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

How to Write Usefully

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 308 posts

Re: How to Write Usefully

#101

Post by nottorp »

keiferski wrote: post #89
nottorp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All self improvement books (and by self improvement i mean books that claim to tell you some secret of value, i.e. i'm including business advice or drivel like the black swan) have at most 2-3 good ideas, mostly common sense, that they repeat in different forms until the book is thick enough to get sold as a book. That's the market. You wouldn't pay for a short essay that tells you the same ideas in 2000 words but ne…

Sure, I agree, but Thiel hardly needs the money from a self-help book. He seems to have chosen the book format in order to access the market that you described, though I feel like he’s smart enough to have put out a more significant product. IIRC he went on an interview tour promoting the book, so I think it was mostly to get his ideas out there. In any case, it’s actually just an edited collection of lecture notes f…

Thiel may just be educating his next batch of products (he produces startups, right?) and charging for the book because he's after all a business man and why not do it at zero cost or a small positive.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#102

Post by randcraw »

keiferski wrote: post #13

As a counterpoint, I'd argue that the "mathematical" approach to good writing is inherently flawed. That is, trying to arrive at the formula for the "best" essay via dialectic (argument) is to miss the forest for the trees. Writing is an art, not a science. Formal logic was developed to display arguments, so if you are trying to be as precise and mathematical as possible, use that instead. Instead, I'd suggest readin…

> Writing is an art, not a science.

Writing fiction may be an art, but writing nonfiction is a craft. And essays are nonfiction.

The creator of art seeks somehow to offer fresh insight, often employing some form of novelty, be it technique, medium, context, perspective, etc.

Craft, however, isn't about novelty; it's about engineering a clear convincing message effectively, efficiently, and ideally... memorably and with elan.

I admit the line between art and craft is often blurry (probably because the craftsman has taken too much artistic license). Unlike art, the techniques employed in an essay should never impede its purpose. There, it's only the message that matters, not the medium.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#103

Post by philwelch »

kasey_junk wrote: post #74
cneurotic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entering pedantic mode: "But," in Paul's usage, isn't a preposition. And starting sentences with prepositions isn't considered "incorrect" by most grammarians[0]. Or even bad style. If it's good enough for the Bible[1], it's probably good enough for you. [0] https://wordcounter.net/blog/2016/10/26/102560_can-you-start... [1] https://biblehub.com/nlt/genesis/31.htm

I’m certainly no grammarian or even much of a writer, but the Bible seems a particularly odd piece of writing to use as a guide. It’s been translated to the nth degree, is ancient & frequently obtuse on purpose...

Translations of the Bible, at least in historically Christian cultures, are usually treated as authoritative examples of proper written usage.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#104

Post by abtinf »

tasogare wrote: post #97
daxaxelrod wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. In my opinion, great writing has to be within the context of the time. A lot of us speak in a manner similar to how PG writes. You wouldn't consider great writing from 1890 with the same set of rules as you would something written in 2020.

That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wide…

I wouldn’t normally take apart an HN comment on grammar, but you are commenting on clarity of writing. If this is something you care about, than the following proofing may be useful. Format is (delete text)[insert text or comment].

———————

That’s because you have very (few exposition)[little exposure] to (1890 writing)[writing from 1890]. When I read published (book)[books;otherwise “often” in next segment doesn’t make sense] from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often (stroke)[struck] by how much clearer it is than[,] say, (newspaper garbage)[awkward] (for instance)[redundant after using “than, say,”]. No[t] only in style, but also how (they)[unclear reference, refers to books but books don’t write, authors do] write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’[s]. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wider vocabulary. It might not be as (caricatural)[not a word and intended meaning unclear from context] as the movie Idiocracy portrayed it, but[,] in a way[,] I feel we’ve (slided)[slid] into what (they)[it] predict[s].

Re: How to Write Usefully

#105

Post by normalnorm »

philwelch wrote: post #103
kasey_junk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m certainly no grammarian or even much of a writer, but the Bible seems a particularly odd piece of writing to use as a guide. It’s been translated to the nth degree, is ancient & frequently obtuse on purpose...

Translations of the Bible, at least in historically Christian cultures, are usually treated as authoritative examples of proper written usage.

No they aren't.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#107

Post by randcraw »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #68
rmason wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced the same thing with English teachers. But I had a friend point out that Hemingway (whom we both adored) wrote sentences that were 7 words shorter than normal. Writing short punchy sentences without a single spare word. Steinbeck wrote that way and so did Elmore Leonard. Leonard said he'd get down a first draft and then go back a second time taking words out that weren't necessary. https://www.litcharts.…

Essayists may believe that what they're writing is true, but they're not best placed to judge that. Truth requires objective testing and replication, and essays aren't the right tool for that. So it's useful to remember that the point of an essay is persuasion, not truth. Short sentences and clear points are more persuasive even if they're nonsense. The longer your sentences, the more you'll filter out readers with s…

> Short sentences and clear points are more persuasive even if they're nonsense.

What you're describing is propaganda -- an emotional appeal that solicits mindless reaction. That's the basest form of communication -- hardly something to espouse as the paradigm for a good essay.

As Graham points out, the best essays often are not intended to persuade as much as inform. The essentials of writing that's useful to the reader are facts and logic, leading intuitively to a conclusion that is meaningful and important to the audience. HOW you achieve these ends matters less, be they short sentences or emotional appeals.

But illogic has no place in an informative essay. That's the bailiwick of provocateurs, politicians, and propaganda.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#108

Post by iamacyborg »

abtinf wrote: post #104
tasogare wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because you have very few exposition to 1890 writing. When I read published book from a hundred years ago (in French), I’m often stroke by how much clearer it is than say, newspaper garbage for instance. No only in style, but also how they write to inform instead of writing to hide facts. It’s even more striking when watching archive videos from the 60’. People speak more slowly, are more composed and use wide…

I wouldn’t normally take apart an HN comment on grammar, but you are commenting on clarity of writing. If this is something you care about, than the following proofing may be useful. Format is (delete text)[insert text or comment]. ——————— That’s because you have very (few exposition)[little exposure] to (1890 writing)[writing from 1890]. When I read published (book)[books;otherwise “often” in next segment doesn’t ma…

He said he read something in French, so the obvious assumption is that he's French (or French Canadian).

Being a grammar Nazi about what one can assume is a non-native English speaker's grammar is just plain 'ol dumb.

Re: How to Write Usefully

#110

Post by iamacyborg »

randcraw wrote: post #107
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essayists may believe that what they're writing is true, but they're not best placed to judge that. Truth requires objective testing and replication, and essays aren't the right tool for that. So it's useful to remember that the point of an essay is persuasion, not truth. Short sentences and clear points are more persuasive even if they're nonsense. The longer your sentences, the more you'll filter out readers with s…

> Short sentences and clear points are more persuasive even if they're nonsense. What you're describing is propaganda -- an emotional appeal that solicits mindless reaction. That's the basest form of communication -- hardly something to espouse as the paradigm for a good essay. As Graham points out, the best essays often are not intended to persuade as much as inform. The essentials of writing that's useful to the re…

When you get to the root of it, there's not much to differentiate between something written to inform versus something written to persuade.
Post reply on HN