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

181–190 of 308 posts

Re: How to Write Usefully

#181

Post by wenc »

throwanem wrote: post #162
rmason wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced the same thing with English teachers. But I had a friend point out that Hemingway (whom we both adored) wrote sentences that were 7 words shorter than normal. Writing short punchy sentences without a single spare word. Steinbeck wrote that way and so did Elmore Leonard. Leonard said he'd get down a first draft and then go back a second time taking words out that weren't necessary. https://www.litcharts.…

One can idolize Hemingway to a fault. Removing the unnecessary is largely what a second draft is for , no matter who's doing the work; concision is a virtue, but to pursue concision above all else risks erring into insufficiency and rendering oneself unable to write in one's own style and voice, rather than in an emulation of someone else's. Voice elevates an informative essay from a dry recitation of facts, offering…

As someone who admired and aspired to Hemingway's parsimononius style of writing in my youth, nowadays I'm starting to back away from it and am growing to be more inclusive other (less concise) styles of writing.

I aspired to concision because I believed I wasn't an interesting person and didn't deserve any attention outside of the little I'm able to grab, so I kept my writing pithy in the hopes that I wouldn't have to "take up too much of anyone's time/attention".

Unfortunately, too much concision can lead to short pieces that are tiring to read -- your brain has to work harder to fill in the gaps. Sometimes "unnecessary" words are needed to help the reader feel more comfortable. Not everyone is an engineer or a technocrat. Parsimony isn't always a virtue.

There's is a place for concision, but I now believe concision is the wrong goal to aim for. Often the real goal is to create an emotional connection, and if it takes a few more words to achieve it (without belaboring the subject), so be it.

People -- often teachers -- think good writing is solely about effective communication -- to me, there has never been a wronger conclusion than this.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#183

Post by erikbye »

TimPC wrote: post #172
xvector wrote: post #2

My English teachers rewarded flowery, verbose writing. Over time I found this unwieldy and now I find myself re-reading my sentences to see what I can delete. It's satisfying, like deleting unused code in a messy codebase. I envy writers who manage to densely pack information in sentences that are beautiful to read.

I experienced this too. I'm trying my best to unlearn it because I'm writing a novel. I'm not so adept with flowery prose as to write literary fiction, so I want to have more practical sentences that have better pacing.

Purple prose is not a requirement for literary fiction.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#184

Post by philwelch »

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 like David Foster Wallace as a writer and he’s as much an authority as anyone when it comes to writing well, but I think there’s a pretty major difference in terms of goals and priorities. PG is writing about writing as a means of processing ideas. He’s taking the perspective of a structural engineer, not an architect. While Wallace wrote beautifully, PG is writing about writing usefully, even if that writing is bare and unornamented. And while that may not be your preferred style, I wouldn’t dismiss it as something that someone would want to do.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#185

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Kye wrote: post #119
iainmerrick wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more useful to say that Pike's Peak is in the center of Colorado than somewhere within. This kind of thing is taking terseness too far, I think. If I’m not immediately familiar with Pike’s Peak it takes me a moment to unpack your meaning, but I immediately understood the more verbose explanation in the original.

Yep. People often confuse understanding audience with verbosity. Waffling and context both add word count. edit: I could reduce this to "Waffling and context both add word count." but then: 1: It's not clear I agree with you and 2: Triplets--like the three sentences I wrote there--are an artistic device that improve clarity and help prose flow.

There's a large international audience here. So, slang like "yep" should probably be avoided if one is keen to carefully tailor their writing?

(I debated whether to use 'one' or 'someone' here, for similar reasons.)

Re: How to Write Usefully

#186

Post by throwanem »

erikbye wrote: post #183
TimPC wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced this too. I'm trying my best to unlearn it because I'm writing a novel. I'm not so adept with flowery prose as to write literary fiction, so I want to have more practical sentences that have better pacing.

Purple prose is not a requirement for literary fiction.

Given the entirely performative nature of the genre, purple prose well executed almost certainly cannot hurt.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#187

Post by friendlybus »

This reads like a list of bullet points the author dreamed up that morning. I can feel the morning coffee and feigned interest in communicating to the anonymous internet as the self-interested writer taps a pen on his computer screen.

A better way for this writer to succeed would have been to wrap his list of "rules" around a problem for a character, institution or team of people. Placing these imagined rules in story through a daily work schedule at the 9-5 software office job would greatly improved it's readability.

Bob works at Innitech and he needs to create an essay on the latest doodad the boss is craving to provide to his superiors. Bob's needs to provide precision only when it is necessary because of [humorous anecdote about engineering culture]. Jane works at InGen and needs to provide an essay on a C++ based linux app that rotates raptor eggs or whatever. This rule X covers the strength she needs to convey in her essay and this is how her client presentation will be improved by it. The rule on clarity of writing is how she can help her co-workers with accurate, clear information.

The author would engage a broad set of interests and the reader can quickly digest the information that matters to them because everybody understands the story format. The author could put down his morning coffee and instead describe part of the story to his wife or secretary and see the reaction of someone outside the field responding to what could be an interesting topic.

We are left with mechanical writing that has to be laboriously deconstructed and reconstructed in the reader's mind as context that applies somewhere in their life. Nobody is quite sure when, where, why or how they are going to be writing an essay, but my golly they are prepared with a bullet point list of rules to do so.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#190

Post by throwanem »

friendlybus wrote: post #187

This reads like a list of bullet points the author dreamed up that morning. I can feel the morning coffee and feigned interest in communicating to the anonymous internet as the self-interested writer taps a pen on his computer screen. A better way for this writer to succeed would have been to wrap his list of "rules" around a problem for a character, institution or team of people. Placing these imagined rules in stor…

Conversely, anyone who already does write essays almost certainly already knows what purpose they serve and how to pursue it. Or, if they don't, that's almost certainly because they are new to the form and haven't yet grasped it firmly.

(On the question of whether Graham, in particular, despite being not at all new to the form, has likewise not grasped it firmly, "further affiant sayeth naught"...)

edit: Naught save that perhaps having a guarantee of an audience, as HN's commentariat furnishes Graham, may not be ideal as a means of fostering development in the skill of writing. If you're going to be read and discussed regardless of merit, how do you know merit when you achieve it? How do you avoid mistaking the contingent for the essential? How do you refine your craft in the absence of meaningful feedback?

Post reply on HN