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

The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

metaphorhacker.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#21

Post by ceres »

ashton314 wrote: post #7

I feel like the author homogenizes all of academic writing. The needs of the English department are different than the needs of the computer science department. While there are a few universal virtues that all writing should strive for to be good, I think the domain of discourse is an indispensable factor in determining your style.

Did you read the article? Because he makes this point.

>Because there is no academic writing as such, there is only writing within disciplines and communities. And barging into a community and trying to change what it’s doing without invitation is not stylish, it is rude

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#23

Post by jasperry »

ajarmst wrote: post #4

I don't accept the premise that you must choose between stylish and informative writing, but the argument fails at the outset. Complaining that Pinker (one assumes especially in his A Sense of Style , which I recommend without reservation) writes poorly for academics by focusing on his writing for a non-academic audience. If you desire a more "academic" style, Pinker is quite capable of providing it, if you look at h…

I don't think the article's argument is that Pinker is a bad writer or doesn't know how to write for an academic audience; it's that Pinker is missing the point when he tries to tell others how to make academic writing better.

I watched one of Pinker's lectures on writing, and thought it was mostly fluff, full of snarky "look how awful this scientific writing is, ha ha."

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#24

Post by runald »

dan-robertson wrote: post #8
ajarmst wrote: post #4

I don't accept the premise that you must choose between stylish and informative writing, but the argument fails at the outset. Complaining that Pinker (one assumes especially in his A Sense of Style , which I recommend without reservation) writes poorly for academics by focusing on his writing for a non-academic audience. If you desire a more "academic" style, Pinker is quite capable of providing it, if you look at h…

I think I agree. I also think it’s weird to laud academic writing as it is often quite bad, having a tendency to go on and on with some pointless complexity (do you feel like a real academic when you write “not unreasonable”? I claim that ordinarily the only nuance between this and “reasonable” is that writing one makes you feel clever). Historically academic writing has been constrained by page limits (compare paper…

I'm far from being an academic, but if I were to make a less snarky interpretation, "not unreasonable" would be written if the reasonableness isn't binary, meaning that "not unreasonable" doesn't necessarily mean "reasonable", and that interchanging the two might lead to a less accurate, stronger statement. Alternatively, one would write "not unreasonable" as a way of contrast relative to something that was previously claimed to be "unreasonable".

I can think lots of other reasons, but feeling clever isn't one of them. I mean, if someone would like to feel clever, there's probably a more eloquent synonym for that.

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#25

Post by ajarmst »

runald wrote: post #24
dan-robertson wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I agree. I also think it’s weird to laud academic writing as it is often quite bad, having a tendency to go on and on with some pointless complexity (do you feel like a real academic when you write “not unreasonable”? I claim that ordinarily the only nuance between this and “reasonable” is that writing one makes you feel clever). Historically academic writing has been constrained by page limits (compare paper…

I'm far from being an academic, but if I were to make a less snarky interpretation, "not unreasonable" would be written if the reasonableness isn't binary, meaning that "not unreasonable" doesn't necessarily mean "reasonable", and that interchanging the two might lead to a less accurate, stronger statement. Alternatively, one would write "not unreasonable" as a way of contrast relative to something that was previousl…

Deleted a comment about how "not unreasonable" isn't equivalent to "unreasonable", because I think OP was actually making a different point: like Orwell pointed out in Politics and the English Language (and, yes, this argument has been making the rounds since at least the 1940s)---the problem isn't that the phrase is the same as "reasonable", but that it's so hackneyed as to lose any value.

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#26

Post by stephc_int13 »

I strongly disagree with the author here. Good writing is not ornamental, it can be concise.

On the other hand, bad writing is often too long, convoluted and opaque.

The purpose of good style is to optimize the qualities of a text, not to flatter the author or the reader.

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#28

Post by ashton314 »

ceres wrote: post #21
ashton314 wrote: post #7

I feel like the author homogenizes all of academic writing. The needs of the English department are different than the needs of the computer science department. While there are a few universal virtues that all writing should strive for to be good, I think the domain of discourse is an indispensable factor in determining your style.

Did you read the article? Because he makes this point. >Because there is no academic writing as such, there is only writing within disciplines and communities. And barging into a community and trying to change what it’s doing without invitation is not stylish, it is rude

I did read through it, but perhaps I was too hasty. The overall tone felt a little off.

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#29

Post by throwaway894345 »

> The problem with the likes of Steven Pinker and Helen Sword is that they like their own writing way too much. But I don’t. Like their writing, that is. [1] I want to get some information from them and I want to get examples and counterexamples for the points they make. I want them to get to the point. I am not reading them for enjoyment, that’s what fiction is for.

I can’t help but read this in the voice of Dr. Kelso from Scrubs.

Re: The Problem with Writing-Style Advice

#30

Post by sriku »

> Nobody (except many frustrated readers) is officially complaining that non-fiction writing is needlessly flowery and sprawling across many more pages than necessary.

Actually people do (I do too). I find that many of these books take one point that can be expressed succinctly in a short blog post and labour on it for an entire book. So to read it for entertainment is ok, but to read them for information is .. an utter waste of time. I've even picked up some of these reputed books from a book shelf, just read the cover notes .. and realise later on that the author really didn't have much else to say. I'm sorting of ranting here, but .. this needs to stop and I agree with the OP on this matter. My complaint is not against the authors themselves though. Its against the sheer waste of resources and mind time that such books consume.

Post reply on HN