131–140 of 354 posts
EDIT: but in all honesty, my most read texts online are where I managed to remove as much words as possible.
I think this article ends up giving excellent examples for why you shouldn't just "write simply". There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing. Examples: > Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work j…
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about. For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 peo…
edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the opposite point. Opinions are nuanced, and a two-word title written in the imperative doesn't convey the nuance of what the author is trying to say.
Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama , which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written b…
"On the evening of March 8, we invalidated all authenticated sessions on GitHub.com created prior to 12:03 UTC on March 8 out of an abundance of caution to protect users from an extremely rare, but potentially serious, security vulnerability affecting a very small number of GitHub.com sessions."
"out of an abundance of caution" adds nothing other than the faint smell of a desperate attempt to reassure the reader. The sentence would read much better without it.
I'm all for rich language where it's useful or appropriate (a novel, etc) but in most cases I just want to know what's up.
[0] https://github.blog/2021-03-08-github-security-update-a-bug-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about. For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 peo…
The main issue with the article is the imperative title. It's not "here's why I like to write in this style." It's telling the reader to write that way. Sorry but no, I won't write the way you do because you tell me to. edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the oppo…
Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama , which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written b…
You can compare this with the writing of Patio11, which often seems to be the opposite extreme - chains of double negatives, obscure words etc etc.
Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama , which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written b…
Most complicated writing of the kind PG is complaining about isn't beautiful, though. It's verbose and clumsy and full of less good replacements for common words, like "purchase" instead of "buy", "utilize" instead of "use" and so on. Or it has flowery phrases that add nothing. A recent example is Github's recent blog post about a security vulnerability they fixed [0]. Its opening paragraph: "On the evening of March…
I think this article ends up giving excellent examples for why you shouldn't just "write simply". There is basically no argumentation happening here and most statements are just thrown out as truths. Yes, it might be quick and easy to read through, but it's not very good writing. Examples: > Plus it's more considerate to write simply. When you write in a fancy way to impress people, you're making them do extra work j…
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about. For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 peo…
PG doesn't pattern match as such because other people are blowhards. He's actually arrogant. Which is fine! He's been very successful enough times that it seems unlikely to be coïncidence.
But he also writes essays that are complete whiffs. It's not an ego thing by the reader. There are many examples of no nuance where there is actually a hell of a lot of nuance in the subject at hand. So people quote the essays or act on them blindly because they rely on them as exhaustive when I don't think that that is the case or his actual intention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG tends to write in a, “take it or leave it” style, you get used to it. He’s never, to my eyes, seemed interested in convincing you via flashy argument, he’d rather spend the extra time conveying what he’s experienced a bit more, and let you decide if it’s worth caring about. For me, I try to remember that a lot of what he’s saying may pattern match to an arrogant heuristic, but that’s just because 99 out of 100 peo…
The main issue with the article is the imperative title. It's not "here's why I like to write in this style." It's telling the reader to write that way. Sorry but no, I won't write the way you do because you tell me to. edit: the point of my comment is not that I won't write that way. It's that the author is talking about his own preferences, but the title makes it sound prescriptive. In a way it illustrates the oppo…