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

41–50 of 345 posts

Re: Good Writing

#41

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

layer8 wrote: post #35
qsort wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the intended implication goes the other way: "But while 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 this sense it's similar to "Who speaks bad, thinks bad and lives bad. Words are important!" by Nanni Moretti in Palombella Rossa. Hopefully that's not too much italian…

I’m not sure about that. Does having the right ideas really strongly correlate with having a talent for expressing them eloquently? While clarity of thought facilitates clarity of writing, that’s in principle orthogonal to the right/wrong axis, especially in the ethical sense implied by the Moretti quote. And as the sibling comment correctly observes, the existence of language barriers rather disprove that hypothesis…

> Does having the right ideas really strongly correlate with having a talent for expressing them eloquently?

It's about the process, not the talent. When you've carefully thought through and refined an idea to understand whether it makes sense yourself, that usually provides a lot of guidance on how you can express the idea eloquently to others. You know the questions they'll have and the answers they'll find satisfying, because you already went through the same process. When you're just tossing out your first half-baked impression, it's a lot harder to communicate it well, although some people do have the orthogonal talent of making it up on the fly.

Re: Good Writing

#42

Post by erichocean »

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.

Re: Good Writing

#44

Post by legends2k »

Paul clearly excludes non-native writers. I know excellent thinkers who struggle to express an idea in a given language that they're not fluent in.

Another related point: I've seen geeks who're solid in thinking but terrible at explaining what they think.

Re: Good Writing

#46

Post by [deleted] »

kazinator wrote: post #9

Wow, is this ever out of touch. People are currently confronting smoothly delivered, glib sentences that are wrong at an unprecedented scale due to widespread adoption of language model AI.

[deleted]

Re: Good Writing

#47

Post by ISL »

vzaliva wrote: post #39

The problem with successful tech figures is that, over time, they often become convinced they can succeed at anything. Musk is a glaring recent example - and now Paul. I do appreciate his essays on tech and related subjects, but not for their literary merit. If I’m seeking advice on writing, I’d turn to actual writers - people who’ve earned recognition and acclaim specifically for their work in that field.

One can readily argue that Graham has earned recognition and acclaim specifically for his essays. They're part of what drew early founders to YC.

Re: Good Writing

#48

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

vzaliva wrote: post #39

The problem with successful tech figures is that, over time, they often become convinced they can succeed at anything. Musk is a glaring recent example - and now Paul. I do appreciate his essays on tech and related subjects, but not for their literary merit. If I’m seeking advice on writing, I’d turn to actual writers - people who’ve earned recognition and acclaim specifically for their work in that field.

I've commented many times before how I've become a bit disillusioned with pg's writing over the past decade or so, because it always seemed to lack anything beyond a surface level of introspection. He always seemed to be pushing the idea that qualities that make a person great at startups are the most important thing in the world - not surprising given his industry, but to me many of his essays just felt more and more self-serving, while never commenting on (or, in my opinion, really even understanding) the real societal negatives that I think have been a consequence (admittedly unexpected) of the startup boom.

But, in pg's defense, when it comes to his writing style and the quality of his prose, I think he's generally top notch, and even though I may disagree with him more often now, I appreciate the structure and clarity of his writing. Given how influential his essays have been, I think he's qualified to write about how his communication style makes an impact.

Re: Good Writing

#49

Post by raincole »

vzaliva wrote: post #39

The problem with successful tech figures is that, over time, they often become convinced they can succeed at anything. Musk is a glaring recent example - and now Paul. I do appreciate his essays on tech and related subjects, but not for their literary merit. If I’m seeking advice on writing, I’d turn to actual writers - people who’ve earned recognition and acclaim specifically for their work in that field.

Paul Graham's essays read like typical self-help books. Considering how popular self-help books are, I guess you can call that "good writing" for general population?

[0]: a typical example: https://paulgraham.com/greatwork.html

If you didn't tell me this is from PG I would think it's from some self help book.

Re: Good Writing

#50

Post by robertpateii »

keiferski wrote: post #13
RandomLensman wrote: post #7

What how does that concept work in poetry or lyrics, for example? Something could be completely fictional (and artificial) and still be exceptionally well written.

It doesn’t, really, which is okay, because the subtext here is that Pg is writing about essayistic writing, or more specifically, communicating ideas in the form of written words. I don’t think he is commenting on “good writing” in the sense of a novel or line of poetry. Moby Dick is my go-to example of a novel that is incredibly well-written, but I wouldn’t say it’s particularly clear or straightforward in its prese…

Imo, that quote is clearly a train metaphor. But to your point, I do vaguely recall being unclear plenty when I read Moby Dick decades ago.
Post reply on HN