Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Write Usefully

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 308 posts

Re: How to Write Usefully

#91

Post by keiferski »

the_af wrote: post #84
keiferski wrote: post #13

As a counterpoint, I'd argue that the "mathematical" approach to good writing is inherently flawed. That is, trying to arrive at the formula for the "best" essay via dialectic (argument) is to miss the forest for the trees. Writing is an art, not a science. Formal logic was developed to display arguments, so if you are trying to be as precise and mathematical as possible, use that instead. Instead, I'd suggest readin…

First of all: interesting post! But since you mentioned Borges let me offer a counter-counterpoint: Borges was obsessive about his writings and can be considered "mathematical" about them. He chopped away anything that didn't fit and was very careful about the construction of sentences. He was so obsessed that he recalled -- or so I read somewhere -- something that was already printed in order to make corrections to…

Sorry if I was unclear. By “mathematical” I meant looking for an underlying rule, a universal applicable to all particulars - which is essentially what the original essay is looking for.

Borges absolutely was extremely specific and analytical, but that’s not what I meant.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#92

Post by hndc »

say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #69

PG speaks of writing usefully while not writing well. Many of his sentences are phrases. The subject of his sentence is often unclear. He begins sentences with the preposition, "But". Yet, his writing remains useful. I'd rather the latter than the former if I had to choose, but considering the volume that he writes, it's surprising that he hasn't put effort into writing well. He just doesn't care to improve his work.

In "But I think we can aim...", "but" is a conjunction, not a preposition

Also, his writing is fine: simple but clear and effective.

"Many of his sentences are phrases" — literally every sentence in this essay is a complete sentence. What are you talking about?

Re: How to Write Usefully

#93

Post by the_af »

keiferski wrote: post #91
the_af wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all: interesting post! But since you mentioned Borges let me offer a counter-counterpoint: Borges was obsessive about his writings and can be considered "mathematical" about them. He chopped away anything that didn't fit and was very careful about the construction of sentences. He was so obsessed that he recalled -- or so I read somewhere -- something that was already printed in order to make corrections to…

Sorry if I was unclear. By “mathematical” I meant looking for an underlying rule, a universal applicable to all particulars - which is essentially what the original essay is looking for. Borges absolutely was extremely specific and analytical, but that’s not what I meant.

Oh. I misunderstood. In that case, we agree.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#94

Post by madacol »

> Sometimes it means telling them something they knew unconsciously but had never put into words. In fact those may be the more valuable insights, because they tend to be more fundamental.

I now know what I subconsciously already knew. I like readings that are Useful

Re: How to Write Usefully

#95

Post by daxaxelrod »

throwawaylolx wrote: post #83
say_it_as_it_is wrote: post #69

PG speaks of writing usefully while not writing well. Many of his sentences are phrases. The subject of his sentence is often unclear. He begins sentences with the preposition, "But". Yet, his writing remains useful. I'd rather the latter than the former if I had to choose, but considering the volume that he writes, it's surprising that he hasn't put effort into writing well. He just doesn't care to improve his work.

>He just doesn't care to improve his work. Alternatively, you may overestimate how objective these rules are and how much they must correlate with some universal metric for good writing.

Agreed. In my opinion, great writing has to be within the context of the time. A lot of us speak in a manner similar to how PG writes. You wouldn't consider great writing from 1890 with the same set of rules as you would something written in 2020.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#96

Post by CaptArmchair »

keiferski wrote: post #13

As a counterpoint, I'd argue that the "mathematical" approach to good writing is inherently flawed. That is, trying to arrive at the formula for the "best" essay via dialectic (argument) is to miss the forest for the trees. Writing is an art, not a science. Formal logic was developed to display arguments, so if you are trying to be as precise and mathematical as possible, use that instead. Instead, I'd suggest readin…

I think the fallacy is in the premise: "An essay should be useful."

Well, useful is always in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as an absolute truth, after all. And pretending there is, and it's even attainable, is intellectually dishonest.

Sure, an essay could be a formal piece that approaches an almost "mathematical" approach. After all, an essay a first and foremost an argument presented by the author. Even a flawed argument is still an argument. And a flawed essay is still an essay.

The fallacy here is being implicitly reductionist. If your premise states "an essay should be useful" then you're basically reducing the definition of what an essay is to a formal argument based on logic and falsifiable facts, and rejecting any other text as "not an essay" or, worse, "not useful" - whatever that might mean - or, worse, "nonsenses" or "a dumb thing to say".

A quick glance on Wikipedia dispenses such reductionism rather swiftly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essay

Not-withstanding, I think PG's essay does contain some excellent personal advice on writing style and technique itself. No more, no less. His sin is confounding form and function. The former always follows the latter, never the inverse.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#97

Post by tasogare »

daxaxelrod wrote: post #95
throwawaylolx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He just doesn't care to improve his work. Alternatively, you may overestimate how objective these rules are and how much they must correlate with some universal metric for good writing.

Agreed. In my opinion, great writing has to be within the context of the time. A lot of us speak in a manner similar to how PG writes. You wouldn't consider great writing from 1890 with the same set of rules as you would something written in 2020.

That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts.

It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wider vocabulary. It might not be as caricatural as the movie Idiocracy portrayed it, but in a way I feel we’ve slided into what they predict.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#98

Post by xiphias2 »

,,It's easy to make a statement correct by making it vague. ''

What's funny is that the last dataset that Google built for evaluating dialogues has exactly these 2 metrics: correctness and specificity.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#99

Post by throwawaylolx »

tasogare wrote: post #97
daxaxelrod wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. In my opinion, great writing has to be within the context of the time. A lot of us speak in a manner similar to how PG writes. You wouldn't consider great writing from 1890 with the same set of rules as you would something written in 2020.

That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wide…

>When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts.

For this comparison to hold water, you should compare garbage newspapers from each period rather than different literary mediums.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#100

Post by darkerside »

anon4242 wrote: post #78
darkerside wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you've discovered something extremely valuable about that group

Sure, but as a result I've grown more and more cautious about relaxing my guard which has made me more and more quiet in social situations.

Hopefully it helps to recognize the beneficial outcome of your action (which I pointed out). I've been there, so I'm trying to help.
Post reply on HN