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

Write Simply

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#41

Post by hanniabu »

hourislate wrote: post #32
voidhorse wrote: post #9

“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)* There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There…

Reading that paragraph, 20-30 percent could be removed. Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.

> Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise

It can be a difficult balance. You can provide a lot of information in a few bullet points, but there may also be a lot of contextual information left out that leaves more curious readers wondering "why is like this and not another way".

Re: Write Simply

#42

Post by drewcoo »

hourislate wrote: post #32
voidhorse wrote: post #9

“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)* There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There…

Reading that paragraph, 20-30 percent could be removed. Reading for pleasure should be entertaining. Reading for knowledge should be simple/concise.

Writing should have goals and reach them.

There is plenty of writing not meant to entertain or convey knowledge.

Re: Write Simply

#43

Post by keiferski »

Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture.

I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written by his Grand Vizier, the top political advisor, who was also a poet and translator. Indeed it would almost be unheard of for a high governmental official to not be deeply educated in aesthetic matters.

In any case, what immediately struck me was how beautiful the writing itself was. A bit wordy, at times, but in no way simple. Just one line I wrote down from the introduction:

Without the help of Speech, the inner world's capital could not be built, nor this evil outer world's civilization be conceived.

When political leaders put together similar books today, they are inevitably written in the most simple, banal language possible in order to maximize "idea propagation" and book sales. History is all the worse for it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbarnama

Re: Write Simply

#45

Post by serverholic »

aabhay wrote: post #20

I think there are two sources of confirmation bias here: 1. People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing. Simple. Precise. Direct. It suits a technical literal mind to have less ambiguity and fewer flourishes. 2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article v…

Ah the old nerd trick of disregarding the context of a statement and applying it to a context where it clearly doesn't work.

Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?

Re: Write Simply

#46

Post by screye »

voidhorse wrote: post #9

“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)* There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There…

The quote is apparently attributable to "Thomas Hood"[1]

[1]https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/05/hard-writing/

Re: Write Simply

#47

Post by davidivadavid »

serverholic wrote: post #45
aabhay wrote: post #20

I think there are two sources of confirmation bias here: 1. People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing. Simple. Precise. Direct. It suits a technical literal mind to have less ambiguity and fewer flourishes. 2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article v…

Ah the old nerd trick of disregarding the context of a statement and applying it to a context where it clearly doesn't work. Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?

Because James Joyce's style isn't "simple" by any stretch of the imagination, I would guess? And the essay presents its position as a general statement void of all context. What context are we supposed to assume here?

Re: Write Simply

#48

Post by zimpenfish »

K0nserv wrote: post #3

On Writing Well[0] is one of the best books I've read. I'd recommended it to anyone who wants to improve their writing. 0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53343.On_Writing_Well

Although you should probably take into consideration that some professional linguists think the book is trash containing "prescriptivist poppycock" that the author doesn't even follow.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18345

Also a tiny study on whether adj/adv usage correlates with good/bad writing: https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18398

Re: Write Simply

#50

Post by serverholic »

davidivadavid wrote: post #47
serverholic wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah the old nerd trick of disregarding the context of a statement and applying it to a context where it clearly doesn't work. Do you really think Paul Graham is arguing against James Joyce style writing? Why would you think that?

Because James Joyce's style isn't "simple" by any stretch of the imagination, I would guess? And the essay presents its position as a general statement void of all context. What context are we supposed to assume here?

Everything has context. Paul Graham is a leader in the startup scene so more than likely he's talking about the types text relevant to startups. Blog posts, press releases, etc.

Again, why the fuck would you assume Paul Graham is talking about James Joyce?

Post reply on HN