Out of all the journals I’ve ever created, one of the most useful and fun ones has been my “list” journal. It also happens to be one of the only journals that has absolutely no paragraphs in it. Most people are going to dismiss this type of journal immediately. Lists feel too thin to count as “real” journaling because so much of what we consider traditional journaling has to do with longhand, dated entries, that require a certain amount of time. They feel that a list is too shallow or too utilitarian to feel like introspection. But I think that’s exactly why it works.

What Is A List Journal

The concept is exactly as simple as it sounds. A notebook filled primarily with lists. There’s no complicated system to learn. No artistic ability required. There’s no minimum entry lengths. You choose a subject, write it at the top or whatever line you’re on and you just start listing things. That’s genuinely the whole format. The structure is simple enough that almost anyone can begin but open enough that the journal can become whatever you need it to become.

Whether you recognize it or not, your life is already full of lists. Shopping lists, packing lists, to-do lists, passwords, upcoming bills. Lists are one of the basic ways we organize our identities. Dont believe me? Ask someone to describe themselves. Read someone’s dating profile. They usually begin with lists. Their interests. Their work. Their relationships. Their hobbies. So much of who we are can be understood through collections and categories.

A list may look simple on the page but the act of deciding what goes on the list might not always be as easy. That’s the part that has made this a fun way to pass ten minutes. Sitting down, waiting for your number to be called at the dmv, thinking about the the top 10 movies that changed your life. I’ve honestly used this format to dissect who I am as a person in a way that feels a lot less forced than anything I’ve written in longhand.

The Cost of Starting

Let’s begin with the boring and unglamorous reason as to why this journal works. Lists lower the activation energy required to start journaling. It’s a term borrowed from chemistry and was popularized in behavioral terms by Shawn Achor in “The Happiness Advantage” where he describes activation energy as the effort required to begin. That effort alone is its own separate obstacle, independent of how hard the actual task is. Think about opening a blank page? How demanding writing an entire page can feel. Now think about writing five items on a list. Small asks gets answered more often.

It should also be mentioned that the time commitment is almost nothing. You can add one item to a list in under 30 seconds and come back to it whenever you have another 30 seconds. There is no reason to measure the seriousness of a journal by the amount of time each entry requires. Because the commitment is so low, this kind of journal is really easy to come back.

It Can Be As Fun Or As Deep As You Want

Not EVERY page in EVERY journal needs to lead to a psychological breakthrough. One of the best parts of keeping a list journal is that it’s more than likely going to contain pages that are completely unserious. The very first list I made in my journal was a list of my favorite starter Pokemon. The very NEXT list was a list of 11 things I’d bring with me if I was stuck on a deserted island. And yes two of those spaces were taken up by a notebook and pen. How else would I write my memoir after surviving a catastrophic cruise accident?

These pages still tell a story about you. So many aspects of who you are can be broken down into lists. Your likes and dislikes. Your dreams and anxieties. Your inspirations and resentments. Or even the songs you would choose for a karaoke night. There is value in keeping a record of your taste. Your preferences change so gradually over time that you rarely notice that things have changed at all. A perfectly good example? The food you eat. I guarantee there is a food you eat right now that teenage you would look at you with pure disgust hahaha. A list journal allows you to preserve small versions of yourself without requiring you to explain them. A lot of the time, the title does enough of the emotional work that you don’t need to write an entire essay about why a specific video game mattered to you so much.

I began using lists because they were easy. I continued to use them because I realized how quickly they could become something else. See a list gives the mind a clear assignment. It gives your ideas and questions an edge. You don’t need to explain everything immediately but you can begin by identifying. Sure you can ask yourself the fun questions like your favorite fruits and places you’d go if you had a million dollars. But what if you have the tougher questions? The existential ones like “Who am I?”. A list journal can you help you break down that enormous question into something more manageable. Instead you can ask yourself to fill out these lists:

• What makes me feel safe?

• Which part of my life feel most like mine?

• Fears I’ve outgrown

• Things Im proud of

These questions are still difficult but the list format give them boundaries. I think my favorite part of having a list journal is that it has made a strange kind of self-portrait. No single page explains me but together, the pages begin to form a recognizable person.

How You Can Use It To Understand Yourself

A single list doesn’t do much on it’s own. Your favorite movies list, by itself, is just a favorite movies list. But keep making them. Dozens of them. Across months and years. Everything from your favorite comfort foods to the people you’ve disappoint and a shape begins to form that you didn’t put there on purpose. Names will repeat. The same fear is going to show up under multiple headers. You’re going to notice which lists you can fill out almost immediately and which ones cause you to stall out half way through writing them. The best part is that none of this is something you set out to learn. It’s something the notebook tells you on it’s own when there’s enough to read back.

The repetition is important here because we are not always the most reliable narrators of our own lives. We become attached to certain explanations of who we are. You may say that you want an exciting life and then fill every comfort-related list with things like quiet mornings, familiar places, and your favorite three people. None of this means the lists have caught you in a lie or something of the sort. People are complicated. We can want adventure and safety. We can value independence and still need to feel known. But this kind of journal can absolutely help you align your actions with the kind of person you tell yourself you are or want to be. This journal does not tell you who are in one massive dramatic revelation. It builds the answer through accumulation.

A Journal That Can Become A Conversation

This is more of a little side benefit than the main reason to keep this type of journal but I have used this journal as an icebreaker on first dates multiple times and it’s been a great time almost every time. This sounds more intense than it usually is, I promise. I am not opening the notebook across the dinner table and asking someone to review a complete inventory of my childhood wounds before we even have our drinks haha. But I will use it as a conversation starter. I might mention a list of movies that I could repeat word for word, irrational fears, or skills I would learn if I had all the time in the world. These subjects are easy to answer but they tend to produce better conversations than the standard “what do you do for work?”.

A good list question gives someone a lot of room to reveal as much as they want about themselves. They can keep it playful or they can take it somewhere more personal. I think that kind of flexibility is important in a conversation especially when you’re just getting to know someone. It also gives a person somewhere to start and it usually turns into a conversation that goes somewhere neither of you planned. A lot of these lists naturally produce follow up questions which can keep the conversation from feeling like an interview. I’ve had better first date conversations off the back of a five-item list than I’ve had off almost any question I could think of on my own. It’s get past the small talk so much faster than small talk usually allows. I also think this works really well because people enjoy talking about themselves when the question feels specific enough to be interesting.

You can also compare lists, disagree about ranking, argue over whether a certain food belongs in the top five. The list creates something to react to together. Even outside of dating, these prompts can be with with friends and family memebers. Anyone you’re trying to know beyond the usual surface level conversation. I.e long car rides.

Subscribe now

How To Actually Start One

If any of this has convinced you, here’s how simple it actually is because I don’t want the practical part of this to feel like another thing to plan around.

Write one list. Make it ridiculous if that helps. List animals you believe you could defeat in a fight (I’d keep geese off that list until you really understand what they’re capable of, trust me), best potato recipes, top 3 planets. Then make another list when you think of one. And little by little you start building up this collection of questions that represent a part of who you are/were.

Here are a few little things I’d like to mention too:

• Any notebook works. Ideally one that you already own. No dates required, though if you think it’s something that’s more than likely to change, I’d date them anyway. No streak required. No minimum. You can go three weeks without opening it up and it will not have failed you.

• Don’t rank unless the rankings is the actual point. The second you start ordering the list, you start editing yourself. You’ll spend the whole time deciding what goes second instead of remember what belongs on the list at all.

• Run the same prompt again a year later, on a fresh page, without looking at the old one first. Then compare them. The gap between those two versions of the same list is so much more revealing than either list on their own.

• Leave the embarrassing ones in. The list you’d hesitate to have someone read after you’re gone is doing so much more work thant the tasteful one you’d be comfortable showing a stranger.

50 Lists To Start With

Take any of these. Try to get five items on each one. No ceiling. No sentences required.

1. Movies I’ve rewatched more than three times.

2. Foods I could eat every day forever.

3. Fictional characters I’d want on my team in a fight.

4. Best meals I’ve ever eaten.

5. Fictional worlds I’d actually want to live in.

6. Every pet I’ve ever owned.

7. Books I recommend more than I reread.

8. Words I love the sound of.

9. Things I’m irrationally loyal to (brands, seats, routes)

10. Compliments I’ve never forgotten.

11. Things I’m currently avoiding.

12. Things I used to think were normal until I left home.

13. Things I spend money on without flinching.

14. Advice I’ve given that I dont follow.

15. My Icks

16. My biggest fears right now.

17. People I’d call at 3 am.

18. Habits I want to build this year.

19. Core values I want to live by.

20. Artists, writers, or creators who inspire me.

21. Things I loved as a kid that I still love now.

22. My all time favorite characters.

23. Books I’ve abandoned.

24. My favorite places to read.

25. My current notebook lineup.

26. Things I miss from my childhood.

27. Small joys I never want to forget.

28. Random things that spark nostalgia.

29. Milestones that really mattered to me.

30. Qualities I admire in people.

31. What makes someone a good friend

32. Things I want to stop doing.

33. Songs that make everything feel cinematic.

34. Favorite spots in my city.

35. Little luxuries that make me happy.

36. Places I want to visit someday.

37. Cultures I want to learn more about.

38. Things I’d put in a time capsule.

39. Labels I’ve outgrown.

40. Trait’s I’ve worked hard to develop.

41. What brings me genuine joy.

42. Lessons I keep need to relearn.

43. Things I’d never do again.

44. Old hobbies I miss.

45. My favorite sounds in the world.

46. What I want less of in my life.

47. Friends who made me laugh the the hardest.

48. People I want to thank someday.

49. Inventions I wish existed.

50. My current morning routine.

Just Start With A List

You don’t need an entirely new journaling system to get this one going. Just write a list. The list doesn’t need to be meaningful when you write it. That is what I like most about this journal. It can hold the completely ridiculous beside the deeply personal without treating one as more worthy than the other. Your favorite magic cards can sit a few pages away from the fears influencing your life and somehow, both of them belong in there. Keep making lists long enough and it may become one of the most valuable pieces of self recorded history that you will ever own.

Somewhere in one of my journals is an entry I have been trying to find for years. I do not remember exactly when I wrote it. I know which apartment I was living in, which narrows it down to a period of about three years. I vaguely remember the notebook being black, although I have owned enough black notebooks for that detail to be almost completely useless. I remember what the entry was about. I remember one sentence from it, or at least the general shape of the sentence.

What I do not remember is where the entry actually is. This is the strange problem created by keeping a journal for a long time.

A journal that’s been kept consistently for a year or a decade contains an enormous amount of material. Decisions made and their outcomes, patterns in behavior, ideas that were captured and never developed, records of who you were during specific periods of your life. All of that material has value. Most of it is also, practically speaking, inaccessible. A hundred notebooks filled with honest, useful writing are only as valuable as your ability to find anything in them when you need it. Without some system for organization, a journal accumulates as a chronological record and nothing more. A pile of information you added to but rarely returned to, because returning to it means paging through months or years of material to find the one entry that mattered.

It can also be overwhelming to have to re-read pages on pages of material you may not want to have revisited. That creates another difficulty. Searching an old journal is not emotionally neutral. Looking for one useful entry may require passing through pages you had no intention of revisiting. You may be searching for notes about a project and suddenly find yourself reading about the week a relationship ended. You may want to recover an old idea without rereading thirty pages written during one of the worst months of your life.

For years, I thought keeping the journals was enough. I assumed that because the notebooks were physically present, the information inside them remained available to me. But possession is not access. This does not mean every journal needs to become a perfectly indexed database. I do not want journaling to feel like record management, and I have no interest in converting every private thought into a searchable data point. Most entries can remain exactly where they are. Most will never need to be found again.

But some will.

Eventually, you will want to locate the moment you first noticed a recurring problem. You will want to compare what you believed before making a decision with what happened afterward. You will remember writing an idea that feels useful again. You will wonder whether a current fear is actually new or whether you have been describing the same fear in different language for six years. That is what organization is for. The purpose is retrieval. That is the organizing principle here.

Retrieval Is the Point

Before getting into specific techniques, it’s worth being clear about why any of this matters. Organization for its own sake is not a virtue. A perfectly organized journal that nobody ever needs to search through has the same practical value as an unorganized one. Which is to say, it has whatever value the writing itself produced, and no more. The reason organization matters is retrieval. At some point, you will want to locate something specific inside a much larger body of writing. The ease or difficulty of that search will depend on decisions you made, or failed to make, while the journal was still active. A journal that cannot retrieve anything specific becomes a pile of events and memories. It may still have emotional value. You can re-read it from beginning to end and re-enter a season of life. That is not nothing. But the larger the journal becomes, the less useful it is as a reference unless you create some way back into it.

Ask yourself: What will you want to find later?

Indexing as a Universal Principle

If you’ve been journaling a number of years at this point, I’m sure you’re familiar with the Bullet Journal Method to some capacity. Within that system, a lot of us learned what indexing was. Numbered pages and a running log at the front of the notebook that map page numbers to content. That’s one implementation of indexing, but the underlying principle is much broader and applies regardless of which method or system you use.

An index, at its core, is simply a separate, condensed record of where things are. It doesn’t contain the content itself. It contains pointers to the content. This distinction is important to note because it means indexing can be added to almost any journaling practice without changing how you actually write.

A useful index entry might include the date, page number, and a brief description:

March 12, p. 46: Decision about leaving project
April 2, p. 71: Notes on burnout pattern
May 8, p. 103: Essay idea about handwriting and memory
June 17, p. 148: Trip reflection, Cartagena

The description should be written for future retrieval. Ask what phrase your future self is most likely to remember. If you write a beautiful abstract title that gives no clue about the content, you have made the index worse.

The key insight is that indexing happens after or alongside writing, not instead of it. You don’t need to write differently to make your journal indexable. You need to periodically step back and note, in a separate and condensed place, what exists and where. This can happen daily, weekly, or monthly, depending on volume. The goal is simply that the index stays current enough to be useful, without becoming a task substantial enough to compete with the actual writing. The index is not the journal. It is an access layer.

Cross-Referencing

Cross-referencing is the practice of connecting related entries to each other, even when they’re separated by time, notebook, or method. A decision made in March might connect to an outcome recorded in September. A recurring frustration mentioned across a dozen entries over two years is only visible as a pattern if those entries are linked in some way. Otherwise each one exists in isolation, disconnected from the others that would reveal the shape of the pattern.

The simplest form of cross-referencing is a direct note. When writing an entry that clearly connects to something written previously, note the approximate date or a brief description of the earlier entry directly in the new one. “This is the same issue I wrote about back in the spring, when the project first started slipping” does real work. It creates a thread that a future reread can follow, even without a formal system attached to it.

A more structured form involves maintaining a running list of recurring themes or questions, updated as they appear across entries. If a particular decision or pattern keeps showing up, a dedicated page or digital note that tracks every date it appears turns scattered mentions into a coherent record you can review as a single unit rather than needing to remember which entries are relevant and page through months of material to find them.

It could look something like this.

Option 1: Thematic Cross-Reference Log
A running list under a theme heading, with the connection noted in a single line:

Career Uncertainty
— March 4 (Notebook 6, p. 12): First mention of wanting to leave current role
— June 19 (Notebook 6, p. 84): Talked myself out of it again
— September 2 (Notebook 7, p. 3): Actually started applying elsewhere
— December 15 (App, tag: #work): Accepted new offer

Reading down the list turns four scattered entries into a visible arc which were written across several months. The hesitation, the reversal, and the resolution appear as one continuous thread instead of four unconnected moments.

Option 2: Direct-Link Log

A short note added directly to the entry itself, pointing back to what it connects to, rather than a separate log at all:

September 2 entry: “Revisits the doubt from March 4 — still unresolved six months later.”
November 11 entry: “Direct follow-up to September 2 — describes what changed after that decision.”
December 15 entry: “Closes the arc that started March 4, developed September 2, and continued November 11.”

This version doesn’t require maintaining anything separate. The link lives inside the entry it belongs to, written in plain sentences rather than a formatted reference.

Cross-referencing becomes especially valuable over long periods, because the value of a journal compounds with time in a way that’s only accessible if the connections between distant entries are visible. An entry from five years ago that directly illuminates a current situation is only useful if you can find it and cross-referencing, done consistently even in a minimal form, is what makes that kind of long-range retrieval possible.

Signifiers

A signifier is any small, consistent visual or symbolic marker used to flag a particular type of entry or piece of information at a glance. Bullet Journaling uses a specific, formalized set of signifiers. Dots for tasks, circles for events, dashes for notes but the principle extends well beyond that system. Signifiers work because they allow rapid scanning. Flipping through a notebook looking for a specific type of entry like every time you made a significant decision, every entry that dealt with a particular relationship, every idea worth developing, is far faster when those entries carry a consistent visual marker than when every page looks identical and has to be read in full to determine its content.

A simple, personal signifier system might use a small symbol in the margin. A star for entries that feel significant enough to return to or an arrow for anything that represents an idea to develop further. An underline for anything that needs a decision. The specific symbols matter far less than their consistency. A signifier used inconsistently provides no real benefit, because you can no longer trust that its absence means anything.

The most effective personal signifier systems tend to be minimal. Two or three markers used reliably rather than an elaborate system with a dozen categories that becomes its own maintenance burden. The goal is quick visual triage, not a comprehensive classification system. If applying the signifiers takes real time and thought, the system has become more expensive than the retrieval benefit it provides.

Organizing by Confinement

Every technique covered so far in this essay is a way of organizing material after it’s already been written. There’s a different approach that works earlier in the process. Deciding, before you write, which notebook a given piece of writing belongs in, and keeping that boundary consistent over time. This is the system I have built for my analog practice over the years.

This means dedicating entire notebooks to specific domains of life rather than letting everything accumulate together in one continuous stream. A notebook reserved for a specific project. A separate notebook for emotional processing. Another for capturing and developing ideas. Rather than a single journal containing all three mixed together in whatever order life happened to produce them, each domain gets its own contained space. The retrieval benefit here is direct and immediate. If every entry related to a specific project lives in one notebook, finding everything you’ve written about that project means picking up one object, not searching, not indexing, not cross-referencing, just opening the right notebook. The organization isn’t something applied to the material afterward. It’s built into the decision of where the writing happens in the first place.

This approach trades flexibility for findability. A single continuous journal captures whatever is present in the moment, in whatever order life delivers it, which suits certain people well. But for material that’s already clearly categorized in your mind before you start writing like a project you’re actively working on or a body of ideas you’re developing over time, confinement to a dedicated notebook does more organizational work than any indexing system applied after the fact.

The practical version of this looks like maintaining several notebooks simultaneously, each with a clear and narrow purpose. Which is why I traveled half way across the world with 18 different notebooks. The tradeoff is discipline. This system only works if the boundaries are actually maintained. If project notes consistently end up in the project notebook rather than wherever happens to be open at the time. A dedicated notebook that starts accumulating unrelated material stops being a dedicated notebook and becomes just another general journal with a label that no longer describes what’s actually inside it. The confinement is what creates the value, and confinement requires consistently choosing the right notebook even when a different one is more convenient in the moment.

Not Everything Needs to Be Retrievable

There is an obvious danger in talking about journal organization for this long. At some point, a person who began journaling to think more freely can find themselves designing a personal information management system with seventeen symbols, four indexes, a color code, and an intake procedure. This is especially tempting for stationery people because organization gives us additional reasons to interact with the tools.

A journal is not a database, even when it contains information worth retrieving. The goal is not comprehensive organization. It is selective organization. You are not trying to make every sentence retrievable. You are identifying the relatively small percentage of your writing that your future self may reasonably want to locate again. That might include major decisions, recurring patterns, ideas you intend to develop, important memories, project information, or moments when your understanding of something changed. Everything else is allowed to just sit there, part of the record but not part of the index, the way most of a life is lived without being filed anywhere. Organization should remain mostly invisible while you are writing.

Selective organization matters while a journal is active. But eventually, every active journal becomes a completed object, and the organizational problem changes.

Subscribe now

Active Journals and Archives

An archive is where older material goes once it’s no longer part of active, ongoing use but still needs to remain accessible. There is a distinction to be made between an active journal and an archive. An active journal is where current writing happens. It’s optimized for ease of entry, for the flow of ongoing thought, for whatever cue and format make the practice sustainable day to day. An archive is optimized differently. For search and for the ability to locate something specific within material that’s no longer being actively added to. Treating these as the same thing, and applying active journal thinking to years of accumulated material, tends to produce an unwieldy mess that’s hard to navigate either way.

For analog practices, archiving might mean physically labeling completed notebooks with the date range they cover and maintaining a master list, kept separately, of what each notebook contains at a high level. Even a single sentence per notebook summarizing its general content and time period can save significant time later. The transition from active journal to archive should include a small closing process. When a notebook is finished, record the date range. Add major themes or events. Update the master index. Move reusable information into the appropriate reference space. Then store the notebook somewhere intentional.

The purpose of a well maintained archive is to make your past accessible without requiring you to remember exactly where or when something happened. A good archive answers the question “did I write about this before?” quickly, rather than requiring an exhaustive manual search through years of material. The archive needs to be findable and protected.

What This Actually Builds Toward In Your Practice

I’ve said before that half the value of journaling happens on the reread, not the write. I still think that’s true. But the thing is, is you have to actually be able to get back in. The index, the cross-references, the signifiers, the archive, the confinement. None of it is really about tidiness. It’s about making sure the reread half of that value is even possible to collect.

When you only write and never return, journaling mostly functions in the present tense. It helps you process what is happening now. It clears mental space. It gives shape to a feeling while you are experiencing it. Those are substantial benefits. For some entries, they are the only benefits required. The writing did its job when it helped you survive the afternoon. Returning to the writing adds another dimension. A reread lets you see what the original entry could not. When you wrote it, you only knew what had happened up to that point. You did not know how the decision would turn out. You did not know whether the fear was justified. You did not know if the relationship would recover. The person rereading knows more than the person who wrote it. That gap is where a lot of the value of our writing lives.

The system does not produce the insight. It creates the conditions under which the insight can be noticed. None of it needs to be elaborate either. My own system isn’t elegant. It’s eighteen notebooks and a handful of running lists I update inconsistently, and it still works, because it clears the one bar that needs clearing. I can get back in without losing forty minutes and eleven memories I wasn’t looking for. I do not need every page to be easy to find. I just need to stop losing the things I already took the time to write down.

There’s a common misconception that a lot of people who journal have in their minds. That journaling needs to be done every day in order for it to be effective. That if you miss more than a few days, you’re somehow failing at journaling. And it’s so easy to fall into that feeling of guilt when seeing your notebook sitting on your desk for days or weeks on end. Kind of starts to feel like the notebook is judging you. Like when you’ve been avoiding a friend you’ve been meaning to catch up with but so much time has passed that it feels weird to reach out now. You know the feeling. I KNOW the feeling. I think the reason returning feels so hard is because the gap itself has become a psychological obstacle. A story we’re telling ourselves about what the gap means.

The truth is far simpler and more forgiving that you think. Journaling doesn’t have a continuity requirement. There’s no contract to honor or streak to protect. The practice is yours entirely which means you get to decide when you start and when you stop. I know a lot of people struggle with the idea of coming back into their journals so here are a few ways to help ease you back into your practice.

1. Don’t Acknowledge The Gap. Just start.

The single most common mistake people make when returning to journaling is also the most understandable one. They try to address the gap before moving past it. They open to a fresh page and write some version of “It’s been a while since I last journaled...” and then spend the next paragraph explaining why, apologizing for it, promising to do better. Im guilty AF. This is a trap. Now it feels like you have to defend yourself in your own journal as to WHY you weren’t as consistent as you wanted to be or why you took a break. I wouldn’t want to comeback to my journal either if i felt I had to defend every decision I was making.

Here’s the alternative. Skip it entirely. Don’t explain the gap. Don’t reference it. Don’t even acknowledge that there was one. Open to the next blank page and write about what’s in front of you right now. What you had for lunch. The thing you noticed on a walk that you haven’t been able to stop thinking about. The weather, if that’s all you’ve got. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking your journal needs context. You and you alone need to know what’s happening and that’s it. You don’t need to account for your absence.

Share

2. Lower The Stakes Dramatically

There’s a version of journaling that lives in our heads that looks something like this. Two pages of clear, coherent prose, written in beautiful handwriting, capturing something true and meaningful about the human experience. Maybe it gets published someday. Maybe it becomes the thing people read after you’re gone to understand who you really were.

The pressure to produce something worthy, something that justifies the time, the nice notebook, the fountain pen you spent too much money on, is one of the most reliable ways to ensure you never write anything at all. Because worthy is a high bar. That is too much to ask from yourself when you are only trying to reopen the habit. Worthy is the kind of bar that makes you stare at a blank page for ten minutes, decide you don’t have anything important enough to say, and go check your phone instead.

So lower the bar. Not a little. DRAMATICALLY. Give yourself explicit permission to write something bad. Something fragmented. A single sentence. A list of things you need to do tomorrow. A complaint about something that probably doesn’t matter. None of that is a failure to journal. All of it is journaling. The practice isn’t about the quality of what you produce. Once you’re in the habit of showing up, quality takes care of itself over time. But you can’t get there from a standing start if you’re trying to clear a bar that’s set at “meaningful.” I’ve talked about this in a few of my other posts, but I think a lot mediocre entries are infinitely more valuable than a few profound ones.

3. Set A Timer For Five Minutes And Actually Stop When It Goes Off.

I know I know. This one sounds almost insulting simple. I get it. Five minutes? That’s nothing. That’s not even a real journaling session. That’s barely enough time to find a pen that works.

Exactly. That’s the point.

The reason most people can’t get back into journaling isn’t that they don’t have time, it’s that they’re unconsciously treating every journaling session as an open ended commitment. They sit down with the vague sense that they should write for a while, which their brain immediately translates into a large, unquantified demand on their time and energy. And large, unquantified demands are the things we procrastinate on indefinitely. Five minutes is different. Five minutes is so small that it’s genuinely hard to argue against it. You have five minutes. You know you have five minutes. Your brain knows it too, which is why it stops throwing up resistance the moment you make the commitment specific and tiny.

Set the timer. Write until it goes off. Then stop. Like actually stop. When you stop at the timer, you train your brain to trust the constraint. It learns that you meant it when you said five minutes, which makes it easier to start next time because it knows you won’t let it go on forever. Five minutes is all you need to start the habit back up again.

4. Change The Format

You may not be tired of journaling. You may be tired of your journal. Journaling is a category, not a method. Within that category there are a dozen distinct formats, and what burned you out on one might not apply at all to another. If you’ve been doing long form narrative journaling and it started to feel like homework, try bullet journaling. If you’ve been doing gratitude lists and they started to feel performative, try using prompts. The point isn’t to find the “right” format. We both know there’s no such thing. The point is to recognize that your resistance might be format specific rather than practice specific.

Also, the format can also change from one entry to the next. You do not need to select a permanent system. Monday can be three paragraphs. Tuesday can be a list. Wednesday can be a page of badly drawn objects from your kitchen. There is no reason a notebook must maintain one consistent genre simply because the first five pages did.

5. Use a new notebook or the same notebook, strategically.

Stationery advice becomes suspicious whenever a new product is presented as the solution to a psychological problem. You do not need a new notebook to start journaling again. You probably already know this. Still, sometimes a new notebook helps.

An unfinished journal can become strangely difficult to reopen. The earlier pages may belong to a painful period. You may dislike the person you were while writing them. The notebook may contain plans that failed or relationships that ended. Even the aesthetic can become a problem. Perhaps the early pages are neat and decorated and you now feel obligated to preserve that standard.

In that case, starting somewhere else can create useful distance. There’s a reason certain rituals around new beginnings involve new objects. A new planner in January. A new uniform on the first day of school. A new notebook at the start of a trip. Sometimes changing the environment is a legitimate way to change what’s possible within it.

The accumulation of entries is part of what makes old journals valuable to read later. But it can also make them hard to return to when the associations are difficult ones. There’s no shame in acknowledging that. You can always return to the old notebook when the distance feels less necessary.

6. Find a micro-trigger and attach journaling to it.

Motivation is not a reliable journaling strategy. It’s not a reliable strategy for any kind of habit formation honestly. What works better is anchoring. The idea, borrowed from behavioral science and popularized by BJ Fogg’s work on tiny habits, is that new behaviors stick when they’re attached to existing ones. You’re not building a new slot in your day. What you are doing piggybacking on something that already happens automatically. The new behavior borrows the momentum of the established one.

Write while drinking your first coffee. Keep the notebook beside the place where you charge your phone. Write for five minutes after lunch. Leave it on the couch where you sit at night. Put it inside the bag you already carry. This approach is not visually impressive. Nobody is going to watch a cinematic video titled “My Five Minute Journaling Routine While Waiting for the Microwave.” It does, however, reduce the number of decisions involved. And trust me, the less things you have to decide throughout the day, the better you’ll feel.

The main risk is attaching journaling to an activity that is not actually stable. Do not say you will journal after your morning workout if you have not worked out in the morning since 2022. Connect it to something embarrassingly reliable like drinking coffee or sitting in the car before work. Always try to build the practice around the life you already have.

7. Give Yourself a Temporary Assignment

A lot of the time, “Start journaling again” is too vague. It has no endpoint and no boundaries. No clear definition of success. It implies that you are supposed to continue forever, which is a strange commitment to make before you have even written an entry. A temporary project can be easier.

Journal for one week. Write one sentence a day for a month. Document a trip. Keep notes while starting a new job. Record what you read for thirty days. Write every evening until you fill ten pages. The project gives the practice a container. If you say, “I am becoming a person who journals every day,” missing a day seems to threaten the entire idea. If you say, “I am documenting this month,” the task remains specific and limited.

One of the reasons people struggle to journal is that “my life” is an overwhelmingly broad subject. A project narrows attention. Focus is the name of the game here. A food journal makes you pay attention to meals. A travel journal makes you notice new experiences that you’re enjoying. A one-sentence diary forces you to decide which detail deserves the sentence. Constraint is our friend here.

8. Remind yourself that you’re still the person who journals.

One of the costs of a long break is what it does to your self-concept. You stop writing, and then gradually, without noticing, you stop thinking of yourself as someone who writes. Journaling becomes something you used to do, and that shift in language carries a lot of weight. “Used to” places it in the past. It turns an identity into a history.

I think it’s important to note here because behavior follows identity more reliably than it follows intention. We don’t just do the things we intend to do. We do the things that feel consistent with who we are. Which means that if you’ve started thinking of yourself as someone who used to journal, returning to the practice feels like becoming a different person rather than resuming something that’s already yours. You’re not a non-journaler who needs to become a journaler again. You’re a journaler who took a break. That’s not just a nice thing to tell yourself.

Journaling Is Always Something You Can Come Back To

Every long break from journaling happened for a reason. Maybe life got genuinely chaotic. Maybe the practice started to feel hollow, like you were going through the motions without getting anything out of it. Whatever it was, it’s worth treating as information rather than indictment. The habit of framing a lapsed practice as a personal failing is one of the more insidious things we do to ourselves. A gap in a journaling practice is not evidence that you failed at something. We tend to imagine consistency as an unbroken line, but most lasting practices are much messier than that. There are months when you write every day and years when you barely write at all. The practice was always going to have interruptions. That’s just what it looks like when a long term practice lives inside a human life rather than a controlled experiment. There’s no metric for how well you’re doing it. The fact that you do it at all, is enough.

Every four years there’s a stretch of about a month where borders seem to vanish. People who cannot speak to one another manage to spend an evening together. People learn the names of cities they could not previously point to on a map. They trade food, chants, shirts, dances, directions, and whatever alcohol somebody has carried into the street. The ordinary awkwardness of approaching a stranger is suspended. The flag tied around someone’s neck is reason enough. It’s the World Cup.

The tournament is built around borders. There would be no World Cup without countries, flags, anthems, rivalries, and all the political baggage that follows them. For a few weeks, the world feels less like a collection of separate populations and more like one enormous neighborhood where everybody has chosen a different shirt.

There are many objects associated with this temporary closeness. The ball. The jersey. The flag. The scarf. The cheaply manufactured plastic horn. But I think one of the most important objects of the World Cup often goes unnoticed. At least here in the USA.

It is a paper album filled with empty rectangles. The World Cup is actually one of the largest stationery events on the planet, and the Panini sticker album might be its most important notebook.

Subscribe now

A World Cup You Can Hold

Calling the World Cup a stationery event sounds like the kind of claim a stationery person makes after spending too long indoors. I get it lol. Most people would classify the tournament as a sporting event, a television event, a tourism event, or perhaps a month long international argument about refereeing. Very few people watch a match and think, “This is all very interesting, but what are the paper implications?”

I do though. Which is why you read this substack hahaha.

Before the opening ceremony, before the first goal, and often before the final national squads have even been announced, millions of people begin their World Cup through paper. They buy an album.

For anyone unfamiliar with it, the Panini World Cup sticker album is exactly what it sounds like, though describing it that plainly makes it seem far less compelling than it is. It is a printed album containing designated spaces for the teams, players, badges, tournament graphics, stadiums, and other details connected to that year’s competition. The stickers are sold separately in sealed packets. You open the packets, discover which players you received, find their numbered spaces in the album, peel away the backing, and try to place each sticker inside its rectangle.

This is a stationery activity.

It involves paper quality, printing, adhesives, page layouts, numbering systems, image arrangement, storage, handwriting, lists, organization, and the intense personal conviction that a rectangle must be filled correctly. It scratches many of the same psychological itches as journaling, scrapbooking, stamp collecting, and memory keeping.

The album gives the tournament a physical structure. The World Cup itself is enormous and difficult to comprehend. Dozens of teams. Hundreds of players. Multiple host cities. Group tables, qualification histories, unfamiliar names, new kits, national emblems, and enough statistics to keep several television panels employed around the clock. The album shrinks all of that into something that can sit on your lap. Every nation receives its pages. Every player receives a space. The tournament, with all its noise and scale, becomes a sequence of manageable paper decisions.

Long before you have watched every team play, you have already met them through the album. You know the color of their kit. You recognize their crest. You have stared at the awkward official portraits of reserve defenders who may never appear on the field. You have developed an irrational dislike for one player because you have received his sticker six times.

The History of the Panini Sticker Album

The tradition began, of all places, at a newsstand in Modena, Italy. The Panini family had bought a modest kiosk in 1945 and grown it into a newspaper distribution business, and while running it, the brothers noticed something that had nothing to do with the news: the free picture cards that publishers tucked into magazines were always the part the kids actually wanted. The papers were the product. The cards were the obsession. That little gap was the business idea.

The first thing they ever sold on that hunch was not even football. Around 1960 the brothers came across a leftover batch of collectible cards. By most accounts a series depicting flowers and plants, abandoned by a company that couldn’t move them. They bought the entire stock, repackaged it into little sealed envelopes of two for ten lire each, and watched it sell three million packets. Three million. On flowers. That was the proof of concept, and it told Giuseppe Panini there was a demand it would be foolish not to meet. In 1961 he rented a small workshop, and the brothers started printing their own cards. Not plants this time. Footballers. Their first collection, Calciatori, covered the Italian league, and the cards were sized almost exactly like the little pictures of saints people were already used to collecting and keeping.

The early operation was gloriously crude. The stickers were printed, hand cut, and in the first decade you glued them into the album yourself. There was no peel-and-stick yet. And then there is my favorite fact in the entire history of this object: to keep any single pack from being stuffed with duplicates, the brothers had to mix the stickers up before packing them, and at the very beginning they did this with a shovel. A shovel. When that proved too crude even for them, they switched to a butter churn (the kind you’d use to make cheese) turning the handle to tumble the stickers into something like randomness. Eventually Umberto, the family engineer, built proper machines to do the mixing, and his designs worked so well that versions of them are reportedly still in use sixty years later. The entire global apparatus of sealed pack randomness, the thing that makes the whole hobby tick, started as a guy with a shovel trying to make sure you didn’t open a pack and get the same player five times.

Then, in 1970, Panini partnered with FIFA and released its first officially licensed World Cup album, for the tournament in Mexico, printing multilingual captions and selling stickers outside Italy for the first time. The 1970 album captured a tournament that would become one of the most mythologized in the sport’s history. Pelé’s Brazil won it, and the matches were among the first beamed out in color to massive international audiences. Players who had been distant names in a newspaper all of a sudden had a face you could hold in your hand and own. That was the moment Panini stopped being an Italian success and became a global one. That first World Cup album also established a ritual Panini has repeated at every men’s tournament since, along with a peculiar quirk baked into the format. Because the album has to be printed before the competition begins, before final squads are even locked, every edition is really a paper forecast, and forecasts are wrong. A late call up goes missing. An injured player stays immortalized on the page despite never setting foot on the field. A teenager nobody has opinions about yet enters the album as a throwaway face and walks out of the tournament as one of the most famous athletes alive, his forty cent sticker suddenly worth a small fortune. The album freezes the tournament’s best guess about itself, weeks before anyone knows how the story actually ends.

The Most Social Kind of Stationery

Some of you know I play Magic: The Gathering, so the sealed pack model I just described probably sounds familiar. You buy a booster, you don’t know what’s inside, you tear it open hoping for the card that completes the thing you’re building. Same dopamine, same cardboard, same faint smell of fresh print. On the surface, the Panini album and a Magic set are the same machine.

But there’s one difference, and it is the entire difference, and once you see it you can’t unsee it.

In Magic, the randomness is optional. If I need a specific card, I do not have to gamble for it. I go to a vendor like a website, a shop, the guy at my LGS with a binder and I buy that exact card for its market price. The whole secondary market exists precisely so I never have to crack a pack I don’t want to. Boosters are the lottery. Singles are the sure thing. Every serious player knows that if you actually want a specific card, opening packs to chase it is almost always the worst way to get it. The smart move is to skip the randomness entirely and just buy the single. The packet is for fun. The market is for finishing.

Panini has no singles market.

I mean that almost literally. There is no official storefront where you punch in “I need sticker number 412, the backup left-back for Croatia” and have it shipped to you for forty cents. The missing store is not a flaw. It is the thing that forces the connection.

The Panini album is a paper object that becomes more functional when exposed to strangers. You can collect alone, but the system punishes you for it. Mathematically, completing a randomized sticker collection without trading becomes increasingly inefficient. Early packets fill many spaces. Later packets mostly produce duplicates. The closer you get to completion, the more absurd the process becomes. You may need only one sticker, but every new packet contains hundreds of possible outcomes that are not that sticker. But therein lies the opportunity. The duplicate that is useless to you may be exactly what someone else has spent three weeks trying to find. Their useless duplicate may fill the empty space that has been bothering you every time you open the album. The album makes cooperation economically sensible.

That does not mean every trade is generous. Children are capable of operating extremely aggressive sticker markets. Trust me. I know from experience haha.

That’s the thing I love about the Panini Album though. The sticker album is a piece of stationery that physically cannot be finished without other people. In an era where almost every other collecting hobby has been optimized into a solitary transaction, the album has held the line. It still makes you go find a person. It still makes you trade. The connection it brings isn’t just a bonus feature of the whole thing.

Now, Im not going to sit here and make Panini sound like saints. Panini is not distributing global harmony out of the goodness of its heart. It is selling stickers. The album is commercial. It encourages repeated purchases. It uses rarity, uncertainty, and completion anxiety to keep people buying. Newer editions have introduced more special versions and variants, adding another layer for collectors who are vulnerable to phrases like “limited edition” and “gold parallel.” Still, the social behavior surrounding those stickers is real.

Before the 2026 tournament began, thousands of collectors filled a stadium in Santiago, Chile, for a sticker exchange. Not a match. Not a training session. A paper swap. Think about the scale of that for a moment. Thousands (more than 8,000) of adults and children gathered in a football stadium carrying albums, checklists, packets, and piles of duplicates. People who may support different clubs, live in different neighborhoods, come from different generations, or know very little about one another entered the same space with the same minor problem. They were missing numbers. There is something wonderfully unserious about it. The world is full of severe disagreements, and here are thousands of people meeting because one person has two copies of a Colombian defender and another person has none. It is easy to dismiss that as childish. Adults are very good at dismissing activities that involve play unless the play has been disguised as productivity or networking or expensive. But the sticker exchange performs a real social function. It gives people permission to approach one another. It provides an immediate topic. It creates a small, solvable conflict. It produces reciprocity without requiring intimacy.

You do not need to know someone’s politics or job or income. You need to know whether they have sticker 687.

The Album Is A Time Capsule

So you fill the book. Maybe you finish it, maybe you get to ninety percent and life moves on and the last few rectangles stay empty forever. Either way, something happens to the album the moment the tournament ends: it stops being about football at all. A finished album is not just a list of players. It becomes a dated object. It is stamped, permanently, with a single specific summer of your life. The album freezes a moment and seals it under a thin film of adhesive, and then it just sits there, holding the year, until one day you open it again and the whole summer comes back. This is why people who have no financial reason to care about these books refuse to part with them. A complete 1970 album in good condition now sells for thousands of dollars, but the collectors who own them rarely talk about the money. They talk about where they were.

This is the part I think most people miss when they call it a kids’ product. The album is not really recording the tournament. The tournament is just the excuse. What the album is actually recording is you. It records the version of you who bought packets from the same corner store every few days. The person you traded with at school, at work, outside a stadium, or across a kitchen table. The handwriting in the margins. The folded checklist in the back. The one sticker you placed noticeably crooked and decided not to risk peeling up. It records which players you kept pulling, which one you could never find, and how much of your attention you were willing to give to a book of faces for a few weeks.

And because the World Cup only happens every four years, the albums create these strange checkpoints. You can line them up and measure your life against them. In one album, you were a child trading duplicates in a schoolyard. In the next, you were watching games with college friends. Four years later, you had moved, changed jobs, lost touch with people, met new ones, perhaps started buying the packets for your own children. The teams change, the graphic design changes, and eventually you notice that the players are younger than you.

Every four years the world hands a few hundred million people the same empty book and the same small, solvable problem, and for a month we go looking for each other to solve it. We do not get many moments like that anymore. Analog. Shared. Slow on purpose. Undertaken in good faith by millions of people who will never meet, in dozens of languages, around a paper grid of rectangles waiting for the right faces. Call it a sporting event. Call it a television event. Call it a tourism event. I will keep calling it a stationery event, and I think by now you can see why.

Okay I feel like things have been a little serious around here lately so why not a good ole’ rant to lighten things up a bit. First, yes the title and topic is a little ridiculous. Secondly, yes it is that serious.

Be honest with me here okay? When was the last time you told someone they couldn’t use your pen and didn’t feel weird about denying the request? There are few questions that produce as much immediate internal conflict in me as this one: “Can I borrow your pen?”

Because there’s so many things that come into my mind as soon as that question comes into play. Are they talking about my fountain pen or the decoy pen I have on my desk? Do they know how my fountain pen uncaps? Are they going to write like a toddler and press too hard? Are they going to chew it? What are you planning to do with it? When they’re done, is it going back to me, or is it going into their pocket, never to be seen again?

All of this runs through my head in about two seconds and unfortunately, the only response socially available to me is usually:

“Sure.”

This is not how a normal person reacts to “can I borrow a pen.” This is how a person reacts to “can I borrow your car for a sec,” except somehow the pen version feels worse, because at least with the car you’d get a phone call.

No no no. Don’t hold me back. We need to break this down a bit. We need to talk about it here.

First, when the heck did we all collectively agree that pens are like public property? There is like a strange social rule surrounding pens that does not seem to apply to most other personal belongings. People generally understand that the objects around you belong to you. Your phone is yours. Your headphones are yours. Your coffee is yours. Your notebook is yours. Nobody looks at the watch on your wrist and assumes it isn’t yours. Your notebook is yours.

A pen however? No. That’s different apparently. A pen is considered privately owned only until someone else needs to write something. You could be holding the pen in your hand, actively using it, and someone will still ask for it as though it has been sitting unattended on a reception desk. This happens constantly in banks, offices, restaurants, classrooms, waiting rooms, airports, and anywhere else human beings are unexpectedly confronted with paperwork. The moment a form appears, everyone begins looking around for the nearest person who had the foresight to bring a pen. That person is often me lol. Because I like pens and often prepare for situations where writing might occur. Other people apparently move through the world with the confidence that a pen will simply materialize when necessary. AND TO BE FAIR, it usually does haha. Because again, who is going to say no to letting someone borrow their pen?

Second, have you SEEN what people do to their pens? No really. Like have you SEEEEEENN how ordinary people treat their pens? People are rough with pens. They press down with unnecessary force. They scribble aggressively to “get the ink going,” even when the ink was already going. They click retractable pens twenty times while thinking. They bend clips. They twist sections that were not designed to twist. They leave caps off. They drop them. They tap them against tables. They use them to point at things. They use them to pry things open. WHICH IS FINE IF IT’S LIKE A BIC PEN BUT PLEASE DON’T PUT MY $300 FOUNTAIN PEN IN YOUR MOUTH. Chewing. Don’t even get me started on the chewing. I understand that it is often unconscious. I understand that some people need something to do with their hands or mouths while concentrating. I understand the explanation. BUT JUST DON’T DO IT WITH MY PEN.

So why does saying no feel so aggressive, then? Why does “no, you can’t borrow my pen” sound like one of the most disproportionate sentences a person can say out loud? It’s six words. It’s about a pen. I think it’s because the cost of the request looks like zero from the other side. The person asking for a pen doesn’t realize they’re asking to “borrow” your grail pen. The pen you’ve saved up 6 years to buy. They’re thinking about one thing: they need to sign a form, and you, a person with a visible pen, are standing right there. From where they’re standing, the request is the smallest thing in the world. From where you’re standing, it’s a immense level of trust. And there’s no way to bridge that gap in the two seconds you have to respond, so you’re left with exactly two options: hand over the pen, or become instantly, without warning, the most difficult person in the room. Over a pen. All they see is a person holding a pen and refusing to share.

So I usually hand it over. I would rather experience several minutes of anxiety than explain why you cannot use my writing instrument.

And look, I get the advice. “Just don’t carry pens you care about.” “Just buy cheap ones.” “It’s not that big a deal.” All of this is true, and all of this is also exactly the kind of advice that sounds reasonable right up until it’s applied to something you actually care about. Nobody says “well, you shouldn’t have worn nice shoes if you didn’t want someone borrowing them at the door.” Nobody tells the person with the nice headphones “maybe don’t bring those if you’re not willing to share.” Why is my pen the exception?

Now here’s the possible solution to this problem. you could just…bring your own pen. Pens are small. Many are designed specifically to be carried. They have clips. They fit into pockets, bags, backpacks, purses, notebook loops, and cases. And yet, entire groups of adults continue to arrive at places where forms are expected without any means of completing them.

Now, there is a temptation to make this into something larger. I could say the pen represents boundaries. I could argue that small requests reveal how society treats personal property. I could turn the entire issue into a lesson about learning to say no. But sometimes a pen is simply a pen, and I simply do not want you to take it. I know the stakes are low. You may think I am being dramatic. I agree. Completely. But every once in a while, this pops into my head and I felt the need to share it with you.

So even after all of this, when you ask, “Can I borrow your pen?” the answer is still probably yes. But I think that comes more from my excitement of sharing a nice pen with someone for the first time, than overcoming the fear of someone breaking my pens haha. Thanks for sitting here with me while I argue about nothing for the week.

We live in a culture where people are encouraged to analyze themselves constantly. We are told to know our attachment styles, name our trauma responses, set boundaries, regulate our nervous systems, identify our triggers, heal our inner child, break generational cycles, protect our peace, and understand why we are the way we are. Modern life has made self analysis feel almost mandatory.

Journaling has become one of the most socially acceptable forms of private self talk in modern life. Not because it replaces therapy in the literal sense, and definitely not because a notebook can do what a trained mental health professional can do. But because it fills a gap. A huge one. Journaling works. The research is real, the benefits are documented, and there is something genuinely useful about the act of translating internal noise into external language. I’ve been doing it for years. I’ve built a content brand around it. I believe in it with a sincerity that embarrasses me sometimes.

But I’ve also started to notice something that sits underneath the journaling boom. The rise of journaling as a cultural phenomenon is not just the story of people discovering a useful tool. It’s the story of a society that can’t afford mental healthcare, has decided individual reflection is a substitute, and has made that substitution look so beautiful that we’ve mostly stopped questioning it. That’s what I want to pull apart here.

The Therapeutic Void

Start with the infrastructure. Or the lack of it.

In the United States, roughly one in five adults experiences a mental health condition in any given year. Of those, fewer than half receive treatment. The reasons are layered and familiar: cost, stigma, geographic scarcity of providers, wait lists, insurance plans that nominally cover mental health while structuring coverage in ways that make actual access nearly impossible.

The median cost of a therapy session in the US without insurance runs somewhere between $100 and $200 per hour. In major cities, you’re often starting at $150 and moving up from there. Weekly therapy, the standard cadence most therapists recommend for genuine clinical work, runs $600 to $800 per month at minimum. For people who are not wealthy, this is not a minor line item. It’s a car payment. It’s groceries for a family. It’s rent. The American Psychological Association estimates it takes 15 to 20 sessions to see improvement from therapy. If each session is $150, your total cost would be $3,000. If you need additional sessions, that will increase your out-of-pocket costs.

So there is a void. A real, structural, material void. Millions of people who know, at some level, that they need more sustained support than they’re getting. And when people cannot access formal mental health care, they do not simply stop needing somewhere to put their pain. The notebook is one of the most available emotional technologies we have. That availability is part of the appeal. I think this is a major reason why journaling has become a kind of unofficial therapy substitute.

How Journaling Got Medicalized

The academic research came first, and it was really compelling. James Pennebaker’s work in the 1980s showed that expressive writing about traumatic events had measurable effects on immune function, stress hormones, and psychological wellbeing. The research was rigorous enough to be taken seriously, and serious enough to be simplified into something portable: writing about your feelings is good for you.

That finding was true. But the translation from clinical protocol to lifestyle recommendation was a long and lossy process. Pennebaker’s expressive writing studies involved specific conditions. Writing about deeply personal and upsetting events for 15 to 20 minutes across consecutive days, often in controlled settings, that bear little resemblance to the ambient journaling practice most people actually do. The research was about a particular kind of writing under particular conditions. What got popularized was: journaling heals you.

It’s worth noting how far that simplification traveled. By the time journaling content was thriving on YouTube and Instagram in the 2010s, the research had been laundered through several layers of interpretation. Pennebaker’s findings had been cited by self help books, which were cited by wellness blogs, which were quoted in Instagram captions, which were condensed into Pinterest graphics that said things like “journaling heals trauma.” Each step in that chain removed nuance and added confidence.

Then came the therapeutic language. Somewhere in the early 2010s, the vocabulary of therapy began migrating into self help culture, and journaling absorbed it wholesale. You were no longer just journaling. You were no longer just writing in a notebook. You were processing your emotions, unpacking your trauma, doing your inner child work, sitting with your feelings, and exploring your shadow self. Journaling became the delivery vehicle for therapeutic concepts that were, in their original form, meant to be facilitated by a trained professional in a relational context.

The therapeutic concepts themselves. Attachment theory, cognitive distortions, the inner critic, emotional regulation, are real and useful frameworks. But they were developed as tools for a trained person to help another person see themselves more clearly. When you journal using those frameworks alone, something important gets removed from the equation: the other person. Therapy is not just technique. It is, at its core, an experience of being witnessed. Of having your internal world received by another mind, reflected back with care, and occasionally challenged with precision.

A journal cannot do that. A journal is a mirror, not a window.

The Self-Help Industrial Complex

It would be incomplete to talk about journaling’s ascension without talking about the self help industry that surrounds it. The self help industry has a structural incentive to keep you in the self help industry. This is not a criticism unique to journaling. It’s a feature of the entire ecosystem, from productivity gurus to life coaches to wellness influencers of every variety. The premise of most self help content is that you, with the right tools and the right mindset and the right morning routine, can solve most of what ails you. The implicit message is one of individual sovereignty. Your wellbeing is primarily a function of your choices, your discipline, and your commitment to the practices. This is a philosophically interesting position that happens to be empirically incomplete.

Human wellbeing is shaped by genetics, childhood experiences, economic circumstances, social support, community infrastructure, and systemic forces that individual reflection cannot touch. Depression is not primarily a deficit of journaling. Anxiety disorders are not fundamentally a failure to process emotions in writing. Trauma responses are not always resolved by narrative construction, however sincere. The promise that inner work, consistently applied, will bring you to psychological wholeness is a beautiful idea that serves the people selling tools for inner work as much as it serves the people buying them. The self help industrial complex needs journaling to be therapy-adjacent because if it were just a writing practice, it would be harder to justify the notebooks, the courses, the coaching packages, the retreat weekends. The therapeutic framing elevates the practice from hobby to necessity. And that elevation serves commercial interests, even when the people doing the elevating believe genuinely in what they’re saying.

The Sociology of the Self

There’s a deeper current running under all of this, and to follow it you need to go further back than Instagram and further back than the wellness industry.

In 1966, sociologist Philip Rieff published The Triumph of the Therapeutic, arguing that Western culture had undergone a fundamental shift in its organizing principle of selfhood. Where previous cultural formations had oriented the self around religious commitment, civic duty, or communal obligation, what Rieff called “positive communities” that gave individuals a shared framework of meaning, the emerging therapeutic culture reoriented the self entirely inward. The new cultural type, what Rieff called “psychological man,” defines wellbeing not in terms of right relationship to God, community, or tradition, but in terms of self knowledge, self expression, and the management of one’s own interior life.

Rieff was writing in 1966. He was describing a shift that was still incomplete. By 2026, it is finished. The therapeutic framework for selfhood is so thoroughly dominant that it has become invisible. It’s simply how we talk about being human. Feelings need to be processed. Trauma needs to be unpacked. Growth is measured in psychological terms. The examined self feels like a social obligation. And journaling is the most accessible, most privatized, most individually manageable expression of that obligation.

This matters for the therapy substitute question because it explains why journaling could step into that role so smoothly. It didn’t have to fight against a competing framework for what wellbeing means. The therapeutic framework had already won. What journaling needed to do was position itself as a legitimate delivery vehicle for therapeutic work and it did that. The ideological ground had been prepared for decades before the Leuchtturm or Moleskine notebook arrived.

But ideology alone doesn’t explain the scale or the timing. For that you need Ulrich Beck and Zygmunt Bauman, and the structural transformation they were both documenting from the 1980s onward: the collapse of the collective.

Beck’s Risk Society (1986) and Bauman’s later work on “liquid modernity“ arrive at similar conclusions from different directions. The argument, condensed: late modernity is characterized by the systematic dismantling of the collective structures such as stable employment, religious community, extended family networks, civic institutions, class solidarity, that previously absorbed individual risk and provided frameworks of belonging. What replaced them is the individual, now responsible for managing risks and constructing meanings that were previously handled by institutions and communities. Beck called this “individualization“ and he was careful to distinguish it from individualism. Individualization is not a choice or a philosophy. It is a structural condition imposed on people by the dissolution of the structures that used to hold them. This is the sociological context in which the journaling boom makes complete sense.

People are doing their psychological maintenance in notebooks because the collective structures that used to distribute that maintenance have been significantly eroded. The church used to provide confession, community, ritual, and a framework of meaning. The union hall used to provide solidarity and a sense of collective identity. The extended family used to provide intergenerational wisdom and the experience of being known over time. What we have now, for a large portion of the population, is the self. And the journal is how you tend it.

What makes this more than an academic observation is the implication it carries for the therapy substitute problem. It is a structural outcome. When the collective containers for psychological life have been dismantled, and when the professional infrastructure for individual mental healthcare is priced beyond reach, what remains is the private practice. The individual, alone with the notebook, is not making a poor choice. They are responding to the options that a particular social arrangement has left them. Journaling didn’t become a therapy substitute because people are confused or because the wellness industry is manipulative, though both of those things are also true. It became a therapy substitute because a society organized around individualized risk, therapeutic selfhood, and inaccessible professional mental healthcare needed exactly that. A private, scalable, aestheticizable practice that could absorb the psychological demand that the dismantled collective structures used to meet. The notebook filled the hole that the village used to fill.

What We Lose When We Substitute

When people use journaling as a therapy substitute, consciously or not, they often reach a certain level of insight and stop. They go as far as they can go alone, which is meaningfully far, and then plateau. They understand the pattern. They can name the origin. They have written about it with real clarity. And they are still, in some structural sense, stuck in it.

The difference between insight and change is one of the most underappreciated distinctions in psychology. Understanding why you do something is not the same as doing something different. Cognitive understanding is often necessary but rarely sufficient for behavioral and emotional change. The missing element is usually relational. It happens in the presence of someone else, in the friction of being known by another person who can hold you to account, who can sit with you in the discomfort rather than letting you narrate your way around it.

There is also something about being witnessed that cannot be replicated in private writing. When you write in your journal, you are author and audience simultaneously. You can choose, at some level, what you reveal and what you soften. The audience is you, which means the performance, however unconscious, is calibrated for you. With a therapist, with a community, with anyone who is genuinely other, you can’t fully control the reception.

None of this is to say: stop journaling, start therapy. The infrastructure for that recommendation doesn’t exist at scale. Telling someone who can’t access or afford therapy to find a therapist is not helpful advice. But it is worth asking: what would it look like to build the relational component into our relationship with journaling, rather than pretending it doesn’t matter? What does shared reflection look like? Journaling circles, community reading, correspondence practices, the type of writing that’s meant to be read by another person rather than filed under “private”? What practices might bridge the gap between useful self reflection and the genuine experience of being known?

Subscribe now

I’ll Honest With You Here

I’m a journaling creator. I make content about journaling. I sell things adjacent to journaling. I have a financial and creative interest in people believing that journaling matters. If you’ve been reading this post and wondering whether I’m going to pull the rug out from under my own brand, I’m not. But I am trying to be honest about the thing I’ve spent years promoting.

Journaling matters. It genuinely does. The practice of translating internal experience into language is one of the most powerful tools available to a person who wants to understand themselves and live more deliberately. I’ve watched it work. I’ve felt it work. I’m not walking that back. But journaling is not therapy. It is not a medical intervention. It is not a substitute for the human experience of being known and held by another person. It’s a practice that belongs in a life that also contains community, relationship, honesty with other people, and (where accessible) professional support for the things that go beyond self reflection.

The culture has blurred this because blurring it is useful. It’s useful for the people selling products. It’s useful for a healthcare system that would rather have people journal than demand better access. It’s useful for a self improvement industrial complex that needs you to believe the work is always and primarily internal.

But I think we’re all adults here. I think we can hold both truths at once: that journaling is genuinely powerful and that it is genuinely limited.

Buying a journal used to be simple. I mean it still kind of is but times are tough. Some people might either have too many journals to justify a new one or the prices of new ones are really making people reconsider buying a quality journal.

Im not going to sit here and pretend like Im going to teach you how to buy a used car and not get scammed. It’s never that serious. But lately, journaling as a hobby feels like it’s getting a bit expensive. The small pleasures we used to indulge in are not always so small anymore. You see someone on YouTube open a Hobonichi Techo or a limited edition notebook, and you think: I want that. You order it, you spend $30 or $40 or more, it arrives, and then you discover the paper is too thin for your fountain pen, or the ruling is too small for your handwriting, or the size is impractical for where you actually sit down to write. Now you’re out $40 and have a journal you’re never going to use.

So I think it’s okay to set standards for your purchases and make sure you’re buying something that is going to benefit you in some way. I’ve created five criteria you can apply to almost any journal before you buy it so that you can make a more informed decision. Some of these you’ve heard before but probably haven’t thought about deeply. Some are the things that experienced journalers check instinctively but rarely explain out loud.

Use this like a checklist. Use it like a filter.

1. Purpose: What Is This Journal Actually For?

No you don’t HAVE to have a purpose for every single journal you ever buy but it DOES help a ton in terms of actually using it and not leaving on a shelf for years. Im not here to judge you and your reasons as to why youre buying a journal, fyi. BUT people usually start with aesthetics. They start with paper. They start with the brand. They start with what they saw someone else using. But it’s rare to have someone ask themselves outloud, “What am I going to use this journal for?”

Most people walk into a journal purchase with a vague sense of what they want: to write more, to feel more organized, to have somewhere to put their thoughts. That’s not a purpose. Identifying your primary purpose before you buy anchors every decision that follows. It’s the lens.

Ask yourself:

• What have I actually used my last journal for? not what I planned to use it for?

• Am I buying this journal for how I journal now, or for a version of myself I’m hoping to become?

• Does this journal need to support a system, or does it just need to get out of the way?

• Am I keeping this journal forever, or is it disposable once it’s full?

The purpose changes everything. So before buying a journal, give it a job. A clear one.

Try finishing this sentence:

“This journal is for ______.” The more specific the purpose, the easier the purchase becomes.

The rubric question: Am I buying this journal for the practice I actually have, or for the one I wish I had?

2. Paper Weight and Composition

Let’s start here because everything else like pen performance, bleed through, the way ink dries, whether you can write on both sides of the page, traces back to this. You can love the cover. You can love the size. You can love the layout. But if the paper does not work with the tools you use, you will slowly stop reaching for the journal.

Paper weight is measured in grams per square meter (GSM). The higher the number, the heavier and typically the more ink resistant the paper. Most mass market journals sit somewhere between 60 and 80 GSM. That’s fine for pencil. That’s fine for basic ballpoint. But if you use fountain pens, brush pens, markers, or any ink-heavy tool, you’re going to run into problems.

What to look for: Aim for 80 GSM or higher as a baseline for daily journaling, especially if you use anything beyond a standard ballpoint. The sweet spot that gets talked about constantly in the stationery community, and for good reason, is 80–120 GSM. Journals from Leuchtturm1917, Midori, Clairefontaine, and Rhodia use papers that perform consistently in this range. I personally used Archer and Olive for years because of their ultra thick 160 gsm paper. I loved it and it served me super well. Still does.

But GSM alone doesn’t tell the full story. Composition matters. Some papers are wood pulp based, which is standard and fine. Others are cotton blended or acid free, which matters a lot if longevity is important to you. Acid free paper won’t yellow as quickly over time, which sounds like a small thing until you open a journal from fifteen years ago and find the pages have started to decay.

The rubric question: Does it feel good to write on? Can you write on both sides of the page without losing the page behind it? If yes, you have paper worth using. If not, you’re buying a book with half as many usable pages as the cover suggests.

3. Format: Blank, Lined, Grid, Dot Grid, or Structured?

This is where people make surprisingly emotional decisions. Some people are lined paper people. Some people are blank page people. Some people swear by dot grid (me lol). Some people want a dated planner because they need structure. The format of a journal controls how you think inside it. Sounds dramatic, but it is true.

Lined paper is the default. Lines encourage writing in sentences. They create order. They make the page feel like a place for language. If your journaling is mostly reflection, diary entries, essays, letters, or notes, lined paper might be perfect. It reduces the decision making. You open the page and write.

But lines can also feel restrictive. If you like sketching, mind mapping, collage, diagrams, or messy visual thinking, lines can get in the way. They remind you where the writing is “supposed” to go.

Blank paper is the most flexible option and the most intimidating. A blank page lets you write sideways, draw, paste things in, map ideas, or create your own layouts. It is great for creative journaling, visual thinking, memory keeping, and people who hate being told what to do. But blank pages also ask more from you. You have to decide where things go. You have to tolerate uneven writing. You have to be okay with pages that look inconsistent.

Dotted paper, the grid of subtle dots that replaced squares, has become the dominant format in a lot journaling communities over the last decade for a reason. The dots give you the structure of a grid without the visual weight of lines or boxes. You can follow them to write straight across a page, use them as alignment guides for hand drawn layouts, or ignore them entirely for freeform work. In my opinion, they’re the closest thing to an all purpose format that exists.

Grid paper is the option for people who use their journal functionally. Like tracking habits, mapping out projects, sketching diagrams, doing any kind of structured visual planning. The full grid feels more utilitarian than dotted, which can be a feature or a drawback depending on how you use your journal.

What most people ignore is the ruling size. A dotted page with dots spaced 5mm apart behaves completely differently from one with dots spaced 3.5mm apart. Smaller ruling sounds more refined, but it means your handwriting has to be small and consistent to stay within it. If your handwriting is naturally large, or if it varies depending on your mood and energy level, smaller ruling creates friction every time you sit down to write.

What to look for: Match ruling to use case. If you know you write prose every day, lined or dotted at 5mm or larger. If you use your journal as a creative workspace for things like layouts, sketching, habit tracking then dotted or blank if probably best. If you do both, dotted at 5mm is probably your answer. It’s not the most exciting recommendation, but it works.

The rubric question: When I look back at my old journals, do I wish I had more structure or more freedom on the page? Does this format work against how I naturally journal? Does this ruling match the size and style of my handwriting, and what I actually do in a journal?

4. Size and Portability: Where Will This Journal Actually Live?

This sounds basic, but it might be the most practical category on the list.

Where will the journal live? On your desk? In your backpack? Beside your bed? In your car? In your coat pocket? On the kitchen table? In a tote bag with snacks, receipts, chargers, and keys? The best journal is the one you have with you when you need to write.

Size is actually a collection of decisions: physical dimensions, page count and the resulting weight and portability of the finished object. These interact in ways that aren’t always obvious from a product page. The question is what size fits the role?

A bedside journal can be bigger because it does not need to travel. A work notebook might need to fit in a bag. A travel journal needs to be light enough that you do not resent it by day three. A pocket notebook should actually fit in your pocket, not theoretically fit in your pocket if you are wearing the right jacket and standing perfectly still.

What most people ignore are the cover material and its effect on weight. A hardcover journal at A5 might weigh significantly more than a soft cover journal at the same size with the same page count. Hardcovers offer durability and a stable writing surface when working in your lap or without a desk. Soft covers are lighter and flex to fit into tighter spaces. If portability matters to you, pay attention to the weight listed in the specs or lift it, if you’re in a store.

The rubric question: Where do I actually write? At a desk, on a commute, in bed, in a coffee shop? Would I carry this on the days I don’t feel like it, or only when I’m motivated? How often do I want to finish a volume and start fresh (this is in terms of page count)?

5. Durability And The Cover: The Part That’s Mostly About Identity

The cover is the first thing people see. It’s the thing you hold in a store or stare at on a product page. It’s the thing that gives a journal its character before you’ve written a single word. And because journaling is, in part a practice with emotional texture, cover design and material genuinely matter in a way that isn’t shallow. You want to feel something when you reach for the book. But the cover is also structural. It’s what protects the pages, what determines how well the journal holds up in a bag, and what’s still standing after months of daily use.

A journal does not need to look pristine forever. In fact, a little bit of wear can be charming. I love a well loved journal. But charming wear is different from structural failure. If pages start falling out, that is a problem. If the spine cracks after two weeks, that is a problem. If the cover warps immediately, that might be a problem. If the binding makes the notebook hard to use once you are halfway through, that is a problem. This matters even more for journals you want to keep.

Not every notebook needs to be archival. A scratch notebook can fall apart. A temporary work notebook does not need to become a family heirloom. But a journal that holds your personal reflections, travel memories, creative ideas, or life documentation should probably be sturdy enough to last. We talk a lot about starting journals. We do not talk enough about living with them after they are full. Where do they go? How do they age? Will you want to reread them? Will they survive being stored on a shelf, moved between apartments, packed in boxes, or carried through different seasons of your life? If you are using journaling as memory keeping, durability becomes part of the value.

This is where the rubric helps. Durability should match the purpose. A pocket notebook needs to handle movement. A desk journal needs to handle repeated opening. A travel journal needs to handle chaos. A long term memory journal needs to age well. A messy brain dump notebook just needs to hold together long enough for you to fill it.

The rubric question: Is the cover going to hold up to how I actually treat my stuff, not how I intend to treat it? Does this cover make me feel something, and is that feeling worth what I’m paying for it? How does this journal need to look after six months of daily use?

Subscribe now

A Clearer Idea Of What You’re Buying

Now listen, sometimes that itch wins. I am not pretending every purchase has to pass a moral purity test. I love stationery. I love the browsing. I love the covers. I love the paper textures. I love the little accessories. I love the completely unnecessary seriousness we bring to choosing between dot grid and blank pages. Joy is absolutely a valid use case and reason to buy a new journal. If you see something you like? Get itttt, no one is stopping you.

This rubric is not me trying to talk you out of anything. Im not the voice in your head telling you to put it back on the shelf and be responsible. You can still feel everything you feel when you pick up a journal in a shop, still respond to the cover and the weight and the specific way the pages smell. The rubric doesn’t kill any of that. What it does is hand you a little more information to carry into the decision so that the journal you fall for is also the journal that works.

Tomoe River was one of the things I kept hearing about over and over again when I first started getting into fountain pens. Everyone SWORE by this paper. I didn’t understand. It’s a paper so thin that you can hold it up to a window and see your fingers through it. A paper that, by every law of logic, should be terrible for writing. It’s lightweight to the point of feeling fragile. If you’re not careful, your hand will smear the very sentence you just finished writing. It ghosts.

And yet, people lose their minds over it.

How could THIS paper be so good for so many things? Why did people love it so much? Mind you, at this point in my journaling life, I was using Archer and Olive journals which were 160 gsm. They were some thick pages. So I did what any curious person does, and I bought a planner with Tomoe River Paper in it. A Hobonichi to be exact. And it changed everything.

This is the story of Tomoe River Paper. How it came to exist, how a bunch of pen obsessed strangers on the internet turned it into a legend, and why, even now, people argue about which machine made their paper like it’s a matter of genuine consequence. (spoiler alert: it kind of it)

The Man With One Sample

The year is 1914. Japan is watching World War I break out across Europe with the attention of a country that understands, acutely, what it means to be dependent on foreign technology. One of the things Japan was importing at the time was electrical insulating paper. The material that wrapped power cables and insulated telegraph lines. Before the war, Germany made the best of it. And then, suddenly, German supply lines were not exactly cooperative. Why was insulting paper important?

Well because Japan had spent the last several decades furiously modernizing. They were building railways, factories, telegraph lines, and a power grid from almost nothing. It was infrastructure. It was industry. By 1914, Japan had already built one of the highest voltage power transmission systems in the world. The country was electrifying faster than almost anyone. Within two decades, more than 90% of Japanese households would have electricity. A higher rate than the United States, Germany, or Britain. All of that power, running through all of those cables, needed to be contained. Controlled. Kept from arcing or sparking or destroying the infrastructure it was meant to power. So German supply lines essentially disappearing overnight, was a pretty big deal for Japan. If Japan couldn’t produce its own insulating paper, its power grid expansion stalled. The whole industrial project of building a modern Japan depended, in part, on someone solving this paper problem.

Enter Genzaburo Inoue.

Inoue was the type of man who, when confronted with a problem, didn’t complain about the problem. He looked at it, studied it, and figured out how to solve it himself. According to Tomoegawa’s own corporate history, he started with almost nothing. One small piece of German made insulating paper, a facility along the Tomoegawa River in Shimizu City, and a stubborn belief that he could reverse engineer what the Germans had built. Turns out he could. By 1914, Tomoegawa Paper Factory has produced Japan’s first domestically made electrical insulating paper for communication cables. By 1916, they had cracked the power cables too.

Nobody was thinking about fountain pens. Nobody was thinking about ink shading or journaling. Inoue was thinking about keeping Japan’s lights on. He was thinking about cable insulation and supply chains and the very practical business of building a country. And in doing so, he accidentally laid the foundation for one of the most beloved writing papers in modern history.

Sixty-Seven Years of Minding Your Own Business

Here’s something the Tomoe River mythology tends to gloss over: for the first sixty-seven years of the company’s existence, nobody outside of industrial paper circles cared.

Tomoegawa grew impressively and mostly under the radar. They got listed on the Tokyo and Osaka Stock Exchanges. They built new factories, expanded into specialty papers for dozens of industries, established a reputation so strong that their name became a kind of shorthand in Japan. Tomoegawa of Specialty Paper, people called them. They developed papers for electronics. Adhesive tape components in LCD manufacturing. For chemical processes. Highly technical, deeply unglamorous, essential work.

In 1981, they introduced a new lightweight paper product. Thin. Coated on both sides. Originally designed for commercial printing. Specifically, the story goes, for Bible printing, where you need pages that are impossibly thin but still hold ink without bleeding through, because a Bible with bleed through is a very hard sell. From Bibles, the paper moved into magazines and booklets. Then into techo (Japanese Personal Planners) where it came in several colors. It was a commercial product. A printer’s tool. Functional, reliable, and completely without glamour. It was called Tomoe River, after the river Inoue had built his factory beside sixty seven years earlier.

For the next couple of decades, it went on doing its commercial thing. Catalogues. Planners. Booklets. Nobody outside Japan’s printing industry gave it a second thought. And then the fountain pen people found it.

The Rabbit Hole Finds Its Paper

To really understand what happens next, you need to understand a few things about fountain pen culture in the early 2010s.

1. It’s obsessive in the best possible way. It’s isn’t just about having the pens. They study them. They debate nib widths and flex and tipping material with the kind of dedication most people reserve for things that cost a lot more than a pen. They collect inks. Sometimes dozens. Sometimes hundreds. They write full length reviews of individual inks, describing their shading and sheen and flow and dry time the same way a wine critic describes a Burgundy.

2. They are constantly on the hunt for paper that can “keep up”

Here’s the secret that most people don’t know until they get into fountain pens. Most paper is bad for fountain pens. Even “good” paper. Even expensive paper. The wet, juicy flow of a well tuned fountain pen is a blessing on the right surface and a disaster on the wrong one. Ink feathers. Ink bleeds through to the other side. Ink sheen (that metallic glimmer that certain inks produce when dried, a completely different color than the ink itself) is completely invisible on most paper.

Tomoe River was the right surface.

When early adopters started writing about it online in forums, in blogs, in the early, earnest days of fountain pen YouTube, they struggled to describe what made it different. The paper was thin enough to be translucent, which meant it should have been hopeless. Instead, something about the coating made ink perform. Colors were richer. Shading became visible and dramatic. And sheen appeared, for the first time for many writers, in full iridescent glory.

Word spread the way word spreads in niche communities. Fast. Certain. Enthusiastic. “You HAVE to try this paper. No, you don’t understand. You have to try it.”

The Science of the Magic

Now what makes the paper special? Let’s get into it a bit.

Paper, at its most basic, is a mat of cellulose fibers. Tiny, thread like structures derived from wood pulp that lock together when wet and dry into a flat sheet. And cellulose fibers, chemically speaking, are deeply, constitutionally in love with water. Their molecular structure is loaded with what chemists call hydroxyl groups. Little chemical hooks that form hydrogen bonds with water molecules almost instantly on contact. This is great news when you’re making paper. It’s terrible news when you’re trying to write on it. Because ink is mostly water.

When a drop of fountain pen ink lands on untreated paper, the water component doesn’t just sit there. It gets pulled into the fiber network by capillary action. And as the water moves, it drags the dye molecules along with it, spreading them outward through the fibers in every direction. This is feathering: that soft, fuzzy halo around a line that turns crisp handwriting into something that looks like it was written with a dying marker.

The paper industry’s solution to this, developed over centuries, is called sizing. The process of treating paper with agents that reduce its absorbency by making the cellulose fibers hydrophobic, or water-resistant. Early papermakers used starches. European papermakers used animal gelatin. Modern industrial papermaking uses synthetic chemicals. The principle is the same in every case: coat the fibers so that when water arrives, it doesn’t immediately race inward.

Tomoe River uses a particularly sophisticated version of this. The paper has both internal sizing, agents (this is top secret) worked into the pulp before the sheet is formed, making the fibers themselves resistant to absorption and an external coating applied to both sides of the finished sheet. That double coating is the key. It creates a surface that is almost impermeably smooth under a microscope, essentially sealing the outermost layer of the paper against rapid ink penetration.

Think of it this way. On regular paper, ink lands and immediately starts sinking. Absorbed into the fiber structure within a second or less. On Tomoe River, the ink lands and can’t go anywhere immediately. The coating acts as a slow gate rather than an open drain. The ink sits on the surface, spreading slightly but cleanly along its edges, before being gradually drawn in over a period of minutes. This is why Tomoe River dries so slowly. The coating is doing its job almost too well. That extended surface time is exactly what produces the properties that the fountain pen community loves.

What it meant practically was that you could have a notebook with 450 pages that weighed next to nothing and handled a wet fountain pen beautifully. You could write on both sides of every page. You could carry a full year of daily writing in a coat pocket.

The Little Planner That Changed Everything

For a lot of people, especially those outside the hardcore fountain pen world, the gateway to Tomoe River wasn’t a pen forum or a YouTube review. It was a small Japanese planner called the Hobonichi Techo. Hobonichi (the name comes from a Japanese phrase meaning “almost daily” ) had been around since the early 2000s. The design philosophy was simple: one page per day, a grid layout, room to do whatever you want. No elaborate productivity frameworks. Just space. The planners were small, light, and designed to be carried everywhere. And they used Tomoe River paper. This was my first introduction to the paper back in 2021.

When Hobonichi started gaining international fans, which happened slowly, then all at once, via the same word-of-mouth alchemy as the pen community, a lot of people encountered the paper for the first time in a daily planner context. They opened their Hobonichi, picked up whatever pen they had, and immediately noticed something. The writing felt different. Looked different.

It created a feedback loop. Hobonichi introduced people to Tomoe River. Tomoe River made those people want better pens. Better pens led them to the fountain pen community. The fountain pen community sent them deeper into Tomoe River. The paper and the planner and the culture all fed each other. At its peak, the Hobonichi Techo had a following that was closer to a lifestyle community than a planner customer base.

The Machine 7 Era: The Golden Age No One Knew Was Ending

For years, nobody thought much about how Tomoe River was made. You bought it, you used it, you loved it. The paper came in cream and white. There was a 52 gsm version and a 68 gsm version, which was slightly thicker and more forgiving for beginners. Life was good. Behind the scenes though? It was not peachy chief.

See the paper was being produced on a machine in Tomoegawa’s Shizuoka facility called Plant #7. Machine 7. It was old. It was the type of equipment that, over years of running, develops its own particular character. The coating ratios, the pressure, the speed. Everything calibrates over time, and what comes out is a product with properties that are almost impossible to perfectly replicate on different equipment.

Nobody in the stationery community was thinking about Machine 7. The concept didn’t exist to them. Paper came from factories. That was the full extent of the mental model. Then in April 2019, Tomoegawa made an announcement. Machine 7 was being decommissioned. Demand was declining. The line wasn’t profitable. Production would shift to another machine. Plant #9. But the paper would continue. Everything would be fine. Or so we thought. Because shortly after…the crisis came.

The Crisis

The first sign that something had changed came in 2020, when new paper from Machine 9 began reaching consumers.

Notebook makers noticed it first. Then reviewers. Then regular users. The paper felt different. Not drastically. Like you wouldn’t have noticed if you weren’t REALLY paying attention but if you had been paying attention, which this community absolutely had, the differences were real and measurable.

The paper was slightly thicker. Not in weight, but in physical dimension, because the pulp core had been increased while the coating layer had been thinned. It felt stiffer. Less crinkly. The old paper had that particular quality of very fine onion skin paper. Delicate, almost fragile feeling, with a slight translucency. The new paper was more conventional. More like paper. The writing experience had changed too. There was fractionally more drag. Lines had slightly less definition at their edges. From personal experience, it just felt like none of the pens that USED to work well on Tomoe River Paper, worked well. There was a ton of feathering. Ghosting was probably the worst it had ever been. Overall, a frustrating experience. And you might be saying to yourself, how could you tell? The difference couldn’t have been that big. But when you use something every. single. day. Day in and day out. For hours and hours. You notice these things.

Tomoegawa initially denied that anything had changed. Then, under community pressure, confirmed it. The product code was updated. The new paper got an “N” suffix so manufacturers could at least distinguish the batches. It wasn’t much, but it was something. People started hoarding old stock. And then, in 2021, the real news landed: Machine 9 was being shut down too. Tomoegawa was getting out of the writing paper business entirely. Tomoe River Paper was finished.

Then Sanzen showed up.

Subscribe now

The Rescue

Sanzen Paper Manufacturing, a subsidiary of Chuetsu Pulp (one of Japan’s largest paper companies) did something that seemed almost too good to be true: they bought the rights to Tomoe River. Not just the remaining inventory. The rights. The name, the formula, the whole thing. By November 2021, Sanzen was shipping. The community, having prepared itself for the worst, got something unexpected instead.

The paper was good.

Not identical. The obsessives will tell you that and they’re right. Sanzen’s version had a slightly different feel: a touch more texture under the nib, lines with edges just a hair less surgical than the original Machine 7 output. In some ways it was better. Certain inks that had been borderline on Machine 9 performed beautifully on Sanzen’s version. The shading came back. The sheen came back. The essential character of the paper, that peculiar combination of impossible thinness and sophisticated ink performance, had survived the transfer. By 2024, Sanzen had refined the paper further. By 2025, it was being used by virtually every premium notebook maker in the world who cared about fountain pen performance. Hobonichi made the switch. The paper had not just survived, it had been institutionalized, standardized, accepted.

And Here We Are In Present Day

Im happy to announce that the Tomoe River Paper of the 2026 Hobonichi planners feels great! Almost like the good ol’ days. BUT anyway, that’s the strange legacy of Tomoe River Paper. It was never made for us. It wasn’t designed for journalers, fountain pen people, Hobonichi fans, or ink reviewers. It was a commercial paper that got pulled into a completely different world because people noticed something special about it. That is what makes it funny, and kind of perfect. A paper made for practical reasons became beloved for impractical ones. It is too thin, too slow to dry, too easy to smear, and still somehow one of the most important papers in fountain pen history. Stationery history is full of great stories. The story of Tomoe River is one of my favorites.

I have more journals than I know what to do with. Dozens of them just waiting for my next great idea. I keep getting them faster than I can fill them. But because of that, Im constantly thinking of new ways to fill those journals. So I’ve been making a running list of creative ways to actually use the journals I have and I figured it was time to share it.

Here are 21 ideas to help you finally crack open that beautiful journal you’ve been saving for just the right moment.

1. “One Album, One Page” – You press play on a full album. No skipping. No shuffle. No stopping. Give it one uninterrupted page. As you listen, you capture impressions in real time: emotions, textures, memories it triggers, lines you paraphrase in your own words, production details, even colors the sound makes you imagine.

2. Failure Resume – Instead of listing wins, you deliberately catalog rejections, missed opportunities, bad decisions, abandoned projects, awkward moments. All of it. A running document of everything that didn’t work. Each entry gets three parts: what happened, what it cost, and what it taught you. No vague “growth mindset” fluff. Concrete lessons. Patterns. Recurring blind spots. Most people carry their failures privately, which lets them fester and repeat. Writing them down strips the emotional charge and turns them into something you can actually analyze. You can’t spot a pattern you won’t look at.

3. Arguments Journal – Most people don’t actually think about the things they believe. They feel something, find a few facts that agree with them, and call it a position. This journal changes that. You pick a debate you care about. It can be about politics, art, AI, money, education, whatever lights you up and you force yourself to write both sides as if you genuinely believed them. Steelman them. That means you present the strongest, most charitable, most rational version of each argument. Each entry might have three sections: Side A at its best, Side B at its best, and then your current position with uncertainty clearly stated. The goal isn’t to win. Over time, you start noticing where you’ve been lazy in your thinking. You catch emotional reactions disguised as logic.

4. Scent Journal – Each entry begins with a smell. Fresh coffee in a quiet cafe, old paper in a bookstore, cold air before snow, sunscreen in summer, your own house after rain. You describe the scent as precisely as you can: sharp or soft, sweet or metallic, dusty or warm. Does it have weight to it, or is it thin and fleeting? Does it smell like a color? Like a time of day? Then you follow where it leads. What memory surfaces? What person? What season of your life? Smell is neurologically intimate. This journal becomes a sensory archive. Instead of documenting what happened, you’re documenting how life felt in the air around you. It trains attention in a way. You start noticing environments more deeply.

5. “Unsent Messages” Book – This journal is a vault for everything you’re too wise or too late to say out loud. Letters to exes. To friends you drifted from. To people who hurt you. To people you hurt. To versions of yourself. Nothing gets filtered for politeness or performance. Each entry can start simply: “To ___.” Then you let it run. No editing. No crafting. The rule is honesty. The magic here is that expression doesn’t require delivery to be effective.

6. “Deep Topic Research Notebook” - A Research notebook for one deep topic (Space? AI? Color Theory?) where you pick one subject and you commit to studying it like an independent scholar. Not a broad category but a specific obsession. Something that keeps pulling at you every time you brush past it, the kind of topic where you open one article and two hours disappear. Now study it. This notebook has no fixed format, but a few page types tend to emerge naturally. Some pages summarize a paper, a chapter, or a documentary in plain language. Others define key terms. Some pages map competing theories against each other. Occasionally a page is just questions. Then you add your reflections. How it connects to something you’re building, something you believe, something you’ve experienced. Not just “what does this say?” but “why does this matter?”.

7. Advice Book for Future Kids/Younger Self – One piece of advice per page, with story. “Advice Book for Future Kids / Younger Self” is structured simply: one page, one piece of advice. At the top, you write the advice plainly. Something like, “Protect your mornings,” or “Most people are not thinking about you as much as you think.” Then the rest of the page is the story behind it. Where did you learn this? What mistake carved it into you? What moment made it obvious? Advice without narrative is cliche. Advice with context is wisdom.

   The Stationery Project is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

8. The Master Notebook to Rule Them All – A master notebook index where each notebook gets an entry. Track what it’s used for, the date you started/finished it, the current status (active, finished, abandoned), and where it’s stored. Then a mini review of whether you liked it or not. This is more for people who don’t have a real categorization method for their physical journals and tend to just stuff their finished journals into a box or a shelf, never to be opened again. There’s a lot of useful information you can get from your past self if you just took the time to go back.

9. Film Companion – You already watch movies. You just don’t watch them like this. Most of us finish a film, sit in the credits for a few seconds, and move on. Maybe we text someone about it. Maybe we rate it and forget it. This journal is about really taking in the media you consume and sitting with it.

   One film, one page. After you watch, you don’t summarize the plot. You ask: what did this surface in me? What scene lingered? What character irritated me and why? What fear, value, or memory did it poke? You can structure it loosely:

   – Scene that stayed with me

   – Line (paraphrased) that hit

   – What this reveals about my current season of life

   – One question the film leaves me with

10. Rejection Archive – Keep screenshots, paraphrased emails, and what you learned from each no. Every “no” gets logged. Write a short description of what you went for: job, pitch, collaboration, submission. And then write what the outcome was. Then the most important section: what this taught me. Actual insight. Did you aim too high? Not high enough? Was your portfolio unclear? Did you realize you didn’t want it as much as you thought? Did you follow up too soon, or not at all? This archive becomes empowering. You see volume. You see attempts. You see proof that you’re trying.

11. Personal Ethics Lab – Most people don’t discover what they actually believe until a situation forces them to act and by then there’s no time to think. This journal is the practice round. Test hypothetical moral scenarios and record your reasoning. This is where you stress test your moral architecture before life does it for you. Each entry starts with a scenario. Sometimes real, sometimes hypothetical. Would you lie to protect someone? Would you report a coworker you like if they broke a rule? Would you prioritize loyalty over fairness? Then you write your reasoning step by step. Not just what you’d do, but why. You can structure each page like an experiment:

    – The scenario

    – Immediate emotional reaction

    – Slower, reasoned analysis

    – Competing values in tension

    – Final decision (with uncertainty acknowledged)

    This is where you notice the difference between your instincts and your principles. Sometimes they align. Sometimes they clash. It’s the most interesting data this journal produces.

12. A Belief Audit — Define what you stand for and refine it yearly. You choose a core domain like money, love, art, work, politics, success, freedom and you write what you currently believe in plain language. No quotes. No borrowed phrasing. Just your words. What is money for? What is love? What is art supposed to do? What is work worth sacrificing for? Then you add: where did this belief come from? Family? Culture? Experience? Fear? Ambition? Most of what you believe, you didn’t choose. You inherited it. And it’s important to understand that.

13. A Skill Acquisition Lab — Most people learn things the slow, frustrating way: they practice vaguely, improve inconsistently, and quit when motivation runs out. This is your counter to that way of learning. Each page documents one session. And the constraint is the point. You’re not logging “guitar practice.” You’re logging “20 minutes working exclusively on clean transitions between G, C, and D.” Not “I worked on my drawing.” But “30-minute session, observational sketching, focusing only on hands.” The narrower the target, the more useful the data. The constraint matters. Structure it like a mini scientific log:

    – Skill + specific subskill: What exactly were you working on, as precisely as you state it

    – Time spent: no rounding up

    – Method used: how did you practice? Repetition? Deliberate variation? Following a tutorial? Working from reference?

    – What felt hard: specific friction point

    – What improved: even incrementally.

    – Adjustment for next session: this is the most important line on the page. What changes based on what you just learned?

    This forces you to break skills into components instead of vaguely “getting better.” You stop relying on motivation and start relying on iteration.

14. A Quote Collection with commentary - Everyone collects quotes. They highlight them, screenshot them, pin them to boards, paste them in the notes app graveyard where good intentions go to die. And then nothing happens. The quote just sits there looking wise.

    This journal is what comes after the highlight.

    Each entry starts with a quote that actually moved you. From a book, interview, film, lecture, whatever. Write it down (or paraphrase if needed). Then the real work begins: why did this hit? Do you agree? Disagree? What does it assume about the world? What part of your life does it illuminate?

    Add layers:

    – Context (where you found it)

    – Your interpretation

    – A counterpoint

    – A real-life example

    What you’re building over time is a record of your intellectual life. The ideas that shaped your thinking and the ones you pushed back on.

    Thanks for reading The Stationery Project! This post is public so feel free to share it.

    Share

15. Lie Detector Journal – Write one page where you intentionally lie. Each entry starts with a real moment from your day. A small exaggeration. A polite “I’m busy” when you just didn’t want to go. A “Yeah, I read that” when you skimmed it. A laugh at a joke that wasn’t funny. A “It doesn’t bother me” when it did.

    Write exactly what you said. Then write what was actually true. Then dissect why you lied.

    Why did you say that? What outcome were you trying to control? What did you believe would happen if you’d just told the plain truth? Was this kindness, or was it the performance of kindness? Was it convenience? Ego protection? Conflict avoidance dressed up as politeness? Did the lie protect someone else, or did it mostly protect you from an uncomfortable moment that would have lasted thirty seconds?

16. “Why Did That Annoy Me?” Journal – You’re not an angry person. But something about the way he said that in the meeting is still sitting in your chest three hours later, and you can’t quite explain why.

    This journal is for that.

    Dissect small irritations. The comment that rubbed you wrong, the slow walker in front of you, the email tone that felt off, the friend who canceled last minute.

    You log the irritation while it’s still warm. Write exactly what happened and exactly what you felt, without editing for reasonableness. Then you ask the only question that matters: why did that actually annoy me?

    Because the slow walker isn’t really about the slow walker. The email tone is rarely about the email. Small irritations are almost always dispatches from somewhere deeper. A value that got violated, a boundary you haven’t articulated yet, an insecurity that got accidentally poked, an unmet need you haven’t admitted to yourself. Sometimes the irritation is just tiredness or hunger. That’s worth knowing too.

17. Poetry Journal - You pick a poet. Maybe Mary Oliver, Langston Hughes, Ocean Vuong, Sylvia Plath, or whoever you’re studying that week. You write one of their poems out by hand on one page. The full thing, in your own handwriting, at your own pace. The act of transcribing alone changes how you read.

    On the opposite page, you break down one of their poems:

    – What images do they use?

    – What emotional tension is present?

    – Where does the poem shift?

    – What is left unsaid?

    – What techniques are doing the heavy lifting (metaphor, enjambment, repetition, contrast)?

    Then the last section, and the most personal one: what does this poem know about your life right now? Poetry has always been a technology for saying the unsayable.

18. A Glue Book - Glue random objects to your pages. It’s exactly what it sounds like. A journal built from the physical artifacts of your everyday life. Ticket stubs. Receipts. Dried Flower petals. A post-it note. Packaging from a snack you had and enjoyed. This isn’t a scrapbook for milestone moments like weddings, graduations, the obvious occasions. It’s for the ordinary Tuesday.

19. Handwriting Journal - This is a drill notebook. Deliberate practice for your handwriting. Each session has one specific goal. Not “improve my handwriting.” Something narrower. The consistency of your lowercase letters. The spacing between words. The angle of your ascenders. The way your r’s and n’s blur together when you write fast. Nobody teaches you handwriting twice. You learn it as a child, develop whatever habits stick, and carry them forward for the rest of your life without really feeling the need to examine or improve on it.

20. Relationship Compendium - The people closest to you have told you almost everything you need to know about them. Most of it you’ve already forgotten. A Relationship Compendium is a dedicated study of the people who matter most in your life. I want to state clearly that this isn’t a surveillance project but instead a way to pay deliberate attention.

    The premise is simple: the people you love deserve to be known carefully, and knowing someone carefully takes more than good intentions. It takes memory. It takes noticing. It takes writing things down.

    Each person gets their own pages. And what you’re tracking isn’t events. You’re tracking character. What lights them up when they talk about it. What drains them. How they behave when they’re stressed versus how they behave when they feel safe. What they value so deeply they rarely have to say it out loud. How they actually want to be supported when things get hard, which is almost never the same as how you’d want to be supported yourself. Never weaponizing any of this. You add to it over time. A detail from a conversation. Something they mentioned once that clearly mattered more than they let on. The specific way they show love that you almost missed because it didn’t look the way you expected.

    This compendium is a reminder that the people in your life are complex, evolving, and worth studying. Paying close attention to someone is one of the most profound ways you can love them.

21. Decision Journal - A decision journal is a tool used to record and analyze decisions you make in various aspects of your life. Each entry documents one decision while it’s still in motion. Not in hindsight, when memory has already revised the story, but in the moment before you know how it turns out. You write down what you’re deciding, what your options actually are, what factors are pulling you in each direction, and which option you chose and why. Then you walk away and let time do its work.

Twenty one ideas. And honestly the list could keep going. The point was never to give you a definitive answer for what a journal should be. It was to show you how wide the possibility actually is. A journal doesn’t have to be a diary. It doesn’t have to be morning pages or gratitude lists or a place to process your feelings, unless that’s what you want it to be. It can be a research lab. A training log. A moral stress test. A sensory archive. A study of the people you love. You have the notebooks. Now you just need to a pick one format that spoke to you, open the first page, and get to writing.

Share

When you’ve been collecting or simply just buying notebooks for a while, you subtly start to develop a fear that’s only comes from opening a fresh notebook.

The cover folds back and you hear the spine of the notebook crack. The paper is clean. The first page just sits there. Untouched. Looking almost too perfect to disturb. Now that it’s open in front of you, the page feels heavier and you don’t really understand why.

The page is empty but that doesn’t mean it’s neutral. It carries possibility and possibility is not always relaxing. Sometimes, it shows up as pressure or judgement. This is one of the strangest phenomenon about notebooks. We buy them because we want somewhere to think. Somewhere to write. Somewhere to plan and to reflect or to sketch or vent. But the moment that page is too clean, we freeze.

I recently bought a Sterling Ink journal to turn into my daily journal. It had been a while since I treated myself to a nice notebook but I decided to splurge a little considering this was a journal I was going to be using almost every single day. Then I opened it and all of a sudden I didn’t know what pen to start with. I didn’t know how I wanted to document my life. Did I want to include pictures? Did I want to draw in this? So many questions. So many ideas. Too many possibilities that make it feel like once you go down one path, there’s no coming back. Here I was, with every intention to start, and still, I just stared at it. Closed it and told myself I’ll come back to it later when I know what to do with it. Which has brought us here. To this very essay we’re about to dive into. Why does a blank page make me feel this way?

What Your Brain Is Actually Doing When It Sees a Blank Page

Before we get into psychology, let’s start at the level of the brain itself, because the anxiety you feel in front of an empty notebook is not a metaphor. There are real biological systems reacting inside of you when you see a blank page.

A blank page is an ambiguous situation. There is no obvious first move, no clear answer, no built-in structure telling you what belongs there. And the brain does not always love that. Research on anxiety has shown that uncertain situations can activate neural systems involved in threat responding, especially when the brain reads that uncertainty as something that needs to be resolved. Acute stress has also been shown to impair executive functions like working memory and cognitive flexibility, which are exactly the kinds of mental processes you rely on when you are trying to organize your thoughts and decide where to begin. In other words, the pressure of the blank page can make starting feel harder not just emotionally, but cognitively.

This is one of the most frustrating feedback loops in all of stationery experiences. The blank page triggers stress. The stress impairs your thinking. The impaired thinking makes the page feel even harder to start. The harder it feels to start, the more stressed you become. I’ve literally walked away from notebooks because of this feeling haha.

The Intolerance of Uncertainty

Not everyone experiences this threat response equally, and that’s where psychology adds another layer. Researchers have studied a trait called intolerance of uncertainty, which describes how individuals differ in their ability to sit with open-ended, unpredictable situations. It has been framed as a “transdiagnostic” factor, meaning it shows up across multiple forms of anxiety and emotional distress, not just one specific condition. People who score high on this trait tend to interpret ambiguous situations as threatening and to seek resolution, any resolution, as fast as possible. Which is why some people deal with a blank page by writing something bad just to break the silence. It’s their nervous system looking for an exit from the uncertainty. And it works, at least partially, because the act of starting transforms an open problem into a defined one. The page is no longer blank. The threat signal quiets. This is also why the openness of a notebook can feel like both its greatest feature and its biggest obstacle: the same quality that makes it useful is the quality that makes it hard to begin. A blank page is perhaps the most ordinary example of uncertainty in physical form.

This is where the blank page becomes a decision.

One classic study by Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper found that people can be drawn to large choice sets, but actually feel less satisfied and be less likely to choose when presented with too many options. Their research is often discussed through the famous jam study, where shoppers were more attracted to a display with many jam options but more likely to buy when presented with fewer choices. The broader point is not that choice is bad. It is that too much choice can become cognitively burdensome. A blank notebook page is the stationery version of too many options.

You can write anything, which sounds freeing until you realize “anything” is not a direction. It offers SO much freedom that the first move starts to feel weirdly consequential. The problem is not that we lack ideas. Sometimes the problem is that the page contains too many possible versions of ourselves. The reflective self. The productive self. The artistic self. The disciplined self. The honest self. The poetic self. The blank page gathers all those possible selves in one place. Then it asks us to choose one.

No wonder we hesitate. Making the first mark means committing to one of them, at least for now, and that commitment can feel more permanent than it really is.

Subscribe now

The First Mark Is A Commitment

Which brings us to what might be the most psychologically loaded part of this whole experience: the act of actually putting pen to paper for the first time. Part of the anxiety comes from the first mark itself. The first sentence or the first scribble.

A blank notebook has a kind of symbolic purity. I know that sounds dramatic, but anyone who has ever bought a beautiful journal and then avoided using it for months knows exactly what I mean. Before you write in it, the journal can be anything. The first mark ruins that fantasy. Ruins the imagined perfection we built up in our minds.

There is something about marking a clean surface that carries enormous symbolic weight. Researchers who study perfectionism have found that its behavioral footprint often looks less like excellence and more like delay. Work on perfectionism and procrastination suggests that when people become overly concerned with mistakes, evaluation, or falling short of an internal standard, avoidance becomes a way of protecting the imagined perfect version of the work. If the page stays blank, it cannot disappoint you. If the journal remains untouched, it can still become the journal that changes your life. The same mechanism that looks like “high standards” from the outside can feel a lot more like self protection from the inside.

This is also connected to the psychological concept of self-handicapping, the tendency to create conditions that make it easy to externalize failure. Self-handicapping is defined as any action that enhances the opportunity to explain away failure or take credit for success, and it has been found to be closely related to fear of failure and maladaptive perfectionism. Not starting a notebook is a low stakes form of self-handicapping: you never have to fail at journaling if you never begin.

The first mark feels like a loss as much as a beginning. I think this is something we should consider before telling someone to “just start”. Starting requires surrendering the imagined perfection, and that surrender is genuinely hard for many people.

Creativity Anxiety Is A Real And Measurable Trait

Think about what it feels like to sit down with the specific intention of being creative. Not just writing a grocery list or firing off an email, but actually creating something. A journal entry. A sketch. A first paragraph. There’s a particular quality to that pressure that is different from other kinds of stress. It’s not just that the task is hard. It’s that you are on the line in a way that feels oddly personal. If the thing you make is bad, it says something about you. At least that’s how it feels.

It turns out that feeling has a name. Researchers have now formally identified and measured what they call creativity anxiety, a distinct form of anxiety that arises specifically at the prospect of having to be creative.

A 2023 study published in Scientific Reports investigated the links between creativity anxiety, creative performance, and state-level anxiety in over 500 participants. The researchers found that creativity anxiety was associated with lower real-world creative achievement, not because people were less capable, but because the anxiety itself functioned as a barrier. People who reported higher creativity anxiety were also more likely to put in less effort during creative tasks, even when they were capable of performing well. The gap wasn’t ability. It was what the anxiety did to their willingness to fully engage.

There’s also a compounding factor that makes this worse: being watched. Or, more accurately, the feeling of being watched. A 2024 study in the Creativity Research Journal found that when creativity anxiety collides with evaluative pressure, the effect on creative output becomes significantly more pronounced. The combination of “I have to create something” and “someone is judging whether it’s good” is, for many people, paralyzing.

Now think about what happens when you open a notebook. You are, in essence, being creative, even if you’re just trying to journal. And you are, in a very real sense, being evaluated by yourself. Your inner critic shows up the moment the page is open and is arguably the harshest evaluator you will ever face. It looks at the blankness. It wonders whether what you produce will be good enough. It whispers things like: Is this really worth writing down? Is this idea interesting enough? Are you interesting enough?

Research suggests that this kind of evaluative pressure can interfere with creative engagement and make it harder to fully access your creative capacity. The anxiety arrives before the pen touches the paper, which means by the time you actually try to write, you are already working against yourself.

Share

Why Unstructured Space Can Eventually Free You

Everything described so far focuses on why blank pages are hard. But there’s another story about why they can, under the right conditions, be extraordinarily generative.

Here’s a question worth sitting with for a second. When do you actually get your best ideas? For most people, the honest answer is not “when I’m sitting down trying to have them.” It’s in the shower. On a walk. Driving somewhere familiar enough that your brain isn’t really needed for the task. In that foggy window between being asleep and being awake. The moments when you are, technically, not doing anything productive at all.

There is a specific neurological reason why your best thinking so often happens when you have stopped trying to think.

When your brain is not engaged in a specific, externally directed task, when you’re resting, drifting, daydreaming, or staring at an empty page, a network of brain regions called the Default Mode Network (DMN) becomes more active. Researchers studying creativity have found that this network is involved in internally directed thought, memory, imagination, and idea generation, especially when it interacts with networks involved in executive control. This is important to note because creativity is not just random waves of inspiration. When you allow your mind to wander, when you’re not forcing it toward a specific output, the DMN stitches together distant memories and emotions in ways that focused attention can’t. This is where the unexpected connection gets made.

You have felt this. It is the experience of a half formed thought from three days ago suddenly clicking into place while you are washing dishes. It is a memory surfacing from nowhere that turns out to be exactly relevant to something you have been trying to figure out. It is the solution arriving not when you were chasing it, but when you let it go. That is the DMN doing its work.

Research on highly creative individuals has found greater connectivity between the DMN and regions of the brain involved in idea generation and language, which suggests that what separates prolific creative thinkers from others is not raw intelligence or discipline, but how fluidly their resting brain communicates with their thinking brain. The shower is not a distraction from creative work. For many people, it is where the creative work actually happens. Which brings us back to the blank page. And here is where things get interesting, and a little paradoxical.

A blank page can create some of the same conditions that make internally directed thought more available: open endedness, low external demands, and space for the mind to generate associations. That may help explain why blankness can feel creatively fertile as well as intimidating. The same openness that gives the mind room to roam can also make an anxious mind want resolution.

This is the tension at the heart of the whole experience. When the amygdala is already fired up, when you are stressed or self conscious or convinced you need to produce something good, the blank page reads as a threat and the DMN never gets a chance to do its work. But when you can approach the page with even a small amount of ease, with curiosity instead of judgment, with low stakes instead of high ones, the blankness stops being a wall and becomes the unstructured space your brain was built to inhabit.

What You Can Actually Do About It

Understanding the science is useful. But at some point you still have to open the notebook. So here is what the research actually suggests works. Not productivity advice. Not generic “just start” motivation. But approaches that are grounded in what we now know about how the anxious brain responds to creative pressure.

1. Lower the stakes of the first page deliberately

One of the most effective things you can do is remove the symbolic weight from page one before you ever pick up the pen. Some people do this by dating and numbering their pages before a single word of content goes in. Others write something intentionally throwaway first: the date, the weather, what they had for breakfast. It sounds almost too simple, but what you’re doing neurologically is meaningful. You are breaking the “unmarked surface” signal that the amygdala reads as high stakes ambiguity. Symbolic purity is what makes the first mark feel so loaded, so removing that purity removes the pressure.

2. Use constraints instead of freedom

The paradox of choice research makes a clear case for this. Total freedom is not actually helpful when you’re already anxious. Your brain doesn’t need more options. It needs fewer. So give yourself a structure before you sit down, even a loose one. A single question to answer. A time limit of ten minutes. A specific thing you want to capture from today. A prompt you pulled from somewhere else. This is also why formats like the five minute journal or morning pages from Julia Cameron’s The Artist’s Way have worked for so many people. They remove the “what do I write” question entirely by answering it for you in advance.

3. Write badly on purpose

This one sounds counterintuitive but it has real psychological backing to it. The creativity anxiety research is clear that evaluative pressure, the feeling of being judged, is one of the primary things that suppresses creative output. Most of the time that judge is you. So one of the most effective things you can do is strip that judge of its jurisdiction before you even begin, by making badness the explicit goal.

Give yourself permission to write the worst possible version of whatever you are trying to write. The most boring journal entry. The most obvious first sentence. The most embarrassing, unpolished, half formed thought you have ever committed to paper. When the goal is quality, the inner critic has something to measure against and it will use that measuring stick against you from the first word. When the goal is badness, the critic has nothing to work with. It shows up and finds that its entire job description has been made irrelevant.

4. Give the DMN something to work with first

Because we know the Default Mode Network is where a lot of creative thinking actually happens, and because we know it activates during unfocused, wandering states, it makes sense to deliberately seed it before you sit down to write. A short walk without your phone. Ten minutes of doing something with your hands. A shower. Many writers and artists have known this intuitively for a long time. Research on mind wandering and creative incubation helps explain why it works. When you give the default mode time to wander before you open the notebook, you are arriving at the page with material already forming underneath the surface. Ideas have been connecting without you forcing them. The blank page feels less empty because, in a way, it already is.

You Are Not The Only One Who Has Stood There

If you have made it this far, here is the most important thing I want you to take with you: this happens to almost everyone. The freeze. The staring. The closing the notebook and telling yourself you’ll come back when you know what to do with it. The buying of a beautiful journal and then protecting it from yourself for weeks. They are signs of a functioning human brain doing exactly what brains do.

What we now know, thanks to decades of research across neuroscience, behavioral psychology, and creativity science, is that the blank page triggers a genuinely complex response. The intolerance of uncertainty is real. The creativity anxiety is real. The perfectionism protecting your imagined version of the journal from the reality of the journal is real. None of this is precious or overdramatic. It is biology. It is psychology.

I did come back to it by the way. The Sterling Ink journal I was talking about in the beginning. But not because I figured out what I wanted it to be. I came back because I needed somewhere to write, and the need was louder than the anxiety. I just wrote. That was it. That was the whole secret. Not a system, not a ritual, not a perfect pen or a resolved aesthetic vision. Just a moment where the need to write outweighed the fear of starting. The journal has been open every day since.

Yours will too. Maybe not today. But the fact that you read an entire essay about why blank pages make you anxious tells me everything I need to know about how much you want to fill one.

I didn’t start running because I love running.

I think that is important to say immediately, because there is a certain kind of person who hears “I ran every day for 30 days” and assumes you must have discovered some deep, spiritual connection to the open road. Like one morning I woke up, tied my shoes, stepped outside, felt the wind brush against my face, and suddenly understood why people run 5 miles to clear their heads. I also didn’t have some kind of major catalyst in my life that FORCED this challenge or desire to change.

I started running every day for 30 days because I wanted to do one hard thing every single day. That was it. Not one aesthetic thing. Not one optimized thing. Not one perfectly researched, scientifically periodized, intelligently designed training plan. One hard thing.

And for me, at 286 pounds (129.8 kg), running a 5K every day was hard. That was the whole point.

I’ve always loved 30 day challenges. There is something about them that makes change feel less abstract. Thirty days is short enough that you can see the end of it, but long enough that you cannot fake your way through it. It is a little container for discomfort. I’ve done creative challenges before. Writing challenges. Drawing challenges. Skill building challenges. But I had never done a physical challenge like this.

And physical challenges are different because your body keeps receipts. You can tell yourself all kinds of beautiful motivational things, but your knees do not care. Your hips do not care. Your lungs do not care. Your shins, calves, ankles, and lower back do not care that you are trying to become the main character of your little self improvement arc. They just hurt. And they hurt a lot.

One hard Thing, Every Day

For me, running a 5K every day was not hard because a 5K is inherently impossible. Plenty of people run 5Ks all the time. Some people run them casually before breakfast, which I find suspicious. It was hard because of where I was starting from. I was not a runner. I was barely working out at all at this point in time. I was in a movement slump.

A 17-minute mile on paper looks like one thing. A 17-minute mile after a 2-hr gym session, a three mile walk, and weeks of accumulated soreness feels like something else entirely. It still was not fast. I am not trying to rebrand slow as secretly elite. But it was effort. It was real effort. Over the course of about five weeks, I was burning an average of around 2,100 calories a day total, including the runs. By the end of the 30 day running challenge, I had lost 11.2 pounds and I am really proud of that. I am not going to act like the weight loss did not matter to me. It did. But I also do not want to pretend this was only about weight loss, because that is not what made the challenge stick in my head.

I had made the challenge very simple: run every day for 30 days. Just run. That kind of simplicity was useful to me because it leaves me with such few places to hide. I am very good at overcomplicating things. Very. Good. I can turn any goal into a system. I can turn any system into a spreadsheet. Running did not really let me do that. I could not intellectualize my way through it. I could not journal my way around it. I had to go outside. I had to move. I had to be slow. And for 30 days, that was the entire assignment.

The Numbers Are Useful, But They Don’t Tell the Whole Story

I posted my run every day on my instagram to help keep me accountable. And it worked. Very well actual. Some people were incredibly supportive. They messaged me encouragement, cheered me on, checked in, and made the whole thing feel less lonely. I appreciated that more than I can really put into words. BUT Other people had notes.

A lot of people messaged me about my times. Some people were clearly trying to help. Some were probably joking. And then there were the people who basically showed up to let me know, in one way or another, that my pace was awful.

Yes, my times were bad. I get it. I am not going to pretend they were not. If you are already a runner, my times probably looks god awful. I am not offended by that haha. I was slow. Painfully slow some days. There were days where I looked at my pace and thought, “Are we sure I’m not technically gardening?” But I also think this is where people misunderstand what I was doing.

What bothered me was the assumption that because I was slow, the effort was somehow less meaningful. The point of this challenge was not to become impressive to runners. The point was to find something that was hard for me and do it consistently for 30 days. That is the part I had to keep reminding myself of, especially when the comments got in my head. Because pace can mess with you. It is such an easy number to judge. You can look at it and immediately compare yourself to other people, even if those other people have completely different bodies, histories, training backgrounds, schedules, injuries, genetics, and relationships with exercise.

Comparison is very efficient at making your own progress look dumb. If I compared my times to someone who has been running for years, of course they looked bad. But if I compared them to the version of myself who started this challenge unsure if he could do 30 consecutive days, they meant something.

Day 1 was rough. 3.25 Miles at a 17’57” pace. Fastest Mile 17’ 29”.

Day 30. Was…better. By a lot, compared to where I was Day 1. 15’ 34” pace. Fastest Mile 15’ 07”.

To me? That was a massive improvement. Fastest mile ever ran? No. But to know that even after 30 days, I was still pushing myself? Feels great.

Day one had energy. Day one had that little spark you get when you begin something new and your brain starts decorating the future with all kinds of imaginary results. But day nine does not care about your vision board. Day seventeen does not care that you were inspired two weeks ago. Day twenty three is not impressed by your original reason for starting. At some point, the novelty leaves. Then you are just left with the thing.

There is also something humbling about being bad at something where people can see you. Running outside made that obvious. When you are writing badly, most people do not see the draft. When you are drawing badly, you can close the sketchbook. When you are learning a language, you can practice alone. But when you are running slowly outside, you are visibly in process. And boyyyyy was I IN THAT PROCESS lol.

Every. Single. Day. Sucked.

Every day sucked. Like I wish I could make it sound more poetic, but this is really the best way to say it. There was not a single day where I was like “Wow, this is so much fun. I understand now. I am a runner.”

No.

Some days sucked immediately. I would wake up and already know the run was going to be awful. Some days tricked me. I would feel okay at the beginning, maybe even slightly confident, and then ten minutes in my body would remind me that optimism is not a training plan. Some days were hot. Some days were windy. Some days I was sore from lifting. Some days my legs felt like they belonged to someone else. There were days where I genuinely could not understand why people do this voluntarily. There were days where I hated the sound of my own breathing. There were days where I would look down at my watch, convinced I had gone at least two miles, and it would say something disrespectful like 0.47 miles.

But I kept going. I ran. Then I shuffled along as much as I could. And walked when I could no longer shuffle. But I kept going. Most days were just mildly miserable.

I thought the hardest thing would be the running itself. And at first, it was. My body hurt. My hips hurt. My legs were tired. Because I was also going to the gym, lifting, and burning so many calories a day, the fatigue stacked up quickly. It was not just one run. It was the accumulation. Every day added something. A little soreness. A little tightness. A little more evidence that my body was not recovering as quickly as I wanted it to. But eventually, your body starts to adapt. Not perfectly. But enough. And once the body adapts a little bit, the mental part is what I had to learn to overcome.

Later in the challenge, it became less about whether I could move and more about whether I could get myself to start. The run itself still sucked, but the bigger problem became the little conversation beforehand.

Am I really doing this? Can I do this? Should I do this? What if I just don’t? What if today is the day I stop? By the end, there was no debate. I was not asking whether I would run anymore. I was asking when. I was running today. That was it. I could run badly. I could run slowly. I could run tired. I could run annoyed. I could walk parts of it if I needed to. But I was going to complete the distance. The run had become part of the day. The run became a fact, not a question.

I Have Evidence Now

I am glad I did it. I am also glad it’s over hahaha. Recovery days are VERY important FYI lol. but I kept my word to myself. I said I was going to do something, and then I did it. I do not think 30 days of running made me a completely different person. That would be too convenient, and honestly, a little annoying. I still do not particularly like running. But I do have an itch now. An itch to learn what I can do, physically, if I put my mind to it. To see what happens of if I dedicate as much time as I do to my body as I do to every thing else in my life.

The most important thing I’ve done here is build momentum.

This is the best way I can explain it. Before this challenge, every healthy decision felt like it had to carry the full weight of my entire life. Going for a run was not just going for a run. It was loaded with every past attempt to get in shape, every time I started and stopped, every version of myself I was embarrassed by, every plan I made and did not follow through on. That feeling is exhausting. When you have started and stopped enough times, every new attempt comes with this suspicion that you are just going to quit again. That is a heavy way to start anything. But after 30 days, that weight has shifted a little. I now had something recent to point to. A win. Going to the gym doesnt feel like Im starting over again. Thinking about the next goal feels a little less ridiculous. Even the idea of training for a half marathon, which still sounds insane to me at this point, does not feel as impossible as it would have a month ago. Which is why I bought myself a a little gift. To keep this momentum going. Something to remind me to take this and myself, seriously.

This challenge mattered a lot to me. I needed to do something like this. Not because running for 30 days solved anything permanently. It did not. But it interrupted the feeling that I was always beginning again from zero. Now the next thing I do does not have to begin from pure hope. It can begin from proof. Its given me a little less room to pretend I am incapable of following through.

I do not want to overstate it. I am not ending this essay as a newly enlightened endurance athlete. This is just an essay about a random man’s journey to do one hard thing for 30 days.

Share

But.

Nothing changes if you dont. Annoying sentence but unfortunately true. At some point, you have to pick your version of the hard thing. It does not have to be running. Honestly, maybe don’t make it running. But pick something that confronts you a little. Something you keep avoiding. Something you keep saying you want to do, but never actually build into your life. Something small enough to start, but hard enough that you cannot fake your way through it. Because no one is going to force you.

No one is going to make you write the thing, take the walk, apply for the job, clean up your diet, start the project, go back to the gym, save the money, have the conversation, or become less afraid of your own effort. People might support you. They might cheer you on. They might care. But they cannot do the thing for you. That part is yours.

I’m not saying that to be dramatic. I say it because I think I needed to hear it myself. I spent 30 days doing something I was bad at, something I did not enjoy, something I complained about constantly. And somehow, by the end, I had a little more evidence that I could move in the direction I kept saying I wanted to move.

So maybe that is the question worth asking: what is the hard thing you already know would change something if you actually did it?

One of the stranger things I’ve noticed about adulthood is how easy it is to become socially undernourished while looking completely fine from the outside. You go to work. You answer texts. You keep up with your responsibilities. You may even have people you love. And yet, something still feels like it’s missing.

A place to go.

Familiar faces. Casual conversations. Repeated contact. The feeling that you belong somewhere outside of your obligations. I think a lot of people are starving for that without quite having the words for it.

We talk a lot in the United States about independence, privacy, ambition, self-sufficiency, and convenience. We talk much less about the ordinary places and repeated rituals that make relationships possible. We praise friendship in theory while building lives that make friendship hard to maintain in practice. Work gets the fixed hours. Family gets the seriousness. Romance gets the prestige. Friendship is expected to survive on leftovers. And then we wonder why so many people feel lonely.

I don’t think what many people are missing is just “more friends.” I think they are missing the structure that helps friendship happen in the first place. The places that make connection feel ordinary instead of effortful. And the older I get, the more I think that when those traditional third places weaken, people do not stop needing what they provided. They just start looking for it somewhere else.

In my own life, I think that is part of what stationery and journaling gave me. It isn’t all just about the pens and the notebooks for me. This hobby has given me a social world. A set of recurring rituals. Familiar faces. Shared language. A community built around attention, memory, tools, and the simple act of caring about writing things down. In a culture where adult life can feel increasingly isolated, I have started to think that hobbies like this can take on some of the social function that third places used to provide more reliably. That is what this essay is about. About how adults go looking for belonging. How niche hobbies can become meeting grounds. And why something as seemingly ordinary as stationery can end up meaning much more than the objects themselves.

More Than Just a Place To Hang Out

The phrase “third place,” popularized by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, refers to the places outside of home and work where people gather informally and regularly. Coffee shops. Bars. Barber shops. Libraries. Parks. Community spaces. Bookstores. The point of a third place is not just that it gives people somewhere to be. It lowers the friction of human connection.

A third place is one of the few environments where people get to exist together without a highly specific purpose. You are not there to perform your job. You are not there because you are obligated to be productive. You are there because it is a place where life can happen a little more loosely. Random conversations starts. Familiarity builds. You begin to recognize people. Over time, a stranger becomes a regular, and a regular becomes part of the landscape of your life. Most relationships are not built through huge emotional declarations. They are built through repeated low stakes contact. Seeing the same person enough times to move past self consciousness. Having enough small conversations that a larger one eventually becomes possible. Being known not all at once, but gradually. Third places allow that process to happen naturally.

Without spaces like this, nearly all connection has to be scheduled, initiated, coordinated, and sustained manually. Every interaction becomes intentional in a way that sounds admirable but is actually exhausting. Friendship begins to require such extreme intentionality that it starts to feel like project management. So much of American adult life is organized around work ans commuting and private households. Our lives are frequently dispersed and compartmentalized. Home is in one place. Work is in another. Friends are somewhere else.

Journaling is Solitary, But Journaling Culture is Not

Journaling is a solitary act, but the culture around it is anything but. From the outside, stationery looks like a private/solo interest. People think it’s just pens and papers and inks and nice little objects. You can make it sound tiny very quickly. But from the inside, journaling culture is deeply communal. People swap notebook recommendations, prompt ideas, paper preferences, system layouts, reflections, trackers, tools, routines, philosophies, and reasons for writing. They talk about what journaling has done for them. They share why they started. They discuss what kinds of notebooks help them think, what pens make writing feel better, what systems make them more consistent. There are pen shows. Stationery stores. YouTube channels. Comment sections. Recommendation chains. Newsletter communities. Meetups. So even though the act itself is solitary, the culture around it is full of other people.

And I have felt that very directly.

A big part of my own experience with journaling and stationery has not just been me sitting alone with a notebook. It has been the people around it. The same names showing up in comments. The same kinds of questions. The same excitement over details most people would probably overlook. I found shared language. I found the relief of not having to explain why these objects mattered to me before I could talk about them. That has meant a lot to me. There is something really comforting about being around people who already understand the language of the thing. I found a hobby, yes, but I also found a place. And I think that is one reason niche hobbies can matter more than they appear to. They’re giving people a meeting ground. A third place is not only defined by architecture. It is defined by what it allows. Repeated contact. Familiarity. Shared attention. A way of becoming known gradually.

Share

When Hobbies Start Doing The Work Of Third Places

Now, I don’t think hobbies replace third places. But I do think they can start doing some of the social work third places used to do more reliably.

A hobby gives adults a script for connection. It lowers the awkwardness of starting from nothing. It creates recurring contact, shared reference points, and reasons to see the same people again. It gives people something to do together before they know each other well enough to do nothing together. One of the hardest parts of adulthood is that the builtin social scaffolding gets weaker. School once did a lot of this. Clubs did. Teams did. Campuses did. Even certain neighborhoods once did more of this. But adult life often strips away those ready made contexts while leaving the need for them intact so people go looking for structure somewhere else.

Sometimes they find it in running clubs or in the gym or gaming communities. And sometimes they find it in stationery. Im not here to say stationery is secretly the solution to American loneliness. That would be ridiculous. But it does mean that what looks like a “small hobby” from the outside can become a meaningful source of repeated recognition and belonging from the inside. And in a culture where shared public life has weakened, repeated recognition is no small thing. Belonging is not just a nice bonus feature of life. It is part of what makes life more stable, more coherent, and honestly more survivable.

All of this might sound a little soft or sentimental on the surface, but it’s not. Social connection is not just something that makes life feel nicer. It is tied to whether people feel stable, supported, and psychologically held at all.

The Surgeon General’s advisory says that across 148 studies, social connection was associated with a 50% increase in the odds of survival. It also links poor or insufficient social connection to higher risks of heart disease, stroke, anxiety, depression, and dementia, and compares the mortality impact of lacking social connection to smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day.

That is why I resist treating this as a soft topic. Hobbies matter more than they appear to. For some people, they become one of the only remaining places where regularity and belonging still happen at all.

We Still Need Somewhere to Go

I still think we need third places. If anything, I think we need it now more than ever. We still want places to return to. We still want familiar faces. BUT I think it is important to say this clearly: the fact that online communities have become that place for many people does not make them lesser.

Are they a perfect substitute for embodied, local, in person community? No. I don’t think they are. I still think there is something deeply valuable about being able to physically go somewhere, sit down, look around, and recognize the people in the room. I still think the world needs more real third places, not fewer. I still think many of us are aching for spaces that let us gather in person. But I also think it would be a mistake, and honestly a kind of arrogance, to dismiss online communities just because they do not look like the traditional versions of belonging we are used to romanticizing.

For some people, those online spaces are community. They are the place where a person’s interests make sense, where their enthusiasm gets met, where they feel recognized instead of isolated. And if that is where someone is finding real belonging, then I do not think we should sneer at it just because it happened through a screen. A lot of people are doing the best they can with the structures available to them. Not everyone has the time, money, energy, transportation, health, or circumstances to build the kind of rich in person social life that people love to idealize.

At the same time, I do not think that means we should stop wanting more. If anything, I think it should make us want more. More places to gather. More community spaces. More local rituals. More reasons to keep seeing each other. I wish, more than anything, I had a little journaling studio in my city. A place where I could just show up with my journals, sit down with other people who care about this stuff, and talk about notebooks and pens and memory and writing and whatever strange fun things we all happen to enjoy.

That is part of what I have been trying to do more of this past year. To participate a little more. To show up a little more. To lean into community instead of always waiting for it to magically happen on its own. And it has paid off for me immensely. I’ve been part of a bowling league for the last year (I’m still terrible so no need to ask lol), I’ve been going to Friday night Magic The Gathering events at my local game store, and I’ve been posting consistently on my socials about my journaling! It’s been a great reminder for me that belonging isn’t just something you find but something you practice and build by returning, contributing, recognizing, responding, and letting yourself become part of the social texture of a place or a group.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

I don’t think this is really an essay about stationery. Or at least, not only about stationery. It is an essay about what people do when the structures that once made belonging easier start to weaken. They look for other ways in. Other meeting grounds. Other reasons to return. Other places where shared interest can do some of the work that public life used to do more reliably. That is part of what I found in the journaling/stationery community.

I still want more actual third places. I still want more local spaces that make connection easier. But I also think we should take seriously the communities people are already building around the things they care about. Sometimes what looks small from the outside is doing much bigger work in a person’s life.

There’s a really specific store that gets me unreasonably excited for no reason that I could understand. If you’re the greater Philadelphia area, you might be familiar with the mythical store known only as…”The Container Store”. That’s really the name. And let me tell you, I could spend HOURS in this place haha. Happily. Willing. No problem.

It is, at least on paper, a ridiculous thing to be excited about. It’s just aisles and aisles of all kinds of containers. Big, small, square, jars, boxes, bins, baskets, bags. Tiny little compartment cases for things so specific you didn’t even realize there was a market for them. You name it. They have it. It’s absolutely mind blowing to think there are SOOO many ways to…contain things lol. Store things, technically, but “contain” feels more dramatic, so we’re keeping it. And yet every time I’m in there, something in my brain lights up. In a very specific, almost embarrassing way. It’s not even that I always need anything in particular. Sometimes I just like looking. I like imagining what would go in what. I like seeing categories made physical. I like the strange satisfaction of a good box.

Which, of course, got me curious.

Because like a lot of things I end up writing about, this essay started with a very simple question: why does this feel this way? More specifically, why do actual physical containers seem to have such a weird hold on so many creative people?

The easy answer would be something vague about wanting to “get our lives together,” but I don’t think that fully explains it. I think there’s something deeper going on here. Something psychological. Maybe even neurological. Because the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like containers were doing more than just storing stuff. They were solving some deeper problem. So, naturally, I did what I always do and went looking for the science.

The Brain Likes Boundaries

The first thing I found is that my reaction to containers may not be nearly as random as it seems.

One of the most useful ideas in the visual attention literature is that perception has limits. We do not take in everything around us with equal clarity and ease. A visual scene can contain many objects at once, but the brain does not process all of them effortlessly or independently. As Sabine Kastner and Leslie Ungerleider put it in their review of visual attention, a typical scene contains many different objects that, because of the visual system’s limited processing capacity, “compete for neural representation.” In other words, clutter is not only aesthetically annoying, it creates competition. The more unrelated objects crowd a scene, the more the visual system has to work to sort and prioritize.

A box, basket, tray, or drawer is not just a place where objects go. It is also a boundary. It takes a group of separate visual items and turns them into something more coherent. Ten loose objects scattered across a surface ask the brain to keep negotiating among them. Put those same objects into a single container and the scene changes. The objects are still there, but they have been grouped. They are no longer competing in quite the same way. A container reduces visual fragmentation by turning many things into one readable unit.

There is a second layer to this, and it may be just as important: They make categories visible. Research on category learning treats categorization as one of the brain’s core cognitive tasks. We are constantly sorting the world into meaningful groupings so that it becomes easier to understand and navigate. Categories help compress complexity. They allow us to generalize and retrieve without having to reevaluate every object from scratch. Ashby and Maddox argue that category learning is such a central problem in cognitive neuroscience precisely because categorization is fundamental to intelligent behavior.

A container, in that sense, is a category made physical. “Current inks.” “Camera batteries.” “Paper scraps.” “Brush pens.” “Things for the next project.” Once something goes into a designated box or pouch or basket, it is being cognitively grouped. The category now exists outside the mind. It has been given a shape and a location. A mental category has to be remembered and reapplied over and over again. A category embodied in a container can simply be seen. It becomes part of the environment. This, I think, is part of why containers can feel so disproportionately satisfying. They solve two problems at once. They simplify the visual field, and they stabilize categories. They reduce the perceptual noise of too many separate items while also answering a cognitive question: what belongs with what? That does not sound particularly romantic, but it may be the beginning of a real explanation. Sometimes the pleasure of a good box is not symbolic at all. Sometimes it is the very practical relief of giving the brain a cleaner scene and a clearer structure to work with.

Why Creative Lives Produce The Perfect Conditions for Container Love

If the first part of this explanation is that containers appeal to the brain in general, the next question is why that appeal seems so amplified in creative people specifically. I don’t think the answer is that creative people are simply messier than everyone else. That explanation is both lazy and not especially useful. The more compelling answer is that creative lives tend to produce a very particular kind of material environment. One defined by novelty, heterogeneity, fragments, and unfinished combinations. And those are the perfect conditions under which containers become unusually valuable.

One of the most consistent findings in the psychology of creativity is its relationship with openness to experience. It’s important to note because openness does not remain purely psychological. It tends to shape the texture of a person’s life. A person who is curious and exploratory and aesthetically attentive often ends up living among more kinds of things. Not necessarily more things in a simple quantitative sense, but more types of things. Swatches, scraps, clips, adapters, labels, samples, test prints, index cards, and whatever other supporting materials a hobby or practice begins to generate almost by accident. Creative life has a way of producing mixed inventories. A person can own many identical objects without needing much sophisticated organization. But as material diversity increases, so does the need for categorization. Creative work tends to generate heterogeneous ecosystems of objects, and heterogeneous ecosystems are harder to manage visually and cognitively than simple ones. A container becomes more useful as the number of distinctions you need to preserve increases.

This is where containers start to seem less like an aesthetic preference and more like an adaptive response. They allow many related but non-identical items to remain accessible without collapsing into one undifferentiated pile. Creative work also produces fragments, and fragments are notoriously difficult to live with. Finished objects are easy. Trash is easy. It is the in-between things that create pressure. Drafts. Scraps. Half-used materials. Reference images. Small components that might matter later. Containers are particularly well suited to this in-between status.

I think this is one reason the appeal of containers can feel so intense in creative communities. They offer a way of living with partially resolved material realities. They allow provisional order. It can hold a category while that category is still evolving. That, to me, is a much more convincing explanation for why containers seem to have such a hold on so many creative people. They are appealing because they make complexity livable.

Containers Offer Structure Without Rigidity

At this point, I think the most interesting part of the argument is this: creative people do not necessarily want less structure. They just do not always want the kinds of structure that feel rigid and overdetermined.

When people talk about “getting organized,” they often imagine systems that are much more formal than containers actually are. Spreadsheets. Filing systems. Strict categories. Color coded hierarchies. Very clean, very fixed, very decided structures where everything has a place and every place has a rule. And while those systems can be useful, they are not always especially compatible with the way creative work tends to unfold. That does not mean creative people want chaos. I think that is where a lot of people get this wrong. The opposite of rigidity is not disorder. In many cases, the real need is for a softer kind of order. A box, basket, tray, pouch, or drawer creates structure, but a very forgiving structure. Something that groups and holds without demanding too much finality.

I think that may be one of the deepest reasons containers are so appealing. They do not require clarity in the same way other organizational systems do. They are structured, but lightly. Containers are simply saying “these things can live together for now.” And “for now” is a very important phrase in creative life. A lot of creative work happens in states that are usually temporary and transitional.

There is also some broader research suggesting that too much imposed structure can interfere with creative thought. For example, work on information structure has argued that rigid hierarchical organization can hinder creativity because creative ideas often emerge from combinations across distant categories. Kim and Zhong note that “rigid walls between categories” may be harmful because creative ideas frequently arise from combining information that is not ordinarily grouped together. That is not a paper about containers specifically, but it does support the broader intuition that creativity can suffer when structure becomes too inflexible.

Conclusion

So no, I do not think creative people are obsessed with containers because they all secretly want to become hyper-organized adults. And I do not think the answer is as simple as “they just like pretty storage,” even though, to be fair, a good basket or a perfectly divided little box can have a frankly unreasonable amount of power.

What seems more convincing to me is that containers sit at the intersection of several very real needs. They reduce visual competition. They make categories easier to maintain. They help people live among lots of different kinds of objects without everything collapsing together. And perhaps most importantly, they offer a kind of structure that feels flexible and supportive of the creative process.

Maybe that’s why a place like The Container Store feels so weirdly exciting. It is a store full of very specific answers to very specific forms of material overwhelm. For a certain kind of person, especially one whose life is full of tools, projects, fragments, experiments, and little objects that all matter, this is relief.

A good container does not solve your whole life. But sometimes it solves one small problem so well that it feels strangely profound.

Journaling has one of the cleanest reputations of any habit. It is almost universally treated as a good thing. A healing thing. Everyone probably recommends it at some point. Therapists, productivity gurus, self help authors, spiritual communities, college advisors, random strangers online with beautiful handwriting. Journal to process. Journal to heal. Journal to get clear. Journal to know yourself. All the typical advice you’ll hear about journaling. And for the record, I believe a lot of this.

I have spent years journaling at this point. I have built huge parts of my life around it. But the older I get and the longer I spend around journaling culture, the more suspicious I become of any practice that gets treated as pure. Very few things are universally pure.

For something so often framed as universally healthy, journaling has a few surprisingly under discussed downsides. I think this deserves to be acknowledged a bit. It’s not because I’m trying to discourage anyone from journaling but because I think our conversations around it have become weirdly one sided. Once something gets associated with healing, introspection, self awareness, or growth, it becomes very difficult to criticize without sounding bitter or cynical. But in my opinion, sometimes criticism is a sign that you care enough about something to want a more honest relationship with it.

I care about journaling with my entire being. So this is an essay exploring the downsides about journaling that I don’t think enough people stop to think about.

Journaling Can Become A Substitute For Action

This is, to me, one of the biggest risks of journaling and one of the least acknowledged. Journaling can create the emotional sensation of movement without requiring any actual movement at all.

Let’s say you sit down because something in your life feels difficult or unresolved. You decide to journal. Sounds familiar right? And journaling, in this moment, feels productive. It feels serious because it feels like you are facing the issue. You are writing about it. You are unpacking your feelings around it. You are identifying patterns. You are doing the “work”.

This is what can make journaling really tricky though. It can mimic progress extremely well. It makes you feel as though something meaningful has happened simply because something meaningful has been articulated. But articulation is not action. Insight alone is not change.

A person can write ten pages about the relationship they know is draining them and still text back that night like nothing happened. A person can journal every morning about discipline and purpose and still avoid the actual task in front of them. A person can become incredibly fluent in the language of self awareness while remaining completely unchanged in practice.

I think reflective people are especially vulnerable to this because they know how to generate the atmosphere of growth. They know how to narrate struggle beautifully. They know how to make inner work sound substantial. I know this because I’ve done it. It’s happened to me. It’s similar to overplanning. Preparing to do something is not the same as doing the thing. But that planning makes us feel productive because it FEELS like forward momentum.

Now I understand that not everyone is journaling for the same reason. Some people journal to remember their lives and others use it to regulate emotion. Some do it to vent and others do it to make art. Not every journaling practice needs to lead directly to action but if your reason for journaling is clarity and intention, then this becomes one of the clearest tests of whether the practice is helping you or hurting you. Does it move you toward action, even if slowly? Does it make you more willing to do the uncomfortable thing? Does it clarify what needs to happen next? Or does it simply create a recurring emotional ritual around the fact that something is wrong?

There is nothing wrong with processing. There is nothing wrong with taking time to think. But there is a point where reflection becomes a refuge from decision.

Subscribe now

Journaling Can Make You Too Self-Conscious

There is a version of journaling that makes you more self aware in a good way. And then there is another version that makes you so aware of yourself that you stop moving naturally through your own life.

This is a harder downside to explain because self awareness is usually treated like a virtue. In general, it is. Most people could probably benefit from being a little more reflective but like every good thing, self awareness has a point of diminishing returns. Past a certain point, this awareness can start to feel like surveillance. The more you write about yourself, the easier it becomes to start watching yourself all the time. You begin narrating your experience while you are having it. You stop simply feeling things and start observing the fact that you are feeling them.

I think many people will know what I mean, even if they have never phrased it this way. You have a good conversation, and before it is even over, some part of your mind is already composing what tonight’s journal entry might say about it. Something painful happens, and instead of simply letting yourself be in it, another part of you begins framing it, categorizing it, noticing the theme, trying to understand what this reveals. You are present, but not fully. You are there, but you are also watching yourself be there. It’s weird to explain like this, I know. But someone reading this will know exactly what I’m talking about.

This constant self observation can become exhausting. Not every feeling needs to be noticed so intensely. Not every day needs to become a lesson. Sometimes a mood is just a mood. The mind does not always improve things by shining a brighter light on them. This can be very hard for people who journal to hear because journaling often feels like the responsible thing to do. Life is not meant to be experienced entirely through a layer of interpretation. Some moments should remain unprocessed while they are happening. Some feelings should pass through you before they are asked to explain themselves.

Journaling Can Create An Unhealthy Dependency On Self Explanation and Control

At its best, journaling can help you understand yourself. At its worst, journaling can create the expectation that everything inside you must be understandable.

I mean this sounds healthy at first right? Putting language to emotions and situations that usually feel vague. But this can easily become a form of control. For some people, journaling can become a way to try to govern experience. To reduce ambiguity. To make life feel conceptually manageable. At. All. Times.

You feel off, so you write until you can explain why. You feel sad, so you dig until you can locate the source. You have a strange reaction to something small, so you trace it backwards until it fits into a larger pattern that reassures you your inner world is still orderly. Again, sometimes this is useful. But people are not always explainable.

One of the dangers of journaling is that it can train you to think understanding is always better than tolerating. That explanation is always better than ambiguity. That if something is difficult, the proper response is to sit down and turn it into language until it becomes bearable. The best way I can explain this is psychological OVER management. The need to have a framework for everything. The need to make sure every emotion belongs somewhere. You are trying to organize yourself into comfort.

A journal can help you understand yourself but it should not make you feel like you must understand yourself, constantly.

Journaling Culture Can Become Performative and Weird

Somewhere along the way, journaling stopped being just something people do and started becoming evidence of the kind of person they are.

The thoughtful person. The deep person. The intentional person. The healing person. The self aware person. The one doing the work. As soon as journaling becomes a symbol of seriousness or depth, people start relating not just to the practice itself but to the image of themselves as someone who journals. It implies you are in touch with yourself. That you take your inner life seriously. That you are the kind of person who reflects instead of drifts. The problem, of course, is that none of this is guaranteed.

A person can journal constantly and still be deeply dishonest with themselves. A person can use all the right language about reflection, healing, growth, and inner work while remaining mostly committed to the aesthetics of those things rather than the reality of them. This is not unique to journaling. Every meaningful practice eventually develops a performative shell. But journaling is especially vulnerable because it already feels intimate and morally elevated.

There is nothing wrong with caring about your inner life. Obviously. But there is something odd that can happen when introspection itself becomes aestheticized. Once a practice becomes culturally coded as deep, people begin to overestimate what it says about them. They start treating journaling as evidence of character rather than just a method. The act itself becomes inflated.

I also think journaling culture sometimes carries an unspoken arrogance. An assumption that people who journal are somehow more emotionally evolved than people who do not. More conscious. More in touch. I have met highly reflective journalers with almost no capacity for real accountability. I have met people with amazing private language for their feelings who were still impossible in relationships. The ability to narrate yourself well can look a lot like growth from a distance, even when very little has actually changed.

So Is Journaling Still Worth It?

Absolutely yes. 1000% yes. I still believe journaling is a deeply valuable practice. It has helped me think more clearly and preserve parts of my life that probably would have disappeared otherwise. I will probably do for the rest of my life. But I think having this little bit of skepticism, is also important.

Journaling is a tool. A powerful one but not a cure all. And tools can be misused. They can be overused. Like any tool, its value depends on how it is being used. I think once we admit that journaling isn’t perfect, we can use it a bit more honestly. And the more honest we are with ourselves, the better journaling can actually do the job we ask it to do.

I’ve had girlfriends read my journals without me knowing. It wasn’t always malicious or because they were trying to weaponize something against me but more curiosity.

They usually tell me after. Sometimes it comes out in an argument. Sometimes it’s framed as a confession. Sometimes it was said like it shouldn’t even be a big deal.

“I’m your girlfriend, I should know these things about you.”

“It was just there.”

“I wanted to understand you better.” That sentence sounds harmless. Even loving.

And I get it. I really do. If someone you love has pages and pages of private thoughts about their life, their fears, their doubts, their opinions…OF COURSE there’s going to be a planet-sized gravitational pull. But when it happens, it’s hard not to feel like something fundamental was broken. The realization that a boundary you assumed was obvious wasn’t treated that way by someone you trusted.

Here’s the thing I keep circling back to. Curiosity explains the impulse right? But it doesn’t justify the act.

So when I say this essay is about the ethics of reading someone else’s journal, I don’t just mean whether it feels rude or invasive. I mean something deeper than that. My argument is this:

Reading someone else’s journal without permission is, in most cases, unethical because it violates privacy, overrides consent, and gives the reader power over another person’s most unguarded and unfinished thoughts. While context can complicate the severity of that wrong in rare cases involving danger, death, or genuine public value, the basic moral principle remains the same: access to someone’s inner life should be given, not taken.

The Rationalization

No one opens someone else’s journal thinking, “I’m about to betray them.” That’s rarely how the story is framed internally. The narrative they tell themselves is a lot softer.

It sounds like: “I just want to understand them better.” or “If we’re serious, there shouldn’t be secrets.”

The language people use shift from intrusion to intimacy. They frame reading your journal as closeness instead of surveillance. In romantic relationships, especially, uncertainty can feel destabilizing. When those feelings of uncertainty arise, the fact that you cannot fully access another person’s inner life can create a low hum of anxiety.

When anxiety meets opportunity, the mind is very good at constructing permission. Curiosity becomes justification, and the act begins to feel reasonable. Even loving. Once you frame it as “loving”, opening it can begin to feel less like a violation and more like filling in gaps you believe you deserve to close.

I can understand the psychology of it. I’ve lived close enough to it to see how the argument forms. But ethics isn’t decided inside one person’s head. It’s shaped by context. By consent. By harm. By power. By what happens next. And that is where this gets morally slippery, because what feels understandable from the inside can still be deeply wrong from the outside. That soft internal logic is exactly what makes the act so easy to excuse.

Leave a comment

The Power Imbalance

But the problem is not just why people do it. It is also what the act gives them. Understanding that is taken is different from understanding that is given.

Part of what makes journal reading feel so violating is that it creates an immediate imbalance of power. The person reading gains access to information the writer never consciously gave them. And more importantly, they gain it under conditions the writer cannot control. The writer is not there to explain. They are not there to add context. And I think that’s important to take into consideration because so many of our personal journals are not polished essays. They’re usually the messiest possible versions of our thoughts. Sometimes unfinished. Sometimes ugly. The reader can take what was meant to be provisional and treat it as final in order to make decisions on who the writer really “is”. In other words, the reader gets to convert process into identity. In ordinary conversation, even difficult conversation, both people are at least in the room together. There is some chance for clarification. Some chance to say, that is not what I meant, or that was one moment, or you’re missing the rest of it.

That, to me, is the deeper ethical problem. Reading someone’s journal without permission is about taking power over another person’s unguarded self while they have no ability to manage, challenge, or even witness what is being done with it. And that can distort how a person is understood. Because now a version of you exists in someone else’s head that you never chose to offer them.

Curiosity vs Entitlement

That power becomes even more dangerous when it is disguised as love or concern.

Curiosity is human. I don’t think that needs to be pathologized. If someone you love has pages and pages of private thoughts sitting within reach, of course there is going to be temptation. Of course there is going to be an urge to know.

But being curious about something is not the same thing as being entitled to it. They start with curiosity, which is understandable enough, but then curiosity begins to dress itself up as access. I want to know slowly becomes I should know. And I should know becomes why wouldn’t I know? Once that shift happens, another person’s privacy no longer feels like a boundary.

Especially in romantic relationships, people can start treating privacy like a form of withholding. As if love should naturally dissolves every private boundary. As if closeness means total transparency. As if being important to someone should grant you full access to their inner life. And honestly, I think this is what some people struggle with most. Not just not knowing, but accepting that they are not owed access to every hidden room in someone else.

Discomfort does not create a right.

Feeling anxious does not create a right.

Feeling curious does not create a right.

Feeling close to someone does not create a right.

That’s the thing I keep coming back to. So many violations of privacy don’t begin with cruelty. They begin with emotional logic. A person feels shut out or confused and they convince themselves that access will fix that feeling. That if they can just know what is in the notebook, they can settle something inside themselves.

Curiosity may explain the pull. But entitlement is what crosses the line. Because once entitlement enters the picture, respect starts to collapse. Not everything we deeply want to know is ours to know.

Context Matters (The Moral Spectrum)

Still, not every case carries the same moral weight.

Part of what makes this question so difficult is that multiple ethical values are in conflict at once. Privacy matters. Consent matters. Care matters. Harm matters. So does dignity. A person may want to read someone’s journal out of fear, grief, insecurity, or love, but those motives do not all carry the same moral weight. Intent matters, but so do consequences. Context matters, but so do boundaries. That is why this issue cannot be settled by impulse alone.

Context matters. There is a difference between reading your partner’s journal because you feel insecure and reading your child’s journal because you genuinely think they may be in danger. There is also a difference between stumbling onto a page accidentally and sitting down privately to read entries from the last six months, or between acting from panic versus entitlement.

Take the most obvious case first. If someone reads your journal because they are jealous, controlling, suspicious, or simply convinced they deserve access to every part of you, that feels morally clear to me. They are not protecting you. They are not responding to some emergency. They are overriding your privacy because uncertainty makes them uncomfortable. They want relief from not knowing. They want information they were not given. They want to collapse the distance that naturally exists between two people.

Loving someone does not erase their right to an interior life. In fact, one of the strangest and hardest parts of intimacy is accepting that even the people closest to us remain partly unknowable. You do not get full access just because you love someone. You do not get to audit their private thoughts because you share a bed with them. You do not become morally entitled to their unfiltered mind.

But there are harder cases.

What if someone believes the person is in real danger? What if a parent finds signs that their child is spiraling and reads their journal out of fear that they may harm themselves? What if someone is looking for evidence of abuse or trying to figure out whether a loved one is safe? Even then, though, context does not magically sanitize the act. It may explain it. It may even justify it in rare circumstances. But it still comes at a cost. Trust is not some decorative extra in human relationships. It is structural. Once a person knows their private thoughts can be accessed in moments when someone else feels afraid or suspicious, the journal stops being what it was. This person can begin to see their journal as an evidence locker instead of a safe space.

I think that’s what make this so ethically uncomfortable for me. The same act can look radically different depending on why it happened and what the stakes were. But these exceptions can start to become little loopholes that people use in order to cover up their selfishness as concern. A person can tell themselves they were worried. That they had a bad feeling. That they needed clarity. That they were trying to protect the relationship. Suddenly the exception starts swallowing the rule.

Context can change how blameworthy the act is, but it does not erase the seriousness of entering a private space without permission.

The Dead and The Public

Things get even stranger when the person who wrote the journal is dead. With the living, the ethical line at least feels clearer. The person exists. They can consent, refuse, confront, explain, revoke access, be hurt by the violation in real time. But death changes the shape of the question without fully answering it. Once someone is gone, their journal often stops feeling like a private object and that shift can make people feel much more justified in opening it.

I understand why.

When someone dies, the things they leave behind become emotionally charged in a way they never were before. Their ordinary objects start to feel like relics. Pieces of them that feel like they’re still reachable in some form. Suddenly, the person reading the journal isn’t snooping. They’re remembering. Trying to understand more fully. But even then, the dead cannot defend their privacy. They cannot tell you what they would have wanted kept hidden. They cannot explain context. We tend to act as though a person’s inner life becomes more available once they are gone. As if surviving them gives us some emotional inheritance claim over their private pages. Sometimes families do this. Sometimes historians do it. Sometimes biographers do it. Sometimes lovers do it. The logic is often some version of the same thing: they’re gone, so now the journal means something bigger than privacy. Now it belongs to memory. To history. To truth.

I do think that argument has some real force behind it. Some journals do become historically important. They contain insight into lives, events, and suffering that might otherwise be lost, and they can genuinely deepen public understanding. But I still think something morally important gets flattened when we treat historical value as though it erases the original intimacy of the object. Because even when publication serves some genuine public good, there is still a real ethical question underneath it: does value to the public cancel a person’s claim to privacy? I don’t think so. Not entirely.

Even if the dead cannot experience betrayal in the same immediate way the living can, there still seems to be something morally real at stake in how we handle what they left behind. The fact that a person is gone does not mean their most intimate thoughts become raw material for whoever finds them. Their vulnerability does not simply expire. Their privacy becomes harder to enforce, yes. But harder to enforce is not the same thing as gone. Death may complicate privacy, but it does not cancel dignity.

That doesn’t mean there are never exceptions. History matters. Preservation matters. Sometimes families are left to make impossible decisions with no clean answer. But I do think the default posture should still be restraint. Or at the very least, humility.

Conclusion

I keep coming back to the same conclusion: reading someone else’s journal without permission is, in most cases, unethical.

What makes it unethical is not just the invasion itself, but the assumption underneath it: that wanting access is enough to justify taking it. That curiosity, love, fear, or grief can convert another person’s private interior into something available. Sometimes those motives complicate the judgment. They do not erase the principle. A person’s inner life is not a resource for other people simply because it exists in written form. And I’m not saying it’s unethical just because it is private but because it takes something that was never offered. It overrides consent.

Yes, context can complicate the moral picture. There are edge cases where competing obligations make the question harder and the answer less clean. But exceptions are not the rule, and they should not become cover for entitlement dressed up as concern.

Access to someone’s inner life should be given, not taken.

I’ve spent most of my life preparing for my life.

I know it sounds weird but that’s genuinely the best way I can describe it. For what feels like most of my adult life, I’ve existed in a state of transition. I’ve always been the person “on the way” to something. Whether that’s me becoming more disciplined. Becoming more creative. Becoming more successful. Becoming healthier and sharper and more established. Every version of myself has felt…temporary. Almost like a draft of the final version. In my mind, there has always been an imaginary moment ahead of me where everything would just…click. A threshold where all the scattered pieces of my effort would assemble themselves into something solid and stable. That’s when my REAL life would begin. Not before. Everything before that moment, I was just preparing.

The strange thing about this is that I’ve built a lot in that “preparation”. Degrees. Projects. Writing. Systems. Goals. Skills. A body of work. Ambition has not been empty for me. Becoming has been productive. It’s given me direction and structure. It has pushed me through very uncomfortable moments. And I’m not going to pretend like I don’t admire that part of myself. The part that wants more and refuses to stop pushing.

But and there’s always a but.

Becoming runs on the assumption that who I am right now is not enough. I’m not saying I’m broken or worthless but rather unfinished. And when you build your identity around being unfinished, you never get to rest inside the person you are right now.

Let me give you an example.

I’ve told myself I’d start dressing nicer when I lost weight. “When I get to ___ pounds, I’ll start buying nicer cloths”. The things is, I’ve been “losing” weight for years now. Lose weight. Gain weight. Up and down. Up and Down. Always in fluctuation. And because I set that weird and made up goal, in my mind, I couldn’t dress nicely. No one said that to me. No one sat me down and forbade me from trying to dress better. But to me, I wasn’t the version of myself that I wanted to be yet therefore, I put it off. When instead, I could just be dressing for the person I am now. Think of all the happiness I withheld from myself because of this mentality. All the things I missed out on because I wasn’t “there yet.” That’s one example but it exists for all of us. “When I get this amount of money, Ill do this…” “When I get this amount of followers, I’ll do this…” “If I get this promotion, I’ll finally do this…”. Scripts we all tell ourselves. They all feel like milestones that when we reach them, they will be this magical turning point where everything is going to reorganize itself internally.

There’s a name for this. It’s a psychological concept called “the arrival fallacy”. It’s the belief that once we reach a certain milestone, we will finally feel complete or permanently satisfied. It tells you that once you become the person you’re trying to be, then you’ll relax. Then you’ll feel secure. Then you’ll allow yourself to exist fully. It sounds naive when we say it out loud like this but in practice, it’s there for a lot of people. Very subtly.

I’ve been living inside of that promise for yearsssss. And it sounds so dumb and cliche to write it out like this but honestly, the realization that the years I labeled as preparation were my actual life and not just the “in-between”, hits weirdly hard. I’ve treated myself like a prototype of the real thing. As if there will be a moment where I finally earn the right to relax into who I am.

Share

But I’m tired.

This is just the ongoing series of figuring out why I am so exhausted lately haha. I talked about closing loops in a previous post and that has helped IMMENSELY but I think this plays a part of it too. Some of this fatigue I’ve felt lately isn’t from doing too much but from orienting myself toward a future that never solidifies. From constantly measuring the present against a moving standard. I don’t want to wake up in ten years from now and realize I spent another decade preparing to begin.

If I’m being honest, I don’t even know what “arrival” even looks like anymore. The version of myself that I’ve been chasing is blurry. Undefined. I just know I’m not him yet. And that has been enough to keep me restless.

But what if there is no final version… then what am I waiting for? What if this is him? The one who is still figuring it out. The one who is ambitious and inconsistent and reflective and sometimes overwhelmed. The one who writes long essays trying to decode his own exhaustion.

There’s something uncomfortable about accepting that.

Ambition is not the villain here though. I don’t want to pretend it is. Ambition has built structure in my life. It has pulled me forward. It has sharpened me. It has given me purpose. I want to build. I’m not giving that up. I care about growth. I care about becoming better. I still want to chase things that scare me.

But I also want to inhabit.

I want to enjoy dressing well now, not at some imaginary weight. I want to appreciate the projects I’ve already built instead of immediately reducing them to stepping stones. I want to let an ordinary Tuesday be an actual part of my life, not just a bridge to something else. I can just exist.

Maybe there is no grand arrival. Maybe there’s no day where everything fixes itself internally and I suddenly feel complete. Maybe life isn’t structured like that. Maybe it’s just a series of moments that I either inhabit or miss.

And I don’t want to keep missing them.

I don’t know how to perfectly balance these two forces yet. I suspect it’s not something you solve once. It’s a practice. It’s noticing when you treat today as a means instead of an experience. It’s remembering that the journey people romanticize isn’t metaphorical. Maybe I’ll always have ambition. Maybe I’ll always be wired to build and refine and chase. That’s part of me. But I don’t want that wiring to steal my ability to sit inside the present moment without trying to extract something from it.

There is no final version coming, so I might as well be here.

I recently posted a Tik Tok showing off my journal collection. I got a few comments like “consumerism final boss” and “this isn’t something to be proud of.” And to be honest, I think those criticisms are fair. I WAS overconsuming but I started collecting these years ago before I really had a sense of what I liked and what I didn’t. I don’t buy very many journals these days but this whole thing did stop and make me ask myself, “why in the world did I feel the need to get all these journals?”.

If you’re reading this right now, it’s probably because there’s a decent chance that you own at least one journal/notebook that you’ve never written in. More likely than not, you own a few. Maybe it’s still shrinkwrapped sitting in a drawer. Or maybe it’s one you’ve cracked open only once, told yourself it was too nice to use right now, and stuffed in that same drawer. Maybe it’s an entire stack that’s all different sizes, with different intentions, with different versions of a life you fully intended to live inside of them. I believe that this pattern is actually deeply human.

So why do people keep buying notebooks they don’t use and sometimes even while feeling bad about it?

To answer that, you have to step away from stationery culture entirely. You have to look at something much older and much broader: the psychology of collecting itself. Because notebook hoarding is a near perfect case study of how humans use objects to create order, regulate emotion, stabilize identity, and hold space for future selves. Especially during periods of uncertainty.

This essay isn’t about telling you to “use what you have.” It’s not about decluttering, shaming, or justifying consumption. Again, I am NOT justifying overconsumption. What I am trying to do is help you understand what unused journals are actually doing for you psychologically and why, once you see it clearly, the behavior stops looking irrational at all.

Why Humans Collect At All

Before notebooks, before stationery, before capitalism or Instagram or the idea of a “haul,” humans collected things. Collecting is not a modern glitch caused by marketing or weak self control. Archaeological evidence suggests that early humans curated objects well beyond immediate survival needs. Excavations from Upper Paleolithic sites reveal caches of ochre pigments, carved figurines, shells transported far from their original locations, and tools preserved long after they stopped being useful. Anthropologists generally agree that these early collections served symbolic and emotional purposes rather than purely functional ones. Objects became memory holders, markers of identity, and anchors to shared stories. Long before humans had writing systems, they used material culture to remember who they were and what mattered.

As societies grew more complex, so did the meaning of collections. In ancient civilizations, collections took institutional form. Temples and palaces stored objects not for daily use, but for continuity. In Mesopotamia, clay tablets were archived and preserved across generations. In Egypt, grave goods accompanied the dead into the afterlife. These collections weren’t practical in the narrow sense. They were attempts to make an overwhelming world feel graspable by holding a curated slice of it. To collect was to say: this is what matters, this is what endures, this is how I understand my place in things. Across cultures and centuries, the pattern repeats. When knowledge expands faster than understanding, when the world feels large or unstable, humans collect. Seen this way, collecting has always been less about possession and more about orientation.

Collecting As Control

If collecting has always helped humans orient themselves in a vast and unstable world, modern psychology helps explain how it does that so effectively. One of the strongest and most consistent findings in consumer psychology is that people gravitate toward possessions during periods of uncertainty. When the future feels unpredictable economically, emotionally, or creatively, objects become stabilizing forces and become fixed points in an uncertain landscape.

In a widely cited 2009 paper in the Journal of Consumer Research, researchers Aric Rindfleisch, James Burroughs, and Nancy Wong describe possessions as sources of “psychological safety.” Their research suggests that people use objects to regulate anxiety and restore a sense of continuity when their sense of control is threatened. Possessions, in this sense, act as emotional anchors rather than mere utilities. What makes collecting especially powerful is that it provides control without consequence. Owning something is an act of agency that doesn’t require competence. You don’t have to be good at anything to buy a notebook. You don’t have to prove consistency, talent, or follow through. The act itself feels decisive without being risky.

Buying a journal feels like action. It feels adjacent to productivity. It feels like movement. But it doesn’t require vulnerability. You’re not buying paper. You’re buying the feeling that future clarity is still possible. To understand why unused notebooks are so tempting, so comforting, and so difficult to let go of, you have to look at what the brain is doing long before it’s ever bought.

That’s where anticipation comes in.

Why Anticipation Feels Better Than Use

A commonly misunderstood aspect of collecting is why using the object often feels less satisfying than acquiring it. Neuroscience offers a clear explanation: dopamine is more strongly associated with anticipation than with consumption. One of the most counterintuitive findings in modern neuroscience is that the pleasure we associate with objects rarely comes from owning or using them. It comes from what happens before we own them. From imagining and rehearsing a future interaction that hasn’t occurred yet.

In a series of influential studies, neuroscientist Wolfram Schultz demonstrated that dopamine neurons fire most intensely not when a reward is received, but when it is predicted (Schultz, 1998). The brain responds most strongly to the possibility of reward, not its completion. Psychologists Kent Berridge and Terry Robinson later expanded this idea through incentive salience theory, which distinguishes between “liking” something and “wanting” it (Berridge & Robinson, 1998). Wanting is driven by dopamine and anticipation. Liking is driven by the actual sensory or emotional pleasure of an experience. You can intensely want an object without deriving much pleasure from actually using it. Crucially, the two systems can operate independently.

Collecting thrives in this gap.

The act of choosing an object, imagining how it will be used, and mentally rehearsing the future it represents creates a rich anticipatory loop. That loop is neurologically rewarding even if the imagined future never arrives. Once the object is acquired, the loop collapses. The brain moves on.

This explains a pattern many notebook collectors recognize instantly:

• The notebook feels magical in the store.

• It feels precious at home.

• The first page feels intimidating.

• The next notebook suddenly feels appealing again.

This doesn’t mean collectors are chasing novelty mindlessly. It means their brains are doing exactly what human brains evolved to do: prioritize possibility over completion. Notebooks are especially powerful in this regard because they don’t just anticipate use, they anticipate becoming. When someone buys a new journal, they’re rarely imagining the physical act of writing. They’re imagining the state of mind that writing represents. Clarity. Consistency. Insight. A calmer internal landscape. The notebook becomes a proxy for all of that. That imagined future is neurologically potent.

Once you begin using a notebook, the imagined future gives way to reality. The object stops being a promise. This explains a pattern that shows up repeatedly in creative communities: people derive immense satisfaction from acquiring tools, planning systems, and blank materials and much less satisfaction from actually engaging with them. In the context of notebooks, anticipation allows people to feel aligned with their values without immediately confronting their limitations. The notebook holds the idealized version of the practice, untouched by fatigue, inconsistency, or doubt.

This is also why the next notebook can feel more tempting than the one already owned. The existing notebook has history or at least expectation. It carries pressure. The new notebook restores possibility. It resets the anticipatory loop. Importantly, this doesn’t mean anticipation is a trap to be avoided. Anticipation is a fundamental human capacity. It allows us to plan, and to hope, and to endure periods where action feels impossible. In a world that constantly demands results, that imagined future can be surprisingly sustaining. And this is where notebooks become uniquely complicated objects. Because unlike most collected items, notebooks don’t promise only enjoyment or status. They promise self-knowledge. Meaning. Transformation. This is where identity enters the picture.

Share

Collecting as Identity Preservation

Anticipation explains why notebooks are acquired. Identity explains why they’re kept. Long after the excitement of buying fades, long after the imagined future grows distant, the notebook often remains on the shelf. Even unused, it continues to perform psychological labor. To understand that, you have to look at how humans use objects to stabilize identity over time.

Psychologist Russell Belk’s theory of the extended self argues that possessions become part of how people define who they are. According to Belk, the boundaries of the self don’t stop at the body. They extend outward into the things we own, we use, and we protect. Over time, possessions absorb meaning. They become repositories for memory and for effort and intention. This is why losing certain objects can feel strangely personal, even when their monetary value is low. A damaged photograph, a worn book, a notebook from a specific period of life. These aren’t just things. They’re containers for experiences that are difficult to store anywhere else. The object becomes a stand-in for parts of the self that would otherwise be intangible.

Belk emphasized that this process doesn’t require constant use. Possessions don’t have to be actively engaged with to remain psychologically charged. What matters is the story attached to them: why they were acquired, what they were meant to represent, and how they fit into a person’s sense of continuity over time. In this way, objects function as external memory systems. A notebook purchased during a hopeful phase may still carry that hope years later, even if it remains untouched.

Psychologist Daphna Oyserman’s work on identity-based motivation shows that when people feel distant from an identity they care about, they often rely on symbols to maintain continuity until action becomes possible again. Symbols allow people to preserve a sense of “this still matters to me,” even when behavior temporarily falls short. In this framework, a notebook doesn’t have to be used to be meaningful. Its presence alone can sustain identity. This reframes the unused notebook from evidence of avoidance to evidence of commitment that hasn’t expired. It also explains why people are reluctant to get rid of notebooks they haven’t used. Discarding the object can feel like discarding the identity it represents. For people who care deeply about self-understanding, creativity, or meaning, that can be emotionally costly.

So Why Do We Hoard Journals?

Because journals do something very few objects can do at once. They offer control without requiring action. In moments when life feels unstable, owning a journal creates a sense of preparedness. They reward anticipation more than use. They preserve identity without demanding performance. When you put these pieces together, journal hoarding stops looking like hypocrisy or some kind of moral failing. It looks like a predictable response to uncertainty and the desire to become someone with more clarity than the present moment allows. That doesn’t mean every journal needs to stay unused forever. It doesn’t mean reflection should remain theoretical. But it does mean that unused journals aren’t empty, and they aren’t meaningless. They’re evidence of intention. And if that’s all the energy you have for right now? Then that’s okay.

Now, understanding a behavior is not the same thing as endorsing it.

None of this is meant to justify endless consumption or to pretend that overbuying doesn’t have consequences. Stationery communities, like many hobby spaces, can normalize accumulation in ways that escalate. New releases, limited editions, aesthetic trends. There’s a difference between recognizing that unused journals hold psychological meaning and using that insight to avoid self-reflection about spending habits. One is understanding. The other is rationalization.

I do think overconsumption is a problem. This essay isn’t an argument for buying more journals. It’s an argument for understanding why the impulse exists in the first place. Once you understand it, you’re in a better position to decide what role collecting should play in your life.

I need to get something off my chest.

I judge notebooks. Respectfully of course. Also, internally haha. But I absolutely judge them.

In a way that’s like “ah, interesting choice” when I see the paper in your journal. I’m mostly talking to you lined journal people.

But I’m here to be honest: Dot grid is the best paper format.

I’ve tried to talk myself out of that sentence. I’ve used lined notebooks for years. I’ve gone through blank notebooks during my “I’m going to sketch more” phases. I’ve told myself that paper is paper and the important thing is just writing something down.

And every time, I end up back here.

Dot grid.

There’s something about it that just… works. So this essay is me defending the dots. And I’m fully aware that caring this much about paper is kind of ridiculous which, honestly, makes it more fun.

The Default Paper Problem

For a long time, I used lined notebooks because that’s what journals looked like. I didn’t question it. Every journal I saw growing up had lines, so I never stopped to ask whether I actually liked them. You write on the lines. You move down the page. You fill it up. That’s the deal.

And for a while, it worked well enough.

It wasn’t until I started trying other formats that I realized how much that default had been shaping the way I wrote without me noticing. Once I started paying attention, it was obvious how much lined paper was working on me subconsciously. Lined notebooks keep everything moving in one direction. You start at the top, you work your way down, and when you hit the bottom of the page, you’re done. That’s fine most of the time. It’s efficient. It’s familiar. But it also nudges you to keep writing just to fill space. Empty lines feel wrong.

When I tried blank notebooks, the opposite thing happened. Instead of being pushed forward, I slowed down. Every page felt like it needed a plan. Where should I start? How much space should I leave? Is this going to look weird halfway through? Am I about to waste half the page if this entry ends up being short? Blank paper always felt like it wanted me to be more intentional than I actually needed to be. I just wanted to write something down and move on with my day.

At some point, dot grid entered the rotation almost by accident. I didn’t have a strong reaction to it at first. But the more I used it, the easier it felt. Let me explain.

Why Dot Grid Works for More People Than You Think

The biggest advantage dot grid has over other paper formats is flexibility. I think it’s one of the few paper types that actually works across the many messy ways people use notebooks. Very few of us sit down and do only one thing in a notebook. We write a bit. We make lists. We plan things out. We sketch something quickly. We track something for a week and then forget about it. Then we come back and do something completely different on the next page.

Dot grid handles almost all of that.

If you mostly write, dot grid behaves almost exactly like lined paper. Your writing stays straight. Spacing stays consistent. You don’t have to think about alignment at all. The dots are light enough that they fade into the background once you’re a few sentences in.

If you make lists, dot grid is better than lined paper. Bullet points line up cleanly. Indentation is easy. You can break a list into sections without everything collapsing into one long column. Checking things off feels cleaner because items aren’t fighting against bold horizontal lines.

Project planning is where dot grid really starts pulling ahead.

Want to break something into steps? Easy.

Want to draw boxes for different phases? Easy.

Want to connect ideas with arrows without it looking chaotic? Easy.

You don’t have to fight the lines. You don’t have to make it perfect. The dots give you enough structure to keep things readable without forcing a rigid layout.

Dot grid handles all of these transitions better than other formats. That’s really the key difference. Most people don’t open a notebook already knowing exactly what they’re going to do on the page. You start writing, then realize you need a list. The list turns into planning. The planning turns into a quick sketch or diagram. Then you’re back to writing again. You can move between writing, lists, planning, and drawing on the same page without it feeling messy or forced. Everything still lines up. Everything still feels intentional, even if you weren’t being intentional at all.

And that’s why I think it works for more people than almost any other format. It just adapts to whatever you’re doing that day.

Common Pushback

Whenever dot grid comes up, the same objections show up. I used to have most of them myself, so I get it.

“The dots would distract me.”

This one comes up a lot, and it sounds reasonable until you actually use dot grid for more than a few days. Dots are lighter than lines. They don’t pull your eye across the page the same way. After a week, they fade into the background completely. I notice bold lines way more than I ever notice dots. If anything, dots disappear faster than lines do. Your brain stops registering them once you’re writing.

“It feels too structured.”

Only if you treat the dots like rules. The dots don’t tell you where to write. They don’t tell you how big things should be. They don’t force margins or spacing. You can ignore them entirely and just write. They’re there if you want help. That’s it.

“I like blank paper because it’s freer.”

Blank paper is great if you enjoy making layout decisions. A lot of people do. But freedom isn’t always helpful. Sometimes it just means more decisions before you even start. Dot grid gives you a starting point without closing anything off. You can still do anything you’d do on blank paper.

“Lined paper works fine for me.”

It probably does. Lined paper is reliable. Dot grid just works fine in more situations. If you only ever write long form entries, lined paper is fine. If you do literally anything else, dot grid usually feels easier.

“I don’t like how it looks.”

That’s fair. Taste is taste. I will say this, though: most people don’t dislike dot grid after using it. They dislike it in theory. Once it’s filled with writing, the dots almost disappear, and the page looks calmer than lined paper.

So I’m Going to Defend The Dots To The End

This whole essay really comes down to one thing. Most people don’t need a “perfect” notebook. They need one that doesn’t get in the way. Dot grid does that better than most formats. It just works.

If you already love lined paper and never feel boxed in, great. If blank paper energizes you instead of slowing you down, also great. Im not trying to CONVERT anyone specifically, instead it’s more about offering a better default.

Use one dot grid notebook the same way you already use your current one. Don’t overthink it. Don’t design spreads. Just write, list, plan, and see what happens. Best case, it clicks and you stop thinking about paper altogether. Worst case, you confirm that something else works better for you.

Either way, you learn something.

I’ll stop talking about dot grid now. Until next week. Probably.

I know how quickly words like political trigger eye-rolling, defensiveness and accusations of overreach. I know some readers will decide, immediately, that this essay is an attack on their hobby, their identity, or their desire to escape the world through art, stationery, or journaling. If you decide to unsubscribe from me after this, I completely understand.

That being said…

Art is not neutral. It never has been. Not because artists are inherently activists, and not because every drawing or notebook entry carries a slogan but because power reacts to art as though it matters. Governments do not censor hobbies that are harmless. Authoritarian regimes do not imprison artists, erase murals, criminalize satire, or regulate personal expression out of paranoia or misunderstanding. They do it because art creates competing versions of reality.

This essay isn’t asking you to turn your notebook or sketchbook into a manifesto. It’s asking you to recognize that the act of recording, creating, and preserving has always existed inside political systems whether the creator acknowledges it or not. And history is very clear about what happens when those systems feel threatened by art.

Art As Threat And Instrument

Across modern history, art has repeatedly come into conflict with dangerous governments. When governments seek to consolidate authority, control of narrative becomes as important as control of territory. Art interferes with that control. Unlike official communication, art does not require institutional legitimacy. Unlike journalism, it does not depend on accreditation, distribution infrastructure, or formal verification. And unlike state archives, it is not designed to present a singular, stable account of events. Instead, art proliferates and mutates and circulates through informal channels. It is precisely this lack of centralization that makes it difficult to regulate. When art documents experiences that contradict official accounts, it becomes a liability.

Long before mass literacy, art carried political meaning precisely because it didn’t require explanation. A single image could collapse a complicated argument into something instantly graspable. Political cartoons are one of the cleanest examples.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, cartoonists like James Gillray and Honoré Daumier shaped public opinion far more efficiently than editorials ever could. Their work wasn’t decoration but instead it was argument. A king exaggerated into absurdity. A politician reduced to a grotesque symbol. Power stripped of dignity.

Governments noticed.

If art was truly harmless, then censorship laws targeting caricatures wouldn’t have been created.

Fast forward to the 20th century and the pattern becomes even clearer. Totalitarian regimes understood that controlling imagery was as important as controlling language. In Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Fascist Italy, art was either absorbed into propaganda or pushed underground. There was no neutral space.

In 1937, the Nazi regime staged the infamous Degenerate Art Exhibition (Entartete Kunst). Over 650 works by modern artists were confiscated from German museums and displayed mockingly. The exhibition was carefully designed to instruct the public on how to see art incorrectly. Works were crowded together, captions were scrawled in accusatory language, and labels linked artistic styles to moral corruption, mental illness, Judaism, Bolshevism, and sexual deviance.

Over two million people attended.

Modern art was dangerous to the Nazi worldview because it fractured the myth of racial purity and heroic destiny. Expressionism showed trauma. Dada exposed absurdity. Cubism disrupted bodily ideals. These movements suggested that identity was unstable. That could not coexist with fascism.

Shortly after, thousands of artworks were destroyed or sold off to fund the regime. Artists were banned from teaching, exhibiting, or purchasing supplies. Some fled. Others were imprisoned. Some were killed.

In the United States, comics were used during World War II to normalize violence against enemy nations, caricature foreign leaders, and promote national unity. Comics during World War II were not incidental entertainment running parallel to politics. They were deliberate tools of persuasion, folded directly into the broader propaganda ecosystem that included posters, newsreels, radio, and film. Their power lay in accessibility. Comics reached children, teenagers, soldiers, factory workers. Audiences that formal political writing often missed or failed to emotionally engage.

One of the most famous examples is Captain America, who debuted in 1941, with a cover depicting him punching Adolf Hitler in the face. The image is blunt to the point of absurdity, but that was the point. It collapses geopolitical complexity into a single moral gesture: violence against this enemy is not only justified, it is heroic. Enemy nations were personified and simplified. German and Japanese leaders were exaggerated into grotesque caricatures while American heroes were rendered as morally unambiguous, physically idealized defenders of freedom. It trained readers in who deserved empathy and who did not.

Now a more contemporary example that is frequently cited in scholarship on cultural resistance is Ai Weiwei. While his work is often discussed in terms of political critique, its more destabilizing function lies in documentation. Following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, thousands of schoolchildren were killed when government-built school buildings collapsed. Independent investigations quickly suggested that many of these deaths were the result of substandard construction. What became known colloquially as “tofu-dreg” buildings. The Chinese state’s response was swift and familiar. Casualty figures were obscured. Public records were restricted. Parents who demanded accountability were silenced or detained.

Ai Weiwei’s intervention did not initially take the form of protest art. Instead, he undertook what closely resembled an unauthorized civil investigation. Through his blog posts, crowdsourced research, and volunteer networks, he compiled the names, ages, and schools of the deceased children. Information that the state had either failed or refused to release. The resulting artworks, most notably Remembering (2009), an installation composed of thousands of backpacks spelling out a sentence spoken by a grieving mother, function as materialized archives. A growing archive that contradicted the official absence of data. In systems built on narrative control, an alternative archive is intolerable.

The state recognized this immediately. Ai’s blog was shut down. His studio was surveilled. He was beaten by police in Chengdu while attempting to testify at the trial of a fellow activist investigating the earthquake. Later, he would be detained for 81 days without charge. The message was clear: the act of recording itself was the crime.

What these examples reveal is not simply that art can be political, but that power consistently behaves as if art already is. Across regimes and eras, the same pattern repeats. When art reinforces the state’s preferred story, it is amplified and funded. When it fractures that story, it is censored or destroyed. Art is dangerous to governments when it multiplies ways of seeing. Art is useful to governments when it collapses those ways into a single moral frame.

Journaling Is Political Whether You Accept It Or Not

Journaling is often defended as apolitical by people who want to protect it from contamination. It’s framed as private and introspective and something that exists outside systems of power. And on the surface, that framing makes sense. Most journals are never published. Most are never intended for an audience beyond the writer. Most contain no slogans, no arguments, no explicit political positions.

None of that makes them neutral.

Journaling is political because it records the lived consequences of power. Every journal is a document of how the world is experienced by someone inside it. And experience is never evenly distributed. What you record, what you omit, what you normalize, what you treat as background noise is inseparable from the conditions under which you live. Those conditions are shaped by policy, economics, culture, and authority whether you name them or not. Your journal captures the downstream effects of decisions made far above your head.

That is what makes it political.

A journal that never mentions politics is not escaping politics. It is documenting the effects of politics without labeling them. Rent increases. Work schedules. Exhaustion. Anxiety. Health issues. Immigration status. Surveillance. Policing. Access to education. Food prices. Time scarcity. Safety. Stability. All of these show up in journals constantly, even when the writer insists they are “just writing about their life.”

People in power shape the environment you are reacting to. Your journal is the record of that reaction. This is why authoritarian systems have always been deeply suspicious of personal writing. Because diaries create first-person timelines that cannot be retroactively corrected. A journal written in the moment captures uncertainty, fear, anger, confusion. All the things official narratives smooth over later. That is why diaries have been confiscated in prisons. Why letters are censored. Why notebooks are searched at borders. Why certain populations are discouraged from writing at all. Writing creates a trail. Trails create accountability. Accountability threatens power.

This is why journals become so valuable later. Not to governments, but to historians, researchers, and communities trying to understand what life actually felt like under specific conditions. Official records tell you what was supposed to be happening. Journals tell you how it actually happened. A government report might say inflation rose by a percentage. A journal tells you when someone stopped buying meat. When they worked a second job. When they stopped sleeping well. When optimism drained out of the entries.

Consider The Diary of a Young Girl. Its power does not come from literary sophistication or philosophical insight but instead from proximity. It is a record written in real time by someone embedded inside unfolding events, without the benefit of knowing how the story would end. Anne Frank does not write as a martyr or a historical figure. She writes as a person trying to make sense of her day.

Just. Like. You. And. Me.

That ignorance is not a weakness of the text but its authority. Because she did not know the outcome, the diary resists narrative manipulation. There is no dramatic arc constructed in hindsight, no moral lesson shaped to fit a conclusion. Instead, the diary captures fear alongside boredom, hope alongside irritation, political catastrophe alongside mundane complaints.

What all of this ultimately shows is that journaling does not become political when it is published or shared. It is political at the moment it is written. You do not need to write about politics for this to be true. Writing about your exhaustion, your fear, your routines, your hopes, or your silence is enough. Those experiences do not arise in a vacuum. Individual journals might seem insignificant, but together they form a body of evidence that no single authority can fully control.

Conclusion: This Is Why I Write Things Down

I want to be clear about something, because clarity matters right now.

I am scared of the world we are living in.

I am scared in the very specific way you get scared when institutions that claim legitimacy are actively harming people and asking to be treated as neutral while doing it. I am scared because I am watching power normalize cruelty through bureaucracy and language and procedure and I recognize that pattern from history.

This is not theoretical for me. It is not academic distance. It is not a thought experiment. And I refuse to pretend otherwise.

I write about art, journaling, and stationery because I believe, deeply, that recording reality is one of the few defenses ordinary people have when systems begin to rot. I believe that memory matters. I believe that documentation matters. I believe that refusing to look away matters.

Systems, like the one we are living in here in the United States, do not function without compliance.

They require people who follow orders.
They require people who benefit.
They require people who insist they are “just doing their job.”
They require people who look away, downplay, rationalize, or demand politeness while harm is being carried out in their name.

And yes, that means saying this plainly:

Fu*k I.C.E. From now until the day I am no longer on this earth.

Fu*k the people who benefit from it.

Fu*k the people who insist on neutrality while harm is being carried out.

Fu*k the people who refuse to see what is happening right now.

There is nothing morally complex about this moment. There is nothing nuanced about caging people and separating families and disappearing human beings behind paperwork and euphemisms. The demand that we speak politely about it is not about civility. It is about insulation. It is about protecting the comfort of people who do not want to feel implicated.

I am not interested in that comfort.

I write things down because I do not trust systems that ask for obedience while doing harm. I write things down because I do not trust narratives that only make sense in hindsight. I write things down because documentation is one of the few tools people have when the ground starts shifting under their feet.

History does not absolve people who complied. It does not celebrate those who “just followed procedure.” It does not remember silence kindly. What survives are the records. The journals, the letters, the sketches.

So I will keep writing. I will keep documenting. I will keep refusing neutrality. Because pretending this is all apolitical is not an act of innocence. And I want my records to show that I saw what was happening and did not look away.

I recently spoke about this in one of my notes but I’ve been paying a lot of attention to how many open loops I carry throughout my day. I’m not talking about goals or anything of the sort. Literally just the number of unfinished things I have in my life.

None of these things were necessarily hard or urgent but all of them were somehow taking up space in my head. I’m sure you’ve felt this way before too. That little tension you feel when you think of all the things you have to do for the day but don’t end up doing them? Yeahhhh. You know exactly what Im talking about. Psychologists call it the Zeigarnik effect. It’s our tendency to hold on to incomplete or interrupted tasks more tightly than ones we’ve already finished because there’s no closure or plan to finish it so your brain can’t file it away as “handled”.

Your journal is one of the biggest loop-generating machines in your life.

Every unchecked task. Every habit tracker you stopped filling in. Every goal you wrote down without deciding what “done” actually looks like. Each one of those is an open loop. Each one is a mental tab you opened at some point. And every time you flip through your journal, your brain doesn’t see those pages as the “past.” It sees them as unfinished tasks.

This essay is about why those unfinished entries feel heavier than completed ones, why your journal can amplify that weight, and how the same psychological mechanism that makes unfinished tasks stick, can be used deliberately.

Take Us Back…

In the 1920s, psychologist Bluma Zeigarnik was sitting in a café in Berlin with her mentor Kurt Lewin. They noticed something odd about the waiters. The staff could remember complex orders perfectly while people were still eating. As soon as the bill was paid, the details evaporated from memory. Curious, Zeigarnik designed a series of experiments. Participants were given simple tasks: puzzles, arithmetic, drawing shapes. Some tasks were interrupted before they could finish, others were allowed to be completed. Later, she asked them to recall what they had done. Participants were significantly more likely to remember the tasks that had been interrupted than the ones they had completed. This became known as the Zeigarnik effect: the observation that unfinished or interrupted tasks tend to stay more active in memory than completed ones. In Lewin’s “field theory,” starting a task creates a kind of psychological tension, like stretching a rubber band. Finishing the task releases the tension. If you get interrupted, the band stays stretched, tugging at your attention. Whether you realize it or not, your journal is full of these stretched rubber bands.

Let’s talk about the science

Psychologists have known for a long time that we can only hold a small numbers of items in working memory at once. Although the exact number has changed over the years, the key point is that working memory is small. Unfinished tasks are not just abstract ideas. They work more like active “open tabs” that occupy your limited working space (working memory). When you start a project in your journal and you do not clarify what “done” looks like or what the next step is, your brain has to keep reloading that tab from storage whenever something reminds you of it. Even something like you flipping through the pages to start a new spread completely. This is where Zeigarnik’s idea of tension meets goal-setting research.

Control theory models of rumination, like the work done by Martin and Tesser, propose that when there is a gap between where you are and an important goal, your mind tends to circle back to it. That discrepancy fuels repetitive self-focused thought, especially when you do not have a clear plan for closing the gap. Your brain hates unresolved gaps.

In 2010, E. J. Masicampo and Roy Baumeister ran a series of experiments that brought the Zeigarnik effect into a modern lab setting. Participants were given an important goal, then interrupted them before they could finish. Afterwards, they completed unrelated tasks like reading or solving anagrams. When participants still had unfulfilled goals, those goals bled into everything else. Participants’ minds drifted back to what they hadn’t finished. They reported intrusive thoughts about the interrupted task, had a harder time concentrating on the new activity, and performed worse on tasks that required focus and self-control.

In other words, the unfinished goal kept stealing attention.

Here is the interesting part for journalers: in a separate condition, participants were asked to create specific plans for their unfinished goals before moving on. When people had made concrete “here is when and how I’ll do it” plans, the mental interference disappeared. Their performance on later tasks bounced back. The authors concluded that unfulfilled goals stay mentally active and continue to claim cognitive resources until we either complete them or make detailed plans for their completion. On a cognitive level, having a plan gives the mind enough closure that it stops nagging you. That is exactly the niche where a journal can be either a trap or a tool.

If your notebook is full of vague aspirations, scattered to-dos, and trackers you never look at, you are basically performing a live demo of this interference effect every time you flip through it. You are activating dozens of half-baked goals at once, with no clear next actions attached.

Your journal as a Zeigarnik amplifier

Most long-term journalers eventually invent some kind of task structure: bullet journal bullets, habit trackers, weekly spreads with tasks and projects. From the perspective of the Zeigarnik effect, you have also created a beautifully indexed collection of unfinished business.

A few common patterns:

• Habit trackers that never die: You design a gorgeous monthly tracker with fifteen habits. By day four, you are already behind. You keep the tracker because it looks nice, but every blank square is an open loop that never closes.

• Projects without boundaries: “Work on novel,” “improve sleep,” “grow my YouTube channel.” These intentions appear on spread after spread like recurring ghosts, with no hard edges around what counts as done.

• Migrated tasks that migrate forever: The classic bullet journal move. An item gets migrated from day to day to week to month. Each migration is your mind acknowledging “this matters,” but the lack of follow through turns the task into chronic tension. We’ve gone as far as migrating tasks and goals to entirely new notebooks.

In all of these cases, your journal is strengthening the cue part of the loop. The goal is in your face all the time. It highlights the gap between intentions and reality again and again and again. What is missing is the piece that Masicampo and Baumeister found can relieve the cognitive noise: a clear, concrete plan.

How to make your journal work with the Zeigarnik effect, not against it

Let us pull the science back down into the notebook on your desk.

1. Close loops in small, concrete chunks

The Zeigarnik literature and the implementation-intention research both point to the same principle: our minds relax when there is a specific plan attached to an unfinished goal.

So instead of writing “Work on portfolio,” write something like:

• “On Wednesday at 7 pm at my desk, choose 3 journal spreads to photograph for my portfolio page.”

You are giving your brain a when, where and what. Peter Gollwitzer has shown across many studies that these “if situation X, then I will do Y” plans significantly increase the chances of following through. A journal that is full of these small, time-bound moves feels very different from a journal full of vague aspirations.

2. Give unfinished tasks a “parking lot”

One reason unfinished items haunt you is that there is no trusted place for them to live.

You can borrow from cognitive offloading research and GTD style systems and create a dedicated spread that is explicitly called something like “Defer List for Later Me” or “Get Done Eventually List.” The psychological move here is huge. You are not abandoning the task, you are intentionally parking it. When you move an item there, date it and add a review point. For example: “Revisit this list on the first Sunday of each month.” That review moment is itself an implementation intention. This echoes what Masicampo and Baumeister observed: once participants felt they had a sufficient plan for a goal, it stopped hijacking their attention.

3. Design “enoughness” into your spreads

One of the sneakiest problems in modern journaling is overdesign. Because of Instagram and YouTube, many of us build spreads that are visually gorgeous but psychologically impossible. A tracker with sixteen habits every day is almost guaranteed to become a catalog of failure. Remember your working memory limits. You cannot hold dozens of active goals in mind at once without crowding out everything else.

You can use your journal as a constraint device instead.

For example:

• Limit monthly habit trackers to the three or four habits that actually move the needle for you right now.

• Cap daily tasks at a number that matches your real bandwidth, not your fantasy self.

• When a habit has been consistently blank for weeks, do not keep dragging it. Either downgrade it to the defer list or break it into something smaller.

This is literally protecting your cognitive system from being saturated with unresolved intentions.

Conclusion

I didn’t start researching the Zeigarnik effect because I wanted to be more productive. I started because I felt mentally crowded in a way I couldn’t explain. I wasn’t overwhelmed by big life decisions or major deadlines. I was weighed down by small, unfinished things. All the loose ends I wasn’t taking time to close up.

Once I started paying attention, the pattern became obvious. The things that bothered me most weren’t the hard projects. They were the nearly finished ones. The video that was 95% done. The text I had already typed but never sent. The idea I had committed to just enough that my brain refused to drop it. When I began closing those loops deliberately, the relief was immediate. And for the first time, I noticed how much mental energy had been tied up in things I kept telling myself I’d “get back to.” That’s what pushed me to dig into the research. I wanted to know why this worked so well. Why finishing something small could feel more calming than making progress on something big. The psychology gave language to what I was already experiencing. That’s why I think this matters.

So to summerize this all for you, you don’t need to finish everything you start. No one does. What you need is a system that respects your attention enough to stop reopening the same loops indefinitely. The relief doesn’t come from doing everything. It comes from no longer carrying everything at once.