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

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: Writing well

#91

Post by definetheword »

adamfaliq wrote: post #90

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...

The link to [1] appears to be a subset of a larger document/program from University of Chicago (but this appears to be source from OSU). Do you have a link to all the book/materials? Thanks

Re: Writing well

#92

Post by j7ake »

This article on writing well seems to be missing basic paragraph structures, which is probably why some find it hard to read.

Re: Writing well

#93

Post by fanf2 »

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…

On the wrong-headed advice of Strunk & White http://www.languagesoftheworld.info/bad-linguistics/on-passi...

Strunk and White: fifty years of stupid grammar advice http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/2549...

The Land of the Free and the Elements of Style: everything in strunk and White is wrong http://ling.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/LandOfTheFree.pdf

Re: Writing well

#94

Post by idlewords »

The first step to writing well is to avoid taking advice from people who write this poorly. I recommend Paul Zinnser's "On Writing Well" as an alternative to whatever this bad writer is shilling.

Re: Writing well

#95

Post by clubdorothe »

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…

By watching the UChicago class[1] on " Writing Effectively ", this is exactly what happens to some HN readers:

1- You slow down - and read again

2- You don't understand

3- you get angry

4- You're done

5 - (optional) You write about it on HN because 3 and 4

[1] https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM?t=413

Re: Writing well

#96

Post by [deleted] »

dctoedt wrote: post #82
cousin_it wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Writing well

#97

Post by idlewords »

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…

I know you all will take it hard, but all Paul Graham and Derek Sivers have to offer the aspiring writer is proof that you can write drivel in short, declarative sentences.

The thing most novice writers don't do enough of is revision. If you don't know where to start, it's hard to go wrong cutting all your favorite parts and halving the word count.

Re: Writing well

#98

Post by ghaff »

bonoboTP wrote: post #89
ghaff wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's some value in raw numbers, especially at scale. It's reasonable for a company to care about how many views a product page, how to, or topic page gets. And it's a proxy for a lot of other things that are really hard to suss out. (Though you can measure things like how far people read/watch, time they spend, etc.)

But for me personally, I mostly go by what I want to read and I don't really care if an SEO plug-in is telling me I should be writing at a sixth grade level--which is the level a lot of these tools work at. (And I'm often working with experienced editors who have a pretty good sense of what their audience/desired audience is looking for.) They're also not mostly ad-supported so there isn't a lot of incentive to go for pageviews for the sake of pageviews.

Re: Writing well

#99

Post by projectileboy »

“Writing well” often takes different shapes in different contexts. The author’s example seems fine, maybe, for product copy, but it certainly isn’t applicable everywhere.

If you (or the author) disagree, then you have to explain what Jane Austen doesn’t understand that you do.

Re: Writing well

#100

Post by Veen »

mybandisbetter wrote: post #77
Veen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not the only one. It's irritating to read. Complexity and nuance are sacrificed because the writer values concision over truthfulness. You can see the problem in the first two sentences of the article: "To write well is to think clearly. If you can think clearly, you can find something worth saying." These are pleasant aphoristic paragragraphs, but what they say is not actually true. They gesture towards some…

There's another problem with being obsessed with concision: it's more compatible with simple ideas than nuanced ideas. I work at a place where I'm required to explain urban planning issues while using the simplest-possible subjects in all sentences. So, I can write, "Transit improves traffic," but I can't write, "To the extent that transit enables residents to reach destinations more efficiently than driving, a great…

I find the same when I write about technical topics for a non-technical audience. I write sentences that aren't quite true, because the truth is more complex than the reader cares about or would understand without additional background.

I've learned to live with it, because the alternatives are to i) write a book instead of a memo or article or ii) weigh sentences down with hedges, caveats, and qualifications that don't help the reader anyway.

Post reply on HN