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

271–280 of 345 posts

Re: Good Writing

#271

Post by selcuka »

sfpotter wrote: post #218

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.

I was wondering if I’m the only one who thinks that way. He might be a better writer than some (including myself), but that’s a pretty low bar. The ideas are neither novel nor deep, and the writing is subpar.

I pasted the essay into ChatGPT, and this is what it said (just for fun; I’m not taking ChatGPT’s evaluation seriously.)

    The essay is superficial, mildly derivative, and wrapped in a tone that suggests insight without delivering much. If it reads like someone thinking out loud and convincing themselves they’ve discovered something profound — that’s because it kind of is.
    
    It’s not wrong. It’s just lightweight.

    So why do people praise essays like this?
     
    Because they’re:
    - Readable: The ideas feel accessible and comforting.
    - Anecdotal: They use lived experience rather than abstract reasoning.
    - Flatter the reader: They make you feel smart for agreeing with something that feels intuitive.
    But that’s not the same as being deep or challenging.

Re: Good Writing

#272

Post by iamsanteri »

To me this looks like a false dichotomy. Writing beautifully and having a good argument are not mutually exclusive. So I think the article sets out a false proposition and discusses it at length.

Re: Good Writing

#273

Post by incomingpain »

Paul Graham's notion that good writing and stylistic quality are mutually required represents a false dichotomy. He understands this, which is why the essay is so good.

Style is a distraction while clarity and sophistication are inherently aligned.

In reality, there is opposition between style and substance. Sophistication does not increase clarity, clarity is not always the byproduct of aesthetic refinement. True writing excellence lies in the deliberate orchestration of form and meaning.

Re: Good Writing

#274

Post by bgwalter »

erichocean wrote: post #42
luispauloml wrote: post #21

There are two sentences in this essay that I couldn't understand. Can someone help me? 1. "An essay is a cleaned up train of thought, in the same way dialogue is cleaned up conversation" I thought dialogue and conversation were the same thing. What is the difference between them besides one being a cleaned up version of the other? 2. "If for some bizarre reason the number of jobs in a country were fixed, then immigra…

"Jobs" is too large a category; many specific job categories have limited slots (e.g. medical residencies). But more importantly, slots at e.g. Harvard are limited. Seats at ball games are limited. Etc. Most things in life are, in fact, limited. Graham is purposefully misleading here, and he knows it.

Even construction work in Europe is limited. People from Eastern Europe are undercutting German tradespeople and frankly deliver inferior work.

You could hire a German craftsman with the quality of work that was present 30 years ago and the work would last for 30 years. But who is embarking on learning a trade only to be replaced by Poles, Romanians or (in the future) Ukrainians, who will then replace Poles and Romanians once Ukraine is in the EU?

Re: Good Writing

#275

Post by talkingtab »

If you paint - no, paint by numbers does not qualify - then this will seem obvious.

I believe there is another level beyond this. When you write, but not by numbers.

Re: Good Writing

#276

Post by thymine_dimer »

Dear Paul, I'm sure it has been said elsewhere in the comments, but ironically I struggle to agree with this essay...which happens to be nicely and succinctly written.

I'm arguing that it's your own bias generated from the synthesis of your own idea that selects for sentences that effectively express the idea, and nothing to do with the writing itself.

The anecdote about the puddle who suddenly gains consciousness and remarks that the world is so perfectly formed around it, that it's proof of divine creation, seems to apply here.

The author generates an idea and is trying to articulate it. A well written sentence or paragraph that flows, pleases the author. This is because the idea they are trying to express is done in a satisfying way.

Thus the more pleasing the writing to the author, the more efficiently it articulates the original idea. It's the author's bias, based on their own idea, that defines the level of 'pleasingness'.

Lastly, Paul, do you think the LLMs are any less satisfied with their confident and irrational hallucinations, than they are with their more well supported claims? Further, if you weren't aware that the output was ridiculous, would you be able to tell a accurate statement from a false one?

Thanks for the essays. Love them.

Re: Good Writing

#277

Post by epolanski »

inglor_cz wrote: post #256
epolanski wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I write for living (albeit in Czech) and I don't think that PGs writing is bad. It is not artistically brilliant (unlike Douglas Adams'), but he gets his points clearly across, and uses a language that even foreigners with limited command of English can parse. That's good in my opinion - in the same sense that hammer which drives down nails flawlessly is good. PG is not trying to write colorful fiction, he wants to c…

> but he gets his points clearly across

I don't share that fully, and I've read every single one of his essays, his arid style gets tough after few paragraphs, it's too dense and harsh, sentences are consistently very short so it feels like reading a machine gun.

Re: Good Writing

#278

Post by himalayan_yak »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #258
pdonis wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the first paragraph, he writes, ”I think writing that sounds good is more likely to be right.” But towards the end he backs away from that claim, and makes the claim I described: "[W]hile we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too." In the light of that, and of much of the…

> But towards the end he backs away from that claim, and makes the claim I described: > "[W]hile we can't safely conclude that beautiful writing is true, it's usually safe to conclude the converse: something that seems clumsily written will usually have gotten the ideas wrong too." What do you mean, backs away? Those aren't different claims. If writing that sounds bad is less likely to be right, it is necessarily the…

No, it is not. If A -> B is Not logically equivalent as If Not A -> Not B. Many make this mistake. It is equivalent to If Not B -> Not A. In this case, if a writing that sounds bad is less likely to be right - leads to - if the writing is right the writing is likely to sound good, (and only that).

Re: Good Writing

#279

Post by larrled »

If I am drunk, or have brain damage, my ideas will be bad and so is my writing.

It’s not about what makes writing good. It’s about what makes it bad. People don’t agree on good writing.

I think Paul is talking more about not bad writing. Otherwise, he’d be talking about poetry, which also asserts truth and style as inseparable. People disagree about poetry. Most people agree Paul is a good (not bad) writer, not a poet.

Re: Good Writing

#280

Post by Wowfunhappy »

pvg wrote: post #224
the_af wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think emails summarizing meetings, or making a case for something, or describing something, match the kind of writing PG means in his essay. And like the commenter you're replying to, I think that LLMs today can write far better than your average coworker (assuming they don't go on a hallucinated tangent; then again some coworkers also do!). So it's fair to compare LLMs and work emails. Not to speak of work wiki pa…

Why do you think pg is writing about emails and meeting notes? I don't readily see anything in the piece to suggest that. 'making a case for something' or 'describing something' covers the bulk of writing, the piece is quite explicit about not being about all writing.

Why do you think he's not?

It seems to me there is no difference in kind between an email arguing for or examining an important decision or idea, and an "essay" on an important decision or idea.

I definitely don't think these documents are just "written speech". Some emails are—a quick message asking if you'll be in the office tomorrow, for example—but major ones require significantly more thought.

Post reply on HN