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

111–120 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#111

Post by prionassembly »

ycombinete wrote: post #17
tablatom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first review on that page[1] is a well argued counterpoint to Graham's essay. Getting your ideas understood is often only one part of what you're trying to achieve. If that really is your only goal, then I agree, the simpler the better. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/755379555?book_show_ac...

Having read a fair amount of Zizek and some Foucault I have to agree. Obfuscation can be just as useful as clarity.

If anything, it’s useful that language can sometimes slow you down. It’s one of the things language is able to do. Not everything benefits from sliding in as slickly as possible, letting you use your “mental models” to quickly grasp an idea you don’t already have.

I’m not fond of Foucault, but from time to time I explain to my pragmatic wife what Deleuze or Zizek are all about in $book, and as best as I try to explain them in plain words, much of what I got doesn’t come across. Tradutore traditore.

Re: Write Simply

#112

Post by amznbyebyebye »

Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. Of course the guy is a bazillionaire, I may never be like him, but the style of writing is stale like sparkling water gone flat. But I have read probably every one of his articles and taken away his ideas as the canonical guide for startup wisdom and success.

Re: Write Simply

#113

Post by [deleted] »

sixhobbits wrote: post #96

> the more deeply readers will engage with it You're already hypocritical - readers don't want to 'engage' with writing. People don't want to 'engage' at all. This is not an ordinary way of talking about things outside a pretty niche circle of VCs and marketing managers. Choose what to read and who to associate with as well as it will strongly influence your own language :)

[deleted]

Re: Write Simply

#114

Post by john4532452 »

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…

PG is writing to convey ideas not spread religon of peace . meh

Re: Write Simply

#115

Post by paulpauper »

amznbyebyebye wrote: post #112

Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. Of course the guy is a bazillionaire, I may never be like him, but the style of writing is stale like sparkling water gone flat. But I have read probably every one of his articles and taken away his ideas as the canonical guide for startup wisdom and success.

The reading passages of standardized tests are not just dull but intentionally full of filler and awkward phrasing, to throw off the reader. Paul is good at conveying his ideas succinctly

Re: Write Simply

#116

Post by mobb_solo »

I always felt that much of Kurt Vonnegut's charm was due to the simplicity. If that ties in with what you were saying.

Of course that doesn't imply the images and ideas are simple.

Similarly, I always thought Tom Robbins tried too hard to be simple and sci-fi.

A poor man's Vonnegut, and a Lazy man's Pynchon..heh..

Re: Write Simply

#117

Post by coldtea »

amznbyebyebye wrote: post #112

Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable. Of course the guy is a bazillionaire, I may never be like him, but the style of writing is stale like sparkling water gone flat. But I have read probably every one of his articles and taken away his ideas as the canonical guide for startup wisdom and success.

>Haha this is the guy who writes like an SAT exam question. It is very flat and boring, unmemorable.

However PG writes (and philosophically/socially I disagree with a lot), he has had a large following for his posts / essays, aside from his YC role (from people who have nothing to do with startups). That's hardly what you gain from being "flat, boring, and unmemorable".

Besides, you have missed the point. He is not arguing for plain style as opposed to literary flourishes or fun jokes, or whatever you consider not flat.

He is arguing for clarity as opposed to flourishes for flourishes sake, academic obscurantism, and so on.

You can write simply without it being "boring and unmemorable". Hemingway over Tom Wolfe, or Hume over Nietchze.

Re: Write Simply

#118

Post by keiferski »

andy_ppp wrote: post #107
ycombinete wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having read a fair amount of Zizek and some Foucault I have to agree. Obfuscation can be just as useful as clarity.

Can you explain that? As an engineer I think generally anything that can be done more simply is nearly always better.

Not the parent poster, but: think of speed bumps. They force you to slow down and pay more attention to the road.

Some writers, particularly post-modern ones, aim at the same thing. By forcing you to read their works carefully, you'll (in theory) be forced to think about them more.

Re: Write Simply

#119

Post by judofyr »

I think this article ends up giving excellent examples for why you shouldn't just "write simply". There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing.

Examples:

> Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool. It's like trailing a long train behind you that readers have to carry.

Notice how he's arguing against "write in a fancy way to impress people" and not "write in a fancy way". Most authors write in a "fancy" way to invoke a feeling in the reader. They don't add random words to "seem cool". Is spending a few more words to get the reader into a happy/sad mood "inconsiderate"? That's an interesting discussion, but in his quest to "write simply" he's just skipped right by it.

> It's too much to hope that writing could ever be pure ideas. You might not even want it to be. But for most writers, most of the time, that's the goal to aim for. The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry.

What is evening happening in this paragraph? First he's questioning whether it's possible for "writing to ever be pure ideas" without explaining what that's even supposed to mean. Then he says that most people aim for that. And somehow the solution is "not filled with poetry". I don't understand a thing of this. He's implying so much without explaining anything.

Post reply on HN