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

To become a better writer, read as much as you can

nappertime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 280 posts

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#271

Post by amunozo »

Kon5ole wrote: post #234
amunozo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are more written books that a regular person can read in their entire life. Even if what you say is true, no need to only read modern books.

You are correct but there must surely be good modern books too. Problem is finding them. Could also be an unavoidable effect from reading many books I guess, the more you read the harder the competition is for the next book.

For sure! I am rereading my comment and was really poorly written. What I meant is that, even if all modern books were bad (which as you say, there must be good ones), there are still tons of older books which are really good and that have survived the effect of time and therefore are easier to spot. I don't think there is a need to read modern books in most cases though, so I am lately prioritizing older ones, especially fiction.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#272

Post by deadbabe »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #152

I have an even better golden rule: to become a better writer, actually write as much as you can. A real example. I read A TON, since I was a kid (I'm close to 50 years old now). I used to write a lot. I even wrote two semi-decent novels, among other things. I haven't written much in the last 10-12 years. Now I want to start a little side project, in which I will write a letter to about one hundred people, print it an…

I write internet comments every day, I think i could fill a few novels just with all my internet comments. Does that count? Or are comments trash writing.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#273

Post by PaulRobinson »

jebarker wrote: post #214
PaulRobinson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the old quip goes: people don’t want to be writers, they want to have published a book. You can turn this around as well: people don’t want to read, they want to be well read. The difference is “effort and process” versus a status. People want the label, but don’t want to do the work to get there.

I love reading, do it a lot of and per my Goodreads I’m “well read”. I’m less convinced how much I’ve learned from all the reading that would make me a better writer though. I definitely fell into the trap of wanting to have written a book myself. I grew out of that but still felt/feel like I want to write. The issue that remains is that I’m just not sure I have anything to say!

This requires a little effort. Finding your voice, finding your themes and all that. Also, the Taste Gap, as it's sometimes called, is a real thing - plenty written about it online, but Ira Glass is considered the first person to really nail it [0].

As this is HN, worth noting Paul Graham also had something to say about taste [1].

This means you're going to have to put some work in to figure out how to write and to get good at it, but it's normally worthwhile. I've been trying to get myself into this groove for a while, but just not getting there for all sorts of reasons, so I can relate to everyone who is struggling, but I also know this is not a problem specific to me, it's specific to the art, in fact all art.

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to... [1] https://paulgraham.com/taste.html

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#274

Post by PaulRobinson »

cousin_it wrote: post #155
PaulRobinson wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the old quip goes: people don’t want to be writers, they want to have published a book. You can turn this around as well: people don’t want to read, they want to be well read. The difference is “effort and process” versus a status. People want the label, but don’t want to do the work to get there.

Yeah. I've seen the same puzzling thing in game development. People don't seem to want to make good games! They want a hat that says "I made a game". That done, they want a hat that says "my game is successful", so they go on subreddits asking for promotion advice. Honest comparison with existing state of the art is seen as annoying; advancing the state of the art isn't seen as a goal at all.

I read somewhere that there are more game engines in dev at any now point in time than there are games. I can believe that.

I think it's OK to do something for the fun of doing it. It's expecting to a) be successful without doing the thing at all and/or b) doing it because you want the success that's the problem.

Go make games that make you smile, share them see if others smile too. Then think about the success thing.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#275

Post by Dependance »

analog8374 wrote: post #231
pennomi wrote: post #174

As in all art, the first step is to develop good taste. And you can only do that by consuming a wide variety of content.

I doubt it's as simple as that. I mean we're talking about a kind of cultivation of the self, acquiring a higher way of seeing. I suspect that some kind of destruction of the old way of being is called for to arrive at this higher state. Via some kind of disaster maybe. Or a long erosion. Maybe drugs.

I agree with you and the upper comment. The destruction of the old self is in not feeding it. You starve the "bad taste" inside of you by only ingesting what the "good taste" inside of you likes. Kind of like good gut bacteria ?

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#276

Post by buxwash__5 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #227
buxwash__5 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone literate you should probably know better. First of all the Patriots were not even a simple majority. Turns out you don't need a majority to win what is basically a war of insurgency. There are several modern analogs that reflect this reality. Second of all the country was founded by elites. It wasn't that farmers could do critical thinking (whatever that really means) it was that the punitive British resp…

These remarks about how they'd agree with you if only they'd read more or how they aren't as superior to others as they think, these make your comment worse and emotional. Just make your case like you would in any other comment. If it's persuasive, then you look right and they look misinformed. This kind of response is why we can't talk about all sorts of hot button topics on HN: people get personal. I'm sometimes gu…

Who is being emotional? You must be projecting.

I elucidated three facts as to why they were mistaken. If they were more well read these facts would have been obvious to them. It's rather straightforward.

What are you offering? An off topic diagnosis of my mental state? I suggest you take your own advice, and offer a meaningful rejoinder to the facts in question if you have one. If not, I would remind you not commenting is always an option.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#277

Post by buxwash__5 »

daseiner1 wrote: post #241
buxwash__5 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone literate you should probably know better. First of all the Patriots were not even a simple majority. Turns out you don't need a majority to win what is basically a war of insurgency. There are several modern analogs that reflect this reality. Second of all the country was founded by elites. It wasn't that farmers could do critical thinking (whatever that really means) it was that the punitive British resp…

holy hell I enjoy an acerbic takedown as much as the next guy but this is beyond the pale. given that we do now live in a society with a universal right to vote the need for an educated populace esp. regarding matters of civil society is more important than ever. You've also misinterpreted the parent comment as they wrote nothing about contemporary intelligence. They're instead referring to structural forces that neg…

> See: the glut of commentary from otherwise highly intelligent and accomplished people reporting their own ability to focus being negatively impacted by social media and short-form content.

Many people have long abandoned these platforms. No one is making you engage with them. These are not new problems. Famous example: Zuckerberg keeps his own family off his apps.

Your fourth paragraph is misinformed. Valorizing the Cronkite era is profoundly simplistic and boring. Humans always come up with alternative media. Conspiracies and half truths pervade every age. This entire internet ecosystem came up when the mainstream lied about the rationale for the Iraq War. Manufacturing Consent was written pre internet.

This paragraph also contains a contradiction with a statement you raise in your second paragraph as self-evident, given you offer no justification:

> given that we do now live in a society with a universal right to vote the need for an educated populace esp. regarding matters of civil society is more important than ever.

But in the fourth paragraph:

> Few of us have the time to consider the issues with any degree of nuance or accuracy.

So the populace must be educated but we need someone to tell us what to think because we have no time? Why is it so obvious that a society with universal suffrage requires an educated populace, vs say a populace simply capable of comprehending the instructions of an educated Cronkite?

Disclaimer: these are the contradictions raised by your own manner of framing the debate. The fact you missed this tension among neighboring paragraphs is something you have to account for. This is not the only such contradiction in your response fwiw, but hopefully you will grasp the nature of my point.

Do you not hear in your own arguments the same echoes of the uncritical pablum - the "glut" you also describe in contradictory terms - that passes for social commentary on "social media and short-form content" these days?

I merely suggest that you are just not thinking about these problems hard enough. Sorry, I'm not trying to cross some line, it just reads as obvious to me, on a critical evaluation of your statements. Why holding your statements to a high standard would be "beyond the pale" I'm not sure. You should spend less time online and reading more history. You would know better.

Here is something that may encourage you along these lines:

"I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus & Thucydides, for Newton & Euclid; & I find myself much the happier."

- Jefferson letter to John Adams, 1812.

Best of luck in your reading.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#278

Post by vintagedave »

vector_spaces wrote: post #198
vintagedave wrote: post #63

> Why be a writer if you don’t love reading? Why devote your intellectual and emotional energy to creating a book, when it’s a form you’re not invested in? Why write, when you aren’t steeped in wonder of storytelling? This is the key point, I think. I've seen the same as the author: people who want to be writers but rarely read books. And I don't get it. I recently finished a novel (now shopping around for agents, wh…

One tip: I suggest that you stop cluttering your writing with parentheticals. If it's worth saying at all then it's likely not actually a parenthetical. If it's not worth saying, then you should cull it. Yours seem to mostly fall in this latter category, in my assessment anyway Decide what you are trying to communicate and be sure that every word is in service to that message and that message alone. For example, you…

You're right, and I appreciate the feedback. My fiction prose is different to my informal, quick comment-writing prose, FWIW.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#279

Post by BerislavLopac »

allanbreyes wrote: post #134
vintagedave wrote: post #63

> Why be a writer if you don’t love reading? Why devote your intellectual and emotional energy to creating a book, when it’s a form you’re not invested in? Why write, when you aren’t steeped in wonder of storytelling? This is the key point, I think. I've seen the same as the author: people who want to be writers but rarely read books. And I don't get it. I recently finished a novel (now shopping around for agents, wh…

I hope you publish, and I hope you tell that story. And I hope people read it. There's a sobering article recently published in The Atlantic[1][2] about the end of reading and how we're in a postliterate age. We're reading more words than ever, but instead of coming from books, they're coming from digital media. We're losing that same muscle for long-form reading and deep focus that the original author talks about be…

Technology like digital media and AI certainly have an impact, which will only increase - but things are not that black and white. All we need is to look at the history of similar technological advances we have seen in the past.

We have cars; but people still walk, ride bicycles and even horses. We have rhythm machines and synthesisers, and people still play drums and other instruments.

So we will keep writing and reading. A lot of specific details about how we are doing either will change, but the activities will still be there.

Re: To become a better writer, read as much as you can

#280

Post by frenchtoast8 »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #109
vintagedave wrote: post #63

> Why be a writer if you don’t love reading? Why devote your intellectual and emotional energy to creating a book, when it’s a form you’re not invested in? Why write, when you aren’t steeped in wonder of storytelling? This is the key point, I think. I've seen the same as the author: people who want to be writers but rarely read books. And I don't get it. I recently finished a novel (now shopping around for agents, wh…

As the old quip goes: people don’t want to be writers, they want to have published a book. You can turn this around as well: people don’t want to read, they want to be well read. The difference is “effort and process” versus a status. People want the label, but don’t want to do the work to get there.

From Chapter 1 of Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird":

> The problem that comes up over and over again is that these people want to be published. They kind of want to write, but they really want to be published. You’ll never get to where you want to be that way, I tell them. There is a door we all want to walk through, and writing can help you find it and open it. Writing can give you what having a baby can give you: it can get you to start paying attention, can help you soften, can wake you up. But publishing won’t do any of those things; you’ll never get in that way.

Post reply on HN