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

Writing well

julian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#61

Post by goto11 »

nobody9999 wrote: post #45
jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

I disagree with two of Safires points:

There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it.

Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.

Re: Writing well

#62

Post by eganist »

nobody9999 wrote: post #45
jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

> William Safire's Rules for Writers:

> Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive.

> [Always use] the [active] voice.

> [Always] put statements in the [positive] form.

> Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have")

> Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out.

For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct it, but I made an effort.

Re: Writing well

#63

Post by rchaud »

prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

Am I the only one who thinks that sinlge-sentence paragraphs should be the exception, not the rule?

It's a pretty specific style for writing on the web, where you assume that users are initially scanning the page rather than focusing on the text. On the web, users have been trained to do this because websites are designed differently from books. Body text segments will be split up by ads, there's a sidebar with popular articles, etc.

In this medium, a long paragraph of text may look less scannable to a reader, especially if they are on a mobile device. Hence the single setence paragraphs.

I don't prefer this style of writing either. I save to Pocket and read offline, so a standard essay-style layout works fine for me.

Re: Writing well

#64

Post by rchaud »

Veen wrote: post #20
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked for a Japanese company, this became the norm. It made translations a lot easier. I still believe in short paragraphs; though not necessarily single-sentence ones. Paragraphs are meant to collect ideas, and it’s often a good practice to have a fairly “granular” approach, with “atomic,” self-contained “modules.” The idea is to allow reading to proceed in a “piecemeal” fashion. This is due to the way peopl…

> In any case, a “wall of text” approach is disastrous in digital media. I hear this a lot, but it seems to me true only in a limited context. "Walls of text" are disastrous in marketing and some technical content, but these should not be the standard to which all writers aspire, even if they publish exclusively online. For example, the London Review of Books[0] is famed for its long paragraphs, but they suit the top…

You said the magic word: "Subscribers", i.e. people who are paying for content. LRB's reputation and audience is such that it does not need to obsess about SEO or social shares attracting the widest possible audience to show ads to.

As a result, they can stick to providing long-form writing instead of chasing whatever the new "maximize engagement/conversions" trick is.

Re: Writing well

#65

Post by jgrahamc »

goto11 wrote: post #61
nobody9999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

I disagree with two of Safires points: There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive. Shakespeare does it and Star Trek does it. Passive voice is fine. Sure it can be used to make the text impersonal and hide responsibility. But is can also be used to make the text clearer and to emphasize what is important. Use it as appropriate.

You've missed the point entirely. Go back and reread.

Re: Writing well

#66

Post by rchaud »

cercatrova wrote: post #42

Note that Julian runs an SEO and growth marketing company, so the type of writing here is more for that purpose, to sell your product, than to become the next great author.

Considering he has others on "being rational" and "building muscle", I just thought he was one of those tech bros that loves Tim Ferriss and feels that same need to create prescriptive tutorials on topics they aren't domain experts in.

Re: Writing well

#67

Post by nobody9999 »

eganist wrote: post #62
nobody9999 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

William Safire's Rules for Writers: Remember to never split an infinitive. The passive voice should never be used. Do not put statements in the negative form. Verbs have to agree with their subjects. Proofread carefully to see if you words out. If you reread your work, you can find on rereading a great deal of repetition can be by rereading and editing. ========= The above, plus Strunk & White[0], should be enough fo…

> William Safire's Rules for Writers: > Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive. > [Always use] the [active] voice. > [Always] put statements in the [positive] form. > Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have") > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct i…

I didn't "correct" anything. Those are all Safire's words and none of mine.

Safire was using sarcasm through those examples to get his point across.

Re: Writing well

#68

Post by eganist »

nobody9999 wrote: post #67
eganist wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> William Safire's Rules for Writers: > Remember to [preserve the full] infinitive. > [Always use] the [active] voice. > [Always] put statements in the [positive] form. > Verbs have to agree with their subjects. (nobody9999 corrected this one already - was "has" in place of "have") > Proofread carefully to see if you [leave] words out. For those not in on the joke. Not sure if this would be how Safire would correct i…

I didn't "correct" anything. Those are all Safire's words and none of mine. Safire was using sarcasm through those examples to get his point across.

The original:

https://www.nytimes.com/1979/11/04/archives/on-language-the-...

> • Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

But I saw what happened. Googling Safire's rules, the "helpful" top result via Google quoted a source that misquoted Safire, which I'm guessing is how it made it into your comment. So no worries.

Re: Writing well

#69

Post by ghaff »

gclv wrote: post #34
jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

As a sibling has said, writing to maximise engagement is a different beast from writing “well”. I’m sure some “growth hacker” types would argue for defining “well” in a way that’s quantifiable, hence the confusion. I personally find that style very annoying. It’s especially popular on LinkedIn. When I notice that I’m reading some vertically-set essay, it’s my cue to stop scrolling and stay off LinkedIn for the next m…

I've had people try to convince me to use one of those apps that supposedly help you write for better "engagement." Invariably, they just don't get it when I say I'm not interested.

Re: Writing well

#70

Post by tartoran »

cousin_it wrote: post #29
jgrahamc wrote: post #11

I found this very hard to read. There are so many short sentences and bullet points that it looks like a PowerPoint presentation masquerading as prose. What he seems to have lost with this approach is a rhythm. It's a staccato battering with ideas. I'd much rather be seduced and cradled by writing that made me feel I'm learning by osmosis and not trepanning. EDIT: The author illustrates how his writing goes wrong by…

I think both versions are kinda lacking in rhythm. Here's my attempt, certainly imperfect too: If you make an effort to omit unnecessary words, your sentences will be easy for readers to understand without slowing down. It also reduces the chance that readers will get bored and quit. I used to uncritically accept the idea that concision was the single important thing about writing. The problem is, if you only ever wr…

To avoid repeating the readers I would change to: “If you make an effort to omit unnecessary words, your sentences will be easy for readers to understand without slowing them down. It also reduces the chance that they will get bored and quit.”
Post reply on HN