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

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#101

Post by adamfaliq »

definetheword wrote: post #91
adamfaliq wrote: post #90

I have written a similar blogpost on writing here [0], which was received well by HN community. I'd also recommend the book "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace" and this document [1]. These resources tremendously helped me to improve my writing. [0] https://adamfaliq.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/write-well/ [1] https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/5/7046/files/20...

The link to [1] appears to be a subset of a larger document/program from University of Chicago (but this appears to be source from OSU). Do you have a link to all the book/materials? Thanks

[1] is actually the reference material for this [2] lecture, which another commenter has already mentioned.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtIzMaLkCaM

Re: Writing well

#102

Post by criddell »

eganist wrote: post #62
nobody9999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

> William Safire's Rules for Writers: > Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive. > [Always use] the [active] voice. > [Always] put statements in the [positive] form. > Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have") > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct i…

> Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out.

Shouldn't it be left rather than leave?

Re: Writing well

#103

Post by davidivadavid »

mudita wrote: post #56
lqet wrote: post #43

The style of this article reminds me of Wittgenstein: short, clinical, almost mathematical statements, with no poetical ambition whatsover. I understand that there might be situations in which such a style is appropriate, but this article is just very annoying to read. I would not definitely not call it "good writing". The kind of "clarity" presented here as good writing works well if you assume that everything that…

Just as an aside: This seems like a very unfair characterisation of Wittgenstein to me. His writing can be almost mathematical, but it can also be very poetic, playful and funny. Appreciating his writing might be a matter of taste, but it seems clear to me that his writing had a lot of "poetical ambition". How we use language was one of his primary concerns and he clearly cared a lot about how he himself wrote. In Ph…

Chiming in — Wittgenstein has some of the most creative, enlightening and unexpectedly funny metaphors in all of literature.

Re: Writing well

#104

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

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…

Is yet better rewitten as:

Skip fluff. It’s boring and obscures the point.

Re: Writing well

#105

Post by JacobSuperslav »

Veen wrote: post #24
JacobSuperslav wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The title of the article is "Writing Well". It is not "Writing that Reduces Bounce Rates." These are not the same thing and marketing copy is not something every writer should seek to emulate.

This is Hacker News, so I assumed we're talking about websites/web apps, but you're right.

Re: Writing well

#106

Post by JacobSuperslav »

jgrahamc wrote: post #18
JacobSuperslav wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I honestly don't know, but the metrics rise on average, sending a positive signal to Google, which yields us higher rankings in Google, which equals more visitors. It's a constant battle between competitors -- finding out what the visitors want to read -- and how they want to read it.

Re: Writing well

#107

Post by taphangum »

darkerside wrote: post #74
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…

People aren't machines. We don't take an input and process it completely the first time. Human functions are not idempotent because we are stateful to the extreme, and when we hear the same message, we process it a different way the second time. Repetition is a tool. Repeating yourself is useful. When I was younger, I thought it was good to be brief, succinct, and concise (and for some purposes, it is). But with most…

Very well put. To add to this, the onus is really on the writer to help the reader understand. Repetition is one of the best tools for this.

If your reader doesn't get it, they blame you. So its wise to use all of the tools at your disposal.

Re: Writing well

#108

Post by jfk13 »

goto11 wrote: post #61
nobody9999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

I disagree with two of Safires points: There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it. Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.

Use as appropriate, yes. But there are some writers who massively over-use it.

Most such rules can sometimes be broken to good effect, but they offer a useful default. In many cases, rewriting so as to "follow the rules" will aid clarity. Deviations and exceptions should be the result of careful consideration, not just carelessness.

Re: Writing well

#109

Post by johnharrison »

Brevity and concision on their own are monotonous. You may have stumbled on this before but Gary Provost talks about writing 'music':

"This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety.

Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences. And I use sentences of medium length. And sometimes when I am certain the reader is rested, I will engage him with a sentence of considerable length, a sentence that burns with energy and builds with all the impetus of a crescendo, the roll of the drums, the crash of the cymbals—sounds that say listen to this, it is important.

So write with a combination of short, medium, and long sentences. Create a sound that pleases the reader’s ear. Don’t just write words. Write music."

Stripping a sentence to its cleanest components is a worthy aim but not at the cost of composition. Because, writers are part composers. In gmail, you're not prompted to 'write' an email. You're prompted to 'compose' it.

Brevity for its own sake isn't sustainable.

Re: Writing well

#110

Post by johnharrison »

idlewords wrote: post #94

The first step to writing well is to avoid taking advice from people who write this poorly. I recommend Paul Zinnser's "On Writing Well" as an alternative to whatever this bad writer is shilling.

This is the best book on writing I've come across. William Zinsser.
Post reply on HN