Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Write simply (2021)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 182 posts

Re: Write simply (2021)

#141

Post by morley »

littlelady wrote: post #118

One of the things missing from Mr. Graham's musings is the context , e.g. academic, business. And a at least some clarification of what fancy words and sentence structure are. Mr. Graham doesn't use the term, but purple prose odious to read and I would agree that complicated writing is often used (e.g. in academia) to obfuscate the key message and bolster weak arguments. On the other end of the spectrum too much simp…

As a counterpoint, I think context matters the _least_.

I've read a lot of business writing where the writer's mindset is clearly:I am writing for business, therefore I must sound business-like. Lots of "in terms of", "for the purpose of", "ideation", "develop needs", "affect change", "going forward". From what I hear and from what little I've read, a similar overwrought voice has developed in academia too.

I've fallen into this trap before, partially to "fit in" and partially because it's hard to simplify. But many famous business communicators -- Steve Jobs and Warren Buffett come to mind -- show that clarity is more effective than sounding like the context.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#142

Post by zimpenfish »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #106
dang wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That joke spoils itself by adding "trick". But if it didn't, then it wouldn't work, since "Why use many words when few will do" is perfectly grammatical.

why use many word, few do?

I suppose if you were golfing it, "many word? few!" would be the endpoint.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#143

Post by tulio_ribeiro »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

Sorry, dang, but it just doesn't show. This person is a self proclaimed "essayist" with nothing spectacular to show for it.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#144

Post by rosebay »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

[dead]

Re: Write simply (2021)

#145

Post by josephg »

Volrath89 wrote: post #131
Uehreka wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try five: - https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-dropped-acid-and-saw-into-th... - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... - https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf - https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview - https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...

I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the slatesarcodex article as if it were PG: "I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup: Tolerance is important, but it should not extend to the "outgroup". An outgroup is defined as those who are perceived as fundamentally different or opposed. Tolerance towards the outgroup can lead to harm to one's own group and undermine social cohesion. It's better to tolerate ideas and individuals wi…

Its hard to focus on the style of that summary you gave when that "summary" doesn't capture what the slatestarcodex article actually says. That summary is vaguely upsetting in how confidently wrong it is.

The actual "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" article is a ponderous critique of our human tribal tendancy to find an outgroup and hate them. The article finally comes full circle when the author notices the whole essay itself could be seen (ironically) as an attack on another outgroup.

The article is intentionally not making a clear point. The experience I had reading was to come away ponderous, thoughtful and self reflective. I'm not convinced that a simple summary or simplification would be able to give a reader the same experience. (But at least summarizing the article correctly wouldn't hurt.)

Simple language has its place. But its just a style, like flat design or modernism. Its certainly no panacea.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#146

Post by syntaxfree »

WA wrote: post #91
paulpauper wrote: post #10

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's…

I know zero articles that went viral with varied and complicated prose. Care to share an example or two?

David Foster Wallace had a couple of essays published online that went viral if anything can be considered viral.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#147

Post by rosebay »

Tomte wrote: post #92

To my inner ear it sounds choppy because there is no flow. The paragraphs do have a logical order, according to his intended argumentation, but the text would really read better if Graham would sprinkle in a few connectors.

[dead]

Re: Write simply (2021)

#148

Post by cpfohl »

One of my best undergrad professors was notorious for her one page papers. Each week a topic was assigned that could easily fill 5-10 pages. Each paper was expected to cover the same content as the full length paper. She’d take marks off for fluffy writing and for missing important research points.

She had the highest impact on my writing today.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#149

Post by amadeuspagel »

wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If PG's writing is "pseudo intellectual philosophy" I wonder what true intellectual philosophy looks like.

Looking at other comments in this thread, I get the impression that people have this ideal of an essay that looks like an academic paper, that starts with a literature review.

But that is not how writing and thought naturally flows.

People write like this to suck up to the right people who might help them get a job as an assistant professor somewhere, or tenure or maybe just cite their own papers in return.

I find it repulsive.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#150

Post by amadeuspagel »

vore wrote: post #63
dang wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

I don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences: there are no axioms at the root of at any of our beliefs; fundamentally everything that goes through our heads is cobbled together from other sources that's cobbled together from other sources before that. And that's good! Because if we were attempting to derive everything from axioms that would be 1) imp…

> I don't really buy this idea of "thinking for yourself". We are nothing more than the product of our experiences.

To think for oneself means to think based on one's experiences, not based on the thoughts of others.

Post reply on HN