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

181–190 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#181

Post by lelanthran »

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?

> And the essay presents its position as a general statement void of all context.

Are you sure? From the blog (first sentence):

> I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences.

Since the "I" in this case refers to someone who does not write poetry, speculative fiction, drama, tragedies, comedies ... and only ever writes for a technical audience, the context is clear: technical[1] audience not seeking poetry, fiction, drama, etc...

Further one he says:

> So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words.

Once again, that indicates to me he is talking about writing something technical[2], not prose or poetry.

[1][2] "Technical" is not limited to IT and engineering; it's about anything that involves technique. Describing dance moves is "technical", as is writing a recipe (which is very similar in technique to writing a tiny program) or anything involving writing down music (Should you use 7/4 for the first verse, or alternate between 3/4 and 4/4? Which will be clearer to the flautist?)

Re: Write Simply

#182

Post by clwk »

I think we have Hemingway to blame for this meme. I wonder why so very many authors feel the need to explicitly write these 'simple ode to simplicity' pieces — where each sentence in the exhortation has itself been optimized iteratively until no waste remains, so no lexical pixel has gone to waste. Sentences like 'Simple writing also lasts better,' are the unfortunate artifacts of this process. These are like the Teslas of brevity-pornographers: a mere five words attesting to hours of careful whittling; a praise-worthy awkwardness that could never have been produced on a native-speaker's first try.

Re: Write Simply

#183

Post by throwawaygh »

randomsearch wrote: post #178

So confused why anyone would assume PG is talking about writing fiction or poetry. It’s an essay by an essayist on writing essays.

This "simple" style of writing demands a lot of the reader's and writer's shared context. Even in this comment section you can find two different commenters defending the essay but making different assumptions about what sort of writing PG is discussing! You assume essays, and another commenter assumes business writing. I happen to think you're both wrong, and that Graham's "Write Simply" prescription is meant to apply to much more than just business writing and essays (perhaps even all writing, but at least most writing).

Three people who know a fair amount about the author -- at least relatively speaking -- can't agree on the meaning of this essay.

Now, consider that some other people reading this essay might be genuinely confused about why we're discussing Parental Guidance.

Re: Write Simply

#184

Post by randomsearch »

throwawaygh wrote: post #183
randomsearch wrote: post #178

So confused why anyone would assume PG is talking about writing fiction or poetry. It’s an essay by an essayist on writing essays.

This "simple" style of writing demands a lot of the reader's and writer's shared context. Even in this comment section you can find two different commenters defending the essay but making different assumptions about what sort of writing PG is discussing! You assume essays, and another commenter assumes business writing. I happen to think you're both wrong, and that Graham's "Write Simply" prescription is meant to app…

Do you think he is saying Shakespeare or Wordsworth or any great novelist should have written in this style?

Re: Write Simply

#185

Post by davidivadavid »

jamesrcole wrote: post #174
davidivadavid wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty obvious to me too. That's not the point. The essay makes a generic statement about the superiority of a particular, although loosely defined, writing style. People debate the edge cases of that statement, showing its limits, and pointing to counter examples. The result is that the content of the essay is reduced to a very banal statement of the type: "All other things being equal, prefer writing something…

The other person (at the top of this sub-thread) did say "Both of these points considered, I disagree entirely with the premise. There can be value to dense, even perhaps enigmatic writing. I would say that the greatest works of English literature tend towards that direction (James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, David Foster Wallace)." I would not consider these edge cases, because I don't think literature is relevant to the…

If you want to restrict Graham's argument to non-fiction, I'll happily grant you that.

But let me give you a bit more context:

As a Frenchman, when I think "Essay", my mind almost automatically reaches for two authors: Montaigne and Pascal (e.g. in his Pensées).

"Simple" is probably the last qualifier I would use to describe their works. They're not simple. They're complex, rich, beautiful, copiously quoting from classical authors and yet often crystal clear. They have the same quality poetry has where replacing a word by another damages the precision of the message and images conveyed.

That is also true of non-fiction prose in longer form. I shudder to think what could become of Tocqueville's writing style, a peculiar mix of classical and romantic, if it were translated into "simple" language.

Re: Write Simply

#187

Post by randomsearch »

curiousllama wrote: post #105
nlh wrote: post #97

I think this is PG's worst opinion. The man is undeniably intelligent, undeniably successful, and undeniably talented in business (and deserves huge credit for his contributions to the startup community). But I just thing he's deeply wrong here. His simple writing style (and those that have inherited/copied it) is a detriment to the community. It's the take of a (talented!) engineering mind. It's the same attitude th…

You ever try to read some social science papers? Or a consultant's slide deck? They're quagmires of "wtf does this even mean?" In college (and then consulting), I was basically trained to write like I'm trying to convince someone I'm smart. It only got in the way once I left and started trying to communicate real ideas. Graham's advice is very good for mundane, day-to-day writing.

I would guess such writing in the humanities is exactly the sort of style he’s taking aim at.

Re: Write Simply

#188

Post by reducesuffering »

> "Most readers' energy tends to flag part way through an article or essay."

> "When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work just so you can seem cool."

> "So you can't assume that writing about a difficult topic means you can safely use difficult words."

I can't understand why someone writing about writing simply is using a word like "flag" that is completely jarring and never used colloquially. While you can sort of surmise what it means from the context, I still had to look up the definition to confirm. And if it might be meant as a way to naturally teach someone the word, why is that lesson buried in an essay about writing simply? I guess I'll chalk it up to him not realizing how obtuse that word is, couldn't think of anything simpler like "wane", "fall", or "recede", and didn't want to change up the structure of that sentence.

I just can't imagine how that irony got past any editor.

Re: Write Simply

#189

Post by throwawaygh »

randomsearch wrote: post #184
throwawaygh wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "simple" style of writing demands a lot of the reader's and writer's shared context. Even in this comment section you can find two different commenters defending the essay but making different assumptions about what sort of writing PG is discussing! You assume essays, and another commenter assumes business writing. I happen to think you're both wrong, and that Graham's "Write Simply" prescription is meant to app…

Do you think he is saying Shakespeare or Wordsworth or any great novelist should have written in this style?

I think he is talking about a lot more than essays and business writing. Beyond that, I can't say much. I do not know Paul Graham and haven't even read all of his essays. There are certainly people who don't like Shakespeare's style. I don't know if Graham is one of those people.

He could have written a slightly clunkier essay that allowed me to understand with greater detail the entire collection of types of writing that he is discussing. He didn't want to write that essay, which is of course fine.

To be clear, I'm not "for" or "against" any writing style for the same reason that I don't get into religious wars about programming languages. I think this is a good essay with some solid advice for many different types of writers. But it's also, ironically, an essay that can be used to demonstrate why one might sometimes choose to write a bit less simply. Or, to write simply (plain words and simple sentences) but without trying to "jump into the reader's brain without them noticing".

It's really the combination of "Write Simply" and "saltintesta" that I think deserved at least a bit of a "well, sure, but realize this approach can be a footgun".

Re: Write Simply

#190

Post by davidivadavid »

johnchristopher wrote: post #171

> the ideas leap into your head and you barely notice the words that got them there. Ah, the good old wrong idea that somehow language is a tool that can clone ideas from one brain to another. It doesn't work like that.

Right. I'm surprised at how little thought people seem to have put into that idea.

You can hear echoes of that when Musk talks about all the Neuralink stuff and just communicating with "pure thoughts" or whatever. What these pure thoughts and ideas, disconnected from language, are supposed to be, is left as an exercise to the listener.

Post reply on HN