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

291–300 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#291

Post by young_unixer »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #257
cousin_it wrote: post #77

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.…

Along the lines of what you point out, I've noticed that the word 'read' often causes misparsing - but you don't realize until you've read on for a bit more and realize that the sentence doesn't make any sense. At that point you read the sentence twice again and realize that it was using the other meaning of read. This is something that I've run into commonly enough that I try to write 'read' only for the present ten…

Why not "have read" instead?

Re: Write Simply

#292

Post by brendanmc6 »

logicchop wrote: post #281

It's too bad that an article about "simple writing" is so hard to read. It has "simple" words, but it's clunky. Two examples: "That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. The less energy they expend on your prose, the more they'll have left for your ideas." (Why not: "Simple writing makes it easier to engage your ideas.") "And remember, if…

Your examples are plain assertions. "do this."

Paul's are more convincing, even though he doesn't assert anything. He just provides the rationale.

Re: Write Simply

#293

Post by marlor »

jasonhoch wrote: post #249

I agree with the thesis, but a voice in the back of my head was whispering "Newspeak..."[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

Writing simply doesn’t require an unnaturally restricted vocabulary, and it doesn’t limit you to simple ideas. It means writing in a straightforward manner, using words that precisely express what you want to say, without the reader needing to fall back on allusion or guesswork.

If an idea is complex, then there may be no simple words to express it. That’s fine. However, dressing up simple ideas with complex words is not. That’s just deception.

Orwell was in favour of simple, direct language. Newspeak was insidious because it obscured meaning and eliminated expressiveness. Complex language can do the same, and Orwell was well aware if this. In “Politics and the English Language”, he railed against "pretentious diction" and "meaningless words". These, he said, were used to make biases look impartial and to obscure the point of a statement.

Orwell’s six rules of precise writing stand today. In summary: 1. Avoid overused metaphors, simile, or other figures of speech. They have likely lost any precise meaning; 2. Never use a long word where a short one will do; 3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out; 4. Never use the passive where you can use the active; 5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of a precise everyday English equivalent; 6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Re: Write Simply

#294

Post by villasv »

clwk wrote: post #280
villasv wrote: post #166

Pinker wrote a whole book about this, much better written, in fact. Unlike an HN essayist, Pinker also is an actual wide-audience best-seller. And unlike this essay, Pinker correctly acknowledges many nuances.

I couldn't get through Pinker's book. He cites 'Clear and Simple as the Truth' as inspiration, but his acorn falls so far from the tree.

I think he mostly does as he preaches. My biggest complaint is the occasional contradiction, but if you read other writing style guides, he is not more contradictory than the average.

Re: Write Simply

#295

Post by gonational »

Reading Paul Graham's "essays" is inspiring, because, the more of his writing that I read, the more I realize that basically anybody can be a multimillionaire.

Re: Write Simply

#296

Post by xixixao »

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

Here’s a challenge: Communicate without the word “just” (as in “only”). Every time I write the word “just”, I find that there is a level of snarkiness behind it, as in this example.

~Just~ Avoid it.

Re: Write Simply

#297

Post by wellpast »

a4isms wrote: post #275

I have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham. What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable . Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste. "Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.' Somewhere else on the Internet, there is so…

Many a “writer’s” audience is a majority their mother.

Sure, producers and consumers “find each other” but that’s no where near the end of the story.

You have a flaw in your reasoning here. Not all that is true is falsifiable.

Re: Write Simply

#298

Post by birgitt »

I used to think rhetorical devices were just ways to sound fancy, but they can be effective tools for transferring emotion or conveying nuanced concepts from author to reader.

E.g., analogy can be more efficient at this than plain description.

Re: Write Simply

#299

Post by spoonjim »

The simple style of writing works when the reading is functional in nature: people read Paul Graham essays because they think it’s an instructional manual for getting rich, so the appropriate style is the same as an instruction manual for assembling a coffee table.

For other readers’ goals, other styles are more appropriate.

Re: Write Simply

#300

Post by travisjungroth »

ganafagol wrote: post #267
whalesalad wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I normally have a very hard time reading his essays.

Could you elaborate? FWIW, it's unclear what you mean. "Normally" as in "usually, but not this one" or "usually, and this one too"? Two exact opposites, and in just one sentence you managed to be maximally ambiguous. If done on purpose, that's a skill. But, without intending to offend, I think you just don't realize how hard simple writing actually is. I think he succeeded in it very well.

He used to have a hard time reading his essays. He still does. But he used to, too.
Post reply on HN