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

Seven Sins of Writing

hamilton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 119 posts

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#11

Post by JackFr »

martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

The problem is most people aren’t Nabokov.

(And Nabakov as a poet, translator of poems and expert on prosody was very, very good at writing fluidly - he could afford to be wordy.)

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#12

Post by smilespray »

version_five wrote: post #4
grahamlee wrote: post #2

“Avoid the passive voice” is a rule that annoys me. Sometimes, the rule that’s annoying is more important than the person that’s being annoyed.

There should be an (n+1)th rule for these lists that's break the rules when you want, just know you're breaking them and do it because you like the result better, not out of sloppiness.

My teachers told me this is true for almost all lists of rules. YMMV.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#13

Post by enkid »

grahamlee wrote: post #2

“Avoid the passive voice” is a rule that annoys me. Sometimes, the rule that’s annoying is more important than the person that’s being annoyed.

The problem is that most people who say this don't know what the passive voice means. What they want to say is make the most important noun in the sentence the subject and keep the subject near the beginning of the sentence. That concept is only tangentially related to the grammatical voice being used.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#14

Post by fasterik »

martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

It's a lot more obvious in academic writing and other non-fiction. Using a lot of big words to make a simple point is often a sign that the writer is trying to signal intelligence rather than convey information.

In literature the goals are different, but I still think the rule applies in most cases. Nabokov is the exception that proves the rule. Great writers have earned the right to be wordy. When an average writer tries write like Nabokov, we call it purple prose.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#15

Post by kens »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #10

I don't understand Sin Seven.

Number seven is miscellaneous issues; you need to click through to see them.

One of the complaints is "treating data as singular". My view is that "data" is obviously a mass noun and treating it as plural is pointlessly pedantic.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#16

Post by readthenotes1 »

martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

Wordiness, in the fantasticly useful advice I am quite frequently accustomed to receiving in the rare and unusual (I cannot go so far as to say unique though that is nearly as a tick to a dog true) circumstances that have led me to receiving others thoughts on my quite elegant prose might be characterized as inserting too many brilliantly (to the astute author) descriptive adverbs and adjectives that somehow impede the understanding normal dull attention deprived reader.

Also: using more words that fewer

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#17

Post by Gunax »

My disappointment in my education is how much these rules were emphasized over content.

The hard part of writing is content--not syntax.

Just like programming is about logic, and syntax is a minor nitpick one needs to know.

But I think the real reason these rules were emphasized so much is that they are easy to grade and explain.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#18

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

Literary wordiness is conscious use of language for poetic effect. It's fine in certain kinds of fiction if you can make it work. (Harder than it looks.)

Outside of literature, wordiness is usually an attempt to appear formal, archaic, and authoritative. It tries to introduces a difference in distance and status, and often comes across as pompous.

Simple examples: "utilise" for "use" "refrain from [doing the thing]" for "not [do the thing]", "I am minded to" for "I will/might."

A lot of business writing, some tech writing, and many scientific papers are unnecessarily wordy.

"Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed."

Which really just says "We gave our volunteers this dose of this drug but nothing much happened."

That's a little exaggerated, and papers without the wordiness probably wouldn't pass peer review.

But still.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#19

Post by kshacker »

martinjacobd wrote: post #6

I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences. People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have en…

Hmmm, let's demonstrate wordiness :)

> I wish I understood what "wordiness" means. Perhaps it's restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences.

Does wordiness mean restating the same simple point three times in as many loose sentences?

> People who harp on this point usually point to the writing of Hemingway and similar writers (Carver comes to mind). All of these men are better writers than I am, but I still prefer to read Nabokov. Could Nabokov have "made his point" in fewer words? Almost certainly, but I wouldn't have enjoyed them any more.

People who complain about wordiness point to Hemingway and Carver. I personally find it a joy to read Nabokov despite his wordiness, and I do not think my reading enjoyment is related to being wordy.

* Sorry about this, thought I will have some fun. This is not chatGPT, just my own effort, and both your para and my para does not call out whether Hemingway is wordy or concise !!

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#20

Post by jay_kyburz »

kens wrote: post #15
jay_kyburz wrote: post #10

I don't understand Sin Seven.

Number seven is miscellaneous issues; you need to click through to see them. One of the complaints is "treating data as singular". My view is that "data" is obviously a mass noun and treating it as plural is pointlessly pedantic.

Should be called The 6 Deadly Sins and a Myriad of Minor Mistakes.
Post reply on HN