This reminds me of an interview with Ernest Hemingway who mentions how he was influenced by great artists who were not writers, for instance, Cezanne, and (I think) Mozart, and others. When the interviewer pushes for more detail, he elaborates briefly on one example and then, tantalizingly, says the other examples are too obvious to explain. Always wondered about what he had in mind.
Write Simply
61–70 of 354 posts
Re: Write Simply
#62Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama , which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written b…
Agreed, but entirely dependent on context.
Most writing on the web (including most of my work) is designed for reach, for all of the narcissistic reasons like retweets and shares, but also the reason that we live in a more democratic world today, and ideas that have more reach often have more impact.
When you write, you want yourself to succeed through your writing, but to me it's far more important that my ideas succeed - that they find life in another mind.
Early writing (especially from the era you mentioned, alongside the vedas and the upanishads before it) was poetic not only for the purpose of aesthetics, but also so that the work can self-select who can understand it. Interpreters and translators were common (and still are when concerning these and religious works), which concentrates power. If I need you to tell me what the mahabharata says, you have more power than if I could understand it myself.
Overall, pulling to either extreme - simplicity or purple prose - is not recommended, but I think everyday writing (especially policy) should be clearer and not cleverer.
Re: Write Simply
#63PG is making some assumptions about who will read and benefit from this essay, and secondarily, who will read and benefit from the writings of his readers. The assumptions aren't wrong, they're just not explicit. Because he is not stating them overtly, he's getting criticized for not writing like Nabokov or the grand vizier of an emperor. Most of us will never be Nabokov, or the emperor's vizier. But we will write th…
> An equally good way to state his point would be to echo Feynman: if you can't write it simply, you probably don't understand it.
Probably applies to writing programs too.
Re: Write Simply
#64I think there are two sources of confirmation bias here: 1. People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing. Simple. Precise. Direct. It suits a technical literal mind to have less ambiguity and fewer flourishes. 2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article v…
> On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article versus your average academic research paper. I would argue that academic writing tends to be pretty poor.
> I would argue that academic writing tends to be pretty poor.
The above-namedropped David Foster Wallace certainly thought so.
Among people who spend their days thinking about language I'm pretty sure academese is considered more of an elaborate, extended shibboleth than an effective communication tool, going beyond merely being sprinkled with jargon and fake-fancy clichés (like, say, business language) so that it serves as an effective gatekeeping tool. Hard(er than it needs to be) to read, hard to correctly write.
Re: Write Simply
#65Reminds me of the Swedish journalist Sigge Ågren who received multiple awards for his work in forming a style in Swedish journalism, he's well known for the quote "Write concisely. Preferably, not at all".
Both the technical field and the academic field (especially the humanities) are plagued with the notion that a complex and therefore "valuable" idea also needs to be expressed in complex terms to be considered valuable. Personally I believe that there's insecurity at the core of this, writers are afraid to mention things that are obvious to some readers, or afraid to use language that is considered too "simple" for the context (the efficiency of the message is not considered at all).
When it comes to technical writing at least, nothing could be further from the truth. I think anyone who writes for a living has a responsibility to not waste the reader's time, and "get on with it" so to speak. Focus on what's important and drop the rest. Almost any sentence can be made 10% shorter, which seems insignificant until you've made the entire text 10% shorter without losing any important messaging.
Re: Write Simply
#66PG is making some assumptions about who will read and benefit from this essay, and secondarily, who will read and benefit from the writings of his readers. The assumptions aren't wrong, they're just not explicit. Because he is not stating them overtly, he's getting criticized for not writing like Nabokov or the grand vizier of an emperor. Most of us will never be Nabokov, or the emperor's vizier. But we will write th…
Also, we should give authors the benefit of the doubt. If an opinion is not broadly applicable then we shouldn't jump to conclusions and assume that was the authors intent.
Re: Write Simply
#67PG is making some assumptions about who will read and benefit from this essay, and secondarily, who will read and benefit from the writings of his readers. The assumptions aren't wrong, they're just not explicit. Because he is not stating them overtly, he's getting criticized for not writing like Nabokov or the grand vizier of an emperor. Most of us will never be Nabokov, or the emperor's vizier. But we will write th…
Then I would say that this essay fails on its own standard, because what it argues for is clarity, not simplicity.
I'm sure Paul Graham thinks himself a clear writer, which he tends to be. Now try running "On Lisp" through an app like Hemingway, that will "simplify" the language. I'm almost certain the result will be less clear than the original, even though it'll be arguably simpler. Is that really what writers should aim for?
Re: Write Simply
#68I think there are two sources of confirmation bias here: 1. People on HN are already primed to appreciate this style of writing. Simple. Precise. Direct. It suits a technical literal mind to have less ambiguity and fewer flourishes. 2. On the web, where each individual piece of writing is not meant to last as long, the writing style has become more casual. Consider the difference between your average Medium article v…
Yeah but the genre seems to matter. Fiction and poetry vs whatever type of writing blogging is.
> Fiction and poetry vs whatever type of writing blogging is.
Essayists, pamphleteers, and diarists (blogs), and aphorists (Twitter). Genres with centuries-long histories.
Re: Write Simply
#69Meh. Reducing language to a mere communication tool also destroys much of its beauty, meaning, and ability to inspire or motivate us. I don't think it's a coincidence that the loss of interest in poetry has coincided with a general loss of respect for literary culture. I had this impression recently while reading the Akbarnama , which is a sort of court-approved biography of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. It was written b…
Early and classic literature was meant solely for the elites, so it featured flamboyant writing styles. Current literature is meant for everyone, and so it focuses on efficiency and effectiveness of communicating the intended idea as unambiguously as possible.
"Beauty" and "inspiration" are subjective and vary with personal preferences. I find simple and concise language much more elegant than the verbose "literary" styles of the past.
Re: Write Simply
#70Reminds me of the Swedish journalist Sigge Ågren who received multiple awards for his work in forming a style in Swedish journalism, he's well known for the quote "Write concisely. Preferably, not at all". Both the technical field and the academic field (especially the humanities) are plagued with the notion that a complex and therefore "valuable" idea also needs to be expressed in complex terms to be considered valu…
The whale has no voice; unless you insult him by saying, that when he so strangely rumbles, he talks through his nose. But then again, what has the whale to say? Seldom have I known any profound being that had anything to say to this world, unless forced to stammer out something by way of getting a living. Oh! happy that the world is such an excellent listener!
- Moby Dick