[Saturday, Feb. 12, 2005][13:09]

review: kristinhank

first impression: Ooh! What a dandy transition effect!


layout: [forty of forty-nine] It�s a very plain layout. Lots of white, simple black text. This may be nitpicking, but it seems that the title and date of an entry should be near the entry. They should be below the image. Your links seem to work. It�s just bland though. Hey! Why doesn�t your archives match your diary? White on black writing is never good, even for archives. For shame.


content: [eighty-seven of eighty-seven] The poetic method you write in is rather appealing. Maybe, just maybe, we�re suckers for excessive descriptiveness, especially concerning emotions, because people so rarely put effort into trying to explain how they feel. You aren�t hindered by lack of vocabulary, because you haven�t one. At the same time, you don�t find the need to use a number of ridiculous words just to show you know them. Every now and again, you�ll write something that is reminiscent of the works of our favorite authors. Your entries are short. Short are good. It has nothing to do with how well you write. In general, people enjoy short little works rather than longer, more tedious ones. People have short attention spans.

Overall, your writing is refreshing. After perusing diaries and journals of compulsive day loggers, it�s nice to see something different. There�s sadness, yes, but it�s true. What you write seems like more than just a hobby, whether it is or not. It seems like a venting of the trials and tribulations of your life, and that is always interesting to read.

frequency: [fourteen of twenty-two] You used to write a few times a day. Now, you have a more irregular pattern.


judgement: It�s strange how your words cause memories of springtime. Even that talk of snow. Miss Lisa says: I�m glad I got to read it.


[one hundred forty-one of one hundred fifty-eight]

[eighty-nine percent]

[Miss Lisa]


[previous][next]