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

71–80 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#71

Post by serverholic »

davidivadavid wrote: post #60
serverholic wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If "more than likely" he's talking about "the types of text relevant to startups" then surely that would be stated in an essay tooting the virtues of "simple." However, that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems more like Paul Graham might be talking about the kind of writing he does himself. Like essays. However, even in such a case, his point is debatable. Which is what people are doing here — debating. No one is…

You directly reference James Joyce

Re: Write Simply

#72

Post by dfxm12 »

keiferski wrote: post #43

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 b…

There's a difference in writing, like there's a difference in painting. Painting a house is different from painting the Mona Lisa. Writing a work instruction or standard operating procedure is different from writing a poem and both are different from writing pop fiction or non-fiction. You can optimize for meaning, optimize for beauty, or you can optimize for inspiration, but it's hard to get all of them, and this is not a skill that is easy to get.

PG does not really explore that (natch), but that's a point to consider, nonetheless.

Re: Write Simply

#76

Post by keiferski »

dartharva wrote: post #69
keiferski wrote: post #43

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 b…

Early and classic literature was meant solely for the elites, so it featured flamboyant writing styles. Current literature is meant for everyone, and so it focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously as possible. "Beauty" and "inspiration" are subjective and vary with personal preferences. I find simple and concise language much more elegant than the verbose "literary"…

> Early and classic literature was meant solely for the elites, so it featured flamboyant writing styles

That actually isn't universally true. For example, most people today probably consider Shakespeare's writing style to be "flamboyant" yet his audience was a wide swath of the public. The difference today is that we are post-Moderns and so we have inherited the Modernist rejection of the Victorian era and its excessive tendencies.

Akbar was also a contemporary of Shakespeare, interestingly enough.

Re: Write Simply

#77

Post by cousin_it »

When something feels easy to read, it's not just a matter of using simple words. To maximize scanability, you need to use a mix of long and short words, and also mix long and short sentences, until you achieve a kind of "flow". Famously, Dovlatov's prose (in Russian) avoids having words that start with the same letter in the same sentence, which is unnoticeable to the reader but makes the words just fly off the page.

Another trick I've found is making sure each word has unambiguous function. Here's some examples from other comments:

I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama, which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar, written by his Grand Vizier -- Was the Emperor written, or was it the biography?

There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision -- It could've continued like "in which your work demands are excessive", so you don't know if "demands" is a noun or a verb until you read on.

That "simple" writing lasts longer is disproved by many works of literature that have made their way to us through history -- It could've continued like "that simple writing is not so simple", so you don't know if "that" is a conjunction or determiner until you read on.

These are small things, but somehow the more I notice them, the clearer my writing becomes.

Re: Write Simply

#78

Post by davidivadavid »

andrepd wrote: post #55
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…

I think the point is that one should use a direct and clear style of writing where the objective is to convey a clear message . Examples include technical papers or journalism. Of course, literature is not included.

Direct and clear doesn't always mean simple.

That's the main shortcoming of this essay. It doesn't define what it means by "simple". "If you want to be clear, write clearly" is a bromide, not an essay.

Re: Write Simply

#79

Post by hc-taway »

zimpenfish wrote: post #48
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

A lot of writing rules are of the "follow it until you know how and when to break it" variety. That way if you never learn how to break them correctly, your writing is still a lot better than it was. It's no surprise that studies of writing already known to be good will find much rule-breaking, as one is not surprised to find race cars on a race track moving faster than we'd want any car to, ordinarily.

Re: Write Simply

#80

Post by jb1991 »

At this point I think we just need to add this website to a penalty list and give it some small fraction of the calculated score it gets to be on the front page.
Post reply on HN