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

Writing well

julian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#11

Post by jgrahamc »

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose.

What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning.

EDIT:

The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by saying that the following paragraph:

To be brief on the sentence-level, remove words that don’t add necessary context. Extra words cause readers to slow down and do extra work. That makes it harder for them to recognize the sentence’s point. And when you bore readers, they quit reading.

is better rewritten as:

Your sentence is brief when no additional words can be removed. Being succinct is important because filler buries your talking points and bores readers into quitting.

It's not. The two sentence rewrite is ugly. The first sentence is weird because it uses "additional" (which sounds like adding something) for things that will be removed. The second sentence uses "talking points" which makes it appear the writer is aiming for sound bites and not to educate the reader.

I much prefer the first paragraph above. Partly because it makes me empathize with the trouble readers might have and makes me want to work for them. When I read the first paragraph I imagine myself, the reader; when I read the second I'm being instructed by a voice that sounds like it comes from a cold machine.

Re: Writing well

#12

Post by Veen »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

Am I the only one who thinks that sinlge-sentence paragraphs should be the exception, not the rule?

You are not the only one. It's irritating to read. Complexity and nuance are sacrificed because the writer values concision over truthfulness.

You can see the problem in the first two sentences of the article:

"To write well is to think clearly.

If you can think clearly, you can find something worth saying."

These are pleasant aphoristic paragragraphs, but what they say is not actually true. They gesture towards something true, but the drive to simplicity has turned potentially interesting points into falsehoods.

And the next sentence is both false and damaging. Good writing is most definitely not "therapy that you publish for the world to learn from".

(Plus, the writer should give balanced sentences a rest. They're useful to have in the rhetorical toolbox, but quickly become tedious when overused.)

Re: Writing well

#13

Post by vendiddy »

will_pseudonym wrote: post #2

The resource that has spurred me into thinking differently about effective writing was shared on HN, from UChicago Social Sciences' Leadership Lab - The Craft of Writing Effectively. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM

Thanks for the recommendation. Watching it now. I like how he takes a top-down approach to writing.

Re: Writing well

#14

Post by OskarS »

Veen wrote: post #12
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

Am I the only one who thinks that sinlge-sentence paragraphs should be the exception, not the rule?

You are not the only one. It's irritating to read. Complexity and nuance are sacrificed because the writer values concision over truthfulness. You can see the problem in the first two sentences of the article: "To write well is to think clearly. If you can think clearly, you can find something worth saying." These are pleasant aphoristic paragragraphs, but what they say is not actually true. They gesture towards some…

I tried reading some of the later articles in the series, and they're exhausting! All the writing has this incredibly tiring staccato rhythm, and the articles are just gigantic dumps of bullet points and headers. It's like having being machine-gunned with marketing platitudes and writing truisms.

Re: Writing well

#15

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

Am I the only one who thinks that sinlge-sentence paragraphs should be the exception, not the rule?

When I worked for a Japanese company, this became the norm. It made translations a lot easier.

I still believe in short paragraphs; though not necessarily single-sentence ones. Paragraphs are meant to collect ideas, and it’s often a good practice to have a fairly “granular” approach, with “atomic,” self-contained “modules.”

The idea is to allow reading to proceed in a “piecemeal” fashion. This is due to the way people consume prose, these days, with sidebars and interruptions. It also lends itself well to reference reading.

In any case, a “wall of text” approach is disastrous in digital media. It works well, for justified paperbacks, but not so well on a digital device.

Re: Writing well

#16

Post by JacobSuperslav »

jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

I work with SEO, CRO, UX and I can confirm that this style of writing - short sentences, tiny paragraphs - results in better outcomes: time on page is higher and bounce rate is lower.

Re: Writing well

#17

Post by social_quotient »

Unrelated:

What style of icons and graphics are these? They seem hand drawn but I am wondering if stylistically there is a name so I can hunt down something similar or find more inspiration like this.

Re: Writing well

#18

Post by jgrahamc »

JacobSuperslav wrote: post #16
jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

I work with SEO, CRO, UX and I can confirm that this style of writing - short sentences, tiny paragraphs - results in better outcomes: time on page is higher and bounce rate is lower.

I wonder if those metrics are like that because this style of writing has the reader thinking that the author has something important to say and has to spend a long time figuring out what it is because the sentences have been cut to the bone.

Re: Writing well

#19

Post by justforfunhere »

Reading works written by masters is one way in which one can organically internalize the art of writing well.

Another thought that comes to my mind regarding writing is that why does one have to necessarily follow a particular set of rules?

Writing is an art. You should be able to develop and hone your own style, your own signature, something that stands apart from others, yet is readable and lucid.

Re: Writing well

#20

Post by Veen »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #15
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

Am I the only one who thinks that sinlge-sentence paragraphs should be the exception, not the rule?

When I worked for a Japanese company, this became the norm. It made translations a lot easier. I still believe in short paragraphs; though not necessarily single-sentence ones. Paragraphs are meant to collect ideas, and it’s often a good practice to have a fairly “granular” approach, with “atomic,” self-contained “modules.” The idea is to allow reading to proceed in a “piecemeal” fashion. This is due to the way peopl…

> In any case, a “wall of text” approach is disastrous in digital media.

I hear this a lot, but it seems to me true only in a limited context. "Walls of text" are disastrous in marketing and some technical content, but these should not be the standard to which all writers aspire, even if they publish exclusively online.

For example, the London Review of Books[0] is famed for its long paragraphs, but they suit the topics and discursive, nuanced argument. Chopping them into smaller chunks would not make the arguments easier to follow for the educated readers who subscribe to the LRB.

[0]: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n23/james-butler/failed-...

Post reply on HN