2006 Entries that received the most comments

[pegkerr]

Got this meme from papersky: Top most interesting entries of mine in 2006, by number of comments.

January:
6th:
Post about the pointlessness of cleaning the top of refrigerators (yeah, that one surprises me, too) [+36]
SF/Fantasy novels set in time of Elizabeth 1 [+38]

February
Cleaning the room. Again [+84]

March
MAN, I'm hungry [+41] (asking people for snack ideas)

April
Dinner: A Failure [+90]
Certain points that are useful to make after my last entry [follow up to Dinner a Failure] [+52]
Space Camp Fundraiser [+127] ( Thanks again, everybody, for helping make it possible for Delia and the rest of the kids to go!)
Just got back from seeing "United 93" [+93]

May
Garrison Keillor says to quit whining about writing being hard [+51]

June
The HPV Vaccine [+30]

July
Kinda desultory month. Nothing got over twenty comments

August
Homeless, Hungry, God Bless [+50]

September
Fisheses! [+40] (fish recipes)

October
I'm afraid this is really not going to work [Peg cannot take karate after all] [+41]

November
Compusa, feh (Rob has to work Thanksgiving Day) [+38]

December
This is why my husband drives me insane [+32]

Comments

[kayselkiemoon.livejournal.com]

neat meme!
how do I find out which posts in my journal have the most comments?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Look at the archive (calendar) for each month. Your posts are listed there, with the number of comments made.

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

My number of posts show up there, but not the number of comments.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Huh. I imagine that's a function of which style you've picked?

[kijjohnson.livejournal.com]

Just got it.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Oh . . . I see. You need to go one more step. Click on the name of the month itself (it's a hyperlink). That will take you to a list with the title of the posts and the number of the comments.

[bobhowe.livejournal.com]

Missed the Garrison Keillor piece about writing the first time around (I am *so* fed up with Salon, maybe I'll post a letter I sent them when I decided I wasn't renewing).

I think that column is the perfect example of why Keillor is a mildly amusing writer, but not a great writer: he brushes by the truth in the dark while he's putting on his comfy flannel feetie pajamas. What do I mean by that? He asserts that most writers who have trouble with writing are drunks, and that's why they find it hard—in one sentence he misses a world of depth and truth about the human condition.

Lots of writers are indeed addicts of one kind or another, or have problematic personal lives in other ways. Their lives are hard for the same reasons they are writers: in most cases they are compensating for childhoods filled with varying degrees of misery. Keillor's faux stoic response would be "get over it." Indeed that's good advice, but it often takes a lifetime of hard work, and grace. Writers are good at reading people's emotions (to whatever extent) because it's a survival skill: they *had* to learn it early and well to navigate chaotic home conditions.