Live data from Hacker News

Writing well

julian.com

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#121

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

Echoing the other comments that this was an excellent lecture on how to approach writing from the perspective of the reader, aka the top-down approach.

He contrasted top-down with the bottom-up approach taught from elementary school to the undergraduate level which shows it as a superior approach to writing—if your goal is to introduce ideas that change the minds of your readers with your writing.

Re: Writing well

#122
post #93

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…

On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi... Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549... The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

>everything in strunk and White is wrong

That's quite a broad brush, friend.

Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon:

"If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly at the cats. The writer of the letter asked a civil question; attack cats, then, only if you can do so with good humor, good taste, and in such a way that your answer will be courteous as well as responsive. Since you are out of sympathy with cats, you may quite properly give this as a reason for not appearing at the dedicatory ceremonies of a cat hospital. But bear in mind that your opinion of cats was not sought, only your services as a speaker. Try to keep things straight.”

What fault, dear reader, might you find in the above advice? I'd be quite interested in your assessment, given your apparent expertise.

Re: Writing well

#123

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.

Gah, William Zinnser, my bad

Re: Writing well

#124
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ?

Good catch, though the fix I don't think is quite right. "Proofread carefully to see if you [have left/are leaving] words out" probably should've been what I wrote. I invite a much more competent writer to fact-check me.

"Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out." I believe is grammatically correct but a bit nonsensical as I'm no longer in the act of writing words when I'm proofreading. But again, I'm also possibly just embarrassing myself at this point.

Re: Writing well

#125
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi... Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549... The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

>everything in strunk and White is wrong That's quite a broad brush, friend. Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon: "If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly…

If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.

I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essays have far more expertise than I.

Re: Writing well

#126

If you want to write, stop worrying about writing. Worrying about writing isn't writing. It's just spending time and energy that could otherwise be used as writing. So, write something. Then read it back to yourself out loud. If something sounds stupid, change it. Now do that every day at least once. Congratulations. You're a writer. [Edited because I read it out loud to myself and some parts sounded stupid]

Also read it 5 hours later and you'll see your mistakes more clearly.

Re: Writing well

#127
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>everything in strunk and White is wrong That's quite a broad brush, friend. Here's an example I'd ask you to opine upon: "If you have received a letter inviting you to speak at the dedication of a new cat hospital, and you hate cats, your reply, declining the invitation, does not necessarily have to cover the full range of your emotions. You must make it clear that you will not attend, but you do not have to let fly…

If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with. This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack. I thought it would be informative to share a few links that might help readers and writers approach Strunk and White from other perspectives. The authors of those essay…

>If you are examining your own writing critically, it is worth critically examining the writing of others that you admire, and those you might disagree with.

I couldn't agree more. In fact, I find that my own prose has benefited greatly from reading those who write well.

>This kind of criticism is supposed to be constructive, so it should not be taken as an attack.

Your point is well taken, however your characterization ("Everything is wrong") is even more extreme than what Pullum said in the piece you linked. He said "almost everything is wrong."

What's more, all the links you posted are quite critical of The Elements of Style and are not representative of the many other voices out there (cf. [0][1][2][3][4]). I'd expect that one might attempt to balance the criticism, rather than just piling on.

That's not to say I reject outright the criticisms of Pullum and Pereltsvaig. Rather, they both make interesting points.

However, from the standpoint of a lay person who wishes to write cogently and concisely (that is, most of us) rather than a grammarian or professional writer, Elements provides useful advice and numerous examples of good writing.

Are the recommendations contained therein universally apropos? Certainly not.

That said, for most people who wish to get a better sense, not only of how to write more clearly and concisely, but also what such writing looks like, Elements provides a wealth of suggestions and examples.

Whether or not you disagree with some of the recommendations in Elements, it stresses clarity, concision and direct expression of ideas.

That many will go beyond those recommendations doesn't invalidate the value of elucidating good writing habits, and utilizing them to provide cogent examples of the same.

Writing styles are inherently subjective, and a text like Elements is and can be a worthy supplement to reading widely and honing one's own style.

The Elements of Style isn't a tome with a litany of prescribed and proscribed methods and techniques. Rather it's a slim (only 52 pages) volume focused on expressing ideas clearly and concisely -- a goal it achieves for itself.

I recommend that you read it[5]. It shouldn't take more than 30-45 minutes.

[0] https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2018/why-strunk-wh...

[1] https://www.ragan.com/helpful-writing-habits-from-strunk-and...

[2] https://proofreadingpal.com/proofreading-pulse/writing-guide...

[3] https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/tips-masters/strunk-w...

[4] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/2909/what-s-purp...

[5] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm

Re: Writing well

#128
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are different kinds of long windedness. One kind, that people most think about, is rambling, bringing up unimportant points, repeating something you've already said etc. The other kind is more on the wordsmithing level of formulating the same thing in fewer words by switching out longer, less dense grammatical structures with snappier ones. It's very much like refactoring code. You can do it on a higher level b…

On the topic of brevity vs. long-windedness, I'm surprised nobody seems to have mentioned the (in)famous: > I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/

Not strictly on topic, but your comment made me think of this...

From: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/10/21/pen-mystique/

My dear Morse:

It was very pleasant to receive a letter from you the other day. Perhaps I should have found it pleasanter if I had been able to decipher it. I don’t think I mastered anything beyond the date, which I knew, and the signature, at which I guessed.

There is a singular and perpetual charm in a letter of yours — it never grows old, and it never loses its novelty. One can say every morning, as one looks at it, ‘Here’s a letter of Morse’s I haven’t read yet. I think I shall take another shy at it to-day, and maybe I shall be able in the course of a few years to make out what he means by those t’s that look like w’s and those i’s that haven’t any eyebrows.’

Other letters are read and thrown away and forgotten, but yours are kept forever–unread. One of them will last a reasonable man a lifetime.

Admiringly yours,

T.B. Aldrich

Re: Writing well

#129
Just get The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr and read it cover to cover.

It's cheap, small (less than 70 pages.. don't remember exactly) and full of useful actionable tips.

Re: Writing well

#130

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…

Absolutely sublime comment. Educational, thought-provoking and entertaining. Thank you very much johnharrison!
Post reply on HN