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

Copy What You Like (2006)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#11

Post by Jimmy »

voidhorse wrote: post #4

Interesting. PG provides a thought provoking opinion, and he's a fine writer. However, I think this idea is a bit naive. Sure, maybe he came to realize depressing, moody short stories weren't his thing, but I damn near guarantee his imitation of said stories was crucial to his learning how to write half-way decently. The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. A few stand out as fine men of letters, Nietz…

>The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers.

I never understood this claim. I have to assume that people are letting their judgement of the content affect the judgement of the writing style. Plenty of canonical philosophers were absolutely beautiful writers - Plato, Hume, Nietzsche. Modern analytic philosophers are almost fanatical in their adherence to simple, straightforward language. The result might not be beautiful, but I certainly don't think you can call it "bad" either. Some philosophers may be bad writers (Hegel is a pain), but on the whole they seem to be mostly good writers. It's all that they do, after all.

>After all, giants are giant for a reason.

Well... are they? All of them? I think you can make this claim with a good deal of confidence about math and science, because we have a pretty strict set of rules for evaluating good and bad work. But do you really think that everyone in the artistic canon has a good reason to be there? What about all the still-living artists who have only recently been "canonized" via a flurry of academic attention (writers like DeLillo and Pynchon would be good examples). Are we confident that we'll still be talking about those guys 200 years from now? If not, how far back in time do we have to go before we can confidently say, "these giants have a reason to be giants?"

I'm not endorsing pure aesthetic relativism, nor am I saying that none of the canonical artists deserve to be there. I'm just saying that I've never heard a convincing explanation of why the canon is a good judge of, well, anything.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#12

Post by Jimmy »

jasode wrote: post #10
6stringmerc wrote: post #5

It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. That might sound harsh but look closely - it took Graham 10+ years of following the wrong mental path before finally finding the right one. It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first" - and, even then, there's no guarantee self-actualization will put food on the table o…

>It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first" That's not what I got from the essay. PG is actually saying that a lot of works out there are blessed by the authoritative elites as good and worthwhile but what you actually like and enjoy is also authoritative as well. Rather than get sidetracked on what others think is important, what you truly like can be a better guide to avoid wasting t…

>I now know that liking Harry Potter more than Joyce's "Ulysses" doesn't mean there's something wrong with my brain.

Oh, I do wish people wouldn't bash on Ulysses as much... there's some nonsense in the book to sift through, yes, but there's also some truly wonderful stuff as well. One of my favorite passages:

>"and those handsome Moors all in white and turbans like kings asking you to sit down in their little bit of a shop and Ronda with the old windows of the posadas 2 glancing eyes a lattice hid for her lover to kiss the iron and the wineshops half open at night and the castanets and the night we missed the boat at Algeciras the watchman going about serene with his lamp and O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and the pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes."

The novel's moments of beauty are worth working for, I think.

But you're still entitled to your opinion. :)

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#13

Post by sillysaurus3 »

voidhorse wrote: post #9
baby wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually didn't like this "mistake, mistake" thing. I didn't know if it was based on what was said previously or what was to come.

Yeah, it would have been clearer, and grammatically correct, if he had used a colon instead of a period. Though it also would have been less stylish. The fine essay is a delicate balance between style and clarity.

Paul mentioned he reads his essays out loud. In that context, it flows nicely.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#14

Post by pascalxus »

I happen to agree with him on this post. And, although it's excellent advice, you have to understand, its not a popular view point, and that by taking this advice to heart, you'll deviate significantly from social norms. The vast majority of people value "impressive" things as he's defined them and won't put up with your Objective analysis of what's good.

Case in point, They'll sneer and look down upon you for buying the 10$ jeans (that are the same or better quality as 100$ jeans!), or a refurbished 2 year old 150$ android phone, that works perfectly and has everything you could ever need. They'll hate on you for buying 2nd hand excellent products at low prices. I could care less what they think, but nevertheless, it still impacts how they interact with you.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#15

Post by [deleted] »

voidhorse wrote: post #4

Interesting. PG provides a thought provoking opinion, and he's a fine writer. However, I think this idea is a bit naive. Sure, maybe he came to realize depressing, moody short stories weren't his thing, but I damn near guarantee his imitation of said stories was crucial to his learning how to write half-way decently. The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. A few stand out as fine men of letters, Nietz…

[deleted]

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#16

Post by samirillian »

> It was so clearly a choice of doing good work xor being an insider that I was forced to see the distinction.

Not sure I get this. Doing good work would seem to go along with being an outsider in a corrupt economy.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#17

Post by Analemma_ »

Jimmy wrote: post #11
voidhorse wrote: post #4

Interesting. PG provides a thought provoking opinion, and he's a fine writer. However, I think this idea is a bit naive. Sure, maybe he came to realize depressing, moody short stories weren't his thing, but I damn near guarantee his imitation of said stories was crucial to his learning how to write half-way decently. The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. A few stand out as fine men of letters, Nietz…

>The vast majority of philosophers are not good writers. I never understood this claim. I have to assume that people are letting their judgement of the content affect the judgement of the writing style. Plenty of canonical philosophers were absolutely beautiful writers - Plato, Hume, Nietzsche. Modern analytic philosophers are almost fanatical in their adherence to simple, straightforward language. The result might n…

Philosophy, at least in the analytic tradition, is supposed to be precise and formal, starting from axioms and reaching well-supported conclusions in the same way as mathematics.

By contrast, the problem with Nietzsche is that he was such a good writer that no one can agree on what it is he actually said or meant: the same colorful metaphor and ambiguity that makes Nietzsche fun to read also makes his writings a mirror into which people can see anything they want. Which is entertaining, but doesn't make for great philosophy.

That's why contemporary philosophy doesn't pay much attention to Nietzsche, especially by comparison with his stature in the public consciousness: they just can't decide what, if anything, he was actually saying.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#18

Post by emtel »

It's kind of sad that PG couldn't get anything more than that out of the short stories he read in high school english. Sure, a lot of them are forgettable, but if I think think of the stories I read that stuck with me, they all had a heck of a lot more going on than just being a random slice of mundane unhappiness. A few that really stuck with me: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (James Thurber), The Open Boat (Stephen Crane), The Long Sheet (William Sansom). If PG couldn't find anything funny, gripping, or worthwhile in stories like these, well, his loss.

It wouldn't even be worth making this comment, except that PG seems to consider himself some sort of authority on writing (http://www.paulgraham.com/talk.html) - and for him, the one and only rule of style seems to be simplicity. I'll agree, simple beats overwrought, but c'mon. Great writers have a style that makes you want to copy it, which is something that PG doesn't seem aware of even as an aspiration.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#19

Post by Kenji »

pascalxus wrote: post #14

I happen to agree with him on this post. And, although it's excellent advice, you have to understand, its not a popular view point, and that by taking this advice to heart, you'll deviate significantly from social norms. The vast majority of people value "impressive" things as he's defined them and won't put up with your Objective analysis of what's good. Case in point, They'll sneer and look down upon you for buying…

Popularity is the opposite of progress because progress is that which is not yet popular. Social norms are equal to mediocrity and conformity. I realized that trusting one's own intuition and going one's own way pays off in the long term.

Re: Copy What You Like (2006)

#20

Post by bambax »

6stringmerc wrote: post #5

It's kind of funny to see such a profound and important lesson distilled in to such a kitsch cross-stitch type musing. That might sound harsh but look closely - it took Graham 10+ years of following the wrong mental path before finally finding the right one. It's not about "copying what you like" it's about "finding yourself first" - and, even then, there's no guarantee self-actualization will put food on the table o…

The problem with what you "like" is, you have to have developed a distinct taste first before it means anything.

To use a less controversial and difficult field than art, literature or philosophy as an analogy: in food, what you "like" before you have any taste, is sugar. (If one tries to extract PG's tastes from this essay, they look a little like sugar: in literature, funny stories or page turners with lots of action; in pictures, "brilliant colors".)

Authorities are not always corrupt or unimaginative; sometimes, they're educated and there is something to learn from them. Fads exist of course (esp. of the "latest" kind); but authors or artists who have been considered the greatest for a long time, probably are.

Post reply on HN