Smackdown topic, Tuesday, June 18: Write a review of your own online journal from a critic's point of view (as if you were writing for one of those critique mailing lists or Web sites).

This entry has gone in a drastically different direction than I was originally planning, and thus is going into 2 parts.

Part 1: In Which I Pontificate Before Beginning.

"It is near-impossible to critique a personal journal, and for the same reasons.

The reason I have inserted "near-" into the paragraph above is because journals, unlike poems, CAN be critiqued for syntax - i.e. you can't spell, you are ungrammatical. But not for content. The content is too damned subjective, too personal. It's not as if there's a way it's "supposed" to sound. It's not as if there's a set of guidelines for making a compelling journal, like there is for a compelling story ... or even as if the purpose of a journal has to be being compelling.

I would never critique anyone else's journal. If I don't like it, I stop reading it. That's that. And I don't assume that I stop reading it because the writer sucks; only that it isn't to my taste. That is all anyone can ever say in criticism about the content of a journal, just like for poetry: It wasn't my thing."

I gotta say that Columbine makes a good point here.

I'm not normally into critique sites too much. Most of them annoy the hell out of me. Mainly, critique sites that I've seen usually spend, oh, 60-70% of the space critiquing the journal's design, and devote a paragraph or maybe two to what the journal actually says. Despite being a design major in school, I actually don't give that much of a damn about the design of a journal. If it looks nice, I'll admire it, but so long as I can read it, there's not 100 porn popups and the site's not filled with broken bits and "Under Construction" signs and it's pretty much unnavigateable (like this dreadful redesign from HELL), I don't really care about a site's design much. You'll note that this journal is specifically low-maintenance, design-wise. Sure, I could go put it on my site that would let me upload pictures, I could hand code each entry, I could wrestle with those scripts myself, but I just don't feel like doing so the way I used to any more. I just want to bung it out onto the keyboard and paste it in and be done with it.

I do see the point as to why people's actual journal writing is hard to critique. It's one thing to say that the plot of a novel that someone made up is boring, it's quite another to complain that someone's life is boring. And unless you're one of those journallers who likes to go the ficticious route, you've got a limited amount to work with if you're going with honesty.

I've noticed that when there's big-time journal critiquing things going on online (Diarist Awards, etc.), they tend to focus on writing style, rather than what goes on in the journals. Their lyrical prose, etc. I'm usually rather "eh" about reviews like that.

The only journal review-type things I ever liked were the ones that diarist.net puts up, like Launch and ReEntry. They make me want to read the journal. You find out who the person is, what they write about, some intriguing quotes, and soon you're dying to click the link. Admittedly, I often read these things and find that I'm just not all that interested, but for a few minutes I was sold. They aren't exactly critique sites, because the writers deliberately pick their favorites, but you still find out a lot.

Now that, as far as I'm concerned, is about the best you're going to get with regards to journal critique.

Okay, so now that I've gone on about the practice of that, I'm going to write a review that kind of combines it all.

Part 2: In Which I Rip On Myself Because It's So Darn Funny To Do It.

The Snotnose Weblog Review, June 18, 2002: Chaos Attraction, by Jennifer.

When I first saw this site, I about threw up. Cotton candy pink EVERYWHERE! Doesn't she know that pink isn't cool, never has been cool, and never will be cool? I bet you no guys would ever look at this site in a million years. (Then again, having read it, perhaps that's the point?)

Besides the fact that the journal's design is pink and lame, there is no design. No graphics, no pics, and it's on frigging Diaryland, for god's sake! You'd think someone with a design degree would know better, but she apparently prefers to be a lazyass. If this girl wants to be a Big Name Journaller, she'd better cough up the cash for her own URL and start uploading pics (and *cough*webcam*cough*) and switch the color scheme right quick.

Despite the horrors that is the visual experience of Chaos Attraction, if you can bear the pink and keep reading... well, I actually kinda liked it. (Gasp!) This isn't the journal to go to for lyrical, economical, well-chosen prose by any means, but she makes up for it with whopping amounts of plot. If I didn't know this was a real person, I'd think it was fictional, there's so much plot. Never mind those journallers who write about their kids and cats and coffee drinking, this one's got something to follow.

Anyone who misses watching certain departed Aaron Spelling TV shows will love this one.

I also find the journal's origins to be amusing. There's apparently nothing quite like setting up a journal in which you declare yourself to be a lifelong spinster (including originally titling the journal "Spinster and Lunatic") to make sure that you end up engaged within six months. The journal's accurately renamed at this point, with a wacky fiance, insane friends, job switches, and family feuds galore, which seem to be happening every other entry. Not to mention the episodes of engagement, pregnancy, depression, suicide attempts, and general spate of injuries. She'd fit in on All My Children quite nicely.

The journal's not quite a train wreck yet, but it's sure heading in that direction at a rapid trot. Anyone who announces her engagement on the Internet- but NOT to her own parents- is just asking for trouble. And I for one plan to be there to find out what chaos erupts then. Whee!

Two and a half stars (good reading, design putrid).

previous entry - next entry
archives - current entry