always good, and always some things to take away.
Write Simply
191–200 of 354 posts
Re: Write Simply
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, poetry frowns on purple prose too. Hence the “prose” part. But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.
Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far?
“That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox”
Why cut out fox?
Re: Write Simply
#193> "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 us…
[deleted]
Re: Write Simply
#194I 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…
Writing is an imperfect technology for moving thoughts between minds. "Writing simply" is valuable if it communicates your thought more efficiently and accurately (and it is indeed a common peccadillo to write thoughts in a bloated and inefficient manner), but like you're pointing out, some thoughts are not compressible beyond a certain point. For example, here's some Ovid quoted in a book I'm reading. I'd like to hear how you could write this "simply" without losing resolution of the thought from which it originated:
--------
There is no greater wonder than to range
The starry heights, to leave the earth’s dull regions,
To ride the clouds, to stand on Atlas’ shoulders,
And see, far off, far down, the little figures
Wandering here and there, devoid of reason,
Anxious, in fear of death, and so advise them,
And so make fate an open book…
Full sail, I voyage Over the boundless ocean, and I tell you
Nothing is permanent in all the world. All things are fluid; every image forms,
Wandering through change. Time is itself a river In constant movement, and the hours flow by
Like water, wave on wave, pursued, pursuing,
Forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is not; that which was not, Begins to be; motion and moment always In process of renewal…
Not even the so-called elements are constant… Nothing remains the same: the great renewer, Nature, makes form from form, and, oh, believe me That nothing ever dies….
Re: Write Simply
#195Haha 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…
I think he is indeed arguing for clarity, which is why arguing for simplicity undermines his own argument.
Nietzsche is a lucid writer (well, Zarathustra excepted). Rewriting Nietzsche to be more "simple" would certainly be a gargantuan mistake.
Re: Write Simply
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare.
If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
Re: Write Simply
#197Does pg recycle his themes? I have seen this one a number of times over the years, and others as well.
I guess everyone does that, to some extent, but this is literally the entire content of his piece. Hasn't he written something like that before? Why does he repeat himself every few years almost verbatim?
Re: Write Simply
#198This boring imperative falls into the same trap as "Be Clear".
Gregory Williams, author of the classic "Towards Clarity and Style", has a thoughtful rebuttal to these punchlines in his book's description (quoting an older edition):
This is a book about writing clearly. I wish it could be short and simple like some others more widely known, but I want to do more than just urge writers to "Omit Needless Words" or "Be clear." Telling me to "Be clear" is like telling me to "Hit the ball squarely." I know that. What I don't know is how to do it. To explain how to write clearly, I have to go beyond platitudes.
But I want to do more than just help you write clearly. I also want you to understand this matter to understand why some prose seems clear, other prose not, and why two readers might disagree about it; why a passive verb can be a better choice than an active verb; why so many truisms about style are either incomplete or wrong. More important, I want that understanding to consist not of anecdotal bits and pieces, but of a coherent system of principles more useful than "Write short sentences."
• • •
Re: Write Simply
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare. If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
“It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes“
Removing the simile reduces the meaning of “sentimental archaism”. Similes clarify meaning. That’s what all imagery is for.
Re: Write Simply
#200I 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 peo…
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
PG's "responses" are a good contrast, if you're curious what "pg trying to persuade the reader" sounds like. http://paulgraham.com/kedrosky.html