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

Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

engineerwriting.jottit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#41

Post by davidw »

cschneid wrote: post #38
davidw wrote: post #18

Journalism class was the only worthwhile "language arts" class I took in high school. The "literature" ones were, IMO, mostly a bunch of horse shit and a waste of time, to put it very bluntly. There are classes and teachers that I looked back on more fondly when I was done with them because I realized they'd been good for me even if they were difficult, but none of the literature ones were in that category, only the…

Literature == art Journalism == engineering (both of the written word). Complaining that literature is a waste of time is like saying I can't paint my house with oil paints and a tiny brush. Technically true, but you're really missing the point.

Art is a fairly subjective thing, and I found literature as presented in high school to be a complete waste of time. And no, I'm not missing the point. Looking back, it really did not have any redeeming value for me. That's the way my brain is wired, and I won't be ashamed of it just because "society" thinks literature is great. I don't, and I'll say so if I please without 'missing the point'.

On the other hand, I loved the visual arts courses I took. Thanks in part to a good teacher, I found a lot to appreciate even in works I found "ugly" at first glance.

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#42

Post by telemachos »

Terretta wrote: post #15
nollidge wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...

As on Fox News, for every opinion one can find a counterpoint. This particular counterpoint does more damage than good in the age of TL;DR. I'd rather read the writings of 'an educated person who knows they feel vaguely anxious and insecure whenever they write "however" or "than me" or "was" or "which,"' than the incoherence of someone who thinks grammar is pointless. I often see this counterpoint cited, but never it…

This issue is deeply divisive, and I think the real problem often goes unstated. Here's my take on it.

Traditional grammar - the kind you learn in American grammar schools for example - is kind of a mess. It's jumble of very different things: (reasonable and unreasonable) tips about usage, spelling mnemonics, advice about grammar that has more to do with Latin than English, personal pet peeves and (no doubt) some very good grammatical rules.

This kind of grammar - traditional grammar - has nearly nothing to do with grammar as studied in linguistics departments at the university level. In fact, the scholars of linguistics are quite sure that much of traditional grammar is false, unhelpful and confused. (I'm on their side, but that's not really my point here. I'm just trying to sketch out why people keep fighting about 'grammar'.)

The two groups spend most arguments talking completely past each other and (unfortunately for the rest of us) very very loudly.

(A good test question, by the way, is the split infinitive in English. If you think it's a grammatical mistake, you're following traditional grammar. If you think it's entirely correct usage, you're probably someone with some linguistics training or background.)

Anyhow, the Strunk & White book and Lynne Truss's Eats, Shoots & Leaves are the kind of rulebook that makes linguists spitting angry. See Louis Menand's review of Truss, for another example of this: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books...

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#43

Post by billybob »

billybob wrote: post #37
davidw wrote: post #18

Journalism class was the only worthwhile "language arts" class I took in high school. The "literature" ones were, IMO, mostly a bunch of horse shit and a waste of time, to put it very bluntly. There are classes and teachers that I looked back on more fondly when I was done with them because I realized they'd been good for me even if they were difficult, but none of the literature ones were in that category, only the…

Agreed. I've got a journalism background (though I'm now a web developer) and it has helped me tremendously. The main thing is this: think and write carefully. I get emails from business people that are long, rambling, and at the end, I can't even tell what they mean or want. And the subject line isn't helpful if I need to find it later. I write emails with the assumption that you've got 5 seconds to read it. Subject…

Actually, let me backpedal a bit. I don't think literature is crap. SOME literature is crap. But if all of it was, we wouldn't have a standard of quality to judge by, would we?

Literature can be wonderful, and reading good stuff can help you write better, too. But different styles of writing serve different purposes. I love Billy Collins' poetry, but it doesn't help me write good business-related emails. Neither does journalism help much when writing a love song.

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#44

Post by TheSOB88 »

cschneid wrote: post #38
davidw wrote: post #18

Journalism class was the only worthwhile "language arts" class I took in high school. The "literature" ones were, IMO, mostly a bunch of horse shit and a waste of time, to put it very bluntly. There are classes and teachers that I looked back on more fondly when I was done with them because I realized they'd been good for me even if they were difficult, but none of the literature ones were in that category, only the…

Literature == art Journalism == engineering (both of the written word). Complaining that literature is a waste of time is like saying I can't paint my house with oil paints and a tiny brush. Technically true, but you're really missing the point.

I doubt he's saying the entirety of literature is a waste of time, just the way his literature class (and by extension most of them) was run.

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#45

Post by TheSOB88 »

moron4hire wrote: post #29
TheSOB88 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you never use such structures in speech? They're a way of getting the point across clearly and succinctly. Just because they taught you it's "wrong" in school doesn't mean that it doesn't have value.

I wasn't aware that this was a comment on another piece. Yes, I use less formal grammar in less formal situations. I even experiment in the minimalist form with haiku and other writing. Knowing now that it was a comment makes a little more sense. Without knowing that, it just seemed like lazy writing.

But why does a blog post have to be formal in the first place?

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#46

Post by davidw »

tsally wrote: post #40
davidw wrote: post #18

Journalism class was the only worthwhile "language arts" class I took in high school. The "literature" ones were, IMO, mostly a bunch of horse shit and a waste of time, to put it very bluntly. There are classes and teachers that I looked back on more fondly when I was done with them because I realized they'd been good for me even if they were difficult, but none of the literature ones were in that category, only the…

Literature isn't about writing anymore than Computer Science is about programming. Part of your bad experience seems to stem from you not realizing this. The CS equivalent is assuming you're going to learn how to program in Theory of Computation. The other part of your bad experience comes from the fact that your instructor was a poor educator. Grading solely based on the instructor's interpretation of the work is th…

I got a lot more out of journalism because it was about how to effectively communicate something to other people, which is an extremely valuable skill. "Learning" to "analyze" (i.e. parrot something the teacher told us. And as far as I can tell he never consulted the author of the work to verify the correctness of his assertions) the symbolism in Ionesco's plays is to me, worthless.

> It's difficult to find a competent teacher

Great teachers in any field are rare, but I found the lit ones to be particularly mediocre. I think it's a field where you can do ok even if you talk out your ass and hand-wave, whereas, say, a physics teacher at least ought to know the material he's teaching, even if he's not the best at conveying it. Truth be told though, the physics teacher I had in HS was one of the really good ones. He was a smart guy, and while at first seemed quite 'harsh', in reality he was demanding and expected precision. I learned a lot from him.

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#47

Post by ramchip »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #30
dkarl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is how you were taught to write high school essays, you were lucky. I. Introduction II. Body A. Point 1 B. Point 2 C. Point 3 III. Conclusion -5 points for each deviation.

Don't forget, if ranked by order of importants, the body should be: Point 2 Point 3 Point 1

I was also taught that the introduction must consist of a sentence that brings the reader to the topic, followed by the topic itself, and then a short description of points 1, 2 and 3. Again, any deviation will be penalized to the full extent of the law.

Re: Best Writing Advice for Engineers I've Ever Seen.

#48

Post by david »

dkarl wrote: post #20
Mc_Big_G wrote: post #2

aka "How to write a high school essay."

If this is how you were taught to write high school essays, you were lucky. I. Introduction II. Body A. Point 1 B. Point 2 C. Point 3 III. Conclusion -5 points for each deviation.

    A. Point 1
       1. Topic Sentence
       2. Concrete Detail
       3. Commentary
       4. Concrete Detail
       5. Commentary
       6. Commentary
       7. Transition Sentence
Post reply on HN