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

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#81

Post by pratio »

Denote6737 wrote: post #62
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…

To understand wordiness read any of Dickens with the fact he was paid based on the length of the book. Not the sales. He will describe, in excruciating detail, the inconsiquential aspects of a one time characters outfit.

I used to believe that too, but that's not the case it seems. https://dickens.ucsc.edu/resources/faq/by-the-word.html

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#82

Post by taylorius »

A few thoughts.

1. Luckily this page isn't titled "Seven Sins of Webpage Design".

2. The sins are highly variable in their specificity and scope. They range from low level grammar problems (incorrect apostrophes) to "wordiness", which is far more abstract, and "in the eye of the beholder"

3. The last sin is a pointer to a list of other sins. In what sense is this "Seven Sins"? Feels shoehorned into a listicle (see point 1).

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#83

Post by gushogg-blake »

The "treating data as singular" one is interesting - "data" as a plural is actually one of my biggest pet peeves because I strongly suspect that realising that it is technically the plural of "datum" is the only reason people started using it like that. The actual concept it conveys is almost always not a plural: it's more like "sand" than "pebbles".

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#84

Post by bluenose69 »

boxed wrote: post #66

The first sin is to throw an enormous popup in my face before showing the contents.

Exactly. It took me 2 seconds to swear and close the site so I could read HN comments instead. This happens so much that I often just skip the original articles and go to the comments. HN is the only site where I do that.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#85

Post by sacado2 »

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…

Rules that apply to non-fiction (what I guess Hamilton is after) usually doesn't really apply to fiction. Those rules make sense (kinda) for non-fiction, but I would certainly not apply them blindly to write fiction.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#86

Post by kwhitefoot »

gushogg-blake wrote: post #83

The "treating data as singular" one is interesting - "data" as a plural is actually one of my biggest pet peeves because I strongly suspect that realising that it is technically the plural of "datum" is the only reason people started using it like that. The actual concept it conveys is almost always not a plural: it's more like "sand" than "pebbles".

In British English data is a collective singular.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#87

Post by nicbou »

Most writing is about giving people the information they want or need while respecting their time. In that sense, I find technical writing to be very close to UX design. If you want to write well, you must know your audience's needs and struggles.

This is always left out of style guides, yet it's a core element of good writing. Clear writing is pointless if it clarifies the wrong things.

It does not just require good writing skills, but also empathy and understanding.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#88

Post by nicbou »

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…

Try reading a few pages of Marx's writing. It's unbearable.

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#89

Post by andrew_mason1 »

gushogg-blake wrote: post #83

The "treating data as singular" one is interesting - "data" as a plural is actually one of my biggest pet peeves because I strongly suspect that realising that it is technically the plural of "datum" is the only reason people started using it like that. The actual concept it conveys is almost always not a plural: it's more like "sand" than "pebbles".

Exactly. And the fact that (probably) none of these people ever use the singular "datum" in writing makes the whole thing reek of gate-keeper-y "I am smart and you are not because I know a Latin thing".

Also, every single time I see this "gripe" I am tempted (but don't because it helps nothing) to go "hmm, interesting you don't have the same issue with 'agenda'."

Re: Seven Sins of Writing

#90

Post by andrew_mason1 »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #86
gushogg-blake wrote: post #83

The "treating data as singular" one is interesting - "data" as a plural is actually one of my biggest pet peeves because I strongly suspect that realising that it is technically the plural of "datum" is the only reason people started using it like that. The actual concept it conveys is almost always not a plural: it's more like "sand" than "pebbles".

In British English data is a collective singular.

The whole British English thing of "companies are plural nouns" (e.g. "Apple are creating a VR headset") simultaneously makes so much sense from how companies actually are (vs the American English that treats the company as a singular individual) and sounds completely wrong to me lol
Post reply on HN