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

Write Simply

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 354 posts

Re: Write Simply

#341

Post by randcraw »

nlh wrote: post #97

I think this is PG's worst opinion. The man is undeniably intelligent, undeniably successful, and undeniably talented in business (and deserves huge credit for his contributions to the startup community). But I just thing he's deeply wrong here. His simple writing style (and those that have inherited/copied it) is a detriment to the community. It's the take of a (talented!) engineering mind. It's the same attitude th…

Writing is also a craft, generally the work of an artisan more than an artist. The first purpose of a well tempered sentence is the communication of an idea, while the plucking of heartstrings comes second or not at all. PG's emphasis is clearly on exchanging facts efficiently and effectively in text-based non-fiction forums where creatively engaging the reader's emotions would divert the narrative a bit off topic.

Re: Write Simply

#342

Post by randcraw »

screye wrote: post #46
voidhorse wrote: post #9

“Easy reading is damn hard writing.“ — Nathaniel Hawthorne (apparently)* There’s definite value to simplicity in writing. At the same time, like all principles, people tend to run with the idea and misapply it. There are some cases in which your work demands a certain level of precision that’s only possible using complex words or jargon. Not to mention, writing that’s a little complicated can be a lot more fun! There…

The quote is apparently attributable to "Thomas Hood"[1] [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/11/05/hard-writing/

I believe it. Hawthorne never wrote anything that was easy to read.

Re: Write Simply

#343

Post by yigitcakar »

a4isms wrote: post #275

I have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham. What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable . Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste. "Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.' Somewhere else on the Internet, there is so…

I think Mr. Graham's advice works on essays and usually on non-fiction writing, which he is fairly proficient. It might even work perfectly on genre fiction. But literary fiction is a different beast.

Re: Write Simply

#344

Post by when_creaks »

a4isms wrote: post #275

I have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham. What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable . Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste. "Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.' Somewhere else on the Internet, there is so…

This study isn't dispositive but I think it's reaching towards the sort of empiricism you're looking for.

"If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do: Processing Fluency Affects Effort Prediction and Motivation"

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.200...

Re: Write Simply

#345

Post by nine_k »

a4isms wrote: post #334
isamuel wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no empirical evidence that can "validate" a normative claim, except to the extent that such claims rely on empirical priors. You can't squeeze an "ought" from an "is," literally by definition. The response "this normative opinion is not falsifiable" is just confused—it's like saying "this empirical observation is not good."

I did not read the OP as making normative claims, I read the OP as making claims about things that quite possibly could be measured, provided the author stoped waving his hands and was specific. For example, the opening two sentences: I try to write using ordinary words and simple sentences. ... That kind of writing is easier to read, and the easier something is to read, the more deeply readers will engage with it. T…

Look, the entire original post of pg's is about 2 KB.

You are suggesting to write a proper paper, backed by proper research.

A paper would of course be useful. But it won't replace the short blurb, which communicates an idea in 2-3 minutes of reading.

Re: Write Simply

#346

Post by nicbou »

I agree with Paul. I tend to pick the simplest language that works. However, it largely depends on who you write for.

On my website [1], I write for immigrants. I pick simple words, and I write simple sentences. I avoid idioms, rare words, and expressions. It's not very interesting to read, but it's easy to understand.

When I'm among fluent speakers, I'll pepper my sentences with idioms, and generally be more expressive. It's more fun to write that way, because I can pour some of myself into my writing. That's how I write most comments and blog posts.

However, one must be cautious as not to overdo it, and in the process alienate the reader with needlessly elongated prose. Though this writing style is entirely too common in academia - particularly in the philosophy department - it serves little more than to prove how full of himself writer is. Perhaps it is believed that this is how intelligent people express themselves, but the reader's energy is better spent on the underlying ideas than on the deciphering of each sentence.

[1] Typical example: https://allaboutberlin.com/guides/german-health-insurance

Re: Write Simply

#349

Post by PhilosAccnting »

a4isms wrote: post #275

I have opinions about writing. So does Mr. Graham. What our opinions have in common is that they are not falsifiable . Unless we validate our conjectures with empirical evidence, we're really just sharing our taste. "Oh no," you may say, "I have tested it, and when I write a longer essay, my retweets and upvotes decline." Very well, but the plural of anecdote is not 'data.' Somewhere else on the Internet, there is so…

One thing that tends to offend most tech people I come across:

Data is not the basis of existence. Math itself is nothing but a derived value construct our minds play tricks with. 3 apples is a value system in the mind as we see it, not innately as it sits there.

Thus, when people say "I want data", they are saying to me, "I want a majority thought based on an abstraction of information (math)." You certainly didn't when you (and me and everyone else) were foraging for a nipple/bottle!

Re: Write Simply

#350

Post by solarmist »

hug wrote: post #273
thanhhaimai wrote: post #251

Am I the only one not very fond of this style of writing? It's the constant pauses and hiccups that I'm reading. Four paragraphs into it, and I still don't get a lot of information about what the author is trying to convey. In good essays, the first and last sentence in a paragraph are often enough to summarize the points. It helps set the context, and makes it much easier for the reader to make a mental map of the o…

> This sentence has five words. Here are five more words. Five-word sentences are fine. But several together become monotonous. Listen to what is happening. The writing is getting boring. The sound of it drones. It’s like a stuck record. The ear demands some variety. Now listen. I vary the sentence length, and I create music. Music. The writing sings. It has a pleasant rhythm, a lilt, a harmony. I use short sentences…

Do you have a source for this? I mean besides the author’s name. I’d love to read more about that. I’ve recently start taking my writing seriously, but I feel like this is what I’m tending towards if I’m not careful.
Post reply on HN