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

Write simply (2021)

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Write simply (2021)

#131

Post by Volrath89 »

Uehreka wrote: post #108
WA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know zero articles that went viral with varied and complicated prose. Care to share an example or two?

Try five: - https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-dropped-acid-and-saw-into-th... - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... - https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf - https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview - https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...

I asked ChatGPT to rewrite the slatesarcodex article as if it were PG:

"I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup:

Tolerance is important, but it should not extend to the "outgroup". An outgroup is defined as those who are perceived as fundamentally different or opposed. Tolerance towards the outgroup can lead to harm to one's own group and undermine social cohesion. It's better to tolerate ideas and individuals within your own group and be intolerant towards the outgroup. This creates a sense of loyalty and strengthens bonds within the group."

Re: Write simply (2021)

#132

Post by dang »

superhuzza wrote: post #126
dang wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That joke spoils itself by adding "trick". But if it didn't, then it wouldn't work, since "Why use many words when few will do" is perfectly grammatical.

That would be inherently less funny - the whole joke is that Kevin isn't really saving any time by speaking in a confusing way, it's just dumb. If anything, your point makes the joke funnier - he's managed to make the sentence longer than has to be, in addition to grammatically incorrect, to express the same idea.

Yes I'm sure I missed the subtleties of the scene. Sorry!

Re: Write simply (2021)

#133

Post by nicbou »

paulpauper wrote: post #10

This may be good advice for an instruction manual or children's books, but I think good prose is something of an art in and of itself. Some of the most successful writers do the opposite. Look at the articles that go viral ..you see that the prose is varied and even complicated, not just simple. The best prose is that which conveys the intended message for the intended audience in the best way possible. I think it's…

There's a bit of both. I couldn't get past a few pages of Walden, because I could barely make out what he's saying.

It's nice to decorate, but not nice to encrypt.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#134

Post by Veen »

Somewhat ironically, this article isn't helpful because it oversimplifies a complex topic. Many factors contribute to "good writing" and they can't be distilled to "ordinary words and simple sentences". For example, Graham talks about simple sentences but has nothing to say about sentence cohesion, which has a far greater impact on prose quality.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#135

Post by rimliu »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

you should meet more people.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#136

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

It’s called “Writing in the Vernacular,” and is the way I prefer to write.

It can cause issues, where precision is required, but can make it much easier to read long articles.

Asimov was famous for his “science for the layman” writing, and I learned a lot from him (I liked these books, more than his fiction).

Re: Write simply (2021)

#137

Post by saberience »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

I don't really buy this, I haven't read any "pg article" which contains something novel that I didn't read some version of sometime before pg ever wrote it. Even "write simply" was first expressed probably 100+ years ago by Strunk and White.

Basically, all of pg's writings are also just cobbled together from other sources and only become notable because he's a rich, successful person.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#138

Post by IAmNotAFix »

jasmer wrote: post #61
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

It's only off-putting if you elevate it beyond what it's meant to be. It's just a blog.

If you follow PG on Twitter, he elevates it beyond just a blog.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#139

Post by tw102 »

dang wrote: post #38
wilsonnb3 wrote: post #17

I get that this guy is like rich and famous and founded this website or something so people always post his stuff here but his writing always has this weird veneer of pseudo intellectual philosophy that I find very off putting.

If that's true, please count me as pseudo intellectual also, because pg is one of the smartest people I've met and I continue to be in awe of how his mind works. I know it's silly to post such a thing, as the bias/conflict of interest is obvious and it will inevitably come across wrong—but I've thought and said this long before I met pg or had any connection to YC, so if there's a causal arrow it goes the other way.…

I think you're right. This essay, like so many of PG's, has the exact hallmarks of a smart person thinking for themselves about a topic.

If you "think for yourself" when confronted with a problem like this (a problem at least three millennia old! People have been arguing about effective writing for a long time), you'll inevitably retrace some steps—good steps—of smart thinkers that have gone before you. But you won't be able to think deeply! PG, like some many smart people who embark on criticism, don't imagine the responses-to-their-response (which are, historically, also by clever and independent thinkers), and the third order responses, and so on.

This essay is shallow because it has no reference to, and no argument against, the generations of writers who thought "perhaps complexity or even obscurity has an essential and unavoidable place in our writing" and wrote persuasively to advocate for the need complexity in writing.

This (like so many of PG's essays about things that aren't programming), is armchair philosophy about a contentious and deep topic that doesn't consider the very real problems of writing. PG (by virtue of his position) doesn't have to, and therefore cannot, steelman his arguments. While you're right that this essay isn't in any way "dumb", unfortunately the comment you're responding to was right! This is pseudo-intellectualism.

Re: Write simply (2021)

#140

Post by Zababa »

Uehreka wrote: post #108
WA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know zero articles that went viral with varied and complicated prose. Care to share an example or two?

Try five: - https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-dropped-acid-and-saw-into-th... - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin... - https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf - https://aphyr.com/posts/341-hexing-the-technical-interview - https://mango.pdf.zone/finding-former-australian-prime-minis...

I wouldn't call Slate Star Codex complicated, to me it's more like having some of fun along the way instead of being straight to the point like Paul Graham. That fun, to me, keeps me engaged and allows me to read long articles easily. Now, maybe that fun is what causes the length in the first place, but some also comes from quoting studies, analyzing them, adding examples, caveats, more than in a regular PG article.
Post reply on HN