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

Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

theoutline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#121

Post by coldtea »

learc83 wrote: post #62
coldtea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reading comprehension is mostly about subject knowledge Actually reading comprehension is about everything _besides_ subject knowledge. It's about the pure ability to understand something you've read -- e.g. to understand tone, intent, turns of phrase, idioms, writing styles, patterns, argument building, etc -- not about having some particular domain knowledge. In other words if you read an article about a physics…

Yes you can define reading comprehension to mean that. But that's not what the SAT is measuring. Reading comprehension as measured by most tests is largely about background knowledge. https://www.education.com/reference/article/prior-knowledge-... http://www.readingrockets.org/article/building-background-kn... Here's a few articles on the topic with very relevant reference sections if you'd like to know more.

>Yes you can define reading comprehension to mean that.

You don't have to define it thusly, though. Whatever SAT tests test for, this is already the dictionary meaning of the term. The except was from Wikipedia.

Here's a dictionary lemma too: comprehension: "a test to find out how well students understand written or spoken language" (listening/reading comprehension).

It's not argued that domain knowledge doesn't factor tremendously in understanding. Just that this is not a reading comprehension intends to measure (heck, the hint is in the very combination of the words that make up the term).

Of course in order to understand some text in a reading comprehension test, domain knowledge will also help.

But reading comprehension is not about any particular domain -- and tests in that don't constraint themselves to only present texts about a specific subject.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#122

Post by lkrubner »

I suspect that everyone could write a book if they simply committed to some process. Especially when writing of true events. When I started writing “How To Destroy A Tech Startup In Three Easy Steps” I had the emails and Slack messages to work from. I simply copy and pasted all the relevant communications and suddenly I had a manuscript. Then I simply had to add some background information so that the reader would understand the overall context. I suspect anyone could write a story using a technique like that. And most of us have been through some event which is worth recounting.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#123

Post by zbentley »

coldtea wrote: post #41
paulpauper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I could do it, because I've absolutely written a book's worth of words over the past few years. It depends on the genre and if it's fiction or non-fiction. Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and the fact it all has to connect. It's not like writing 300 300-word blog posts.

> Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and the fact it all has to connect. Ever read Dan Brown?

That isn't a counterargument. Regardless of whether or not you think someone's writing is good, to your taste, or nuanced, there's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the paperback shelves (or e-reader equivalent). It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities are orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to buy.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#124

Post by Izkata »

alister wrote: post #84

> I'm often sent stories that are way too long or too short for the publishing industry. The average novel is at least 50,000 words. I find it fascinating that there are sweet spots for the length of an economically successful book (50,000 words), movie (90-120 minutes), or song (3 minutes). For whatever reason, even collections of short films packaged together as a feature-length movie are rarely successful. Likewis…

> I guess songs were the exception in that multiple songs sold together as an album did work (at least until recent years).

I'm fairly sure this was just an illusion. Liking a full album seems really rare, the general sentiment with anyone I talked to about this was that they bought it just to get 2-3 of the tracks available.

Imagine if there was no such thing as a 90-minute movie, and they were all made up of 9, 10-minute movies. They'd appear very successful as well.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#125

Post by learc83 »

coldtea wrote: post #121
learc83 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you can define reading comprehension to mean that. But that's not what the SAT is measuring. Reading comprehension as measured by most tests is largely about background knowledge. https://www.education.com/reference/article/prior-knowledge-... http://www.readingrockets.org/article/building-background-kn... Here's a few articles on the topic with very relevant reference sections if you'd like to know more.

> Yes you can define reading comprehension to mean that. You don't have to define it thusly, though. Whatever SAT tests test for, this is already the dictionary meaning of the term. The except was from Wikipedia. Here's a dictionary lemma too: comprehension: "a test to find out how well students understand written or spoken language" (listening/reading comprehension). It's not argued that domain knowledge doesn't fac…

Reading comprehension, as you are defining it, is not what the SAT (and most other standardized reading comprehension tests) is actually measuring. That's it. That's the entirety of my point.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#126

Post by mcguire »

sago wrote: post #117
mcguire wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may have mentioned this before, but that's not what publishers said in the '90s, when book prices were increasing rather quickly. Then, it was "paper is costing more and more!" And, of course, editing and typesetting are done once and should be a flat fee, not a percentage of profits. Finally, "marketing" is something that doesn't seem to happen to most authors.

Simple to try this yourself. Print 1000 copies of your book, record the price. Then hire a professional copyeditor to do line edits, an illustrator/designer for the cover, and a professional typesetter for the content, a professional indexer if it is non-fiction. Pay for targeted ads to reach 1000 click-throughs of consumers with an interest in your book. What proportion of the cost was printing? It is true that a lo…

Now print 100,000 copies and see how the numbers align. Sure, almost no books do that, but it's still how the deal works.

> via vanity press.

You realize the general procedure recommended in the self publishing industry is to hire a reputable editor, pay them several thousand dollars, and get results that are comparable to assorted well respected publishing companies.

Yes, the author is taking all the risks. On the other hand, given how little authors are paid, I suspect they're taking all the risks anyway.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#127

Post by coldtea »

zbentley wrote: post #123
coldtea wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and the fact it all has to connect. Ever read Dan Brown?

That isn't a counterargument. Regardless of whether or not you think someone's writing is good, to your taste, or nuanced, there's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the paperback shelves (or e-reader equivalent). It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities are orthogonal to whether or not you…

>there's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the paperback shelves

Is there? The general public can be sold any kind of crap that takes minimal effort -- and in the same way, don't buy masterpieces that take tremendous effort and skill to create.

>It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities are orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to buy.

This isn't an argument on actual writing skill though.

It's like you measure a new category like "skill of writing best-selling stuff" that's not necessarily connected to the skill of writing itself -- just to the degree of sales.

But one can sell bad stuff or skilless stuff too. Sales don't show anything more than a skill in sales themselves.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#128

Post by Izkata »

adrianN wrote: post #113
mitochondrion wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact of the matter is that, broadly speaking, basic programming is a suite of cognitive processes that pretty much all come online at the same, reasonably above-average IQ, and they are irreducibly complex; they cannot be further simplified except by rote execution of formal process, at which point you should just let the computer handle it.

That's a pretty bold assertion. Or maybe your understanding of "basic" programming is much more advanced than necessary. I'd consider writing a slightly complex ruleset for filtering e-mail "basic" programming. I don't think that "Put that mail in this folder if the subject contains A unless it's from Jack, then put it in the Jack-Folder" a skill that only comes online at an above-average IQ.

I think one of the best newer success stories here is another thing that, like "filters" and "spreadsheets", doesn't even call itself "programming". The Android app Tasker [0] is a "total automation" tool with over a million installs.

[0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch....

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#129

Post by bartread »

retsibsi wrote: post #104
batiudrami wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can't be arsed" is just an expression, mate. I'm sure you can understand the point they were making.

I think l9k might have been making a more subtle point: maybe motivation/willpower isn't quite so different from the other required personal attributes (in this case, physical fitness) as we tend to think. Perhaps because it can't simply be switched on and off like a tap, but requires training analogous to physical exercise; or perhaps for deeper reasons. (Going down this road pretty quickly leads us into a thicket o…

Thing is, when looked at in the context of a whole lifetime, motivations change, and often radically. I have friends who couldn't have imagined themselves running a half marathon or a marathon who eventually went on to do so. 10 years ago I couldn't have imagined myself doing an obstacle race, but then I started working out[1] and, hey presto, the impossible became possible. I still don't want to run a marathon, even though I know I could, because of the compromises it would force on me in terms of strength training, depending on what kind of time I'd like to finish in.

[1] I couldn't have imagined working out either but at 36 years old I found myself getting tired out walking upstairs, and having a torrid time with any kind of reasonably intense physical activity, and realised I needed to do something about it to avoid serious health problems later in life - and possibly not that much later.

Re: Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them

#130

Post by byteface »

charmides wrote: post #114
byteface wrote: post #89

A negative article. I spent 2 years writing a sci-fi about a guy who builds a blackhole powered computer to simulate another universe. It got less than 150 downloads in 18months. I did it because I was doing nothing else with my life. Ultimately it failed to be succesful. But I gained a lot. It really helped me get a lot of crap off my mind. I learned a lot. I also read 400 books and graphic novels over 4 years. It w…

Please post a link. I have a couple of questions: i) Have you been able to apply the skills you gained for something else? Did it help you career-wise in any way, or do you just feel like it made you a better, more well-rounded person? ii) Did you have a job at the same time to sustain yourself?

Apologies, Can't link as I used a pen name for freedom of expression. So far nothing attaches me to the book.

Yes I do use the skills, on email daily for example. I understand punctuation a bit better and many word definitions are clearer. As a programmer I could already touch-type. I repeat myself less and edit down my copy removing redundant words. One concise sentence is better than saying the same thing 10 ways. I don't have as much anxiety or stress in general as writing things down gets it all out and helps you understand yourself better. Turning mentalses into logic. You may even find you logically disagree with how you 'thought' you were thinking. This is very resolving. You also learn a lot about the subject you are writing.

Yes I had a job, yes it did affect it. For 2 years writing became my evening hobby instead of coding. Sometimes it felt like I was deviating from what I should be doing. I ignored those feelings. Peers that didn't know me very long judged me as not being into my vocation (something I normally pride myself on.) I felt this affected my stance in the team. But I had more to gain than other peoples opinions. I've been a generalist coder for 15+ years so was a decade ahead of many of them and could afford to drop a gear.

I admit to cheating in the editing phase. After 11 months of editing I'd almost re-written the whole book. I realised like painting, writing is never finished, only left. This is partly because you're always changing. I tried modafinil, wrapped up in a few weeks and moved on.

Post reply on HN