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

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#81

Post by lqet »

mudita wrote: post #56
lqet wrote: post #43

The style of this article reminds me of Wittgenstein: short, clinical, almost mathematical statements, with no poetical ambition whatsover. I understand that there might be situations in which such a style is appropriate, but this article is just very annoying to read. I would not definitely not call it "good writing". The kind of "clarity" presented here as good writing works well if you assume that everything that…

Just as an aside: This seems like a very unfair characterisation of Wittgenstein to me. His writing can be almost mathematical, but it can also be very poetic, playful and funny. Appreciating his writing might be a matter of taste, but it seems clear to me that his writing had a lot of "poetical ambition". How we use language was one of his primary concerns and he clearly cared a lot about how he himself wrote. In Ph…

True, I might have been a bit unfair to him above. I mainly based my comment on my reading of the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, which I remember as being written extremely dry and in a similar style as the article. I have not read anything else by Wittgenstein (yet).

Re: Writing well

#82

Post by dctoedt »

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…

Or even: Try deleting words, lest your reader feel bogged down and give up — but brevity must serve clarity, so a few extra words might be worthwhile.

Re: Writing well

#83

Post by loevborg »

goto11 wrote: post #76
jgrahamc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think his point is that the you shouldn't follow these rules though. Surely nobody would think you shouldn't proofread? He is just stating the rules ironically with an embedded example. Most of his rules are fine.

Yeah, he's obliquely endorsing the rules, most of which — certainly the ones about infinitives, passives and negation — are moronic.

Re: Writing well

#84

Post by gdubs »

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…

A parent walks into a gallery, points at a Picasso, and says: “my five year old could do that.”

The truth is, simplicity is hard. It’s about editing down to what’s essential. But not everything has to be Hemingway. Not everyone is a fan of that. So it’s also about knowing your audience, and finding your voice.

I’ll take a crack at it:

“Keep it simple. Aim for clarity. Know your audience. If a word doesn’t help move things along, get rid of it — otherwise you might put your readers to sleep.”

Re: Writing well

#85

Post by PlugTunin »

szszrk wrote: post #39
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…

Your sentence is brief when no additional words can be removed. Being succinct is important because filler buries your talking points and bores readers into quitting. I find it harder to understand as well. I do get it but I see that a lot of my fellow non-native speakers will struggle with this kind of writing. Second sentence is way more complex then the whole original paragraph. "Succint", "filler", "buries", "bor…

Is this an articatle on how to write good looking text, or easy to understand text?

good question

Re: Writing well

#86

Post by wtroughton »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #3

This is a well written tutorial about writing well. It practices what it preaches. And it makes good points about clarity, succinctness and persuasiveness. This isn't a tutorial about "writing well" in general. It focusses on a particular way of writing: writing short articles that sell a specific idea, service or product to as many readers as possible. It's a practice that won't make great or enjoyable novels, thoug…

Writing only becomes better when you go on a journey of identifying your own intentions, and confronting your own trepidation.

Thanks for writing this, I've been struggling to write about fallacies in software verification for over a month now.

I realized that I wasn't writing for myself, or even folks who are likely to agree (mathematicians, logicians) with my viewpoint. I was writing to convince and justify, instead of examine, teach, or tell.

Re: Writing well

#87

Post by auganov »

> The Shakespeares, Twains, and Austens of the future won't emerge from the book publishing industry. They’ll come from YouTube, podcasts, and blogs.

The author pushes for a cold technical writing style. Then he brings up a bunch of literary writers? The two worlds are very much at odds.

The worship of the literary that's all too common in classrooms is, I believe, why so many people are scared of writing anything in the first place. And then there's the obsession with grammar.

Re: Writing well

#88

Post by marcosdumay »

goto11 wrote: post #76
jgrahamc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think his point is that the you shouldn't follow these rules though. Surely nobody would think you shouldn't proofread? He is just stating the rules ironically with an embedded example. Most of his rules are fine.

What I take from it is that those points aren't important at all.

That's surely hyperbolic, because nobody would think about completely ignoring them. But they certainly do not make any text great, and they shouldn't be followed on the cost of something more important.

Re: Writing well

#89

Post by bonoboTP »

ghaff wrote: post #69
gclv wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been thinking about how useful raw engagement metrics actually are. Likes on your post or view on your video. These metrics count every reader and audience member equally, when they are far from equally relevant to you. By writing according to some common denominator you may trade a smaller high-quality audience off for a larger low-quality audience.

For example if you want to promote your work, who cares if you get lots of views from people with small attention span and no deep interest? The goal is to put your thoughts out there into good hands (or minds). To foster collaboration, to get insightful feedback. (Or to make sales, but there again, consumers can have widely different behavior. Some have noted that pricing higher will get you a nicer user base.)

Just one thoughtful reader may be worth a thousand inattentive bored scroller-clickers on LinkedIn. Because that one may write you an interesting message, which may lead to new opportunities, open up new communities for you. What do a thousand likes get you besides stroking your ego? I just don't see the value in that sort of mechanistic "karma farming".

Re: Writing well

#90

Post by adamfaliq »

I have written a similar blogpost on writing here [0], which was received well by HN community. I'd also recommend the book "Style: Toward Clarity and Grace" and this document [1]. These resources tremendously helped me to improve my writing.

[0] https://adamfaliq.wordpress.com/2020/10/28/write-well/

[1] https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/5/7046/files/20...

Post reply on HN