have at least had the luxury knowing what they didn't like about it. Where I failed as a writer, for that reader. What was wrong with the form, the style, was there something specific that didn't make it work? General allusions to "not dramatic enough" or "not good enough" don't help me toward that goal.

Maybe I seem a little oversensitive, but in my defense, I do rejection for a living. I get that and live with that every single day as a working writer. Notes on scripts, rewrites, agents who aren't taking new clients/ don't represent this kind of material/ have too many projects at this time, directors who want to change the vision, editors who want to change the thrust, it's irritating, but I deal with it. Probably much better than this, because I thrust myself in these people's faces and beg them to do it to me.

That said, I still feel honored to have been nominated, and I'm utterly grateful to the people who thought that what I wrote was worthwhile. However, just as it's the right for anyone to say anything they like about the process, I also think I do have the right to feel a little hurt at generalized comments intimating that the people in the nominee pool don't deserve to be there.

-- Anonymous, May 11, 2000

Janice, when did Rob say that not all of the nominees deserved to be in there with him? You're the only one I've heard who's brought Rob's worthiness as a writer into the discussion. He said himself that if him not getting a nomination meant that other writers who deserved one got a look in, he was all for that. Why are you trying to turn this into a case of Rob not thinking the other nominees worthy of being nominated with him? You seem pretty hellbent on making that the accepted view, but it's baloney.

As for it hurting when someone says that the overall crop of nominees contained some entries which weren't very good, I seriously wonder if non-web writers get as worked up about this kind of thing as journallers seem to do. I hope no one ever dares to suggest that all of the nominees for the Pulitzer or the Nobel Prize for Literature aren't all 100% deserving, but I'm pretty sure someone already has. And, to be quite frank, this ain't the Nobel Prize for Literature. It's the Diarist Awards. If the fact that someone believes that not all of the nominees are deserving keeps you tossing and turning at night, then you have my deepest sympathies. But I still think you'll get over it.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Actually, he said it here, when he said the quality of the nominated journals this quarter wasn't very good. Either he was referring to himself (doubtful) or he was referring to everyone else not being good enough.

He also stated it on his site. Direct quote: "I think that perhaps I'm going to piss some of you off a little here, but I just have to get this off my chest. No doubt there are some very fine journals represented in the nominations, but quite frankly there are some that were nominated that simply aren't very good. There's at least one that makes me shake my head in wonder, particularly as it is one that many of my friends read and gush about. I read it and want to open a vein."

Direct quote. I think he is saying the others aren't as good as his because he isn't including himself or his nomination in there with the ones that make him want to open a vein they suck so much, is he?

That whole 'I deserve this award, but the rest of you dont' attitude is appalling. Not a very gracious finalist is he?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

I'll play devil's advocate and almost be on Rob's side here... I was one of the folks who said that overall this quarter wasn't as funny *including my own entry*, wasn't as dramatic... etc... I don't think it has anything to do with the actual journallers (I think Patrick is an outstanding writer and nominated him several times in the past few quarters) as much as ... I don't know... the material written wasn't stand-out-in-my mind like some things of past quarters have been. I can still remember Pamie's cat dying entry, and Toni's "that wasn't you in there" entries like I just read them yesterday... not that any journaller nominated isn't good this time, there was just nothing that I read this time that really got to me like entries have in the past. With the exception of the entry about the woman watching her grandfather die. That one got to me personally. Anyway, that's all I meant, Patrick, I didn't mean that you personally suck or anything (well, I might have said that you suck in someone else's forum, but that was just because the thread asked for controversy. Name calling is my kind of controversy. hah). I still have your winning dramatic entry of last quarter fresh in my mind like I read it yesterday.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Janice, I could push the straws a little closer to you, but I still don't think you could grasp them. Give it up, give it a rest, and stop trying to twist people's words to find a meaning that just isn't there. If someone chooses to be hurt at something that may not even be directed at them, then that's their choice. It's hardly the fault of the person who's being quite considerate in trying to protect the feelings of certain people.

The glass is half full, the sky isn't falling and Rob wasn't talking about you. Just keep repeating that, and y'all will be fine.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Direct quote. I think he is saying the others aren't as good as his because he isn't including himself or his nomination in there with the ones that make him want to open a vein they suck so much, is he?

No matter how many times you say it, or how many times you try to assert that it's so, you simply are not going to be able to take my words and turn them into what you want them to say. I did include myself in that by saying that I'd be happy if better material than mine by new writers was nominated. You didn't choose to quote that part, I noticed.

When you get the opportunity, would you please take a peek out the window and tell us what color the sky is in your world?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Just to play devil's advocate in a totally different direction, I think some of the entry finalists are pretty damn good this time. I think Saundra's entry is just fantastic, one of the best journal entries I've read. (And I'm pretty sure I nominated it, too.) I thought the other two in that category were really exceptional, as well. I think the outstanding entry finalists are all great; any one of those could win and I wouldn't think anyone got cheated. The humor entries were all ones that I actually remembered reading the first time around, which is unusual. There was actually a romantic entry this time that grabbed me; usually those do nothing for me. Same for the guest entries; I usually think that's a total throwaway category, but there's a standout there, as well. The best rant/public news event didn't really stick with me, but that doesn't mean they weren't good.

In fact, I think last quarter was pretty thin by comparison. I think this is a good round, at least as far as the entry finalists go. And come to think of it, the site finalists are pretty damn good, too. Obviously other folks have different opinions; that's why we vote.

However ... I still don't like the categories. I don't think journals, by nature, lend themselves to the type of categorization required by these awards. While I think the finalists I've indicated were really, really good, I think the vast majority of excellent jouranl entries can't be categorized, and the three slots under "outstanding" aren't enough to showcase them.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

It seems Rob's apple-polishers, bootlickers, and brownosers are out in force. What is with these apologists and sycophants?

- Rob himself said he had an "insulting tone."

- I think we can rest assured when he said, "this round had some stinkers," he wasn't referring to himself.

- He also said, "for it to remain an honor ... the quality of the nominated material has got to remain much higher than is represented in this round's selections."

Do you really think Rob thinks his making finalist tarnishes the honor of the awards? Give me a break. This is the very guy who was outraged to be overlooked in the past.

Janice was right on the money. Rob has laid it out for us, plain and simple. His comments clearly imply that some of the finalists do not deserve to stand alongside his majesty.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Actually Rob, what you said on this forum is this: 'If recognizing new writers with talent means that I don't get nominated, well, too bad for me, but good for the journal community (whatever that is) and also for the awards themselves.'

Nothing about better material in that quote. just about how you wouldn't be upset if you didn't get nominated. We all remember how 'not upset' you were before when you werent nominated and the community 'recognized new writers with talent' dont we? And everything else you have said is about how the other nominations stink. I suppose I am just confused: first the award suck because you aren't nominated, then in another quarter when you are nominated you comment that they suck because the other nominees stink. Meanwhile all the other nominees get to know that you have passed this judgement on them and they have come up wanting.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

'Rob's apple-polishers, bootlickers, and brownosers [sic]'? I guess you told ME, Dave! Er, not. I happen to agree with Rob on the quality of this quarter's entries, but who's to say that the entries he thinks are shit are the ones I think are shit? I've stated that opinion elsewhere. By observing that Janice was trying to twist Rob's words to fit her erroneous, self-serving interpretation, I was merely pointing out what was obvious to me. You may choose to disagree with my opinion -- and indeed you have -- but please refrain from the tired cries against Rob's popularity and references to 'his majesty'. They only serve to make you look like a jealous malcontent, and certainly lend no credence to your attempts to further misrepresent Rob's words.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

I just can't sit on my hands anymore. Rob sez he said this 'I did include myself in that by saying that I'd be happy if better material than mine by new writers was nominated. You didn't choose to quote that part, I noticed. '

but he didnt. he said this 'If recognizing new writers with talent means that I don't get nominated, well, too bad for me, but good for the journal community (whatever that is) and also for the awards themselves.'

Nothing about better material than his own in that sentence. This just sez no one else with any talent was nominated, and nothing about including himself -- except to say that for the good of the community he would step aside if someone talented actually was nominated. Which apperantly they were not because he went on to say that there were lots of stinky entries that shouldnt have been there. It also doesn't say much for the other 2 people nominated with him. I don't know where any of the nominees get off announcing that any of the other nominees stink and shouldnt have made it to finalist. Even though I am not eligable to vote that still just burns me big time. But it is just past midnight and a school night so i should stop worrying about this right?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Jackie, I don't care much about what Rob said one way or the other. I do find claims that he was "sparing feelings," or whatever, to be laughable. This could have been handled with tact, but then that doesn't get you talked about, does it? I wonder how many new subscribers he gets this time?

I do know what he said, and if you're claiming he didn't, then you must be blinded by something.

Are you denying Rob's high opinion of himself? He's made it pretty clear in the past he regards himself as award worthy. He has also stated the award's honor is being eroded by the inclusion of the "stinkers."

How can any reasonable person not infer what Janice did?

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

By engaging their brain and looking past their own past, petty grievances with Rob, I'd imagine...

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Janice had a past, petty grievance with Rob? Please fill me in.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Who said I was referring to Janice? Again, your interpretation of the words of others isn't necessarily accurate. In fact, it's dead wrong. But don't let that stop you from thinking you know of what you speak.

And the bit where you accused Rob of shit-stirring to attract hits? Very funny, but only because it's you saying it.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

It seems Rob's apple-polishers, bootlickers, and brownosers are out in force. What is with these apologists and sycophants?

It always cracks me up when people use this kind of shit to deride anybody who agrees with somebody they don't like. Because, of course we must all be crazy to prefer Rob to you, Dave. Yeah, that's it.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

And for the record, since I laughed at a certain Romantic entry, this is the one I had the power - Pamie talking about Eric.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Damn - that made no sense - I meant 'this is the one I would have nominated if I had the power.

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

You guys are hilarious. Ignoring the awards for one moment, is there one single person here taking issue with Rob's belief that his journal is better than some other journals who doesn't believe the same about their own?

Hell, yea, mine is better than some other journals - if I thought it was the worst journal out there, I wouldn't be doing it.

Dave... you really truly don't want to be chastizing Rob for having stumped for nominations and suggesting that not all nominees are as good as he'd have liked - you've done the same. You've both irritated the piss out of me in the past doing that when I wanted to nominate you, because I hate thinking you'll think that's the only reason I did.

Everyone who votes is judging one journal or entry better than another - choosing who they think is best.

One person = one opinion. This isn't radical, people. Are you just finding something to go off about because you're bored? Please, find something more sensible than 'how dare he suggest that not all journals are the same, and that his doesn't suck in his own opinion!'

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Y'know what I hate about the Diarist Awards?

Stuff like this.

And it happens every time, every single quarter. That's what happens when you get a bunch of exhibitionist writers together...

Look, Rob has a perfect right to his opinion. Is Beth's comment that "I think last quarter was pretty thin by comparison" a put-down to the LAST quarter's nominees? Does she have to enumerate and name which ones were the "thinnest"? Only to the hyper-sensitive. By the same token, Rob has a right to his opinion, and he doesn't have to elaborate any further.

I myself was pleased at the broader range of journals nominated this time...

At the same time feeling guilty, because (mea culpa) I didn't nominate anybody this time. I kept on putting it off.

Al of NOVA NOTES

-- Anonymous, May 12, 2000

Patrick said:
"If you think that the rules should be changed, so that entry finalists can only be nominated once a year in any entry category, that's certainly worth exploring. As it stands, you can only be nominated once per year in a particular entry category."

If I'm reading you correctly, I'm not so sure that I agree. I know that you are ineligible for any award one year after you've WON it, but I don't think there is a restriction placed on the number of times you can be nominated (someone already mentioned it, but Susan Lucci anyone?=).

I searched every section over there at Ye Olde Diarist.net and the closest I could come to guidelines for Nomination restrictions was this:

After the panelists are in place, the open nominations phase (two weeks) begins. The only restrictions on nominating a site or entry are:

1.Nominees for "Best New Journal" must have started no earlier than the start of the preceding award cycle (or January 1, 2000 for Second-Quarter 2000).

2.Those submitting nominations must include a valid URL for their own web journal (which will be subject to random spot checks by the panel).

3.No self-nominations are accepted.

4.Duplicate or organized mass nominations may be disqualified.

Now, perhaps there's something on the nomination form in regards to ineligibility and restrictions and what not, but, of course, we can't access the nomination form right now. I'll email RyanO and ask him about limited nominations, but I'm fairly sure that there is no such restriction. (Patrick, If I've completely misunderstood what you were saying, I do apologize.)

Interestingly enough, I did find this paragraph on the main page of the awards section, and I felt it could stand to be repeated:

This award program hopes to strike a compromise between the "editors' choice" and "popular vote" models, and will certainly be adapted and improved with each round. (Emphasis added by me.)

Oh yeah, and one last thing:

Dave: I certainly wouldn't be the type to try to burst your bubble over your nomination. However, I will echo what I read someone else said elsewhere (And I don't remember who it was, it was NOT Rob, so don't ask me to point fingers, dammit. =) when they said that they found the nomination funny simply because of the way you have spoken about your wife in the past. I have to agree with that sentiment. However, take that with a grain of salt, as I know that I was in competition with you for the finalist slot. Minutes after this entry went live, stasi informed me that she would be nominating it for Best Romantic, so of course I'm going to have sour grapes that you beat me out, again, especially in light of how you've spoken about your wife in the past.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

Jolene --

Nope, I was just plain wrong in my assumptions. I thought it was one nomination per year per category, which was just wrong, wrong, wrong. I've been nominating under a mistaken impression all this time.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

What Gabby said. And Jolene. And Cory.

Aren't awards by their very nature competitive, exclusionary, arbitrary, unfair?

And, IMO, mostly a waste of time. I don't plan to vote...though the Romantic category might be worth checking out.

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

Y'know, at the risk of flamage, I'm just gonna say. . . this has gotten kinda stupid. I mean seriously. Yeah, a couple of people said stuff that hurt people's feelings, and the hurty feelings people said their feelings were hurt, so why the rot is all this turning into a waging war battle?? It's stupid, it's really stupid.

Here's the equation: everybody gets to talk! The people who are displeased get to say they're displeased. The people who are hurt, get to say they're hurt. Why is this turning into a character assassination with people on either side being beaten into the ground for *gasp* speaking their mind in an arena that's all about speaking one's mind!?

Of course, it's everybody's right to turn it into a huge, leave nothing standing battle, too. I reckon it wouldn't escalate if we weren't getting something out of it. But I'd like to say, publically, that even though I was one of the people whose widdle fewwings wuz hurt, I'm not mad at any of the people who said they thought the nominees were thin this time around. I never wanted them to shut up, I don't ever want anyone to feel they have to shut up. I think it's incredibly unfair to the people who end up being the "figureheads" if you will, in this mess, to force them to stand in a position as opposing generals.

I dig Patrick, he's a wonderful friend to me. I dig Rob, he was the first journaller to ever write to me and encourage me when I was starting out. I dig the fact that we can all say what we want. I don't dig the bloodshed. If that that makes me a pussy, then so be it.

And of course, if I hurt anyone's feelings by calling the war stupid, please feel free to pick sides and get down and dirty. I think I'm pretty stupid for saying anything about it in my journal at all now, because I was not looking for defenders or whatnot. I just wanted to vent.

So who wants to fight over whether blogs or journals reign supreme?

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

I can't believe I forgot all about this (god, I hope that link works.) That's Ryan's way around the "no self-nominations" thing.

In theory: You go there, pimp yourself, someone else reads it, is STUNNED, I mean absolutely STUNNED by your brilliance and rushes off to nominate you for a much-deserved and long overdue award!

Get ta pimpin'!

-- Anonymous, May 13, 2000

It's kinda funny you know.

I'm reading all of this. Laughing at the bickering that is going on, also not caring because I know one thing.

Even though I'm nominated I'm probably going to lose hehehe.

I was nominated for Best Guest Entry, again. First time I was nominated for this I was up against Iko and no one else. When that was done it made me feel like "Well, I guess they had to give the illusion of compitition anyway."

Though I have to hand it to her partner, it was a REALLY good entry and was better then the guest entry.

This quarter, I'm against two entries. After reading both entries I thought, "Wow! I'm going to get creamed! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"

In other words, I didn't care.

Sure it is nice to get nominated. It's even nice to win, but my life doesn't swing in the balance of it.

Also, I might point out, the person that wrote the guest entry didn't believe it until she saw it herself and had the same reaction I did :).

Have fun!

Corvin Carlton

Bad Porno Music http://www.purplegoat.com/bpm/

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

*lol*

Corvin, when I read your nominated entry, I thought exactly the same thing. "Sheesh, my fianci's entry is gonna get creamed." ;)

Anyway, regarding the rest of the spouting and flaming here and elsewhere about the awards:

I have an overwhelming urge to jump up and down, stick out my tongue, and shout "Neener neener neener!" at the top of my lungs, since that would be 100 times more mature than what these other "adults" are doing.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Ooh, Atara! PUTDOWN! You totally busted them!

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

Dave Van wrote:-

I should also remind you people who are all about the writing that the entry awards are for best entries, not for best writing. I think a lot of people forget that. This isn't a writing contest.

I may have got something wrong here but - what is a "best entry" award for if it's not for the writing? Best Font Choice? Best Use of Embedded Midi-Files?? Best Veiled Invective in a Rural Setting?

"Best Romantic Entry" doesn't mean "Entry with the Most Romantic Content" - it should mean the best written entry on a romantic theme. Ditto Dramatic, comedic, and the rest. The site awards are for such things as design, multimedia, and so on, and reflect issues other than the quality of the writing.

If it's "not all about the writing", bugger me as to what it is.

cheers Anna

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2000

It's about the message.

In the "Best Comedic Entry" category, for example, I always vote for whichever one makes me laugh the most. The prettiness of the prose doesn't mean a whole lot.

I could well imagine an entry comprised entirely of pictures being an example of the best in any of the categories... with no writing at all.

It's the message, Anna.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Beth, I suppose the whole idea of this forum is to share opinions, to help you (or others) with some random question or real-life problem. And that's why I enjoy it, normally. If I wanted to read Rob, Dave, Patrick Jolene or any other journaller's whining/complaining/opinion I'd visit their sites...and I used to but now I won't. Just cut them off.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

What Lynda, and Gabby, and Beth said.

I also don't understand the difference between "best entry" and "best writing." If the writing isn't good, the message isn't going to get across. An entry is funny or whatever because of the writing. There isn't anything else.

I think these awards have the same problem most awards do: confusion between liking something or someone and judging quality. You might adore your best friend but think their journal is embarassingly badly written. Or admire a journal but personally detest its creator.

I don't think every nominee and voter does this, but it has to be a factor, dont' you think?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

As a relative newbie to the journalling world (#395 in Open Pages), and as someone who has never posted on this forum before, I was rather reluctant to wade into this particular fray. But as I sit here, and read all of the name calling, and insult hurling, I can't resist throwing in my own two cents. (I never have been one to keep my mouth shut. I suppose that's what I started journalling in the first place.)

I just wanted to say that I am a big fan of the diarist awards. I have never been nominated. I have never nominated anyone. This is the first quarter I have ever bothered to vote, but I like them anyway. I have found great journals through the diarist awards. I have looked at journals for the first time that I have seen on many people's "Journals I Read" lists, and found that I liked them. I didn't find this round to be any different in quality than any other round. There are hits and misses in every award process.

Now, about all the insults and name calling. This is all ridiculous. I read some of your journals-- you are adults. It's not the end of the world who gets nominated, and who doesn't get nominated. The earth will continue to spin on its axis, birds will continue to sing, and rivers will continue to run. This... dividing yourselves up into lines of battle of words, and flinging insults at each other is quite possibly the most childish display I've seen on a public forum from people over the age of 12 in a very long time. Constructive critisism is one thing -- put downs and insult wars are something else entirely.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Lissa, I appreciate the sentiment, but it's just obnoxious to scold people who are quite happily engaging in verbal battle. If we didn't want to do it, we wouldn't be doing it, capiche?

Yeah, we're adults. Thus, we've made our choices as to how to participate in this particular discussion.

You're new to all of this, so this is a get out of jail free card. There's a culture here that you clearly are not familiar with.

I think I can safely say that we're all fine and nobody is at home crying on their pillows.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

(oops, subject verb agreement heh)

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

Exactly. Stephen King has many, many best sellers, yet the English majors are constantly harping on his "wretched prose," and even calling his work 'crap' or 'unreadable'. That's the difference. It might be crap to them, but we common folk can still enjoy it, no?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

The English majors dislike Stephen King because he's popular, in my opinion. I mean, OK, maybe it's not great literature, but it's not wretched prose, either. There's a reason the guy sells so many books.

As for the Diarist Awards, I would simply like to point out to Gabby that it's possible, and indeed desirable, to engage in so-called "adult discourse" without resorting to using the unbelievably condescending language that she used towards Lissa. The idea that if you don't follow the rules of this "culture" (whatever the hell that means) your opinion won't be respected, or even listened to, is personally nauseating.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

I am curious, indeed, that the definitions of the words "respect" and "listen" have apparently changed while I went down to get some coffee.

Had I not 'listened' to Lissa's post, I would have been unable to respond to it. It was, rather, the fact that I heard its message loud and clear that allowed me to craft a response in the first place.

Listening, please understand, is not synonymous with blind agreement.

As for respect, the definition of which - of late - seems to be that unless you agree with the author of any given piece and do not question the author in any way, you are mean, bad, naughty, evil and all things reproachable.

Hogwash, my friends. Hogwash.

It is, of course, this very wishy-washy, please don't hurt my feelings because I am a delicate flower whose opinions couldn't stand the power of a mild breeze, attitude which lies at the heart of the debate above: namely, that unless you are willing to sing the equal praises of every journal in journal-kind, you are mean, nasty, evil and all things reproachable.

Again I say: Hogwash, my friends. Hogwash.

If someone shares their opinion with you - be it negative, positive or somewhere inbetween - without coating it in six layers of carefully sifted sugar and padded with 'this is just my opinion' backpedaling, they are paying you a compliment. That compliment being that you are obviously smart enough and thoughtful enough to get it. That you don't need to be coddled and handled like a precious objet d'art that might explode if it's even looked at wrong.

If you're desirous of these awards and yet this very simple concept escapes you - well, then, bon chance.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

I would agree with you, Dave, if the award were "Funniest Entry". But it's not. I think the one, unjudgeable thing about a journal is the content. I don't lead a significantly dramatic life, but that's no reason why an entry of mine cannot be dramatic, and why? because it's all about the writing.

And I get so bored with the "nasty picky English majors hate Stephen King" argument. "Good" writing is not necessarily inaccessible, "pretty", or dense. It's *good*. There are some significantly good, popular authors; there are some incredibly pretentious overwrought writers out there. Just because someone sells a squillion copies does not mean his/her writing is good. Just because they are good writers doesn't change because they sell a squillion copies.

There's a lowest common denominator which sees polysyllaby and an attention sentence structure as a negative when it comes to readability, more's the pity.

cheers

Anna

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

ugh - glass houses - "an attention *to* sentence structure".

this type-in-a-box thingie gets me every time

cheers a

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2000

There's a culture here that you clearly are not familiar with.

If that response is an example of the 'culture' here then I officially disassociate myself from it. Gee Gabby, patronise much?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

patronize: to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly (from m-w.com)

Neither of which I did. What I did do was inform Lissa that her scolding of all of us was uncalled for - that she obviously misunderstood how discussions flow and have flowed on these boards - e.g., the bitchslapping which, by virtue of everyone sticking around still, no one seems to mind too much - which is the culture to which I referred. Which was contextually appropriate given her own admission that she is a newbie.

Wow. That was really hard to understand, huh?

(Just in case you're confused, the above statement would fit under a definition of patronizing.)

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Apparently it's only OK to "scold others who are engaged in verbal battle" if you're the scolder and not the scoldee, huh, Gabby?

And please, don't feel the need to scamper off to m-w and give me a definition of "verbal," "battle," or "scold." If I wanted to engage on that level of discourse, I'd go hang out on Usenet.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

No, Gabby, what's really hard to understand is why you feel that 'bitchslapping' is such a fundamental part of contributing here, when most of us tend to avoid it and just talk about stuff.

Bitchslapping = points scoring = boring and too much hard work.

Sure, I could correct everybody whenever they said something I didn't like, or I could ignore them. 99.9% of the time, I ignore the dreck and just read the interesting posts. And those correcting others are never ever interesting.

Oh - and quoting a dictionary definition usually does little to convince people that you know what you're talking about - instead it tends to make others think you're pretty insecure in your argument and grasping at straws. The generally accepted meaning of 'patronise' in my world is 'treat others like they're complete idiots and talk to them like they're children', and in my opinion that pretty much summed up your post earlier on.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Here, Here. I've read Gabby's journal. Once. I stopped because of the mind-shattering condescension on every page. Honey, why don't we all bow down to you now, since you live on the West Coast and know everything us poor schmucks on the East Coast do not. Ergh. I had hoped the tone of the journal was not true to life, however, from the way you've behaved on this forum it's clear to me that your journal does in fact express your personality.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Uh, you must not have read much of Gabby's journal, because she lives in Chicago. As far as I know she's never lived on the West Coast.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Actually, a big NOT here here from me!

That was a bad-tempered post I made before. I could make up all sorts of excuses (over-tiredness, career problems, exams looming), but the basic reason is my tendency to be a grumpy cow at times.

Gabby, I have enjoyed virtually every post of yours I've ever read, so it was unfair of me to come down on you like a ton of bricks because I'd read something I didn't like.

As I said, I really don't like bickering in forums (or anywhere else), so please accept my apologies.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Cory, of course an ESL student can write a compelling, interesting, spellingbinding story. My point was that there is a continuing criticism in this forum of "good" writing (correct grammar, spelling, complexity) which is to the effect that "if an english major likes it then it can't be interesting therefore it's bad" - or, perhaps, "if it's not like Stephen King, it can't be good".

cheers anna

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Let's dispel some common myths about English majors:

1. We do not study grammar, sentence structure or punctuation as part of our course. The major - not to mention the university - assumes that one has sorted this all out in the lower grades.

2. English majors tend to be very picky about what they consider good writing - and if you ever find two of them who agree on a single standard, I would faint.

3. I, for one, like some of Stephen King's novels - particularly the Dark Tower series and IT - the rest I find lacking because they are poorly paced and structured. It might be an interesting story, but damn, he's getting to it the entirely wrong way.

4. While we may not agree on what constitutes good writing, we can sure as hell spot stuff that sucks from 60 paces. This is because we have spent upwards of 3 or more years being forced to read and analyze and write and explicate about literature until our brains went numb.

5. Generally speaking, bad writing exists because people lack experience in any sort of writing and even because they have too much experience in writing - particularly academic writing.

6. If anything, English majors above anyone else have the most hurdles to overcome in terms of writing effectively and entertainingly for an audience. We have learned to write for experts and theorists and to write for a grade.

7. That said, poor grammar and style and structure should make everyone cringe - not just those with a B.A., English after their names.

8. Writing well is something that can, with investment of time and effort, belong to everyone.

9. It is now time for "Buffy".

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Since Dave was quoting my assessment of Stephen King's "wretched prose," I suppose I'd better clarify: I don't hate Stephen King because he uses bad grammar. He has an editor to make sure his grammar is fine (and for all I know, his grammar is already fine when it gets to the editor).

I hate Stephen King because his prose is boring and stilted, because his characters don't talk like actual human beings even though I'm pretty sure they're supposed to, and because his character insight and development (especially in regard to his female characters) is somewhere around the level of a horny adolescent. He sometimes has a pretty good story -- IT comes to mind -- but he seems to be unable to follow through, and he uses his hokey and very rarely scary supernatural bullshit to get himself out of sticky plot situations.

I think he's a hack and that about 10 percent of his work is actually entertaining. I think Susan Isaacs is also something of a hack, but about 80 percent of her work is entertaining. Obviously, I'm not such a snob that I can't appreciate a good trashy novel now and then; I just think Stephen King writes wretched trashy novels. So there.

[Speaking of wretched prose ... this post has been edited for grammar.]

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Hmm. That thing that Beth wrote about "horny adolescents" made me realize that the last time I read a Stephen King book was when I was, uh, a horny adolescent.

I read "IT" when I was like 10 or 11, maybe, and I remember thinking it was REALLY good. Then I read a bunch of King's other stuff, which varied in quality, but I still liked most of it. But wow, was I ever young then. I haven't reread any of his stuff for quite some time; maybe it wouldn't hold up so well now.

Then again, maybe Beth and I just have wildly varying taste in trashy novels.

At no time during this entire thread, by the way, did I intend to insult English majors.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Oh, I'll insult English majors for you, even though I was one -- no one can ruin a perfectly good story like an English major. I just don't think King writes perfectly good stories.

And to be fair, I loved King when I was a teenager. I thought IT was just the greatest thing ever, although even then I thought the ending sucked and that the big Evil was a total let down. I loved Salem's Lot and Cujo and especially The Dead Zone.

But then I hit Tommyknockers when I was about 18, and I couldn't get any further. I've picked up lots of his newer stuff in airports, etc., and I just can't read it. It's too awful. I barely slogged my way through The Green Mile because so many people loved it, but I hated it.

I tried rereading some of the stuff I used to love, on the off chance that it was King who had slipped, but I was horribly disappointed. I still think IT had potential (if he had written "The Body" with the same attention to character and the same prose, it would have been a really excellent little short story), but the others made me cringe.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

Is the 'good writing' being talked about here really the mechanics of spelling and grammar? If so, then I can understand how people are separating 'best writing' from 'best entry'.

But I don't think that those things are what makes something well written - although they are among the tools that go into something well written. But they don't make a good piece anymore than a pile of wood and nails and a hammer make something a house.

Good writing is in the construction, not the tools - which is why something written in a colloquial style can be as compelling a piece as something written in a very formal style (and why an illiterate person can still be a great storyteller). Other tools include a sense of rythmn and imagery and the ability to move the story and the audience along to a satisfying conclusion.

But every good writer uses those tools in their own unique way, and its that individual spark they bring into it that makes it something GOOD, and why it's impossible to point to one writer and say 'that's the formula for good' and another and say 'that's the formula for not good'...

And its why sometimes a person can have something to tell that is inherently interesting, flawless grammar and spelling, and still not be able to construct it into a piece of good writing.

(And if I dare actually take this back to the awards, it is why I like so much when a 'quieter' event turns up in, for example "Most Dramatic" - because in those cases the drama is in the writing, not so much in the writer's life. I always feel a little odd voting for someone's life events, esp when they are unpleasant ones.)

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2000

A magic show loses its magic,
once one discovers the magician's secrets.

I've taken university english and had mixed feelings about it. I loved the literature, but the analysis part sucked. It was like lying on the grass and staring at the passing clouds and having the following converstaion. Professor: What do you see?
Me: It looks like Abraham Lincoln.
Professor: Bzzt! It's Bozo the Clown. Grade: C-
Me: Grrr.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Well, let's see...

Beth, I disagree with you about later King. I feel he's gotten better (or at least different), and continues to at least try to improve. In fact, I wouldn't have much use for him if he was still writing "Cujo" type novels. "Bag of Bones" was an exceptional novel and "Hearts in Atlantis" was great, or at least the first section was. (I ran out of library time to read further.) "The Girl who Loved Tom Gordon" was wonderful up until the end, but King has always faltered at the end, see "It" and "The Stand." Why? Probably because he's so damn good at buildup that anything he comes up with just isn't as terrifying as what we end up seeing. So I disagree. Like most fans of certain authors, you seem to want the author to stay in neutral and keep cranking out the same stuff, not considering how terribly boring and creatively dead end that might be for the author himself.

Anyway, as for English majors not liking him, might I remind you Dave that he is the most widely read author this last century-- and nobody reads as much as English majors. The fact of the matter is that most English majors love King-- at least in proportion to general population-- and that if popular literature has an enemy it isn't English majors, but English professors, who'd be out of a job if it wasn't for convoluted writers like Joyce.

That said, what's a writer like King care what the academe thinks of him? He's more than once said he's a Big Mac writer and intends to be one. Nevertheless, Dave, he hardly shares your disdain for high-style literature. If you look at the books and writers King is always championing, I think you'd be surprised how many of them make it on your standard English class syllabus. It is only poor and insecure writers (and critics) who start harping on the "popular vs. literary" argument to justify their own failures in one or the other.

[Edited by Beth at Jim's request.]

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Okay, y'all lay off Stephen King. He's from Maine, I'm from Maine, and I met him when I was 13. Me and Steve, we're like this. I'd probably buy his grocery list if he got around to selling it; I guess he's my guilty pleasure. "Carrie" was the first "adult" novel I ever read, and I've read everything else he's ever written.

Though even *I* will admit his editor needs to get down and dirty; it's as if they're scared to edit him anymore.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Personally, I'm fascinated by the emphasis being placed on English majors and their reading habits in this thread, because where I come from you only major in English if you have absolutely nothing else to do - that, or Classical Studies. Therefore, their reading habits are not considered any bastion of what's good or bad.

I've read a couple of Steven Kings - Rose Madder (which I quite enjoyed) and Needful Things (which was also fairly good). However, I've never felt the need to read any of his other books, and I always work my way through everything an author's written if I've really enjoyed them. Mind you, I haven't read anything by Steven King for about 5 years, so I might give something else a whirl and see how I find it - any reccommendations?

By the way - I think good writing is about getting a message across, not necessarily being technically correct. So an ESL writer is just as capable of doing that as anyone else. Being technically correct does not make a writer good.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Jim, you misunderstood me. I liked Cujo (and the other novels I mentioned) when I was about thirteen. I don't think it was King's finest work. I think it was a pretty rotten book that appealed to a thirteen year old. I tried to reread it a few years ago on vacation, and I couldn't get through it. So it's certainly not a question of my wanting him to keep churning out the same stuff.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Okie dokie, Beth. Sorry to have misread you.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

A person who has not yet mastered the mechanics of a given language may spin a great story - it's true - but if it's unreadable because of confused and incorrect grammar, poor punctuation and abominable structure - it doesn't matter. You'll never be able to enjoy the story if the 'technical' bits are poor, Jackie.

In all honesty, I can't tell a preposition from an adverb - I never had an interest in studying grammar - but I made sure to learn, through reading, how sentences are structured.

I can only hope that when I croak, there's no guy in a flowing white beard with a chalkboard and deep, booming voice who instructs me to diagram a sentence to get to the afterlife.

I'll be so screwed.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Gabby, it sounds like we're fairly similar then, because I've also grown up completely unable to know a verb from an adverb. We were never taught this at school. This terrifies my mother.

I agree, something really badly technically written will distract from a good story - and I can't stand reading anything that is so befuddled that I have to try and guess what the point of the writing is. But as long as I can figure out what the writer is saying, I'm generally OK.

It must be too much exposure to bad journalistic writing in the UK - it's lowered my gramatical standards!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

In all honesty, I can't tell a preposition from an adverb - I never had an interest in studying grammar - but I made sure to learn, through reading, how sentences are structured.

Gabby, it sounds like we're fairly similar then, because I've also grown up completely unable to know a verb from an adverb.

Grammar Girl to the Rescue!

A preposition is a word that indicates placement, or direction. In, on, under, to, at, these are all prepositions. It's especially naughty to end a sentence with a preposition, ie the old Harvard joke. "Sir, can you tell me where the library's at?" "Sir, we don't end sentences with prepositions at Harvard." "Okay, can you tell me where the library's at, asshole?"

A verb is any word that denotes some sort of action or state of being, and has to be conjugated to use properly. (I know, he knows, They write, she writes.) An adverb modifies a verb, and usually ends with -ly. "He danced beautifully."

Hella yeah, ma! Them linguistics courses is finally paying off!

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

The thing is, Sandra, I do generally speak and write grammatically (although you'd be forgiven for thinking otherwise if you read many of my posts here - my only defence is that I often post at haste).

It seems like I've absorbed most of the rules without ever being taught them, and my picky parents can be praised for that. When Sinead O'Connor sang 'Nothing Comes 2 U' my father used to go mental ... 'with you!!!!'

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Oh, Jackie, I don't think it's at all necessary to be able to name the rules and conventions to write properly- and from what I've seen, you do a smashing job.

It's just a cold, lonely day in hell when my education and military training come to any use at all. English majors get to have all the fun. Nobody argues over idiomatic expressions, the Great Vowel Shift, or the conjugational differences between past perfect and past imperfect.

Anybody wanna diagram some sentences. . .? Anybody? Dangle some participles. . .? *sob*

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

Thank you Saundra! (and sorry for mis-spelling your name before!!)

I've got two weeks of study leave coming up, and I'm dreading it because my course materials are so badly written I keep wanting to mark them with red pen and send them back to the administrators. I resent the fact that the people who produced them have the power to bestowe a qualification on me.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000

I agree with Gabby's posts about English majors and Beth's post about Stephen King.

I just find him a uncompelling writer, for the reasons Beth posted. His characters are unrealistic and his stories are poorly paced. The fact that a lot of people like him just means that people have different tastes, and that he's very prolific and well marketed.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2000