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

211–220 of 345 posts

Re: Good Writing

#211

Post by borski »

epolanski wrote: post #175
not_maz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul’s style of removing all friction might help the concepts slide smoothly into one’s brain, but as antirez points out, they’re less likely to stick. That's fine. The ideas transmit, the words are forgotten. He doesn't need to use memorable sentences if he's saying what he's trying to say. Paul Graham is a very skilled communicator. He's not a writer's writer like YKW, but he doesn't need to be.

Idk, I'm conflicted here because PG is the embodiment of a poor amateur writer with good ideas. He is literally the proof that writing can be bad (albeit we should define what good and bad writing are and agree on it) but still interesting because of the ideas.

Hard disagree. I find PG’s writing to be some of the best writing out there, for essays.

Re: Good Writing

#212

Post by aspenmayer »

pdonis wrote: post #112
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #19

...I find it a bit surprising that Paul Graham of all people, writing in May of 2025, managed to get through this entire essay without mentioning LLMs. Because I think LLMs provide a clear counterexample to his thesis. They are quite good at the craft of writing--not perfect, but probably much better than the median human--and they are just as good when the content is true as when it's false. This quality ruins a lot…

> LLMs provide a clear counterexample to his thesis. No, they don't. His thesis is not that writing that looks good--that seems plausible and convincing, like the output that LLMs often produce--actually is. He says explicitly in the article: "we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true". His actual thesis is in the very next clause of that sentence: "it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something…

> His actual thesis is in the very next clause of that sentence: "it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too."

This analysis in the article feels woefully uncharitable and is incompatible with HN guidelines, ironically, but if internalized leads directly to the nitpicking style frequently seen on HN as a substitute for elucidation of ideas not well expressed on the way to deeper analysis. Dismissing mediocre writing out of hand seems classist more than anything.

Re: Good Writing

#213

Post by energy123 »

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 the style of PG fragile: brings the point at home but never escapes simple constructs
I describe it as inverse purple prose. The over-engineered simplicity stands out and distracts from the content.

Simplicity in the naive sense of minimal word count increases cognitive load because we have neural circuits that got used to a particular middle ground.

Re: Good Writing

#214

Post by dartharva »

You'll have to excuse me from taking writing advice from the guy who claims discovering the word "delve" anywhere means it was written by ChatGPT.

Re: Good Writing

#215

Post by machinelearning »

pdonis wrote: post #169
baxtr wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can you conclude then?

That writing that sounds bad is likely to be wrong.

The issue with this article is that it is very imprecise.

Are the standards for whether something “sounds bad” based on the average person’s reading or the intended audience.

In its most general form (how the median article sounds to the median person), the argument is pretty vacuous.

Most writing discusses simple ideas and they should sound good (familiar, easy, pleasurable) to the median person.

But the most valuable kind of writing could sound tedious and filled with incomprehensible terminology to the median person but concise and interesting to the intended audience.

The current way the idea is stated doesn’t sound correct because you can convincingly defend all 4 quadrants of the truth table.

Re: Good Writing

#216

Post by pclmulqdq »

monkeyelite wrote: post #209
pclmulqdq wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think he is too overly reductive and simplistic I personally feel this is a great filter. The exceptions to the rule are obvious and don’t need to be stated. It increases the signal to noise ratio to leave them out. And the people that complain are signaling their inability to get into the author’s pov.

A great author drags you into their PoV whether you want to see it or not.

Re: Good Writing

#217

Post by polygot »

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…

If someone wants to find the original quote, https://salvatoreloleggio.blogspot.com/2014/10/borges-dove-i... says, translated:

> One part of that part was published as a preview in a "Domenica" of "Il sole 24 ore".

Perhaps it is in the June 21 2009 issue.

Re: Good Writing

#218

Post by sfpotter »

Paul Graham, as a writer who writes sentences that sound bad and who promulgates ideas that are stupid, is an expert in neither good sounding sentences nor sound ideas, hence is unqualified to hold forth on the topic.

Re: Good Writing

#219

Post by monkeyelite »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #216
monkeyelite wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think he is too overly reductive and simplistic I personally feel this is a great filter. The exceptions to the rule are obvious and don’t need to be stated. It increases the signal to noise ratio to leave them out. And the people that complain are signaling their inability to get into the author’s pov.

A great author drags you into their PoV whether you want to see it or not.

And a bad reader makes up concerns before even engaging with the authors ideas.

Re: Good Writing

#220

Post by readred »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #199

This is wrong in so many different ways it's like an art piece. Every part of it that tries to defend the central thesis is actually disproving it. It's kind of funny actually. Here's a dude that's been writing for 30 years, and not only is his writing bad, his ideas are crap. It has the feel of somebody who's completely convinced of his own ideas, despite the fact that they're based solely on his personal experience…

keep in mind what he's aiming for, he's not being honest

his definition of 'good' at the beginning of his piece, is not what he says. it is not 'right ideas' or 'flow well'

what he is really means is 'convincing'. i.e. effective rhetoric

not only that, it's rhetoric spoken with a speakerphone aimed at the masses. In that the simple content > complex content.

if one were to take the perspective of 'good writing' in that it gave the readers something, rather than take - it demands something of the reader

Post reply on HN