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

Good Writing

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 345 posts

Re: Good Writing

#161

Post by kayodelycaon »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #155
antirez wrote: post #15

I believe that it is not that style helps the content to be more right, not in the way PG believes (like in the example about writing shorter sentences), it is that a richer style (so, not shorter, but neither baroque: a style with more possibilities) can reflect a less obvious way of thinking, that carries more signal. I'll make an example that makes this concept crystal crisp, and that you will likely remember for…

I find Paul Graham's writing style to be a bit off. I think he is too overly reductive and simplistic in his use of language and imprecise in his choice of words, and I genuinely don't understand the praise for his writing. You should read his work because these are the thoughts of a highly influential VC, not because they are gems of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Sometimes a longer, more nuanced word has all the rig…

Same. I always get the feeling his ideas aren’t sufficiently thought through or communicated well enough to be actually be useful.

On the other hand, I may know too much about what he writes about to benefit from it. Which means I’m not the target audience.

And I don’t say this to sound smart. I’m a generalist. I know a little about a lot. Plenty of people are far more intelligent than I am.

Re: Good Writing

#162

Post by tshaddox »

pdonis wrote: post #110
tshaddox wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t understand why it would be at all safe to conclude this. In any other field, you certainly wouldn’t conclude that good visual design, attention to detail, craftsmanship, etc. indicates anything about the factual or moral correctness of the beliefs of the creators. Do the most beautiful and expensive churches indicate the most moral or theologically correct religious groups? Do the best designed uniforms tell…

You have it backwards. PG agrees that you can't conclude from the fact that something is beautiful that it's also right--he says "we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true". What PG is saying is that if something is ugly, you can conclude that it's most likely wrong as well.

Yes, I understand what he is saying and it’s precisely what I am disputing.

Re: Good Writing

#164

Post by kayodelycaon »

Waterluvian wrote: post #90

I think a strong sense of confidence (perhaps overconfidence) and inflated self-worth are likely closely related to increased likelihood of success. “Those who dare, win” and all that. But I think most of the opinions and advice rich, successful people like to share is just a side-effect, not a productive output, of these traits.

Sometimes luck and starting position is far more important than skill in being successful.

That’s why a lot of advice from successful people is so varied and is not as helpful as advertised.

Re: Good Writing

#165

Post by pdonis »

tshaddox wrote: post #162
pdonis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. PG agrees that you can't conclude from the fact that something is beautiful that it's also right--he says "we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true". What PG is saying is that if something is ugly, you can conclude that it's most likely wrong as well.

Yes, I understand what he is saying and it’s precisely what I am disputing.

> I understand what he is saying and it’s precisely what I am disputing.

I don't see how. Your post was disputing the claim that good design, craftsmanship, beauty, etc. are signs of correctness. And that's not the claim PG makes in the article. Your post never disputed the claim PG did make, which is that bad design and craftsmanship, ugliness, etc., are signs of lack of correctness.

Re: Good Writing

#166

Post by doodaddy »

For all the writing there is about writing, Orwell’s six rules have yet to do me wrong:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

2. Never use a long word where a short one will do. (To add: short words are best, and old words when short are best of all)

3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Though there is one more that is deserving of seventh place: 7. Edit ruthlessly. “Murder your darlings.”

Re: Good Writing

#167

Post by baxtr »

pdonis wrote: post #113
baxtr wrote: post #32

Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. But I’m pretty sure this doesn’t hold for speech.

> Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. That's not what PG is saying in the article. He explicitly says that you can't conclude this.

What can you conclude then?

Re: Good Writing

#169

Post by pdonis »

baxtr wrote: post #167
pdonis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe it’s true that writing that sounds good is also more likely to be right. That's not what PG is saying in the article. He explicitly says that you can't conclude this.

What can you conclude then?

That writing that sounds bad is likely to be wrong.

Re: Good Writing

#170

Post by bsaul »

moogly wrote: post #139
bsaul wrote: post #130

In french we have this very old expression : "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement". "what is well understood will be clearly phrased". It's been consistently used by parents and teachers since the 17th century, so i guess there must be some truth to it.

Isn't that the same thing as the oft-repeated "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough", which is a saying I really, really, really dislike a lot, because understanding is one thing, and transferring that understanding is a skill unto its own.

not the exact same meaning (clairement really is "clearly" and not "simply") but very similar, yes.
Post reply on HN