Why does anyone listen to this half rate essayist anymore? He's just looking for attention.
Write Simply
121–130 of 354 posts
Re: Write Simply
#122Meh. 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"…
"[I]t focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously".
Is this true? Since the 20th century, there's been a marked subset of literature dedicated toward ambiguity, absurdism, and surrealism brought on by the idea of the subconscious, the theory of relativity, WWII.
In fact, most of these titles arguably don't even have an "intended idea" to impart. E.g. T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland", Joyce's "Ulysses", Camus's "The Stranger" to name a couple off the top of my head.
"'Beauty and 'inspiration' are subjective...I find simple...language much more elegant than...'literary' styles of the past" Sure, in your subjective opinion you think older literature is not as pleasing to read, but these works objectively changed the use of the English language: that's why they are regarded as literature.
Canonical literature changed not only the way future authors wrote, but also how future generations behold and conceive existence. Both the ideas, and the way they are expressed are the source of many derivative bodies of text including your and my own comments.
Modern works that repackage these ideas, styles, and archetypes in a more diluted way to satisfy one's personal taste and level of reading comprehension does not qualify them to be more "literary" than the original works which created those artifacts. In this sense, the idea of literature and the value of those works is well defined. To reduce literature as merely "verbose" and to quote the word as if it is illegitimate and lacking consensus is highly ignorant and, given the lack of substantive evidence or original arguments supporting it, completely asinine.
Re: Write Simply
#123Earlier 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…
I think the essay is clearly about _non-fiction_ writing. It's arguing about how best to communicate ideas (he uses the term 'ideas' several times).
Sure, fiction can be trying to communicate things, and sometimes even ideas, but to me it's pretty obvious that the essay isn't trying to give advice for fiction writing in general.
Re: Write Simply
#124seems like he's arguing that the pinnacle of communication is the API spec
Re: Write Simply
#125I 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 j…
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about.
For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 people who strike that tone are blowhards. He is the 100th person, and there’s a lot to be gained if I set aside my own ego and just try to understand what he’s describing.
Re: Write Simply
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The essay is titled "Write Simply". It's about why you should try to write simply, rather than being a how-to. I think that's reasonable. It may be very difficult to precisely define what "simple" means, and it may not be that necessary: it's just telling people why (he thinks) they should aim for simplicity. Most people can make a conscious choice about how simple or complex their writing is - and this essay is advice about which direction to go in.
Re: Write Simply
#127This reminds me of an interview with Ernest Hemingway who mentions how he was influenced by great artists who were not writers, for instance, Cezanne, and (I think) Mozart, and others. When the interviewer pushes for more detail, he elaborates briefly on one example and then, tantalizingly, says the other examples are too obvious to explain. Always wondered about what he had in mind.
That interview with George Plimpton (I think) is great, but Hemingway does eventually go into a bit more detail when pressed. My interpretation is that he admires people who have a deep well of talent and knowledge and use that to push art and science in a new direction. Bill Watterson is an excellent classical painter and painted the Creation of Adam on his dorm room ceiling, and although Calvin and Hobbes doesn't l…
I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. Funny thing that occurred to me about the famous iceberg principle is that Hemingway had a large unpublished/abandoned volume of writing on Nick Adams, the fictional hero of many of his short stories. So in a sense the Nick Adams his readers knew, was only exposed as a fraction of the character's full existence, so to speak. I can imagine a writer taking it further and creating an entire fictional town, writing many histories but not publishing them, but using the town as a setting for published works.
But back to the interview comment. I was thinking more literally, eg. when Cezanne does a painting of a landscape and/or some people, what details does he choose to actually paint? How many details does he include? Knowing that the viewer will recognize things from their broad outline. And with Mozart, well, I suppose there's things like how long should a piece last, what sort of rhythmic patterns are pleasing to audiences. Or, if you think of melodies as 'characters', how many different developments should they go through before recapitulating to their core.
Re: Write Simply
#128Meh. 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"…
He’s being passive aggressive. Orwell had a particular problem with political speech when he gave his rules on writing simply and clearly.
Don’t speak clearly or concisely or with prose or with poetry, if you lack conviction. Who the fuck are you talking to, take your stand. The world is not your school.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Lan...
But hey, if he meant ‘this ones for the kids’, make it clear by writing simply.
All forms of expression tread on fraud if you lack conviction, and you will have to hide in airy fortifications of [‘that’s not what I meant’, ‘I was misinterpreted’, ‘You only think I meant this’, ‘Your are the problem’].
Well I’m sorry, I was just trying to figure out what you simply meant to say.
Re: Write Simply
#129I do think there can be a beauty in more esoteric words and longer sentences that cause them to feel more like poetry. This can, perhaps counterintuitively, make sentences feel more conversational as opposed to less.
I can edit the above to;
> I do think specific words and long sentences have their place. They can be used to alter the flow of a sentence and make it feel more conversational instead of less.
But it's not the way I talk. I enjoy the way you can alter the cadence of sentence to impact the reader. For example: the phrase, "perhaps counterintuitively," is like a rolling hill the reader spends extra energy to climb but then engages them with the writer, "I'm interested, I like hearing about counterintuitive things" -- it's almost an invitation. You've set an expectation that something counterintuitive is ahead, so what's next?
Generally, I could use more of Paul's advice in my own writing. And that's the fun of writing, learning to write is a very organic process. But I'm sure everyone can find their own style somewhere in between simple, poetic, natural, or whatever makes you feel the happiest about your work.
Re: Write Simply
#130"The gap between most writing and pure ideas is not filled with poetry." - Paul Graham
"I dwell in Possibility –
A fairer House than Prose –
More numerous of Windows –
Superior – for Doors –
Of Chambers as the Cedars –
Impregnable of eye –
And for an everlasting Roof
The Gambrels of the Sky –
Of Visitors – the fairest –
For Occupation – This –
The spreading wide my narrow Hands
To gather Paradise –"
Emily Dickenson